10029 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 153 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, December 2, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES December 2, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 153 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 153 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 153 (Version officielle) 147 153 02 12 2014 2014/12/02 10:00:00 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 (1000) [ English ] Public Sector Integrity Commissioner The Speaker : I have the honour, pursuant to

section 38 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, to lay upon the table the case report of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner concerning an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing. [ Translation ] This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

[ English ] Government Response to Petitions

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(

b) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 24 petitions.

Committees of the House

Public Safety and National Security Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-44,

an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Petitions Falun Gong Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first petition relates to the horrific human rights conditions experienced by Falun Gong practitioners in the People's Republic of China. The petition is signed by people throughout the metro Toronto area, who are horrified by reports of organ harvesting.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of British Columbia from various places, within Saanich—Gulf Islands as well as metro Vancouver. The petitioners call upon the government to legislate a permanent ban against supertanker traffic along the British Columbia coastline. The petitioners do not want dilbit in tankers on the B.C. coast.

Sex Selection Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions here from my riding. The petitioners call upon members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy terminations.

(1005) [ Translation ] Citizenship and Immigration Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today. The first is about suspending the deportation of an individual residing in Laval.

Gros-Cacouna Oil Terminal Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present is about the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal and was signed by a number of people from the north shore, Laval and Montreal. They are asking the federal government to reverse its decision and reject the Gros-Cacouna oil terminal proposal.

Midwives Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition is about my bill, Bill C-608 . Many people have signed this petition to make May 5 the national day of the midwife.

[ English ] Canada Post Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition on the cuts to postal services by Canada Post. This is one of several petitions that I have presented on behalf of particularly rural communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The petitioners are saying that the government should in fact tell Canada Post to maintain full postal service, particularly in rural communities, because of the impact it will have not only on the people who avail themselves of the services but on the economy in the area.

Housing Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have been working on affordable housing strategies for years, and so it gives me great pleasure to present 200 petitions from across Canada. The petitioners want to see us work on a national housing strategy where we can end homelessness, increase housing affordability, and provide tax benefits to rental investors for upgrading and creating new housing across Canada.

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 Deputy Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2 Bill C-43. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-43, A Second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures , as reported (with amendment) from the committee. [ English ] Speaker’s Ruling

The Deputy Speaker : There are 68 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-43. Motions Nos. 1 to 68 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. [ Translation ] I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 68 to the House.

(1020) [ English ] Motions in amendment Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) Motions Nos. 1 to 48 moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting the

long title. Motion No. 2 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting the

short title. Motion No. 3 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 102. Motion No. 4 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 103. Motion No. 5 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 104. Motion No. 6 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 105. Motion No. 7 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 106. Motion No. 8 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 107. Motion No. 9 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 108. Motion No. 10 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 109. Motion No. 11 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 12 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 111. Motion No. 13 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 112. Motion No. 14 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 113. Motion No. 15 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 114. Motion No. 16 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 115. Motion No. 17 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 116. Motion No. 18 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 117. Motion No. 19 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 118. Motion No. 20 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 21 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 120. Motion No. 22 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 121. Motion No. 23 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 122. Motion No. 24 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 123. Motion No. 25 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 124. Motion No. 26 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 125. Motion No. 27 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 126. Motion No. 28 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 127. Motion No. 29 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 30 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 129. Motion No. 31 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 130. Motion No. 32 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 131. Motion No. 33 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 132. Motion No. 34 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 133. Motion No. 35 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 134. Motion No. 36 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 135. Motion No. 37 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 136. Motion No. 38 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 39 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 138. Motion No. 40 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 139. Motion No. 41 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 140. Motion No. 42 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 141. Motion No. 43 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 142. Motion No. 44 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 143. Motion No. 45 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 144. Motion No. 46 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 145. Motion No. 47 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 48 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 173. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) Motion No. 49 moved: Motion No. 49 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 187. [ Translation ] Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) Motions Nos. 50 to 52 moved: Motion No. 50 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 225. Motion No. 51 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 226. Motion No. 52 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 228. [ English ] Ms.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) Motions Nos. 53 to 55 moved: Motion No. 53 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 229. Motion No. 54 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 230. Motion No. 55 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 231. [ Translation ] Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) Motions Nos. 56 to 68 moved: Motion No. 56 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 253. Motion No. 57 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 254. Motion No. 58 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 255. Motion No. 59 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 256.

Motion No. 60 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 257. Motion No. 61 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 258. Motion No. 62 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 259. Motion No. 63 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 260. Motion No. 64 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 313. Motion No. 65 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 378. Motion No. 66 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 379. Motion No. 67 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 380. Motion No. 68 That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 381. He said: Mr.

Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleagues for their speeches on the amendments. Since this latest omnibus bill is over 460 pages long, we hoped to improve even a small part of this very complex and problematic bill. Since getting their majority in the House, the Conservatives have introduced close to 2,200 pages of omnibus budgets, but they have agreed to just one single amendment proposed by the opposition. That is incredible. This omnibus bill alone will amend a huge number of Canadian laws.

The incredible thing is that this omnibus bill will fix a problem created by the last omnibus bill, which fixed a problem created by the omnibus bill before that. That is the kind of government the Conservatives are now running. It is bad for our economy and our country. [ English ] In this 460-page omnibus bill, there are many corrections to the previous massive omnibus bill, which fixed previous omnibus bills, because the Conservatives got it wrong and accepted no amendments. The Conservatives think this is a good way to manage the Canadian economy and to govern Canada.

This is a process that has failed Canadians. We see it creating conflict and uncertainty. We see it creating bad economic conditions that I will go into in a minute. It is a problem because it is using the power that a majority government has completely irresponsibly. There are a myriad of quotes from Conservatives who are now in cabinet who used to decry the Liberals when they used this exact same technique, ramming together all sorts of different laws that had nothing whatsoever to do with the budget into one package, one Trojan Horse bill. That is also true in this case.

The Conservatives called it anti-democratic and unfair. For once, they were right. However, if it was right in opposition, then it must be even more right when forming government, because the power that a majority government has to affect our country and our laws is a power that must be used responsibly, as opposed to the abuse of power that we see again with this bill, Bill C-43 . To put this into context, which is important with any budget implementation act, under the Conservatives' watch more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country. Consumer debt is at an historic high for Canadians.

Canadians owe more money now than they ever have in our history. We have seen a persistently high youth unemployment rate in this country, usually double that of the unemployment rate broadly. We have also seen consistency of long-term unemployment, which refers to Canadians who have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. It is at the same level as its worst level during the recession. There were Canadians who were finding it harder and harder to get back to work during the worst times of the last global recession, and the same is true now.

Twenty per cent of the jobless in Canada are made up of the long-term unemployed. I will leave talking about the unemployed until later. It is something that Conservatives are often chagrined to hear. In this bill, their feature item is oil. In the midst of global uncertainty and with oil prices falling below $70 a barrel, dropping almost 40% this year alone, we see no plan B from the government. Plan A is oil, plan B is oil, and plan C is oil.

When oil drops below $70, federal and provincial government revenues go off, but any hope for job creation also goes off because that is the only plan the Conservatives seem to know and have. It was in previous omnibus bills that the Conservatives tried to put truth to the idea of what the Prime Minister said back in 2006, which was that Canada would become an energy superpower. They would bulldoze their way through the countryside, laying pipeline down everywhere and exporting all that oil to market. They made changes in Canadian law through these omnibus bills to attempt to achieve that goal.

(1025) What have we seen but uncertainty and conflict? When pushed against the wall and forced to accept something without debate or input or any decent consultation, Canadians resist. They say they want fairness. They want their government to play an equal role in the economy and not favour one side over another. Canadians want to see the $1.3 billion subsidy to the oil sands, a direct subsidy to some of the richest companies on the planet, come to an end. They want to see an alternative. They want to see some options. They want to see plan B. They want to know we can have a green economy.

