OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 007 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, October 24, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 24, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 007 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 007 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 007 (Version officielle) 147 007 24 10 2013 2013/10/24 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the audit report of the Privacy Commissioner concerning the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.

Offshore Health and Safety Act Hon. Lisa Raitt (for the Minister of Natural Resources) Bill C-5. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-5,

An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Elimination of Partisan Government Advertising Act Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) Bill C-544. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-544,

An Act to amend the Auditor General Act (government advertising) . He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to introduce my private member's bill, the elimination of partisan government advertising act. It would amend the Auditor General Act to appoint an advertising commissioner to oversee government spending on advertising. It is time to bring Canada's advertising rules into the 21st century. The appointment of an advertising commissioner would provide accountability for all Canadians.

I call on my colleagues from all sides of the House to support this bill and work with me to eliminate partisan government advertising. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr.

Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 471 and 472 related to the appointment of Supreme Court justices be withdrawn from Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures , and do compose Bill C-6; that Bill C-6 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights; that Bill C-4 retain the status on the Order Paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-4 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes and corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

You understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that this motion be adopted unanimously. The government has found itself in a predicament over the appointment of Justice Nadon. What is more, yesterday we found out that the Government of Quebec is challenging the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, the government's assumption that it can proceed in such a way and the two provisions included in the mammoth bill. I think that this is an important debate, one that cannot simply be relegated to a footnote at the end of a budget bill.

The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No.

[ English ] Petitions The Environment Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table petitions signed by my constituents calling on the government to protect Canada's lakes and rivers, including the Humber River in my riding.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present two petitions. The first is from residents in my riding, Brentwood Bay, Saanich and throughout Saanich to the Gulf Islands. The petitioners are calling for full and stable funding and protection for our national broadcaster, the CBC. I am also presenting a similar petition from residents throughout other areas of British Columbia as well as Saskatchewan.

[ Translation ] VIA Rail Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by nearly 2,000 people for the government's consideration regarding the cuts announced by VIA Rail. These cuts will have a negative impact on users of the train stations in Haut-Saint-Maurice, in terms of both passenger services to remote communities and services to our communities. It is also important to consider the consequences in terms of job losses and reduced services offered in the train stations in Haut-Saint-Maurice.

[ English ] Visitor Visas Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I am going to the funeral of a very good family friend of many years. This petition highlights what I believe is a concern all members of Parliament have. It calls upon the House of Commons to recognize the importance of families and to take the action needed to ensure that those who want to visit family in Canada be given extra consideration when applying for visitor visas. The petition makes reference to allowances for things such as funerals. The funeral I am going to tomorrow is a good example.

The brother of the deceased has been denied the opportunity to come to Canada. The petition deals with allowing family members to come to Canada to participate in funerals as well as weddings and other types of celebrations.

(1010) Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ Translation ] Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2 Bill C-4—Time Allocation Motion Hon.

Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: Motion That, in relation to Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures , not more than four further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of this Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the fourth day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successfully, without further debate or amendment. [ English ] The Speaker : Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.

We will try to keep questions to a minute and responses to a similar length. That way we can accommodate as many members as possible. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, here we are again in a question period allocated once the government has invoked shutting down debate, closure. This is, I believe, the 50th time. The government likes these round numbers. Here is the interesting moment when it is using the guillotine on debate on this particular bill. The government does not seem to comprehend the idea of what yes means.

The government comes to the opposition and asks how many days we would like to debate this bill. We say about this, and it says okay, and the very next thing it does is shut down debate. It is absolutely confusing and confounding to anybody who studies parliaments and how they are meant to work. There are some terms of negotiation and going back and forth on how many speakers are needed. This is a 300-page bill with many hundreds of amendments. However, we agreed with the government. We said that about this many days would be fine, but it cannot take yes for an answer.

It says that it is going to shut down debate anyway, and here it is, and this is when it is going to be. Never mind when we get into the details of the bill, as my colleague from Gatineau attempted to do previously, to take out a section. This is supposed to be a bill on the budget. What is in there? It includes how we nominate Supreme Court justices. That makes perfect sense to the economy. That is a crucial economic factor, how a judge gets nominated from one bench or another to the Supreme Court.

This morning we suggested taking out that entirely separate question so that MPs from all sides could ask questions about it and then have a free and fair vote on it. “No, no, no”, says the government. “It has to be an omnibus motion”. The confusion for the opposition and for Canadians is the intransigence of the government, their taking what was the exception, which is to shut down debate in an undemocratic way, which Conservatives used to hate, by the way, when they were in opposition, and making it the norm for everything. It does not matter the topic.

It does not matter the willingness of the opposition to try to work with the government to get something done for Canadians. That does not matter. The complexity of the bill does not matter. The intention of the bill does not matter. All the government has in its toolbox is a hammer, and then everything starts to look like a nail. Again and again, it shuts down the House of Commons. Again and again, it prorogues Parliament. Again and again, it has stuffed the Senate with its friends and buddies.

All of these shortcuts are a pattern language, and the pattern language is a government that finds democracy inconvenient and that finds debate quarrelsome and a hassle for their agenda. The fact of the matter is that we live in a free and fair democratic society, and that means that we have conversations. We have debate. Canadians want this place opened up, not shut down. Time and again, the Conservative government has not spoken to those values. It has spoken completely counter to those values for the convenience of this Prime Minister . Well, it is all catching up to him.

Specifically to the government, why the need to simply say no, when we said yes? Why the need to shut down debate we had already agreed to? Why the need to continue to invoke these closure motions, these guillotines on debate, when there simply is not a call for it? That is a simple question I am sure the government is able to understand and answer this morning.

(1015) Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there were not a lot of questions in the member's minute or two. He used language like “guillotine” and other things that are really not anywhere close to what is happening. The member would have the public believe that these are extraordinary measures. We had the budget in the spring. This budget implementation bill is the second part of it. It is very important that we move this through the House. We give ample time to debate it in the House. The member did not argue that we were not giving ample time.

He argued that we were closing it down after an agreement with the NDP. I have seen agreements with New Democratic Party before. We are doing this to move the bill to committee. We all need to understand the importance of the fragility of this economy. Certainly this budget debate is going to allow this to be passed. That is what Canadians are looking for. Canada's economic action plan 2013 is the next step to helping create an environment in which jobs can be created, very simply. The member is asking why we are pushing this through.

Far too many people across this country today still do not have work, although we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the industrialized world. We watched it drop from 7.1% to 6.9%. Still, security and the confidence of the economy in passing this bill is an important step. Canadians are waiting for things that are in this bill. They are waiting for the different measures that will be brought forward in the second part of the economic action plan. We are here today. We want to move as quickly as possible into debate and then get this to committee.

The Deputy Speaker : I did allow extra time for that first exchange, but I would again draw to the attention of the House the comments from the Speaker that each question should be for one minute and the response for one minute. Resuming questions, the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who has a different style: bringing in huge, massive budget implementation bills. This is unprecedented. No other prime minister in the history of Canada has attempted to bring in so much legislation through the back door of budget legislation.

Not only does he have the tenacity to continue to bring this stuff forward, but today we again have closure on a budget bill that does a lot more than implement budget measures, all done through the back door. On this particular time allocation, it is important to note that the briefing for Bill C-4 took place last night, while the government House leader introduced time allocation in the afternoon. He brought in time allocation prior to the briefing on the bill.

For the government House leader, why would he bring in time allocation even before the briefing on this massive, backdoor budget legislation that has been introduced to the House? Mr. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that time allocation is generally moved many times. Debate is cut short, very short, in minority governments. In this debate that could go on forever, we are allowing more time than Liberal governments allowed when they were in a majority government.

We have had one day of debate already, and another four days of debate will give ample opportunity for members from all parties to stand and debate the issues in this bill. There are many very good points in the bill. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that growth is not as robust as initially expected; so there are many different measures brought forward in the bill that will help create jobs; many measures in the bill that are exactly what job creators are asking for.

It is important to realize that we have created over a million net new jobs, but there are many more who still need to be working. Let us put these things into the budget, pass it and move on.

(1020) Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my question is in terms of what Canadians want and what the minister has heard Canadians say around the budget implementation. The minister was in my riding in the Yukon territory recently, and he has referred to some of the budgetary measures that are important to Canadian groups and organizations that are waiting across Canada to deploy the services they provide that are valuable to Canadians. They are waiting for these investments to be rolled out so they can do the great work that we expect of them and that they want to do on behalf of all Canadians.

The five days of debate that has been allotted—in fact, record levels—is reasonable, and I take umbrage with the comment made by the Liberal member who said the legislation is being passed through the back door. In fact, our government has passed a record level of private members' bills, more than any other government in history. That is a great record. Could the minister comment on some of the things he heard from our groups and organizations in the Yukon territory and in his riding about what they want to deploy for Canadians? Mr. Kevin Sorenson : Mr.

Speaker, this summer I was very pleased to travel to the member's riding and into the Yukon and Whitehorse to meet with the chamber of commerce and business folks from there. I was encouraged with the level of optimism there. They understood that the economic action plan was working not only for the Government of Canada; it was working for them, for Canadians and for families. The infrastructure programs were not just helping to put people to work, although that was a mandate and a priority for the government; they saw that infrastructure programs were leading to increased commerce and growth in the economy.

The level of optimism is not only in the Yukon; it is across the country. That is because Canadians realize that this government has a plan. Part of the opposition's concern is that we are trying to implement the plan. Yes, we want this plan to go forward because it affects Canadians. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, since Parliament returned, only four days ago, we keep hearing the same old story. Yesterday I was at the presentation on this bill and we stayed until 11 p.m., and even later.

The day before, there was a problem, because the presentation had not been translated and given in both languages. It is important to realize that we do not have the time—and I will use these terms as a metaphor coloured by my professional training—to swallow or digest everything that is contained in this omnibus bill, which is becoming the Conservatives' typical way of doing things. My question is to my colleague on the other side of the House. How does he think he can do his job? Is he working for all Canadians?