Despite a complete lack of effort from the federal government and another failed opportunity in this budget implementation act, we see the clean tech sector growing by leaps and bounds. It is up 37% in just a few years, and $25 billion has gone into the green energy sector in the last five years. That is greater than what has gone into the oil sands in northern Alberta. Do members ever hear the Conservatives talk about that? Do members ever hear them talk about the great success of the green energy movement in Canada, the clean technology industry's high-paying and high-quality jobs? No.

They blow all their capital on one industry alone. It is always wise to have a little diversity in an ecosystem and also in an economy. With Conservatives, we have seen all the eggs put into one basket, with no plan B.

As China's economy weakens, as Europe remains fragile and some European countries enter a recession, as some American indicators are showing weakness even as America rebounds, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said we may have a 0% or near flat recovery in the jobs sector, and in the midst of all that uncertainty and in the face of all that difficulty, the Conservatives bring forward an omnibus bill. In 460 pages, their one economic initiative to help Canadians get back to work is an EI jobs scheme that does not work.

It is a $550 million raid on the employment insurance fund, which even Conservatives admit does not belong to the government. More than half a billion dollars is ripped out of the EI fund in this omnibus bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has done the only credible analysis of this scheme, says it will create an astounding 800 jobs. He said each job created by this EI raid will cost upwards of $550,000. I have had a number of constituents write me. They want to know where they can apply for these $500-million-per-year jobs. They wonder why the government is promoting such a program.

We know that far too high a number of Canadians who fall out of work cannot even access employment insurance. That is the worst kind of insurance there is. It is something one pays into but can never draw from. The reason they cannot access it is that the Conservatives, and the Liberals before them, kept rigging and changing the rules so that fewer people, particularly women and low-income Canadians, could actually access employment insurance.

It is a scam, a scheme, and that is why it is put forward in this bill rather than as a stand-alone piece of legislation that members could actually debate here in this House. When we asked the government for its analysis of its scheme, its $550 million EI raid, we heard that the government had done no analysis at all. We asked the finance officials and the minister himself, who came before the committee. We said he was about to rip off the EI fund for $550 million to create these jobs, but had he done an analysis? He said they had not. They had outsourced it to a lobby group, the CFIB.

However, even the CFIB has said time and again that this employment scheme will not necessarily create the jobs the government hopes for. We see this as a failure of process and a failure of integrity. Just today in the stock market, the TSX is quoted as saying: The Toronto stock market deepened its decline on Monday as concerns about the Chinese economy, and discouraging signs from early U.S. holiday sales.... ...the mining and metals sector fell, while energy stocks tumbled.

In the face of all this, we would expect the government, with the powers of a majority government, to take the opportunity here in the House of Commons to do something about our weakened economy, to do something to help the green energy sector, to do something to help Canadians get back to work. We wonder when Conservatives are actually going to do something, drop the ideology, pay attention, and face reality in our economy. We need to help Canadians get back to work. We need to restore those well-paying manufacturing jobs. We need to do more than what is in this bill.

(1030) We have attempted, through our amendments, to make something good out of something bad. My concern, my suspicion, my reality is that Conservatives will do what they have always done, which is ignore the evidence in front of them. They will take an ideological stance and say that they know best. However, the numbers tell the truth. They do not. Conservatives are failing Canadians and they are failing the Canadian economy. Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for his comments. I want to thank him for leaving out a number of things in part four.

First I will note the extractive sector, which is an important initiative of the government with respect to the reporting of mining companies abroad. The member also forgot the latest reports on the growth of the economy by 2.8% last month. He forgot about that. I wish he would have put that in, and also the employment growth. The member made a comment with respect to the refund of the EI premium. I think he used the words “ripping off the EI fund”. If he recalls our comments from committee, there are two major contributors to the EI fund.

One is the employees and the other is the employers, who contributes about 60%. This is $550 million that is going back, especially to small businesses. In New Brunswick, many of our small businesses have fewer than 10 employees. We are putting $550 million back in the hands of small businesses, which in my view would not only help them but would help them maintain some of the employment they have today. The member cannot say that it is a rip-off. In fact, it is a refund of premiums back to a major contributor called the employer. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr.

Speaker, I am not sure I heard a question in the member's comments. There is actually a significant change in the argument we have heard from the Conservatives. If members remember, initially the finance minister said that this was going to create 25,000 jobs, or person years. They changed the metrics a little bit. The initiative to take $550 million out of the employment insurance fund, money that does not belong to the government, was to create jobs. That was the headline. That was the news. That is what the minister was saying.

However, when we asked for any analysis, when we asked them to defend this argument, they had nothing. What they had were a couple of quotes from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Dan Kelly, who is the head of that organization, said: On a firm-by-firm basis, I think that's quite right. You are not going to pay for a full job through an EI hiring credit. It is not a huge amount of money. This is not a scheme that will create the jobs the government claims.

In a time of economic weakness, in a time of global uncertainty, to take $550 million out of the EI fund and not create any jobs out of it seems like a failed opportunity. To not allow people who paid into the fund, because it is not just the employers, it is the employees, to actually access employment insurance, especially if they have lost their jobs, as 400,000 of them just in the manufacturing sector have, seems cruel. It seems bad for the economy. If the Conservatives are now saying that maybe it will maintain a few jobs, that is a completely different argument than the one the finance minister used.

They will have to get their arguments straight. The Conservatives certainly do not have any evidence to back up that this is what they claimed initially. This will not do what it says, and that is a failure of any intelligence from the government.

(1035) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, where I agree with the NDP finance critic is in regard to the Conservatives' employment insurance plan. What we have put forward is a plan that would see EI premium exemptions for every worker hired to fill a new job in 2015-16. This is a program that would ultimately see tens of thousands of Canadians in all regions of the country gain employment. My understanding is that during the last federal election, Jack Layton was actually supportive of this type of plan.

Does the NDP no longer support what Jack Layton talked about in the last federal election, or would the member join us in supporting this proposal the Liberals have put forward? Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, the challenge for the Liberals is that first, they have actually changed that particular proposal three times in the two weeks since they first introduced it. Second, the Liberals have it completely wrong. We had a small-business hiring tax credit that came out of general revenues that worked. It did not raid the EI fund.

It worked so well that the government picked it up, and small businesses loved it, including the CFIB, because it was a tax credit linked to the creation of a job, not the hope and promise of a job. We have seen massive amounts of tax cuts going to the largest and most profitable corporate sectors, which have not gone back into the economy. We have one of the lowest research and development reinvestment rates in the world. We have seen upwards of $600 billion that the Conservatives call “dead money”, money that was given back to them in tax cuts that they did not reinvest back into the economy.

If they are going to give businesses a break to create jobs, then why not tie the string and say that when the businesses create the jobs, that is when they will get the tax credit? That is what Jack Layton promoted and what we continue to promote, not these schemes that would only fail workers and hurt those who pay into the EI fund. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, since I was not able to get to the floor when my hon. colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , was speaking, I want to thank him for his remarks.

I am pleased to hear the official opposition turning a light on the question of the economics of this country and what is generally considered an unquestioned benefit of developing the oil sands. There are, of course, benefits economically to developing the oil sands, but there are huge economic risks in putting all our eggs in the bitumen basket. I appreciated my friend, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , asking, “What is plan B?” It does not seem to me that the current administration has a plan B.

Although it is not the subject or the pith and substance of the bill before us, I want to underline that it is important that we not just examine what is wrong with putting all our eggs in the bitumen basket from the point of view of the threat to British Columbia's wilderness of these ill-advised, risky pipeline schemes and the risk to our coastline of putting bitumen mixed with toxic fossil fuel condensates, called diluents, and calling it “dilbit” and shipping it to refineries overseas.

This whole project is a decision that Canada is better off when we take a resource from northern Albert and do not process it in Canada but put it in pipelines to ship to other places, without any consideration of the climate impact and without any consideration of the environmental threats. The failure to even examine whether the economics line up is astounding, and I am pleased to hear another member raise that issue in this place. However, I want to address the bill itself. As we know, it is an omnibus budget bill. It is, again, over 400 pages long.

It is the kind of abuse of Parliament that really constitutes a daily contempt of democratic process in this place. Here is a bill that covers everything from aerodrome regulation to getting rid of the Canadian Polar Commission and replacing it with the Cambridge Bay research station, which is now called the CHARS. There are sections of the bill that deal with patent legislation. We are told by experts in patents that they are not properly thought through and will cause real problems. There are changes in social assistance that appear to be targeting the most vulnerable in our society.

I want speak more to this issue and the way this piece of legislation would affect refugees. There are changes in the way the Chief Public Health Officer is allowed to run the department. These are very profound changes. Before getting into the details of the individual changes, I want to make the point again that making changes in myriad, unrelated sections, most of them non-budgetary, is an offence to parliamentary process. I have raised this point in points of order, Mr. Speaker, and take your explanation that it is up to the House itself to set some parameters around omnibus budget bills.

However, it must be said again that up until the current Privy Council and Prime Minister , we have never had omnibus budget bills topping each other each year. There is a spring budget bill and a fall budget bill, so we have had about 900 pages of legislation in 2012, 2013, and 2014 in these omnibus forms. The contempt is compounded, because none of these have been adequately studied. Most of them go through the finance committee, which finds itself trying to deal with questions about high Arctic polar research and how aerodromes should be run.

One piece of the legislation should properly be before the transport committee. Another piece of the legislation should properly be before the environment committee, but no, they are all bundled up and stuffed down the throat of the finance committee. On top of having them in omnibus form, we also have time allocation, so there is not the time to bring in the witnesses who could explain all the provisions and how the bill would affect myriad areas of public policy. That is offensive.

On top of that, we had in this place independent motions from 20 different committees, which were, amazingly, what a coincidence, identical motions last fall. They were for the purpose of limiting the rights of members of Parliament from smaller parties, such as me in my own role as leader of the Green Party or colleagues who sit as independents or the newly formed Forces et Démocratie or the Bloc Québécois.

Our opportunities to debate and to present substantive amendments at report stage have been eliminated by, I have to say, the Machiavellian expedience of 20 different motions in 20 different legislative committees that created the bogus “opportunity”, which I put in quotes, for members such as me to present amendments at each of those committees.

(1040) Some of these committees meet at the same time. I will not go into the details of how coercive, difficult, and unfair this measure has been. Never in the history of Canada has a majority party gone to such lengths to shut down individual members of Parliament. I would like to turn to the aspects of this bill that are the most egregious. I am very concerned about the change in the management of the Chief Public Health Officer. The bill changes his role from being the person responsible for his department to being subservient to a president of the organization, and no longer a deputy minister.

The Public Health Agency is a relatively new institution in the history of this Parliament, but is an important office. When we face public health threats we need to know that our Chief Public Health Officer will not risk being told, “We would rather you not talk about that now. We want to keep that under wraps for a while.” That is a dangerous road to go down and it is being accomplished in this omnibus budget bill.

I am also concerned about the changes that have been made to the provisions that deal with the ways in which the federal government transfers money to provinces and the requirements around those transfers, changes that were almost under the radar screen before people noticed them because they were not trumpeted. In the past, social assistance transfers did not have residency requirements and there were provisions to make sure that the most needy would always be able to get social assistance.

The changes that are being made in clauses 172 and 173 of Bill C-43 would make it much harder for refugees to gain that desperate assistance, despite refugees being the most vulnerable people in our society who get here with just the clothes on their backs. This does not accomplish it in one fell swoop, but is the first step in allowing a province to decide that a refugee claimant would not be able to get social assistance. It opens the door to the provinces to make those kinds of changes. There are also changes to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office.

These changes do not affect questions of justice, fairness, and equity in our society but would make the whole area of patent law much less certain and much more confusing. Amendments were recommended by experts in patent law, but as with all opposition amendments, they were ignored and voted down at committee. The piece of legislation that creates the Canadian high Arctic research station at the same time also eliminates what was previously the Canadian polar research station and the Canadian polar research commission. It is not at all clear how the two would merge. This bill repeals the polar research station.

Of course, it must be noted that the current Canadian high Arctic research station facility, which is in the front window as the current administration's commitment to science and is being built in Cambridge Bay in the Minister of the Environment 's riding, is designed not to do any research on climate or ozone. It is specifically focused on research for resource development in the Arctic. It certainly is to be commended for highlighting the important and essential role of indigenous and traditional knowledge going forward.

However, it is hardly appropriate in this day and age to focus so much research money in the Arctic and ignore climate, ozone, and the toxins that concentrate in the body fat of the wildlife that people of the north rely on for country food. (1045) [ Translation ] Let me sum up. These omnibus budget bills year after year are unbelievable. There was an omnibus bill in the spring and another in the fall.

Each one made significant changes to a number of other Canadian laws without allowing enough opportunities for speeches or enough time to study or debate these major changes. [ English ] It is an offence to this place that we continually have omnibus budget bills forced down our throats and done so quickly with time allocation. Once more, as a member of Parliament, I protest against these offensive measures, which strike at the heart of the role of parliamentarians. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her excellent speech. She and I share the same concerns about the process that is being imposed by the government. By taking rights away from MPs who sit in the House as independents, the government is forcing them to participate in a charade. It is a complete sham when they propose amendments. However, those members deserve to have their amendments considered because they, too, represent the public and the people who elected them. We tried to give them a stronger voice and more power.

Unfortunately, our voices fell on the deaf ears of this government. What is more, when the process was proposed in committee, the Liberals sided with the government and voted to force independent MPs to submit to this process, which gives them only one minute to present their ideas. There is no other avenue for debating their proposed amendments. I would like to ask the member a very specific question, which was discussed at the Standing Committee on Finance in the context of Bill C-43. There is an element in this bill that strikes me as being completely out of place in a budget.

It enables the provinces to withdraw or include a mandatory residency period for refugee claimants applying for welfare. My colleague brought this up at the Standing Committee on Finance, and I would like to give her a bit more time to comment on it. Would she like to say more about whether this is a legitimate measure to have included in a budget bill?

(1050) Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques . We are on the same wavelength. He was right to call this process in the Parliament of Canada a sham. We have not had the opportunity to really study this. We should be taking a serious look at the changes being made by these kinds of bills because they will impact many aspects of society. It is very serious. I would like to thank my colleague. [ English ] Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask a question with respect to the bill's amending the position of Chief Public Health Officer. At committee, the Chief Public Health Officer himself came in and said that the amendment in this bill would codify the way that the public health office has been operating since 2012. We really appreciated his comments, because he does such a great job for Canadians as the Chief Public Health Officer. He also expressed no reservations in that meeting with respect to his ability to report to the public and to provide scientific evidence.

In fact, he still very much has the responsibility to report to Parliament each year. I wonder if the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands can comment on why she is concerned. Does she not believe the Chief Public Health Officer and his assessment of the changes in this bill? Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I am not the least bit reassured by the fact that the newly appointed Chief Public Health Officer thinks that things will be fine. He is an expert in public health and he is a fine medical doctor, but I do not think that he fully appreciates the distinctions and the importance of independence.

The fact is that the chief public health officer for the Province of British Columbia, speaking on behalf of all public health officers at the provincial level across Canada, protests this change and believes that it is a big mistake. I would refer to a letter from Dr. Trevor Hancock, a professor and senior scholar at the School of Public Health and Social Policy at the University of Victoria, whom I know well. Dr.