We are the opposition, especially in the NDP, and we represent our constituents because they trusted us to stand up for them and put forward their suggestions and wishes. However, given the usual practices of the Conservative government, we cannot do anything. This is undemocratic. I hope he will learn a few lessons from the first session of this Parliament. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's question, which really was not a question. However, the New Democratic Party is the party of filibustering. We have sat through a number of minority governments.

I have had the privilege of chairing the foreign affairs, Afghanistan, public safety and national security committees. Except in the last Parliament—working together, things had been working better—the filibuster party across the way has made every step almost impossible in those minority governments. This is not that type of thing. This is a measure to implement the budget, to implement the plan. It is a plan that, again, extends and expands the hiring credit for small business. I was asked earlier what I heard in the Yukon. Well, I heard in the Yukon what I heard all across the country.

Measures like the hiring credit are imperative for us to create other positions in our businesses. It is imperative for us to expand our businesses. This budget allows for that type of legislation to be implemented. The passage of this budget, BIA 2, that we are discussing right now would allow it to move to committee where it could be discussed, debated and studied, and then return here and be passed. There are many more good measures in this budget that Canadians, their families and small and medium sized businesses are requesting out of this government.

It is very important that we move on this quickly, that we finish the debate, that we pass this very important legislation and implement the good measures that are in it.

(1025) Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am a little stunned to hear my hon. colleague from Alberta across the way, who ran on a platform to rid Parliament of the Liberals, a platform of open, transparent and participatory government, while every move the Conservatives have made has removed those promises from the way they govern. I am a little stunned to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary say that debate in Parliament is a filibuster. We simply want the opportunity to debate a budget bill. That is our primary responsibility. It is to hold the government accountable on spending.

That is why people elect us to come to the House of Commons. We have to remember that only 38% of citizens elected the current government. The remainder elected us, the opposition, to hold the government accountable on spending. We are simply doing our due diligence. I guess it has gone from bad to worse. I find it absolutely stunning that not only are the Conservatives now invoking closure so early in this very important debate, which frankly is a lot about law and policy and not just monetary measures, but in fact they did not even have a briefing because they did not have

interpretation on the first day. So here we are doing our best to have a cogent debate on a bill, and the Conservatives are not assisting members of Parliament whatsoever. Mr. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, this budget will help small and medium-size business. We have helped create over a million jobs. Granted they were created by small and medium-size business, but we have put measures in place to help build jobs. The NDP, the no development party, across the way does not understand that. Its members seem to believe that jobs just come and go.

When we sit and listen to them, it seems they are almost as satisfied if the jobs go. Therefore, we want to put in place measures that will help small and medium-size businesses create jobs. They are doing a pretty good job of it. Out of all the industrialized countries in the G7 and G8, the most optimism is with respect to this country. That is because we have put measures in place. We have come forward with the budget, half of it in the spring and the other in the fall, which includes measures such as the lifetime capital gains exemption.

People are even contacting those MPs about the importance of this legislation. Let us move this to debate. A filibuster is not debate. I never said that. I said that what happened in committee was filibuster. This is not anywhere on the same level. We want four or five days of debate on this budget. Anyone across the way who wants to speak will have ample opportunity.

(1030) Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, apart from the habit of calling for time allocation, and this is about the 50th time since the Conservatives have had the majority government, there is another undemocratic process that occurs every time one of these budget implementation bills comes forward. The last two both exceeded 400 pages. This one has about 308 pages and involves much more than budget-related issues. It talks about labour relations with the public service. It talks about procedures for deciding whether a lawyer from Quebec is qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

These are all issues that should be dealt with but should be treated as separate bills to allow democracy to flourish in the House of Commons. That way we can treat each of these very separate issues separately instead of bundling them all into one single vote wherein, if we disagree with one aspect of it, we still have very little choice in terms of being squeezed because, unless we vote for it, the government will say we are against the entire bill, which is patently ludicrous. Why is the government continuing this process of having these mammoth omnibus bills? Mr. Kevin Sorenson : Mr.

Speaker, the member is talking about the scope of this bill. It has been common practice in the House to include various measures in a budget and the subsequent budget implementation act. That is nothing new, nor was it new in past parliaments and past governments. It is not groundbreaking. It simply reflects the essential and important role of a budget to a government's agenda. What constitutes a budgetary item is traditionally very broad. In 2005, the former Liberal government brought in Bill C-43 , one of three budgets it brought in that year.

Bill C-43, which was introduced in the 38th Parliament, amended dozens of different pieces of legislation. Part of what the Liberals legislated in Bill C-43 was the Auditor General Act, the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There were 15 or 20 different acts. It is common. The Liberal government has done it. Other governments do it. In some of these cases, it is to shepherd or move certain pieces of legislation through in an expedited fashion. Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the minister said in his comments that our government has created many jobs in this country through our economic action plan. We know that job creation will create long-term prosperity in Canada for all Canadians. In Newmarket—Aurora , I have chambers of commerce that are very active, and they are made up of a multitude of small and medium-sized businesses. We put in place the hiring credit for small business. I wonder if the minister could speak to that and what that means for job generation across this country, in Newmarket—Aurora , and in his own riding. Mr. Kevin Sorenson : Mr.

Speaker, two and a half years ago Canadians elected this Conservative government. They elected it because they wanted the government to help put in place policies that would guide the Canadian economy through some very turbulent waters. The government came forward with a number of plans, including Canada's economic action plan and infrastructure plans. We came forward with plan after plan. According to every international group, it succeeded. The level of optimism here in Canada is high. Around the world, people recognize that Canada is one of the best places to do business, so what is this plan?

Is it simply to spend money on infrastructure? No. The member brought forward the hiring credit and some other very good policy we have put in place. We saw unemployment rise far too high, so we came forward with a number of different measures, including the job grant and before that the hiring credit, that would give small and medium-sized businesses the opportunity to use a credit if they created another position on EI. That is part of the plan. It is not “the” plan for the economy; it is a very small part of the plan.

However, it allows small businesses to move forward, and if they need that extra little nudge, that extra little push into expanding their businesses in this tough time, they have to take some risk, but at least there is a measure that will be a little bit of an incentive to hire another person. When that individual is hired, it is a job, it means food on the table at home, and it means that the economy expands and grows. (1035) [ Translation ] Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government has stifled debate over 50 times.

The prorogation of Parliament was an all-out attack on democracy. What is more, at the last minute, the Conservatives added clause 471 to Division 19. According to this clause, “a person may be appointed a judge if, at any time, they were a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of [the Province of Quebec]”. The Conservatives have one person in mind and are including this clause in an omnibus bill so that they can appoint that person. My question is this: is this what the government calls standing up for all Canadians, all 35 million of them?

The law clearly states that three positions are reserved for Quebeckers. Quebec judges are competent enough that we can find some there to appoint. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, the member from Quebec brings out one very small part and asks why it is in the budget implementation act. We believe this matter needs to be resolved quickly, and this is probably one of the best ways to move it through the House quickly. If we could pass this measure unanimously right now, I would certainly be in favour, but I do not think it is possible for that to happen in the House right now.

That is why the budget implementation act was the earliest and quickest way to resolve the matter. The member asked about that one part, and that is the answer. However, let me say that it is a very small line in a 308-page document. In the past budget implementation, we delivered on our commitment. That is why Canada is positioned the way it is. That is why it is recognized around the world that we have the best Minister of Finance in the world sitting right here, the member for Whitby—Oshawa . We have a Prime Minister who understands the economy and is keeping a steady hand on the wheel.

I am pleased to say that we have been making the right choices for Canadians, for families, for employees, for employers, and for communities. Much more of that legislation is found right here within the budget implementation act no. 2. [ Translation ] Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, it was not a question of whether the government was going to move another time allocation motion but when it would do so.

The Conservatives likely would have moved these time allocation motions sooner had they not shut down Parliament for four weeks—four weeks when Parliament should have been in session, four weeks that we could have used to discuss various issues that many of my colleagues have listed one by one. Obviously, we are wondering why these issues are being addressed in the budget implementation bill. For example, the bill takes away public servants' right to strike. The Conservatives put this measure in a massive, omnibus bill that is over 300 pages long.

The Conservatives are finally eliminating the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, a measure that they were so proud to announce and something that constitutes a direct attack on Quebec's economy. The hon. member just spoke about the appointment of Justice Nadon, even though her own party was part of a committee that supported that appointment. They now realize that they made a mistake. A Supreme Court justice was appointed in an unlawful and unfair way and now the Conservatives are trying to remedy that by slipping three or four lines into a megabill.

What is more, the Conservatives are following the Liberals' example by continuing to pillage the employment insurance fund. This time, they will be taking $2 billion. That is also in the omnibus bill. What do the Conservatives have to hide? Why are they hiding these measures in this bill and why do they not want to debate it? After debate, we could vote on these measures democratically. (1040) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a number of measures there, and he asked a lot of questions.

Although this bill has been talked about in the House in earlier debate, I am not certain if freezing the EI rates for three years, which is part of what this bill would do, was in the throne speech or not. That measure would give certainty and take away risk. Knowing what it is going to do would give certainty to employers across the country. They like to call it payroll taxes. We have said that we are not going to raise those.

There are those who have suggested raising this payroll tax and that payroll tax and raising taxes in general; we have said that the climate of the economy right now is not one in which we want to raise taxes. When I travel around my constituency and across Canada, I do not meet any Canadians who say that they would love to send Ottawa more money. They do not believe in the tax, whether it is through income tax, corporate tax, or their $21 billion carbon tax. Canadians are saying that we need to build the economy. It is not going to be built by clobbering them with another tax.