Hancock has warned that this is violating “...the importance of a medical officer of health being an independent officer was established in the 19th century and is as true today as it was then, given the adverse health effects of poverty and of our industrial economy....” Clearly, the role should be independent. It is important for the public health officer to have the status of deputy minister so that with the other deputy ministers within the Government of Canada, information is shared quickly and directly, and that relationships are built between the Chief Public Health Officer and the other deputies.

This is an enormous mistake. I fear that the current public health officer will come to agree with me. Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I wish to speak to Bill C-43 and about families. The week after the events of October 22, my wife Judy and my daughter Megan and our then 10-month-old grandson came to Ottawa to be with Dad. Like many of us, I underestimated the effect that day had on our friends and our loved ones. Touring this building together, watching my grandson sit where you are sitting, Mr. Speaker, brought home how important our families really are.

Our new family friendly tax measures would make it easier for all kids to get involved in the many exciting opportunities that exist in their communities. For that, as community representatives, we should all be proud. This is the reason that economic action plan 2014 has my backing. It is a tremendous support for Canadian families. This bill would put more money back into the pockets of Canadian families, and work on improving the fairness and integrity of our tax system by closing loopholes and strengthening tax enforcement to ensure that all Canadians, not just a select few, have lower and fairer taxes.

Under this plan, every family with children would have money put back into their pockets so they can spend their money on their priorities. These latest tax cuts and benefits would see an average Canadian family save close to $1,140 in 2015. All in all, these savings represent close to $27 billion returned to the pockets of Canadian families over the next five years.

These latest tax cuts and benefits include the introduction of a family tax cut, an increase and expansion of the universal childcare benefit, an increase in the childcare expense deduction limits, and a doubling of the children's fitness tax credit, as well as making it refundable. The new family tax cut is a federal tax credit that would allow a higher-income spouse to transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket. This credit would provide tax— I remember when my kids were young and we took them to everything.

People would say that I must put in thousands of miles just driving my own and neighbouring kids to sports and community events. At the time, it never really dawned on me. After all, there was the excitement of watching my son Devin score the first touchdown for our new football team on the same field where my youngest brother had scored the last touchdown 20 years earlier before that team had folded; or the excitement of watching our daughter, after being fouled at the buzzer during the very first game for the Elnora junior high basketball team, then sink both foul shots to first tie and then win the game.

I have seen NBA players who cannot do that. The coaching, watching my kids and their teammates competing at regional and provincial levels in all types of sports, performing in plays and pageants, and even working on the farm together are memories of a family that worked, played, and laughed together. What about all those miles? I have always said I would much sooner drive my kids around than drive around looking for my kids.

(1055) The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is rising on a point of order. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my friend. I was listening to his speech and the measures he was talking about, and I was looking for some reference point back to the bill that we are debating. The measures that he is— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, my friends can argue if they would like, but the measures he is referring to are not in this bill and are not relevant to this bill. This is the budget implementation act.

The member is discussing measures that have not yet been introduced and are certainly not introduced through this legislation. It is just a question of relevance. The Deputy Speaker : I am at a disadvantage of not knowing that bill well enough to know whether in fact the contents of this speech are relevant. I would like some comment from the member for Red Deer. Mr. Earl Dreeshen : Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, certainly the discussion on tax reform refers to what is in the bill. If that speaks to the relevance of it, I would be happy to continue. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr.

Speaker, I very much appreciate it is a 468 page bill. I do not know if you have gone through every page yet. I am not sure my friend has, or others in the House, but it is an incredibly complicated bill. He is speaking very specifically about a number of measures that are not contained in the bill. It is one thing to say that he is speaking about taxes. It may change in the rest of the discourse. He may have a speech that is about the measures contained in the bill. We welcome that debate. We are here to debate the amendments that we brought forward and also the bill itself, if that is the broad

interpretation of what this debate is about. I know he is getting some sage advice, but to get into other measures that are completely not contained in the legislation stretches the bounds of relevance. Again, I understand the disadvantage he has of whether it is in Bill C-43 . It is one of those moments where I say “Trust me on this one.” The measures he has discussed so far are not at all contained in the bill. They are not referenced. There is no enabling amendments or pieces of legislation. It is just not contained in the bill.

If he wants to speak to Bill C-43 or the amendments we have moved, then of course we are interested in the debate. He now is getting papers from the lobby, which I am sure will help move this discourse along.

(1100) Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I apologize for taking the floor. I have read the bill carefully and I have to agree with my friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley . However, it is in the tradition of this place to both force down omnibus budget bill measures and to debate things that are not in them. On Bill C-38 , we often heard from ministers of the crown about sections of the bill that did not in fact exist. Mr. Earl Dreeshen : Mr. Speaker, it is called the children's fitness tax credit and it is in the bill. The hon. member had spoken of perhaps discussing some of the salient points that they had in their motions, such as amending by deleting the

long title, amending by deleting the

short title and amending by getting rid of this clause. Further deep thought involved with the motions were delete, delete and delete. From that position, they go to the Green Party with more deep thought to delete, delete and delete. This is the type of thing we are seeing. Therefore, if they want to speak to their motions, we could go that route. The Deputy Speaker : I am going to end the point of order. The member for Red Deer has made the point that at least the income tax credit is in the bill. That at least ties it well enough to relevancy that I think the point of order is not well taken.

I will allow the member for Red Deer to continue, again cautioning him that all members of the Speaker's office have made it clear over the past few weeks that we will look more closely at relevancy. Therefore, I would ask him to, as much as possible, keep his comments relevant to Bill C-43. Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order. In the course of defending the hon. member for Red Deer , in the course of rebutting the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley 's point of order, he made a gratuitous comment that the Green Party amendments were all deletions.

I would draw to his attention that in my speech I complained of the fact that the Conservative Party members had deprived me of the right I have under the rules of this place to bring forward substantive amendments. I would much rather be able to do what is my right, to bring forward substantive amendments at report stage, but the actions of his majority party have made that impossible. The Deputy Speaker : That is not a point of order. It is a matter of debate. The hon. member for Red Deer has four minutes left in his speech. Mr. Earl Dreeshen : Mr. Speaker, I was talking about families.

Perhaps it is an opportunity, if people have listened, to talk about how difficult it is sometimes to bring up issues that are important to families. I am somewhat perplexed by some of the things that have been mentioned by the opposition. I know that Jack Mintz, one of Canada's leading economists and the current director of the Palmer Chair in Public Policy at the University of Calgary, talked about this tax package.

He said, “The Conservative family tax package addresses a current inequity in the tax system, helping all Canadian families with kids.” This is the way we have to look at the different types of opportunities that exist in this bill and the way in which we can enhance them for families. Again, I know opposition members do not really want to talk about income splitting as being associated with that. I know there is a lot of discussion in which there is mention of it.

However, when we look at people with taxable incomes, let us say, of $60,000 for one person and $20,000 for the other person, they would have to pay $1,200 more in federal income tax than a couple that had two children with each spouse reporting a taxable income of $40,000. It is the same $80,000, but we need to take a look at that if it is split. These are great opportunities.

(1105) The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques is rising on a point of order. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry for coming back to the issue, but that is exactly the point my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley was trying to make. That measure is not in Bill C-43. Various tax measures have been announced by the Minister of Finance , but they have no place in this debate because they are not included in Bill C-43. I would ask the member to stick to the contents of the bill currently before the House. [ English ] Mr.

Bernard Trottier : Mr. Speaker, when I gave a speech a few weeks ago about Bill C-43 , the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour went on a rant for several minutes about the Arctic offshore patrol ships, none of which is even mentioned in Bill C-43. I commented that it was a very broad bill, an omnibus bill, as opposition members call it, yet they found things to talk about that were not even in the bill. Of course, the Speaker at the time said that there was considerable latitude and the member would get to his point eventually.

I wish the opposition would extend that same courtesy and understand that there are things connected to the budget. The Deputy Speaker : Income splitting is not in Bill C-43 , and we all recognize that. On the other hand, I will give the member for Red Deer the opportunity to continue. I think he is making a point that, indirectly at least, is relevant to Bill C-43 and to tax policy more generally. I will allow him to continue. The hon. member for Red Deer. Mr. Earl Dreeshen : Mr.