The member talked about some labour issues. There is the labour code and there are labour relations issues. Some of those are included as well. They are a big part of the economy and they are going to be in the budget. You will have the opportunity to debate those issues at that time. The Deputy Speaker : I would request all members to direct their comments to the Chair and not to individual members. We will have the hon. member for Malpeque with a very short question, please. We are almost out of time. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the minister said that the budget is important to the government agenda. Yes, we agree with that. Of course it is important. However, it is important for democracy and for Canadians to debate and analyze various issues separately and apart from others. I could take the last point the minister raised on EI. He claimed that they are going to freeze EI rates under this particular bill. Will there be enough time to analyze that issue on its own? We know the reason rates have been frozen: it is because there ended up being a bigger return on EI than the Minister of Finance originally figured there would be.

The reason for that is that the attacks the Conservatives made on seasonal industries in the last budget have driven people off employment insurance, so the program is not available to them as it should be. That issue needs a full debate, and the Conservative government, with its omnibus bill, is denying those kinds of debate. Mr. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, I think the former Liberal cabinet minister understands the situation. He talks about not having enough time to debate. There is more time for debate on this budget bill than there has been in the last 20 years.

It is longer than any debate on a Liberal budget under their majority governments. Those are the facts. There are five days of debate on a budget in the fall. This minister makes it sound as though we are cutting this thing very short, but it is longer than they allowed the Parliament of Canada in their majority government. The aim of today's motion is to provide certainty to the House and to the finance committee so that they can move forward with their plans. In terms of debate, it moves from being debated here to being studied and debated in the finance committee.

Then it comes back and then it goes forward again. There will be ample debate on this bill. I encourage the member to read it and to stand in the House and debate it when the debate is fully under way. [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : It is now my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. [ English ] Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1125) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 5) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Baird Bateman Benoit Bergen Bezan Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Devolin Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Flaherty Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder James Jean Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Menzies Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Shipley Shory Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Zimmer -- 144 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Bélanger Bellavance Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Chow Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Day Dewar Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Foote Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hughes Jacob Jones Julian Karygiannis Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Martin Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Patry Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Tremblay Turmel Valeriote -- 116 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

Second Reading The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and of the amendment, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-4. Second reading The Speaker : The hon. member for York Centre has the floor, and he has 17 minutes left to conclude his remarks. Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I was saying yesterday, Canada's fiscal fundamentals are strong, and they are sustainable.

However, to truly understand the strength behind this performance, one has to consider the hard work that took place long before through actions our government took to pay down debt, lower taxes, reduce red tape, and promote free trade and innovation. Most importantly, our government paid down significant amounts of debt when times were good and has kept our debt-to-GDP ratio well below that of our G7 counterparts. As a result, when the recession hit, we had the fiscal room necessary to respond, unlike other nations that were forced to pile vast amounts of unaffordable new debt onto old.

We kept our promises to the Canadian people. We took action to keep taxes low for Canadian families and businesses. For example, our government cut the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. We created tax free savings accounts, which now benefit more than eight million Canadians. We established a $5,000 tax credit for first time homebuyers. We reduced the lowest personal income tax rate and increased the basic personal exemption. We introduced income splitting for seniors and brought in arts and fitness tax credits for our children. We lowered the small business tax rate to 11%, and more. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Deputy Speaker : Order. The member is about 10 feet away from me, and I cannot hear him because of the noise in this House. If members want to carry on a conversation, leave the chamber. Take it outside. Resuming debate. Mr. Mark Adler : Mr. Speaker, overall, the federal tax burden is now at its lowest level in half a century. As a result of our government's low-tax plan, in 2013 the average Canadian family now pays $3,200 less in taxes. Our Conservative government recognizes the vital role small businesses play in the economy and in job creation. That is why we are committed to helping them grow and succeed.

We know that they have been growing. We see the results. Canada is leading the world in job creation with more than one million net new jobs created since the recession. With lower taxes, businesses can now invest in new equipment, hire more workers, and expand their operations. Tax cuts benefit Canadians, all Canadians, including both Ontario and Quebec's manufacturing sectors.

In fact, Suzanne Benoît , president of Aéro Montréal, had this to say: By actively supporting this...sector with effective and well-designed programs, the Canadian government is helping ensure the industry's long term growth and the creation of high quality jobs for Canadians. In Ontario, Carlos Paz-Soldan, president and CEO of the Toronto-based Tenet Computer Group, added: This budget recognizes the strong link between the innovation needs of firms such as mine and the skills and talent of college and polytechnic students across the country.

Richard Paton is president and CEO of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada. CIAC said that it was: ...pleased by the federal budget's focus on manufacturing, jobs and growth. Funding to encourage innovation and improve the competitiveness of Ontario's manufacturing sector was especially welcomed.... As members can see, specific actions taken by our government have enabled businesses to grow.

For example, during the recession, our Conservative government extended and expanded the job-creating hiring credit for small business, which benefits an estimated 560,000 employers; increased and indexed the lifetime capital gains exemption to make investing in small business more rewarded; expanded the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation; and more. During the recession, the opposition voted against these tax relief measures. Why does the opposition continually vote against supporting Canadian businesses? Why do they not support Canadian workers?

If the opposition had its way, it would have the government engage in risky spending schemes or would force a $21-billion carbon tax on Canadian consumers or would hike taxes on job creation, thereby stalling economic growth. These ideas will not work. Indeed, time has proven over and over that the way to support economic growth is by lowering taxes. Simply put, we cannot tax our way to economic prosperity.

Economic action plan 2013 builds on our government's significant action to support small businesses since 2006, which includes reducing the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, increasing the small business limit to half a million dollars, lowering the federal corporate income tax rate to 15% to help create jobs and economic growth for Canadian families and communities, and eliminating the corporate surtax for all corporations in 2008, which was particularly beneficial to small business corporations, as the surtax represented a larger proportion of the overall payable tax.

This also includes introducing a code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry. Indeed, our government just recently improved the code by expanding it to include mobile payments, a move welcomed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which said it: ...will help make the Code even more relevant and useful to small business owners, and we applaud the government... Overall, a typical small business now has $28,600 in savings because of our Conservative government's low-tax plan. Having said that, our government is under no illusions that our work is finished.

The global economy remains fragile, with growth in advanced economies slower than expected, and Canada is certainly not immune. That is why Canada's economic action plan actively pursues new trade investment opportunities, particularly with large, dynamic, and fast-growing economies. Indeed, our government recently completed negotiations on a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union. This agreement alone has the potential to add more than 80,000 net new jobs in Canada. Do not take my word for it. Let us hear what others have to say.

John Manley, president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, agrees that: ...the [comprehensive and economic trade agreement ] will create jobs, spur investment and promote economic growth.

(1130) Unlike the opposition, we understand that the pursuit of free trade is beneficial for Canada's economy. Our government's trade agenda has already made Canada one of the most open and globally engaged economies in the world. Since 2006, we have reached free trade agreements with nine countries and are negotiating with many more. We have also concluded foreign investment promotion and protection agreements with 16 countries and are currently in active negotiations with many others.

Canada has also joined the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations and we are actively pursuing new trade and investment opportunities in large, dynamic and fast-growing economies such as China, India and Japan, reflecting our belief that freer and more open trade is a key stimulus for economic global recovery. Unlike the opposition, we know that by growing international trade and creating additional export opportunities for Canadian businesses, we will improve the standard of living for all Canadians. Free and open trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy.

Canadian businesses need to access key export markets in order to take advantage of new opportunities. Economic action plan 2013 builds on these measures through targeted actions that will help our manufacturers and businesses to continue to succeed on the world stage and secure a prosperous future for all Canadians. Our government is continuing to build on our sound economic position with the implementation of economic action plan 2013. The second budget implementation act would deliver a three-year freeze on employment insurance premium increases.

This tax relief would help support Canada's continuing economic recovery and sustained business-led long-term growth. However, again, do not take my word for it, let us hear what others have to say. Diane Brisebois, president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada agrees: This freeze on premiums will mean more money for employers to invest in other important areas such as employment, training and infrastructure... Furthermore, the employment insurance freeze would enhance Canada's globally competitive business environment.

The freeze would help to attract foreign investment in Canada, create jobs for Canadians and foster long-term economic growth. In fact, Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business agrees: —payroll taxes like EI are particularly challenging for small business...[the] announcement of an EI rate freeze is fantastic news for Canada’s entrepreneurs and their employees. This move will keep hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of employers and employees which can only be a positive for the Canadian economy.

Most important, freezing EI rates would have a significant impact on low-income Canadians. Joyce Reynolds, the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association executive vice-president of government affairs, notes: Payroll costs have a significant impact on overall labour costs. They are a barrier to hiring, particularly for inexperienced workers...We are pleased the government is demonstrating commitment to youth employment by holding the line on these profit-insensitive costs. Unlike the opposition, our government understands that tax relief is important to Canadian families.

I encourage members opposite to vote in favour of this important measure, which would leave more money in the hands of Canadians. Our government remains firmly committed to supporting Canadian jobs and fostering long-term prosperity for Canadians and their families. Canada's low-tax approach continues to be a beacon to other nations around the world in a time of global economic uncertainty. Our efforts have certainly not gone unrecognized.

Indeed, KPMG's “Competitive Alternatives” 2012 report concluded that Canada's total business taxes were more than 40% lower than those in the United States and confirmed that Canada had the lowest tax burden on business in the G7. Along with promoting investment in our support for free and open trade, the government continues to support the low-tax environment that is required to create jobs and economic growth. Canada is now one of the top five destinations in the world to start a business.

Colleen McMorrow of Ernst & Young remarked: Canada has emerged as a real leader in fostering an entrepreneurial culture....Canada also offers a supportive tax and regulatory environment for entrepreneurs. All these factors are combining to really promote the growth of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship from coast to coast. She concluded by saying, “Canada's government has been highly supportive of entrepreneurs, providing regulatory and tax regimes that have enabled start-ups and growing companies to flourish”.

(1135) Clearly, Canada's competitive tax system plays a crucial role in supporting economic growth. These tax reductions would leave more money for the private sector to reinvest in the machinery, equipment, information, technology and other physical capital that would further boost the recent productivity gains we have seen in businesses across Canada. Most important, lower taxes would allow businesses to hire more Canadians and offer higher wages as they extend production and take on the world. I encourage all members to support Bill C-4 . Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I have some questions for my colleague from the riding to the north of me concerning this budget bill which includes not only budgetary items. The government has included some workers health and safety things that would strip powers from health and safety officers. This was never mentioned in the budget, yet it is in the budget implementation bill.

I think if the workers at the Bombardier plant in his riding were facing the same kind of action by the provincial government, they would be pounding on my colleague's door complaining about what the provincial government was doing to them, yet the Conservatives are proposing something similar that was never in the budget. Why it is there? Why are some of the consumer protection things that the government has touted as being necessary not there? They could have been included.

Why are the Conservatives insistent on making this a time allocation bill when the opposition was prepared to agree on the amount of time it was going to have? The government prorogued and did not spend a lot of time in the House and yet it wants to hurry this up.

(1140) Mr. Mark Adler : Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for York South—Weston was not listening clearly to my speech. Economic action plan 2013 has received widespread support from the business community, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives as well as a variety of other business organizations that say everything we have done in this budget to create jobs is welcomed, and the proof is in the pudding. We have created over one million net new jobs since the peak of the recession in 2009 and we continue to create jobs.

We are the number one job creator in the G7. We receive praise from a variety of international organizations, from economists, from Forbes magazine. As I indicated in my speech, we are the best place to be doing business. A variety of organizations have said that from the OECD to the IMF. What is really important is that our government is clearly focused on what matters most to Canadians, and that is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. With that in mind, we are clearly focused on what matters the most. Like a laser beam, we are focused on the economy.

As such, I would encourage NDP and Liberal members to join us and help us create even more jobs in our great country so they can go back to their constituents at voting time and tell them they helped the Canadian government create jobs and that is what mattered most to them. They could tell their constituents they played a role in all of that. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to note that when the Prime Minister was in opposition, he was exceptionally critical of the government of the day because there was a 100-page budget implementation bill.

Now that he is in the Prime Minister's chair, he has increased the size of it almost tenfold. This bill contains 400 pages. Huge pieces of legislation that are completely and absolutely irrelevant to the passage of the budget are being proposed. That is one issue. The other issue which is equally important is the fact that the government has brought in time allocation. All of these potential pieces of legislation that should have been stand-alone bills have all been incorporated into the budget bill.

The Prime Minister , more than any other prime minister in the history of Canada, then says that his government is going to put a finite amount of time on debate. The government is putting in closure to force this legislation through second reading. That prevents MPs from being able to debate the budget bill and give it due diligence, let alone all of the other things that the Conservatives are trying to bring in through the back door. How can the member believe, in good faith, that colleagues from all sides of the House can positively contribute to all the required debate to give due diligence to Bill C-4 ? Mr.

Mark Adler : Mr. Speaker, our government remains committed to what matters most to Canadians, which is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We have provided a number of supports for job creators in Canada, particularly the small business sector, by extending and expanding the hiring tax credit, as I indicated in my speech, which will help 560,000 employers. We have just closed negotiations on the CETA, which will give access to Canadian business to half a million new customers in the European market. This is the largest single free trade agreement ever negotiated on the face of the earth.

The agreement is precedent-setting because we now have access to 2.7 million public sector procurement opportunities in Europe, which is completely unprecedented. I would encourage the member from Winnipeg to take the benefits of the CETA to his constituents and the businesses in his riding and encourage them to take advantage of the wonderful economic opportunities that lay ahead in the CETA. I understand the Liberal Party candidate in the riding of Toronto Centre running for by-election on November 25, Chrystia Freeland, one of the economic advisers to his leader, said, “I say amen to raising taxes”.

That shows the difference between our party and the Liberal Party.

(1145) Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have come through some very difficult times over the last four or five years. We have seen the world go through a global recession. What we know right now is that although many other countries are struggling with their debt load where it is really out of control, Canada is in the best fiscal position in the G7. Canada's net debt to GDP ratio was 34.6% in 2012, the lowest among G7 countries. Germany is only second lowest at 57.2%.

What we are looking at with this budget is creating more opportunity and more jobs in our economy. With more people who are working, there are going to be more people paying taxes, allowing us to get back to our objective of a balanced budget in 2015. Since the member in his previous life worked with many companies in Toronto, could he speak more about what these kinds of actions that we are taking will mean to these job creators in our own economy? Mr. Mark Adler : Mr. Speaker, indeed, the member is absolutely right.

Our government took very strong action before the recession in lowering public debt by $36 billion, which was significant. That gave us now the manoeuvrability and the cushioning to respond in a positive way during the past recession. We did so in a way that outstripped the economic performance of every other G7 country in the world. We were able to strategically plan, and we are the only party with a plan. The Liberals and the NDP do not have a plan. The Liberal plan is non-existent and the NDP plan is just to raise taxes, including a $21 billion carbon tax.

Our party remains focused on what matters most to Canadians, which is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. The proof is clearly seen with one million net new jobs created in the peak of the recession and we have the strongest job creation record of any country around the world. We have received accolades from international organizations, from Canadian business associations and from business leaders. It is Canadian business that creates jobs, not the Canadian government. We can create the conditions that will foster Canadian job growth, and we have done that through our economic action plan.

We have a plan; the opposition does not. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I attempted to get in on the debate earlier about time allocation on the bill. There were so many things said that were completely false, such as the notion that large budget omnibus bills are any part of the tradition of Parliament. They are offensive to parliamentary democracy. The largest in all history was the one referred to earlier today by the parliamentary secretary before the current administration and that was in 2005. It was 120 pages long and it was offensive in its day.

To have two budget omnibus bills in the year 2013, as we had in 2012, in all cases over 300 pages long is outrageous. To close debate on it so early is a further outrage. Does my hon. friend not find it troubling that in the last session of Parliament, 38% of all government legislation came bound together in unrelated pieces of legislation for one vote and now these very large, unwieldy and unrelated pieces of legislation are forced into time allocation? Mr. Mark Adler : Mr.

Speaker, what I find offensive is that during the 1990s the Liberal government balanced the budget on the backs of Canada's most vulnerable citizens by cutting social services and cutting funding to education and health care. That is the way it balanced the budget. The way we balance the budget is by lowering taxes and creating the conditions whereby businesses can create jobs in this country, because everybody deserves a job. Is every Canadian employed right now? No, and that is why our job is not finished.

We will never say our job is finished until every Canadian who wants to work has a job and has the opportunity to have a job. That is when we can say that our job is done. I would encourage the opposition to, rather than criticize where there is no criticism warranted, join us in our plan to create jobs and foster economic opportunity and growth in this country of Canada. (1150) [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss and debate Bill C-4 , the second budget implementation bill.

This is yet another omnibus bill, which, at second reading, is again the subject of a time allocation motion. Our debate will therefore be limited, which will also be the case at the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member. Indeed, we will have only two meetings to discuss a bill that is over 300 pages long and that amends a great many pieces of legislation, and not just budget-related legislation or legislation related to the nation's finances.

We strongly object to this way of proceeding, as we have from the beginning of the last session of Parliament, when the government decided to make a habit of this. I would like to focus my remarks on one aspect in particular of Bill C-4 , that is, the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored venture capital funds, which was announced in budget 2013. This is an extremely crucial measure. On the one hand, the government claims that it will save $355 million over five years. On the other hand, it wanted to please private investors and decided to invest $400 million in private venture capital funds.

However, the two kinds of funds are very closely related, and I will expand on that in my speech. This measure constitutes an attack on a tool that is crucial to economic development in Quebec: labour-sponsored venture capital funds. These funds are considered a crucial tool for economic development, not only by those who benefit from them—mainly small and medium-sized businesses—but also by the Quebec business community, which objected immediately and still opposes this measure. These funds play a major role in Quebec.

Eliminating this tax credit will hit Quebec particularly hard, which is why I am focusing my remarks on Quebec. In fact, 90% of the investment by labour-sponsored funds is currently in Quebec. I will focus my remarks on the Fonds de solidarité FTQ in particular since it has been around for more than 30 years. Fondaction CSN is another very active fund in Quebec, but the Fonds de solidarité FTQ has a 30-year history of economic investment. It has benefited corporations in Quebec as well as small and medium-sized businesses. That will be the focus of my remarks.

In the last 10 years alone, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ's investments have created or maintained over half a million jobs in Quebec. I was saying that this is related to venture capital funds too. That is extremely important. The Fonds de solidarité FTQ is currently investing not only in Quebec companies and in starting up or rescuing companies in jeopardy that have the potential to contribute significantly to Quebec's economy, but it is also investing in private venture capital funds. Currently, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ is investing in 47 different funds.

Some are international funds, but they are opening offices in Quebec. Another dozen or so are Canadian funds, including the Ontario Venture Capital Fund, which was created by the Government of Ontario in the 2000s when the Ontario tax credit was eliminated. Venture capital invested in Ontario's economy had plummeted. Ontario tried to offset that by creating this agency, and the Fonds de solidarité FTQ invested heavily in it. Obviously there are also venture capital funds in Quebec that are invested in Quebec. There are private venture capital funds, but there are also funds of funds.

The largest fund of funds in Canada at present is Teralys Capital with access to $700 million. Some $250 million of that amount was invested by the Fonds de solidarité FTQ. In total, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ has invested over $1 billion in all private venture capital funds combined in Canada.