Speaker, I know that making the children's fitness tax credit refundable and these types of things that we have done certainly will help families. The critical

part is to ensure we do all we can to help families so they can be part of the community and enhance it. Encouragement is required for such a thing. Again, we have made changes, which include an increase in the adoption expense tax credit to help with the high cost associated with adopting children. There is also the medical expense tax credit to help with the cost associated with things such as service animals, specialized therapy and plans to help individuals cope with the effects of a disorder or disability. These are the types of things our government is doing.

However, we hear the opposition bring in these obscure arguments and suggest that we are trying, in some way, to stifle debate. This is good news. We are talking about a lot of great things. To have these opportunities for children and for families, and to show the great care we have for them, is something of which we should all be proud. To speak to budget implementation acts, we have continuously cut taxes. Since 2006, we have cut taxes over 179 times in every way that government collects them, whether it is through personal tax, consumption tax, business tax, excise tax and much more.

We know what the reduction of the GST, from 7% to 6% to 5%, has done. That in itself has put another $1,000 back into the average Canadian family. We cut personal income tax to 15% and have steadily lowered the general business tax rate from 21% to 15%, as well as the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%. This allows the economy to stay strong. All we have to do is look at Canada from the perspective of other places in the world. They look at us and wonder how we could get it so right when the rest of them have been struggling. The reason is the whole concept of having a reduction in taxes.

The reason for that is because it puts the money into the hands of individuals, and they know how to spend their money much better than governments do. Also, we have the tax-free savings account, which has become the most important personal savings tool since RRSPs, and we know how significant they are. We can continue to speak about the ways in which, over the years, and in this budget implementation act as well, we have been able to reduce taxes and put more money into the hands of individuals.

As can be seen, this government has clearly taken steps to make life more affordable for Canadian families, again, by creating family tax cuts along with the previous tax cuts and credits. Canadian families will be able to spend their hard-earned money on the things they believe are in the best interest of their families. I would ask all members in the House join me in supporting Canadian families by ensuring the passage of this bill. (1110) [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

More than half of what he said had to do with extremely technical measures that are not included in this bill. I would therefore like to hear his comments on some of the things that are in Bill C-43. Although it is a budget bill, many elements are not budget-related. For example, I would like to hear his comments on one provision that was not requested by the provinces. None of the provinces asked for it or even said they agree with this measure, which basically allows the provinces to establish a mandatory residency period for refugee claimants.

I am not talking about refugees whose application has been refused, but rather people who are applying for refugee status. This measure would take away their welfare benefits before they even have a chance to work or find any other means of supporting themselves. I would like to know why this measure was included in the bill and what the member thinks about it, especially considering that this would have no fiscal, budgetary or economic impact for the government. [ English ] Mr. Earl Dreeshen : Mr. Speaker, respecting the provinces and their jurisdiction is something this government has continually done.

I am extremely proud of the fact that we do these types of things and we ensure that it is in consultation with the different stakeholders, which is an important aspect of it. There are opportunities that we sometimes have with the budget implementation act technical briefings. I want to bring that up from the point of view that it is very seldom opposition members take the information they gain when they attend these technical briefings and present it to the House, because it does not really fit into their rhetoric which they would sooner have in question period or in the media.

It is important we recognize the experts in this regard and consider what they have to say in this area. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member indicated, and I suspect it comes right from the Prime Minister 's office, that the Conservatives have got it right in terms of taxation policy. Then he went on to talk about the income-splitting policy that the government recently announced. This is a policy that would assist less than 15% of the Canadian population, at a substantial cost of $2 billion.

It is going to be the middle class of Canada that is going to have to foot the bill for that income-splitting policy, something the former minister of finance in the Conservative Party was very critical of. Can the member tell the House why the government is penalizing the middle class of Canadian society, forcing them to pay for that $2 billion income-splitting promise by the Prime Minister ? Mr. Earl Dreeshen : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's points; however, it just shows how the Liberal Party does not understand how good government should work. The hon.

Jim Flaherty challenged his colleagues, and each of us took it upon ourselves to make sure that we had budget consultations and that we actually talked to people. The Liberals had opportunities to be involved in these discussions over the years. These are the kinds of things we would do. I look at the discussions that happened. The Prime Minister and the former minister of finance wanted our input. Our input has given something that is so strong for middle-class Canadians.

When they look at that and recognize the situation that exists there, I think they will find that they are extremely proud of the work we have done. Stronger families means stronger communities. With stronger communities, everyone is going to benefit. The members' comments are similar to the flawed notion that maybe those who do not have kids should not pay education taxes. These are the kinds of strange things that come from the opposition at times. Let us think about what I am saying. I remember the situation that occurred when the Liberals cut transfer payments, many years ago.

I was the chairman of a hospital board. I recognized the damage that had taken place. The Liberals are trying to make suggestions as we are putting more money into transfers and everything else. They should recognize that their record is not very strong.

(1115) Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I was told that technical briefings are something on which we should present information to the House. I am pleased to do that because I was at those briefings, and quite frankly, some things I heard shocked me. Most important, with respect to the changes in this bill around the ports, not a single port authority across the country was consulted. Not a single municipality across the country was consulted about the changes that are contemplated in this bill. In fact, there was no public consultation.

It was simply a change that was foisted upon the House as part of an omnibus bill. It is a practice that has been described as too frequent, too complicated, and unnecessary in the promotion of democracy by Professor Peter Russell of the University of Toronto, who is an expert in parliamentary procedure. The reality here is quite something. Ports are now being given the power to expand their letters patent arbitrarily and unilaterally by simply acquiring property. When they do that, those lands are then exempt from local zoning conditions.

No municipality was consulted and no cost-benefit analysis was done around what this does to local tax bases or the costs of operating the ports. Further to all of that, we now see in the city of Toronto that the port authority is seeking to regulate zoning permissions right across the city. It can unilaterally down-zone property, acquire it and then rezone it. That is a scam. There was no consultation and not a single conversation. It does not get much better when one starts to look at changes to aerodromes, which are under division 2 of

part 4 of this bill. Instead of having a public process where there are public boards and public conversations about the behaviour of aerodromes and airports in this country, now all the decision making would be concentrated inside the minister's office, not even in the House of Commons. Again, were municipalities or airport authorities consulted? What we heard in the technical briefings is that they were not. It was simply something dreamed up on the other side of the House.

This is the public process that omnibus bills give us: a concentration of power in the hands of a few, often unelected, and a complete departure from debate in the House, let alone public scrutiny and consultations. The government members may talk a good game about public consultation, but the only people they really talk to are each other. On aerodromes, significant concerns are being raised by pilots right across the country.

This is from the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, who oppose this bill but were never consulted about it, the very people who use the airports: We are concerned about the manner in which the Act amendment was developed, without consultation, how far the power of the Minister would extend and the one-sided nature of imposing consultation requirements and prohibitions on aerodromes when no such Aeronautics Act consultation requirements or prohibitions exist....

The government is making up legislation, but what is worse is that this bill was introduced as simply housekeeping, a few enabling pieces of legislation to get a budget bill through. This was never in any other legislation. It was never proposed, presented, nor debated in any part of this country. It simply showed up in a committee one afternoon and got into a press release, and then we are supposed to swallow it whole as part of an omnibus bill. That is unacceptable behaviour, and it is wrong. There is another serious issue that changes to aerodromes deal with, which is the impact on local communities.

Many defunct aerodromes are now being used as landfill sites, effectively. When construction happens in one part of the country, the land gets hauled to another part of Canada and dumped, without rules or regulations, because that is allowed. There is no public consultation, rule, or regulation about that. As a result, the power now resides with the minister, not the House of Commons. Decisions are being made in this House today as we debate this that will have far-reaching impacts in every corner of this country. We cannot and will not support that.