(1155) Consequently, the measure announced in Bill C-4 by the Conservatives affects more than just the ability of labour-sponsored funds, such as the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction, to directly invest in small and medium-sized businesses in order to help them start up and grow. It will have a serious impact on the ability of the Fonds de solidarité and Fondaction to contribute to the success of private equity funds. This is one of the major reasons why Canada's Venture Capital & Private Equity Association is opposed to this Conservative measure. I will say it again: it opposes this measure.

The government tried to appease them with a $400 million investment, but the association understands the negative impact this measure will have on their activities, namely using venture capital to fund businesses in Canada. I would like to quote the president of Canada's Venture Capital & Private Equity Association: [ English ] Namely, that eliminating the credit could put regional investment at risk, as [labour-sponsored venture capital corporations] are particularly active outside the main centres of economic activity.

And, [the second concern is] that these vehicles “play a structural role” in the venture industry, and are frequently co-investors. “By eliminating the federal tax credit, a critical piece of infrastructure may be stripped from the entrepreneurial and venture capital eco-system,”....

[ Translation ] Canada's Venture Capital & Private Equity Association understands the havoc and destruction that will ensue as a result of this Conservative government measure, and it is not the only business association to oppose this measure. The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec opposed the government's intention to abolish the tax credit as soon as it was announced in budget 2013. I would like to share two quotes from Françoise Bertrand, president and CEO of the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec.

Before the government's announcement, she was already praising the positive impact of labour-sponsored funds, including the Fonds de solidarité FTQ. This is what she had to say on March 1, 2013, before the government announced that it was going to abolish the credit: [ English ] They understand your business. On innovation, they’re still there. The Fonds has been involved in digital technology. It’s not easy; the banks are not there. The Fonds was really ahead of the game. One thing we should say is the extent of their interest and participation in businesses in the different regions of Quebec.

They have been very active in making sure that they have not been missing any opportunity.

[ Translation ] When the government announced in budget 2013 that it intended to abolish tax credits for labour-sponsored funds, there was an immediate reaction from the Fédération des chambres du commerce du Québec. Françoise Bertrand said: These funds are important to the economic development of Quebec, and if the government cuts these tax credits, it will eliminate an important tool for promoting business start-ups. Were those the only negative reactions? No.

Michel Leblanc, the president and CEO of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, denounced this measure the day after budget 2013 was tabled: The contribution of labour-sponsored funds is invaluable for our economy. These funds make long-term investments in small and medium-sized businesses in sectors that tend to be less well served by private funds. What’s remarkable is that their investments are countercyclical, because they maintain a high level of investment during economic slowdowns.

Plus, the return on investment for the federal government is amply recouped, whether in terms of tax and quasi-tax revenue or recovery time. What does that mean? Mr. Leblanc looked at two studies. One was conducted in June 2010 by SECOR Group, which was led by Marcel Côté, who is now a mayoral candidate in Montreal. SECOR Group analyzed the return on investment of these tax credits for the Quebec and Canadian governments. SECOR concluded that the tax credits were very positive for both governments. On average, the governments recouped the investment they made by way of this tax credit in less than three years.

This means that in less than three years, these governments earn back the revenue they lost.

(1200) A second, quite recent study was conducted after the government announced the abolition of the tax credit. This study was carried out by IREC and was revealed by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal. In Canada, for every dollar of tax credit going to savers who invest in labour-sponsored funds, the government receives in return the equivalent of $1.26 in additional tax revenue. This is a gain. For Quebec, this measure is even more important, because for every dollar that goes to savers in tax credits, the Quebec government receives $2.05 in tax revenue.

Any company with an opportunity to make a similar return would jump on it. With this measure, the Canadian government is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Clearly, the Conservative government does not really understand either the impact labour-sponsored funds have on the Québec economy or how they work. The member for Beauce and Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture tried to defend the decision announced in budget 2013 by saying that only 11% of the capital in the Fonds de solidarité FTQ is invested as venture capital. That is not true.

In fact, Quebec law requires both funds, the Fondaction CSN and the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, to invest at least 60% of their assets in venture capital, which means in businesses. This is unsecured venture capital. It is risky, because it is low in the creditor pecking order should the investment go bad. That is why they also call it risk capital. Currently, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ invests 67% of its assets. When he refers to the 11%, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture and member for Beauce is all confusion. This relates to new investment made last year.

Obviously, when you invest in a business and it prospers, the FTQ can give up its shares in the business and reinvest elsewhere. There is constant turnover. The fund’s total investment is 67% of its assets. There are businesses from which the Fonds de solidarité FTQ withdrew its funding in order to invest the 11% elsewhere. We can therefore see to what extent the Fonds de solidarité FTQ plays a crucial role in Quebec’s economic development. It has existed for 30 years, but in the last 10 years alone, over $6.3 billion has been invested in Quebec businesses, private venture capital funds and funds of funds.

Some 2,239 businesses in Quebec and Canada have benefited from this, and 80% of them have fewer than 100 employees. We can therefore see the impact on SMEs. I suggest that my Conservative colleagues listen carefully, because they are always talking about their interest in promoting SMEs and helping them develop. The Fonds de solidarité FTQ plays a crucial role in the development of SMEs. Today in Quebec, it is estimated that 171,000 jobs have been created or maintained through the efforts of the Fonds de solidarité FTQ.

The tax credit does not go to the Fonds de solidarité FTQ; it goes to the savers who decide to invest in it. It is estimated that the immediate result of this Conservative measure will be the loss of about 20,000 jobs in Quebec alone. The measure will not create jobs; it will destroy jobs that Quebec and, by extension, Canada desperately need at this time. Labour-sponsored funds of this kind, and in particular the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, have also created funds that operate regionally. That is another crucial point.

(1205) This has extremely useful spinoffs regionally. In the Quebec City area, 70,000 savers are currently contributing to the fund and receiving the tax credit, which is an incentive to save for them and an economic development lever for the fund. The fund has invested about $1 billion to date in the Quebec City area. In the last three years alone, this has benefited 400 businesses, and 45,000 jobs have been created or maintained in the area. In my own case, for example, 25 businesses in the Lower St. Lawrence region are receiving support from the Fonds de solidarité FTQ.

Why are these businesses especially concerned? Because the fund invests largely in the regions, where private venture capital and the banks do not dare to go. Let us think about where we would be now if we had not had help from this fund, given the number of small and medium-sized businesses that need a hand with their economic development, particularly in the regions. This is where the Conservative government fails to understand the real consequences of its actions.

It is my impression that either in the Prime Minister’s Office or in that of the Minister of Finance , they told themselves that this was a labour-sponsored venture capital fund with connections to the union and they could score a big hit by abolishing the tax credit and returning it to the private sector, which will do things better. On the other hand, people in the private venture capital field understand the importance of such funds. They protested against the move. Is the Conservative government listening? No. It is proceeding with the measure.

I would like to talk about these funds from another angle that is extremely interesting: the saver’s angle. Savers currently benefit from a 15% tax credit on their investments in the Fonds de solidarité FTQ or the Fondaction CSN. This is a necessary and crucial incentive. The government tells itself that they will be able to reinvest elsewhere if they want to and that the Fonds de solidarité FTQ is now big enough, with its $9.6 billion in assets. However, these funds have a specific role to play that private venture capital funds do not. Their particular mission is to invest in higher-risk areas.

Their return is therefore much more uncertain. Sometimes—although this was not the case during the last economic recession—they may have a lower return because less than 30% of their assets is invested in the speculative market. Nearly 70% is invested in venture capital. This is therefore a real deterrent to savings. Now, if savers seek higher returns, they will be much more inclined to turn to private funds such as mutual funds, venture capital funds or something else that will assure them of less uncertain, more stable and higher returns. This is why the tax credit is there in a complementary role.

I do not understand this decision by the Conservative government, which is determined to eliminate the tax credit. The Fonds de solidarité FTQ and the Fondaction CSN are two key drivers in the development of the Quebec economy. They have proven their value and they are needed. The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec and the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal recognize the need for these development tools. The Conservative government is jeopardizing all this by eliminating the tax credit.

I would like to know why no one is taking the trouble to study this particular measure, which will have such a significant impact on the Quebec economy. The Conservatives are fond of saying that they work to ensure that they walk the talk. They should therefore conduct an impact study to assess the real effect of this measure, because it will have serious consequences. I therefore expect to be able to discuss this measure in the Standing Committee on Finance. I hope to have informed questions from my colleagues.

They should understand that this goes against the government's plan—and it is a plan, we certainly hear it often enough—for Canada's economic development.

(1210) Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his excellent speech and the expertise he provided on the topic studied by the Standing Committee on Finance. I am sure that in committee he will be able to go head-to-head with the Conservatives and try to improve the bill, even though it is 300 pages long. The bill was introduced this week and a time allocation motion has already been moved. They want to talk about the bill as little as possible in the House.

Does the hon. member feel that the time available to study the bill is sufficient? Will we be able to properly fulfill the parliamentary duties granted us by voters in ridings across the country? Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sherbrooke for his question. This is going to come up quite often. This bill is massive; it is another omnibus bill that contains many measures. Some measures address fiscal matters, which we are not opposed to. There are many other measures that have nothing to do with our country's fiscal reality.

Why would changes to the way Supreme Court justices are appointed be included in a bill such as this one? It has nothing to do with the budget, yet it has been included in the bill. There are also significant changes to the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, which are part of the Canada Labour Code. Those should be discussed separately. A Globe and Mail editorial condemned this way of doing things, which the federal government has used routinely. Moreover, the members of the Standing Committee on Finance will not have the time to analyze this 300-page bill.

The committee will meet twice at the end of November to study and analyze Bill C-4 . We will not have enough time to analyze it. Such abuses, which we have also seen with other budget implementation bills, have led to catastrophic mistakes that the government has had to subsequently correct. These mistakes could have been prevented had the bills been studied carefully. [ English ] Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government does not really understand how labour-sponsored venture funds actually work or it would not be doing what it is doing.

These funds are job creators, yet the government, which claims to be a job-creating government, is doing things that will actually kill jobs in Quebec. Perhaps it is because the government has such disdain for labour, or such disdain for Quebec, that it has done this in the budget. In addition, the government has taken other pokes at labour by removing health and safety protections from the labour code, putting all of that on the back of the minister herself. We see, yet again, a Conservative omnibus bill that goes well beyond what a budget would ever include. It includes things that should never be in a budget.

I wonder if the member would like to comment. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. I would like to say that I am extremely surprised and disappointed that the government members present in the House are not rising to discuss this matter. This is an economic debate. We are providing economic arguments against this job-killing initiative. The government has not said a word. I am extremely disappointed to not be debating this issue with the members present in the House. With respect to my colleague's comments about the repercussions, I have this to say.

I mentioned, among other things, what this will do to the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. The definition of workplace risk is being changed, and the minister will be given the discretion to address health and safety issues of employees working for businesses that fall under the Canada Labour Code. The way in which public sector collective agreements will be negotiated will change. The measures are far-reaching, and it is clear that the government does not intend to debate them in a free and engaged manner.

This will have major repercussions, not only for Canada's economy and finances, but also for labour relations as we know them today. The government wants to quickly redefine them with an omnibus bill.

(1215) Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was very eloquent. He clearly demonstrated that we already have all the figures to show that these forms of investment are good for our economy and our SMEs. They also generate income for the government and diversify our economy. It is impossible to understand the reasoning behind this decision, considering all those figures, which are clear and publicly available.

Yesterday the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN met with the government to propose a way to increase investments, both in Quebec and elsewhere. However, the government again refused to reconsider its decision. What could possibly have made this Conservative government, which has all the figures at its disposal, decide to eliminate this tax credit? Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, all I see in this decision is an ideological desire that is in no way rational, but that is still consistent with this government's decisions. Its decisions are not rational, as I have mentioned before.

If a government has an opportunity to do something that would bring in even more money in the future, and if it has the opportunity to invest and then recover its investment, it should jump on that opportunity. Instead, the government is bringing in a measure that will undermine businesses. When a business has over $9 billion in assets, it can be considered a large venture capital company. We are talking about tens—if not hundreds—of thousands of new jobs. Funds and venture capital companies understand this reality. That is why they offered some alternatives to the government.

They are wondering what the problem is, since the government makes money off the money it invests. Is the problem the fact that funds and venture capital companies do not invest enough in Canada? They are prepared to increase their investment limit outside Quebec. The government will not accept other alternatives suggested by the two funds to ensure that the benefits are more wide-ranging. All I see here is an ideological and completely irrational measure. [ English ] Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his thorough and cogent speech on this matter.

It is regrettable that we do not have more opportunities like this, given the closure. The current government says that its top priority is creating jobs and the economy. Conservatives have alluded from time to time to how they think this is a prime opportunity for indigenous Canadians to become involved in the economy, yet in this budget we do not see one single measure to enable that to happen.

Time after time, the first nation, Metis and Inuit communities tell us that they need their land claims settled, they need the government to deliver on its commitments on the land claims and they need the government to provide fair and equal funding for education so they can have the skills and knowledge to apply for the jobs that would give them a fair income. I wonder if the member could speak on how this budget seems to serve the needs and desires of only some, but not all, Canadians. Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, this is a government that governs through talking points. It governs with talk but little action.

It actually likes to contradict or try to pretend the opposite of what it is actually doing. [ Translation ] The government has shared its intentions a number of times. It has talked about initiatives it has implemented or wants to implement. However, at the end of the day, we hear nothing. Most of what the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development says does not make much sense. I can say that the Assembly of First Nations and aboriginal groups from across the country see what is going on and they are not impressed. The Idle No More movement did not come out of the blue.

It developed in response to the government's ignorance of and inaction on aboriginal issues. This would have been an ideal opportunity to address some major issues. However, instead of including elements in the budget that deal with education on reserves or that address the various problems affecting aboriginal communities in the country, the government decided to include elements that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget, such as the process for appointing Supreme Court justices. (1220) [ English ] Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I will say at the outset that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga . It is an honour to rise and address the House on budget 2013. I came to Ottawa from Edmonton Centre as part of this Conservative government. Since that time we have been both sound economic managers and prudent investors in all areas of government. We have lowered taxes to the lowest level in more than 50 years. The GST was cut from 7% to 6% to 5%. This has placed more money in the pockets of ordinary Canadians, where it belongs. We have paid down $37 billion worth of debt between 2006 and 2008.

During this time, we also invested in our armed forces, which were in desperate need of equipment and rebuilding after decades of darkness under previous governments. It was not long, however, before trouble appeared on the horizon. In August 2007, the credit bubble burst. The United States officially went into a recession in January 2008. This was the worst recession to hit the world since the 1930s. Those were troubling times five years ago. However, in the face of trouble our government responded decisively.

On January 27, 2009, the Minister of Finance introduced the first phase of Canada's economic action plan. This budget was a $60 billion shot in the arm to the Canadian economy, including a $12 billion infrastructure investment and $20 billion worth of tax relief. As the Minister of Finance indicated at the time, these measures were targeted, timely and temporary. With an extra six-month extension, the stimulus funding wound down on October 31, 2011, as promised. I am a Conservative, and I believe in balancing our budgets, lowering taxes, and individual initiative and enterprise.

Canadians understand the importance of prudent fiscal management in their household budgets, and they expect the same from the government. I could not agree more. That is why I am pleased that our government has made fiscal prudence a priority. I would like to speak to three of our government's fiscal priorities today, which budget 2013 keeps us on track to achieve. These priorities are the elimination of the deficit, introduction of balanced budget legislation as promised in the throne speech and paying down the federal debt while fostering a sound economic environment.

When Canada's economic action plan was initially introduced in 2009, we made it clear that deficits were not here to stay and neither was the stimulus. We acted, and deficits have been falling ever since. From a peak of $56 billion in 2009-10, it was reported on October 22 that the federal deficit had fallen to $18.9 billion for the 2012-13 fiscal year, coming in nearly $7 billion below forecast. We made it abundantly clear that the deficit elimination would not be done on the backs of provinces or seniors.

Budget 2013 builds on previous actions, with an additional $500 million in savings in 2013-14, rising to $2.3 billion in 2017-18, for a total of $8.4 billion over the next five years. When this is combined with actions taken since budget 2010, it means our government has announced savings that will reduce the deficit by more than $15 billion in 2014-15 and beyond. This will amount to cumulative savings of more·than $84 billion over the 2010-11 to 2017-18 period. More than 75% of these savings will result from measures to restrain the growth in direct program spending.

Some of these measures to control program spending were developed during the strategic and operating review, of which I was privileged to be a member. This review found savings of $5.2 billion in government operations, savings that will certainly contribute to not only eliminating the deficit but making government leaner and more efficient. Direct program spending is projected to remain roughly at or below its 2010-11 level over the forecast horizon, 2017-18.

However, federal transfers to individuals to provide important income support, such as old age security and employment insurance, and major transfers to other levels of government for social programs and health care will continue to grow over the forecast period. With the recent Speech from the Throne, our Government again signalled our continuing belief in the importance of sound fiscal management by promising to introduce balanced budget legislation. Government holds the keys to the federal treasury and with that comes the expectation that those resources will be spent and managed wisely.

As we are all aware, these past five years have been anything but ordinary economic times. With sovereign debt crises in the eurozone, the fiscal cliff, sequester and government shutdown in the United States, it is clear that turbulent economic waters remain for the foreseeable future. However, a balanced budget is essential for the long-term financial health of the government and Canada and generates confidence in the Canadian economy. We have promised to balance the budget by 2015. That promise we will keep, and we will go further. Our Government will enshrine into law its successful and prudent approach.

(1225) Our balanced budget legislation will require balanced budgets during normal economic times and concrete timelines for returning to balance in the event of an economic crisis. I am pleased with this additional commitment to financial responsibility. However, to that end we must balance the budget, and budget 2013 keeps us on track to do so. We have promised to do so without raising tax. To do so we must reduce government spending.

Budget 2013 builds on these efforts to reduce government spending by announcing an additional $1.7 billion in ongoing savings, including examining departmental spending to ensure that government operations are managed as efficiently as possible; reducing travel costs through the use of technology by using remote meeting solutions, such as telepresence and video conferencing; modernizing the production and distribution of government publications by shifting to electronic publishing and making print publications the exception; standardizing government information technology to reduce costs; and by closing tax loopholes and keeping taxes low and competitive in order to give businesses the incentive to create jobs.

Lastly, as part of our commitment to return to balanced budgets by 2015, we must ensure that our economy continues to grow and create jobs. To this end, the Prime Minister announced at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg in September that the Government of Canada is committed to achieving a federal debt to GDP ratio of 25% by 2021. The government will consider advancing the planned targets if economic growth is significantly stronger than anticipated.

Canada currently has the lowest total government debt of any nation in the G7, a number that includes the entire provincial, territorial and local governments, as well the Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan. In fact, Canada's net debt was less than half the G7 average in 2012, coming in at 34.6% of GDP. Low debt levels will result in lower taxes for Canadians as less money is required to service the debt. Low debt levels also mean a strong investment climate that supports job creation and economic growth.

Job creation and economic growth have been our government's focus since we began to tackle the recession, and that will not change. That is also why budget 2013 introduced the Canada job grant to provide for retraining of individuals who are looking to retrain and fill some of the numerous vacancies in our economy. The government remains singularly focused on creating an economic climate where businesses of all sizes are able to create jobs and invest in their operations and where we address the issue of people without jobs and jobs without people. Everyone wins.