Those are the kinds of arbitrary rules that bring all the actions of this House into question. Turning to public health, not only does the government want no consultation with the public on other items, but on public health it is trying to bury scientific evidence, which is a really disturbing pattern of behaviour. A government appointee, who needs to have no scientific or medical expertise but who is simply a political functionary, is being dropped in on a public health department.

The medical advice we need to deal with things like SARS—and God help us if ebola ever arrived here—and the power of the chief medical officer of health to act unilaterally within a federal department when an emergency prescribes is being lost to someone without any medical expertise.

(1120) If we take a look at the history of what chief medical officers of health have done in this country, we will find that public works departments—not just of cities and provinces, but also of the country—are a direct result of medical advice and scientific evidence being presented to decision makers. From that, public policy flows. What are we doing? We are burying that expertise in a bill that purports to be a budget bill but is quite clearly another attack on science and evidence by the Conservative government. It is unacceptable.

The other issue we are dealing with is the employment insurance changes that are forecast in this bill. They are changes that have been denounced by virtually every significant economist in the country. When we went to the technical briefing and asked staff from that department where this idea came from, they had no idea. In the evidence that they produced as part of this debate, when they were asked directly what studies they had done to verify the claims being made by the government, they said not a single study was requested or done. In other words, the numbers come from a source outside of the government.

Where did these numbers come from? When we went to committee, what we found out is that the numbers came from the very lobbyists that asked for the cut. They are not verified. There was no due diligence. We are spending $550 million on a whim, on a promise from vested interests, on some conversation that happened in the back rooms of some ministerial office.

When the party across the way asks for us to go to committee and listen, which we do, and asks us to attend technical briefings and focus in on the evidence that is presented, the evidence is that there is no evidence, yet the policy emerges out of the back rooms as if it is somehow well thought through. When the Parliamentary Budget Office does report on these topics, what do we get? We get a complete contradiction of the numbers that are presented by the ministers. It is not 500 or 1,000 jobs; it is 800 jobs. It is 800 jobs at a cost of $550 million.

On the same legislation, which would freeze premiums, the Parliamentary Budget Office's evidence, which was presented in committee, is very clear. This act would cost the economy 10,000 jobs. That means there would be a net loss. We would be cutting taxes, but we would be cutting employment at the same time and leaving Canadians in a very bad spot. The information that has perhaps not reached the Conservative benches is very simple. When 10,000 people lose jobs, tax cuts do not help. When 10,000 people lose their jobs, families are negatively affected.

The Conservatives can hand out all of the tax cuts they want for kids in sports programs, but if parents are not working, kids are not playing. It is that simple. That is the evidence that is presented as part of this discourse, yet that evidence never seems to reach the backbenches on the other side, and it certainly does not reach the talking points of the ministers involved. The final and most horrific part of this bill is the private member's bill, which is not a budget bill. It is political discourse. It is rhetoric that has slipped its way into this omnibus bill.

The Conservatives were not confident enough to present it as government policy. They put it in place and then they slipped it into an omnibus bill, hoping that no one would notice, but of course, we all noticed. The reason we noticed is that this notion of denying social assistance to refugees is morally bankrupt. It is wrong. When we went to the technical briefing and asked the staff of the department if they had consulted with anybody, the answer was no. Did anybody comment? It comes back that one province spoke up.

That one province, the province I reside in and Parliament resides in, the Government of Ontario, said not to do this. What was the government's response? It did it. For all of those reasons, this bill cannot be supported. It must not be supported. If the Conservatives were serious about what they heard in committee, they would withdraw it.

(1125) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague. I wonder if he might want to provide some additional comment with regard to the manner in which this legislation has taken into account numerous other pieces of legislation. Instead of introducing stand-alone legislation, which no doubt would have had more debate in the House, the government has used the budget bill to pass an abnormally high number of other things that could have been brought in separately, under separate pieces of legislation. Mr. Adam Vaughan : Mr.

Speaker, the examples in recent days have been numerous. However, when the government acts unilaterally on a single piece of legislation, it gets ripped apart. The veterans bill is not even a week old but has already been withdrawn, rewritten, and turned on its head, and the minister is running all over the world trying to avoid any questions about it. Because of the political failings of the government opposite, I can understand why it would want to have an omnibus bill. It is easier to hide bad legislation.

The reality here is that as we start to pick apart even the high water marks of this folly of a piece of legislation we can see that there is no reasoning, no rationale, no factual support, no research, and no documentation supporting any of the claims being made publicly by the ministers or the government backbenchers. What we end up with is opposition member after opposition member standing up and picking apart clause by clause, division by division, explaining why division 14, division 20, and division 19 do not work.

Therefore, the Canadian public is left wondering why the government would present such a horrible omnibus bill. The reason is that it is all so bad that people cannot pick out which

part is the worst. Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote into the record from Dr. Greg Taylor, the Chief Public Health Officer. He said this at our finance committee meeting with respect to the changes to public health: The changes proposed do not diminish the role of the chief public health officer, they enhance it. In essence, they associate internal management and capacity issues with a dedicated agency head and direction on public health issues with the CPHO. It makes good management sense and good public health sense to make these changes.

It's a structure that works well for many provinces and territories, and for countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia. In fact, we've been moving this way as an agency for some time now and have, in fact, adopted this type of management structure since 2012. The member is saying that the government is not listening. Does he not listen to Dr. Taylor, the Chief Public Health Officer? Mr. Adam Vaughan : Mr.

Speaker, if we look at all of the organizations that have been cited there, in particular Australia, we will see that the person brought in as chief medical officer of health is also a doctor and a scientist and manages multiple departments within that agency. That does not interrupt the ability for scientific and evidence-based decisions to come forward. The trouble we have here is that the government shows a clear pattern of not appointing someone with expertise or capacity, but simply people with political skills to do the work that scientists and people with evidence should be doing.

The problem we have with the way in which the government is processing this is that we know that it does not like science, expert opinion, and evidence. What it wants is simply to bureaucratize the information it is receiving and politicize it so that it does not have to listen to it. In this case, there may be a way of rationalizing it as a replication of other jurisdictions, but what we have is the deliberate practice of a government that refuses to engage with science, refuses to look at data, and dismisses evidence.

It is saying, “Don't give us the facts, give us the anecdotal evidence.” That is how it proceeds case by case. We can see it with the harm reduction strategies around InSite and the common sense firearms licensing act. Every time you run into evidence, you change the bureaucracy and politicize it. That is why the opposition has absolutely no confidence in your ability to restructure this department.

(1130) The Deputy Speaker : I am shocked. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina should be directing his comments to the Chair. I assume he was not directing those comments to the Chair. In any event, in the future could he direct his comments to the Chair, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to inform Canadians about how our Conservative government is successfully implementing the initiatives in our economic action plan to promote jobs and growth and support families and communities. Our initiatives, which are part of Canada's economic action plan, greatly benefit families in rural regions, such as my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. One of the important requirements of municipalities that is being met by our federal Conservative government is the provision of long-term predictable funding for infrastructure.

I am very proud of our government, as it has delivered a new Building Canada plan to help finance the construction, rehabilitation, and enhancement of infrastructure across my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. As the people in my riding know, they have been abandoned by the Liberal Party of Ontario.

Unlike the Province of Ontario, which discriminates against rural Ontario by withholding provincial gas tax revenues, our federal government returns gas tax revenues to the municipalities to do the needed infrastructure upgrades and take the pressure off the property tax base, which, along with the high electricity energy prices, is forcing people on fixed incomes, like seniors, out of their homes. Through the now-permanent and indexed federal gas tax fund, last year communities in my riding made needed infrastructure repairs.

Communities like the Township of McNab/Braeside received almost $221,000 for road reconstruction. Madawaska Valley received approximately $134,000 to reconstruct Tamarack Road; and the Township of Laurentian Valley received almost $600,000 in federal gas taxes to resurface or reconstruct five roads in 2013: Ema Street, Spruce Street West, Whispering Pines Crescent, Vaudry Drive, and B-Line Road. North Algona Wilberforce received over $98,000 to begin work on Marsh Road, to resurface Snodrifters Road, and to construct a dry storage shed for salt.

The Township of Admaston/Bromley received $83,000 to resurface South McNaughton Road. The City of Pembroke received almost $860,000 to reconstruct the Pembroke Street Bridge, as part of an ongoing federal contribution since 2011 to fix various streets and replace water and sewer lines, amounting to over $1.7 million. The County of Renfrew received $2.5 million for road resurfacing and rehabilitation. The Town of Renfrew received $250,000 in federal gas tax dollars to rehabilitate Queen Street.

In 2013, Petawawa received almost $0.5 million for Herman Street, with a cumulative federal gas tax fund total for that project amounting to almost $1 million. The Township of Whitewater Region received $378,000 to resurface Pleasant Valley Road and Rapid Road and Bromley Line Road to the end. The Town of Arnprior received $360,000 for roadwork; and the Township of Bonnechere Valley received over $93,000 to reconstruct and put a new surface on Crimson Maple Road. The Town of Deep River received $96,000 for work at the W.B. Lewis Public Library parking lot and sidewalk.

The Township of Killaloe-Hagarty-Richards received over $24,000 for sidewalks, and $150,000 for roads and culverts. Horton Township received $40,000 for roads. The United Townships of Head, Clara, and Maria received $23,000 for HVAC improvements. Greater Madawaska received over $84,000 to pay down debt on a waste management project started in 2005, for a cumulative total of over $400,000, and other federal funding of $225,000 for a total project cost of $1.2 million. The Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan received over $180,000 to resurface a 2-kilometre

section of the Jewellville Road and a 3.5-kilometre

section of the Addington Road. The Township of South Algonquin received $226,000 to do Hay Lake Road repairs, and to repair Maple Drive, Galeairy Lake, and Algonquin Street.

(1135) In total, in 2013, $6.9 million flowed to my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, generating over $20 million in municipal construction activity. I remind municipalities, particularly municipalities in Ontario, that the backroom advisers in Toronto who devised the policy to discriminate against rural municipalities and only pay out the provincial gas tax revenues to urban communities have surrounded the inexperienced leader of the Liberal Party here in Ottawa.

They want federal gas tax dollars to pay for failed social experiments, like the industrial wind turbines that no community wants, and have cancelled the gas plants. They refer to the industrial wind turbine white elephants as a green initiative to save the environment. In fact, the Liberal Party in Ontario is being sued for $653 million for manipulating the so-called Green Energy Act by using “political favouritism, cronyism and local preference”, according to the court filing.

Compare and contrast that with the long-term predictable funding associated with the way our federal Conservative government manages federal gas tax funds to municipalities. Just ask the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO, what he thinks of federal municipal partnerships. He said we are open, honest, and transparent. Moreover, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has acknowledged that our tax relief has successfully targeted low and middle-income families.

He said, “Cumulative tax changes since 2005”, which is when our government took office, “have been progressive overall and most greatly impact low-middle income earners (households earning between $12,200 and $23,300), effectively resulting in a 4.0 per cent increase in after-tax income.” The federal tax burden is at its lowest rate in 50 years. We have removed more than one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls entirely. The average family of four will save nearly $3,400 this year, and a small business with revenues of around $0.5 million now saves over $28,000 in taxes, thanks to our low-tax plan.

It is clear that Canada has become an international success story, but Canada is not immune from economic challenges beyond our borders. Those challenges include foreign dirty money funnelled to special interest groups to implement policies that would kill jobs in our forestry and energy sectors. Our government is clear that as long as Canadians are looking for jobs, we will not pursue policies, particularly ones based on junk science, that will put ordinary working Canadians out of their homes and out of work.

With that, I will now turn to the measures in today's legislation that would build on our success and ensure that we would continue to keep Canada on track for job creation and balanced budgets. First, Bill C-43 reaffirms the government's commitment to making our tax system simpler and fairer. It closes tax loopholes and strengthens tax enforcement to ensure that taxes are low for all taxpayers, not only a select few. Allow me to highlight some of the measures we have taken to improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system.

I would like to close my initial comments by saying that for the first time, according to The New York Times , middle-income Canadians are better off than Americans. That is something Canadians can be very proud of. I urge my parliamentary colleagues to support their country by voting in favour of all the good measures contained in Bill C-43 . (1140) [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her remarks and particularly for the itemization of the subsidies given to municipalities.

I also took particular note of the fact that the Pembroke Street Bridge will be repaired as a result of federal funding. I have a simple question: will there be a toll on that bridge? The Champlain Bridge in Quebec is obviously crumbling, not because of gravity but because of negligence, and there will be a toll on the new bridge. I hope that the people who use the Pembroke Street Bridge will not have to deal with these same challenges. The member mentioned that the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario thinks that the gasoline subsidies program, the return of the gas tax, is extraordinary.

However, the member forgot to mention that the president said that the funding is insufficient. There is not enough money to renew municipal infrastructure. The funding that is being granted is not even enough to cover the cost of repairing existing infrastructure. Will the member tell us where, in this budget, we can find a solution to the problem of municipal infrastructure? Everyone is saying that the budget does not provide a solution to this problem. [ English ] Mrs. Cheryl Gallant : Mr. Speaker, in addition to our gas tax refund, we have the Building Canada plan. Canada's economic action plan is working.

It has had one of the strongest job creation records in the G7 since the height of the recession. Nearly 1.2 million net new jobs have been created in our country since July 2009. Globally recognized authorities from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to the International Monetary Fund have ranked Canada as one of the best countries in the world in which to do business. Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite's long list of accomplishments the gas tax has brought her riding.

I am very proud to be a member of the party that introduced the gas tax. I remember, as a young reporter, covering that announcement by the then finance minister Paul Martin in Hamilton. I remember then following that announcement up to the Hill to cover the passage of the budget. I recall distinctly that a party voted against it. She was a member of that party. I am curious as to why she voted against the gas tax when it has done so much good for the community she represents, and how she squares that with the comments she just has made. Mrs. Cheryl Gallant : Mr.

Speaker, when the third party was in government and was implementing a gas tax rebate, it made the criteria so difficult and so far fetched in terms of so-called green action plans that smaller communities were unable to benefit from the program. We have implemented long-term, committed, stable funding and municipalities can actually do the planning to do the necessary work so a crisis does not arise when it comes to infrastructure. Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like ask my hon. friend a question. Let me first put this in context.

Let us remember back to when the NDP was in power in Ontario. The only thing that increased back then was the unemployment rate. Ontario entered a dark age in economic performance, from which it is still reeling. As far as the Liberal Party goes, we saw that the just society was a dismal failure. Now it is trying to enter the Justin society. It is a party that plundered the employment insurance fund of $54 billion, which the Supreme Court ruled was illegal and that this money belonged to the employers and the employees. Now the Liberals are advocating for increased taxes.

I hope my hon. friend can answer these simple questions. How has our government been staying on track? Our government has a plan that is recognized around the world as a plan that gets results in achieving a balanced budget in 2015. Our lower taxes have helped create employment in our country, leading to 1.2 million net new jobs being created since the end of the recession? Could my hon. friend comment on how lower taxes help create jobs in our country?

(1145) Mrs. Cheryl Gallant : Mr. Speaker, by keeping our promise to Canadians to return to a balanced budget, our government is focusing on moving forward with its initiatives so hard-working people can also benefit from our sound fiscal policies. After all, budgets do not just balance themselves. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-43.