Budget 2013 also aims to balance the budget by penalizing those who seek to avoid paying taxes. Through budget 2013, we are introducing new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion. We are also closing tax loopholes relating to character conversion transactions, synthetic dispositions, leveraged life insurance arrangements and other schemes, to ensure that everyone pays their fair share.

If people want the benefit of being a Canadian, that involves paying their share. To better promote economic growth, we have also extended the hiring credit for small business. It gives small business relief from the employer's share of employment insurance premiums paid in a year. It does this by crediting up to $1,000 on the payroll account based on the increase in an employer's EI premiums paid in one year over those paid in the year before. The simple aim of this measure is to encourage job creation in small businesses, which form the backbone of our economy.

Finally, once the budget is balanced, we will begin paying down debt again. As promised in the Speech from the Throne, we will bring the federal debt to GDP ratio back down to pre-recession levels by 2017. Deficit elimination, balanced budget legislation and paying down the debt are essential cornerstones of a strong and healthy economy. In closing, please allow me to quote the C.D. Howe Institute and its reaction to budget 2013: ...the 2013 budget should be well received by markets. Budgetary balance is projected based on reasonable assumptions and within the previously announced time frame.

That quote speaks for itself. Budget 2013 has been well received by the markets, and Canada is one of the few nations retaining their AAA credit rating. It was one of the last nations into the recession, it came out of the recession quickly and in the past four years the economy has created over one million net new jobs. This is great progress, but on this side of the House we are not content with that. We are eager for more.

It is clear that the Canadian way of prudent fiscal management comprised of debt repayment, responsible stimulus, timely deficit elimination, balanced budgets in the medium term and returning debt to pre-recession levels is the way to address extraordinary economic times. It lays the foundation for security and prosperity for years to come, in fact generations to come. I am encouraged to know that the nation my grandson, Tyler, is growing up in is safer, stronger, more prosperous and filled with opportunity. (1230) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I respect my colleague and I am pleased to ask him a question. His speeches are often well balanced and I am sure his answer will be no exception. Bill C-4 contains various measures. Why did the government choose to include provisions on the Supreme Court, for instance, in the budget implementation bill? Can he explain the link between these provisions and his government's budgetary measures that he boasted about throughout his speech? He boasted about his government's job creation record. We have heard all about that.

Can he make the connection between that and the various provisions that have nothing to do with a budget? Can he explain what prompted his government to make these choices? [ English ] Hon. Laurie Hawn : Mr. Speaker, in fact, Canada is an extremely diverse country and there are many things that go into making Canada a strong country. In terms of the economy, part of that is a very sound legal system, a very sound justice system. Obviously, the pinnacle of that is the Supreme Court of Canada.

Therefore, it is very important that we have, at all levels of the justice system, measures and the right kind of people in place to support the Canadian economy and the challenges that come before the Canadian economy, which may in fact also come before the courts. While it may seem a bit too diverse for my friend, and I understand that, that is one of the reasons behind some of the measures that we have proposed. Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments about the budget and I was especially intrigued by his comment about budget 2013's provision for the Canada job grant. One thing I did shortly after budget 2013 was to hold a round table in my community. A round table was held at Conestoga College where industry leaders were bought together who were looking for skilled trades people. Without exception, every person around that table applauded the Canada job grant. It is unfortunate that many of the provinces are dragging their heels on this at a time when what we are doing now is not working.

I cannot understand why they would not look at a model that would create jobs. Employers are eagerly trying to help us with that task. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the kind of support that he has seen in his riding. Hon. Laurie Hawn : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. In Edmonton Centre , Kitchener and probably pretty much every place across the country, employers, especially small businesses, are looking desperately for people with trades skills.

There are a lot of university-trained folks, and as good as a B.A. and B.Sc. might be, it does not really equip them to do some of the jobs we need doing. We have a country to build and we need skilled tradespeople. Small business is looking for them everywhere. One thing the federal government has to do is provide leadership, and that is exactly what we have done in bringing forward the Canada job grant. I think the provinces will get on board one by one when they realize that.

I know Alberta is being pressured and I am sure other provinces are being pressured by small businesses, saying, “Let's get on board here”. The federal government is providing leadership. They need to get on board because this is the right thing to do for the Canadian economy, it is the right thing to do for small business, and it is the right thing to do for Canadian workers. [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday evening a presentation was made on this bill, but in English only.

The presentation was made again last night in English and French, after the debate started. The people making the presentation admitted that they did not consult everyone affected by the measures in this bill. What does the hon. member think about that? [ English ] Hon. Laurie Hawn : Mr. Speaker, I was not privy to that particular conversation, so I cannot make a direct comment on that. The government consults very widely. Invariably, in doing those kinds of consultations, there is always going to be someone who says, “You didn't ask me”. That is a valid comment.

The government tries very hard to consult as widely as possible. Part of that is people coming forward to say, “You need to hear from me, too”. It is not just a one-way street; it is a two-way street. The government makes every effort to consult as widely as possible. Invariably, in an enterprise as big as the Government of Canada, as big as some of the things we are doing, someone is going to feel left out from time to time.

(1235) Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-4 , a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. The bill cannot be considered in isolation. Bill C-4 implements parts of this year's budget, and this year's budget is just another phase in Canada's economic action plan, an approach to governance that has allowed Canada's economy to lead the world through unstable times.

Since the global financial crisis that triggered this uncertainty, each year I hear members opposite claim that the government's policies would end up hurting Canadians. Each year statistics prove their worries are totally unfounded. While members opposite continue to attack our Minister of Finance , impartial experts continue to honour him as the world's best. While I expect the hyperbole to continue in discussing Bill C-4 , I would remind Canadians to consider the following when they hear the opposition parties attacking our record. Our debt to GDP ratio is by far the lowest in the G7.

Since the depth of the global recession, Canada has created almost a million net new jobs, the strongest record in the G7. These facts are praiseworthy on their own, but please also remember that we are on track to return to surplus. When the budget returns to surplus, we will not only enjoy the strongest record of job creation and fiscal discipline in the industrialized world, but we will also enjoy the benefits of investments made during the stimulus phase.

In Waterloo region, we have seen much needed expansion to our local post-secondary institutions to develop the talent and innovation that we need to remain prosperous. Conestoga College is better positioned than ever before to help business innovate their processes, and now operates a school of food processing technologies. Food and food processing is Ontario's second largest industry, but this school is the first of its kind in Ontario. We have seen community centres built or refurbished, and critical infrastructure such as waste water and roads renewed.

We have witnessed the explosive growth of high technology startups, coalescing around the federally supported Communitech hub. We have seen the impact of programs designed for southwestern Ontario delivered by way of the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, or FedDev, helping businesses such as Miovision Technologies capture new markets, and non-profits such as the Southern Ontario Locomotive Restoration Society build a station for the Waterloo Central Railway, a tourist link between the city of Waterloo and St. Jacobs in the township of Woolwich.

The agricultural adaptation program has supported businesses such as Martin's Family Fruit Farm, bringing apple chips to market, a healthy snack food that opens new markets for Canadian orchards. I could devote an entire speech to the investments our government has made in the Region of Waterloo Airport in Breslau that resulted in a safer facility, capable of handling a more diverse set of aircraft, which is critical for our area's continued growth.

All of this was accomplished during the most severe downturn since the Great Depression, while remaining on track for our return to surplus and without raising taxes on Canadians; all of this without raising punitive taxes on Canadians, as both opposition parties are calling for; all of this without gutting transfers to the provinces, as the previous Liberal government did.

How is it possible, Canadians may wonder, for a government to maintain the world's best financial position, while also maintaining low taxes, maintaining transfers to provinces and individuals, and renewing Canada's infrastructure on top of all of that. In my opening comments I noted that Bill C-4 implements budget 2013, which is the latest phase of Canada's economic action plan. However, even Canada's economic action plan is itself an implementation of our Conservative government's long-term financial plan for Canada, released in 2006, called Advantage Canada.

Advantage Canada outlined the five priority themes our government would focus on through good times and bad. Our belief was that if Canada could focus on lowering taxes, keeping our books in order, unleashing our entrepreneurial culture, building world-class talent and maintaining world-class infrastructure, Canada could reach new levels of prosperity to pass on to our children and to our children's children. Budget 2013 continued our focus on these priorities, and Bill C-4 implements measures that will enhance Canada's advantage in these key areas.

Bill C-4 , among other things, expands the eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance to include a broader range of equipment used in clean energy generation and biogas production. Budget 2013 renewed the accelerated capital cost allowance, and Bill C-4 expands on that application.

(1240) The accelerated capital cost allowance has been praised by businesses of all sizes in my riding. From Riverside Brass in New Hamburg to Chemtura in Elmira, businesses are investing in new equipment to keep themselves on top of a competitive global economy, thanks to our initiative. Depreciation is used by businesses to write off the value of their equipment according to government-set schedules. By accelerating the depreciation

schedule to a more realistic rate, we are allowing the tax system to recognize the speed of business rather than slowing business to the speed of government. By making more of the equipment that is used in clean energy and biogas production eligible for the accelerated capital cost allowance, we are removing obstacles to growth. Bill C-4 would also implement budget 2013's commitment to extend the hiring credit.

This measure incents small businesses, Canada's largest source of job creation, to expand and grow by providing up to $1,000 to offset the increase in EI premiums as an employer takes on employment with new growth. Over a half a million small businesses would take advantages of this opportunity, creating jobs for Canadians. However, the legislation would do more than help small businesses grow and create jobs. Bill C-4 would make it more attractive for Canadians to pursue entrepreneurship and to pass their businesses on to the next generation.

Small-business owners were happy to hear that Bill C-4 would increase their lifetime capital gains exemption by $50,000 to a total of $800,000, but they were ecstatic to learn that going forward this would be indexed. Many of them remember when the lifetime capital gains exemption went unadjusted for almost two decades, until this government assumed office. That is one more example of 13 years of inaction. It was wrong. It was unfair to small-business owners, who often put over 60 hours each week into their business, to blame inflation for making their retirement less and less viable. Never again.

If I could be permitted to diverge for a quick moment, many of my colleagues have asked what the mood is like in Waterloo Region, given the uncertainty around BlackBerry's future intentions. Despite recent challenges at BlackBerry, our mood remains positive and confident. Our community is headquarters to close to 1,000 technology companies that generate $30 billion in annual revenue. The collaborative sensibilities, scientific excellence and entrepreneurial culture that fostered BlackBerry's growth remain strong. Our government's initiatives will certainly provide encouragement.

Our investments supporting the creation of the successful Communitech hub, investing in talent at local universities and at Conestoga College, reducing red tape and incenting venture capital into the system have all been well received and are already making tangible results. However, in government there is always a cost. On this side of the House, we feel these costs are justified as investments that will pay dividends for years to come, but that does not mean our ability to spend is limitless.

Especially in these uncertain times, with so many priorities competing for federal dollars, it is more important than ever that all levels of government collect every dollar they are legitimately owed. Individuals and businesses who evade their taxes are not just pulling a fast one, they are denying money to our hospitals, first nations, student aid programs and other critical needs. Every tax dollar owed that remains uncollected is an extra dollar that someone else's tax bill assumes. Tax evasion has become much more sophisticated and our enforcement measures must keep pace.

As a member of Parliament who has encouraged action against the underground economy, I was pleased to see that Bill C-4 would introduce sanctions including monetary and criminal penalties to deter the use of software designed to falsify sales records for the purpose of tax evasion. This is not a revolution in approach; it is a natural evolution of our laws in response to the evolution of technologies, which is continually accelerating. It is much like the action called for in my Motion No. 388 targeting Internet predators, which received the unanimous support of the House several Parliaments ago.

These types of improvements can be supported by all parliamentarians regardless of partisan stripe. Bill C-4 would be the final step in implementing budget 2013. I ask all members of the House, especially those who claim to make decisions based on evidence, to accept the opinion of impartial experts from around the world that the Conservative government's approach has brought Canada to lead the world, to accept this latest phase of Canada's economic action plan, which would be just as beneficial to Canadians, and to get on board. (1245) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-4 . Earlier, when I asked the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques a question, I wanted to know whether the process behind all this was flawed. There was a mistake in another budget implementation bill, and it had major repercussions on credit unions such as the Caisses Desjardins in Quebec. That mistake was discovered after the bill was passed by Parliament, at which point the situation had to be corrected.

I wonder whether my colleague can assure us today that in this 308-page bill there will not be similar mistakes that fly under the radar because the process is too quick for studying such lengthy bills. [ English ] Mr. Harold Albrecht : Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that as long as Parliament is inhabited by human beings, there is always the option and the possibility of errors happening, but we also have a system that is very quick to respond to those imperfections and to correct them. Certainly our finance minister has shown that many times.

One mistake that I can assure my colleague we will not make is increasing the cost of doing business for Canadian companies by increasing their taxes or by implementing a carbon tax that would add significant cost and reduce the ability of companies to hire new people. We know that the creation of new jobs is one of the most important things that we can do in Canada to keep our economy strong. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that budget implementation plans are required to put into place the necessary legislation related to the budget.

However, I would like to ask him why this particular bill contains the description of the necessary requirements for a lawyer from the Province of Quebec to become a member of the Supreme Court. Why does it touch on labour relations in the public service? The matters are not related to the budget. They are quite separate and should be dealt with in separate bills. Mr. Harold Albrecht : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague will know that I am not a lawyer. I do not profess to be a lawyer or to understand all of the legal aspects of this bill, but as I look through even the

summary of this bill, it becomes very clear that the technical amendments that are part of this bill are necessary for the smooth operation of government. It is simply a matter of accumulating some of the technical amendments that have been on the back burner for many months, and in some cases years, and correcting the record so that the different departments can do their job effectively. [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is a budget implementation bill, not a bill on the way Parliament operates.

I asked one of the hon. member's colleagues a question earlier. I asked him what he thought about the fact that, when the bill was introduced yesterday evening, some government members admitted that the people affected by this bill were not consulted. Perhaps the hon. member did not hear that, but whether he heard it or not, does he think that this is a good attitude and a good practice? [ English ] Mr. Harold Albrecht : Mr. Speaker, I would concur with the answer given earlier by my colleague.

Obviously we want everyone who has input to be able to provide that input, but we know that during the pre-budget consultation phase of budget 2013, every Canadian had access to give input online. We were welcoming input from every Canadian. Members of Parliament—on this side of the House, at least—conducted many round tables to get input from different sectors of the economy, whether they were leaders of institutions, municipal leaders, job creators, CEOs of companies, or human resources people. We always want all the input we can get to create the best final product.

However, there will always be those who feel they were left out. We apologize for that, but it certainly was not our intent. (1250) [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Edmonton—Strathcona . Bill C-4 , the budget implementation bill, was introduced on Tuesday. That same evening, the government provided a briefing on the bill in English only.

Since it was in English only, which is against the rules, the Conservatives had to start over last night, after the debate had already started. When the second presentation on Bill C-4 was given—this time in both languages—the Conservatives themselves admitted that they had not consulted everyone affected by the bill. The Conservatives are not doing their job. Their measures are flawed, haphazard, amateurish and disrespectful. What is more, the Conservatives are once again imposing a time allocation motion.

They are allocating only five days of debate to a third, botched omnibus bill that is 300 pages long and amends dozens of laws, many of which have nothing to do with the budget. This shows just how little respect the Conservatives have for our democracy and our parliamentary structures. This lack of respect clearly demonstrates that the Conservative government is old and worn out and has no vision for the future of Canada and our various regions. Once again, parliamentarians must debate and examine important changes, including some meant to correct errors made by the Conservatives themselves.

This government is attacking Canadians' quality of life by gutting environmental protections, raising the price of consumer goods and doing nothing to protect consumers. Furthermore, the Conservatives have failed to kick-start the economy and create high-quality jobs. With this bill, the Prime Minister is once again undermining the government's ability to help and protect Canadians. Workers are the ones who will suffer the consequences. The most substantial and most reprehensible changes in the latest budget implementation bill will affect Canada's labour environment.

This bill fundamentally changes Canadians' right to a healthy and safe working environment. When workers' health and safety is being attacked, there is a problem. Yet that is exactly what this bill does. Indeed, it removes the powers granted to health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code and gives those powers to the minister. Do the members opposite really believe that taking basic protections away from workers will go unnoticed? In addition, it will be harder for employees to refuse to work in dangerous conditions.

The NDP firmly believes that no worker should ever be forced to work in dangerous conditions. Why place nearly all powers related to health and safety in the hands of the minister? It is likely in order to be able to place employees and send them wherever the minister wants to send them. We definitely see a pattern in the government's decisions in recent years. Employment insurance is an excellent example. The bill eliminates the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and gives the Minister of Finance the power to manipulate rates.

Having an independent and accountable body to oversee EI financing was in fact a Conservative promise. Now that promise has been broken. This is just one more broken promise. People from Charlevoix, the upper north shore, many regions in Quebec and the Maritimes remember the back-to-back Liberal and Conservative governments that shamelessly pillaged $57 billion from the employment insurance fund, that artificially pushed premiums too high to surreptitiously tax people, or that artificially dropped premiums too low to prove that the program did not work and needed to be cut. Workers deserve better.

The bill also extends the $1,000 hiring tax credit for small business. The NDP proposed a $2,000 hiring tax credit that would not come out of the employment insurance fund and that would help businesses hire and train young workers.

(1255) The Quebec economy is built on small and medium-sized businesses. They create jobs in the regions. Côte-de-Beaupré, Île d'Orléans, Charlevoix, the upper north shore and Quebec City are no exception. There is also the fact that so many of our industries are seasonal. However, this government does not seem to care about our communities. This bill also affects National Research Council Canada.

Once again, the government is gutting a Canadian institution, just as it gutted some of our most respected scientific research institutions, just as it fired some of Canada's best scientists and researchers without consulting the scientific community and without evaluating the potential consequences on Canada's scientific capability and its international reputation. Myriad experts, scientists and civil servants were muzzled or fired for not toeing the Conservative line. The budget implementation bill has the National Research Council in the crosshairs.

The Conservatives are cutting nearly half the jobs, but are giving the president, whom they appoint, more authority. Wow, bravo. The Conservatives made a mistake when they increased taxes on credit unions. This bill proposes changes to fix that mistake, which was made when they rammed the omnibus budget bill through the House. As result of this mistake, credit unions were facing a tax hike of 28% rather than 15%. On this side of the House, we are very disappointed to see that the Conservatives have not learned from their mistakes and that they are once again using an omnibus bill.

It was a bad decision to raise credit unions' taxes, but the Conservatives like raising taxes secretly or on the sly. The NDP has been fighting tax evasion since the party was created. We support the various technical amendments in this budget implementation bill that seek to reduce tax evasion. However, we find it troubling that the Conservatives are not taking the issue of tax havens seriously and are not cracking down on individuals and companies that do not pay their fair share of taxes.

Let us not forget that, even as this government claims to want to do more to fight tax evasion, it is making cuts to the Canada Revenue Agency. Another area that is affected is the public service, which is clearly being attacked in this bill. The changes being made to the Public Service Staff Relations Act do away with binding arbitration as a method of settling disputes. Why would a government make such a change if not to instigate labour disputes among public servants? My colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques , gave a very good speech about venture capital funds.

The Conservatives are going ahead with their $350 million ta