I have heard some members talking about the content of this bill, unlike the last two Conservative members who rose, namely, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and the member for Red Deer . They spoke about everything but Bill C-43 in their remarks. This bill is 460 pages long and contains 401 clauses.

Part 4 alone, which deals with measures other than budgetary measures, has 31 divisions. I therefore cannot believe that these members were unable to choose some part of the bill to debate in the House. I find that unfortunate. In my opinion, it clearly shows that very few Conservative members read the bill and understand its scope, magnitude and impact. I would like to draw attention to something that the member for Red Deer said when members rose on points of order. He said that we should listen to what is happening and attend the technical briefing.

I was at the briefing, and I know that the member for Trinity—Spadina and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley were also in attendance. A number of opposition members were there and yet I saw only one Conservative member. The questions we ask and the concerns we raise often come directly from things we learned about during the technical briefing, including the issue of allowing the provinces to impose a residency requirement on refugee claimants before they can receive social assistance. We asked the officials questions about this during the technical briefing.

We learned that none of the provinces asked for this. In fact, the provinces are perplexed and wonder why the government is going in this direction, especially after being rebuked by the Federal Court on the issue of health care for refugee claimants. When there is so much stuffed into one budget implementation bill, why are members talking about everything but the budget bill? As I did at second reading, I get a kick out of asking the different MPs questions about specific aspects of this bill. It is obvious from their answers that they have not read the bill.

For example, when I ask them to talk to me about the consequences of changing the electoral process in the Northwest Territories, they have no idea what I am referring to. This is included in the bill, but the members look at me like I am speaking a foreign language. This bill raises a number of concerns. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley raised a very troubling issue having to do with the small business tax credit. In fact, the businesses are being given more of a premium holiday than a tax credit.

Businesses that pay less than $15,000 in employment insurance benefits will receive a partial premium holiday with no strings attached. It is clear, as many have mentioned already, that this measure will lead to a tax loss of $550 million for the government. The government is giving up more than half a billion dollars without any guarantee that a significant number of jobs will be created. This measure will cost more than half a billion dollars and will come directly out of the employment insurance fund.

It seems to me that at the very least, the Department of Finance should do an impact assessment of such a measure. However, every official, the minister and everyone who could tell us about this said that no such study was done. What kind of governance do we get with this government, which implements measures without even doing an impact assessment? That runs counter to common sense and also to the principles of good governance. No private company that does business with a vendor would accept an assessment that considers only what is to the vendor's advantage or what is in the vendor's own interest.

However, the government voluntarily had another party do the economic and job creation analysis for a major item in this budget without doing its own analysis. The government relinquished its responsibility for promoting sound fiscal and economic policies.

(1150) I am still waiting for a clear and sensible explanation. How will this measure, which will cost $550 million, or about $700,000 per job, really create jobs when the Parliamentary Budget Officer has clearly said that it would create at most only 800 new jobs over a two-year period? This is not just about giving money back to small businesses. We must not forget that this money comes from the employment insurance fund. If the fund posts a surplus in coming years, it will be because of higher contributions imposed on employers and employees, and also because of the restricted access to employment insurance.

Since 2006, under this government, the number of contributors eligible for employment insurance benefits decreased from 43% to less than 37%. Therefore, this money that we are giving back to small businesses comes from the pockets of employees who paid employment insurance premiums, but cannot themselves obtain benefits because of more restricted access to the employment insurance program. This restriction affects our regions in eastern Quebec and the region of the member for Tobique—Mactaquac , among others. New Brunswick depends to a great extent on seasonal work, as does my region of the Lower St.

Lawrence and my riding of Rimouski—Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. The range of measures in Bill C-43 make no sense. I have asked a few questions about this. I proposed that we let the provinces impose a residency requirement. This is not a matter of respecting the provinces' rights. The provinces receive a transfer from the federal government specifically to finance social assistance. Basic minimum standards were established; these standards, on which the federal and provincial governments agreed, state that a residency requirement cannot be imposed on someone who is applying for social assistance.

The system is universal, which means that if someone paid taxes in Saskatchewan and moves to Ontario, they cannot be denied social assistance because they paid taxes in one province and moved to another. Refugee claimants are among the most vulnerable of the most vulnerable. While their claim is being processed, they have no other opportunities to earn an income to support themselves and their family. They cannot work. If their social assistance is eliminated, what will they do while they are waiting for their refugee claim to be processed? They will have to go to soup kitchens and sleep in shelters.

That is not an ideal situation. With respect to health care for refugee claimants, for which the government was rather harshly admonished by the court, this is, once again, a measure that is solely designed to discourage refugee claimants who are living in precarious situations and whose lives are often in danger in their home country, and who no longer see Canada as a haven. I could point to plenty of other measures. I talked about

Part 4, which includes 31 extremely complex measures, most having nothing to do with the budget process. It is clear to me that this government is drifting farther and farther from good governance principles. It is forcing opposition members to oppose budgets, which we will do at report stage and at third reading. This government has no idea how to govern democratically or even how to use the opposition properly to improve its bills. We found at least five or six measures that exist solely to correct errors that we frequently pointed out during studies of previous budget bills.

The opposition's role is not just to oppose. It is also supposed to point out shortcomings in the government's bills.

(1155) This government, however, has no respect for the process or parliamentary traditions. Bill C-43 makes it clear that the government has no respect for the budget process. For all of these reasons, we will proudly oppose Bill C-43 at report stage as well as at third reading. Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, his comments, which I really appreciate, and his work as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. [ English ] I would like to pick up on one of the comments that he made with respect to the refund and EI.

As I mentioned before, 60% of themonies paid into the EI fund are paid by employers, and the refund is going directly to them. I know that we had a comment in our committee when we talked about the CFIB. We seem to always to use the CFIB when it is convenient for us, and the other party uses it when it is convenient for them. The CFIB has clearly stated that it sees this as creating 25,000 person-years of employment. I hope that I did not hear the member say that he is discounting the CFIB's analysis on this refund. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say the same to the member for Tobique—Mactaquac . I really like working with him on the Standing Committee on Finance. I have a lot of respect for the work that he does and the efforts that he makes. Before the Standing Committee on Finance, I made it clear that I have a lot of respect for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the work that it does. However, this federation works on behalf of its own members. Its main role is to lobby various government MPs and departments to obtain benefits and conditions for its members. That is its main role.

The study submitted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business contradicts the study conducted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Given that these two different studies came up with completely opposite findings, the government's role is to ensure that an independent analysis is conducted. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is already an independent body. However, if there are different findings, the government should ensure that a legitimate analysis is carried out and ask Department of Finance officials to conduct an internal analysis to assess the impact of the measure.

Ideally, the results of this analysis would be made available to all members and even the general public. We do not have access to either of these studies, which is extremely unfortunate. This constitutes negligence on the part of the Department of Finance and the government. [ English ] Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is at this point in the legislative process that the House of Commons examines the work of the finance committee.

I was at the finance committee when the particular clause involving the tax credit for businesses that pay less than $15,000 in EI premiums was considered and when amendments were rejected by the government. What I would like to complain about is the work of the committee, in that the point was made that for small businesses that pay just over $15,000 in EI premiums, there is a very large marginal tax on the business. That is a strong disincentive for a business just below $15,000 to hire more people or to increase wages, both of which are good things.

It is also an incentive for a small business that pays slightly more than $15,000 to lower wages or to reduce working hours for some of its employees. The point is that there was no response from the government side in committee. In my view, because there was no proper debate in committee, the committee was not able to do its work. This point was not given proper consideration, especially by the Conservative members of the committee. I invite my colleague to comment on that. (1200) [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr.

Speaker, that is an extremely relevant question that has not received all the attention it deserves. The $15,000 limit on EI premiums paid by businesses is problematic. Businesses can benefit from the contribution holiday only if they did not reach that limit, which could induce them to limit their activities. If a business expands and has to pay $15,500 or $16,000 per year in premiums, it might be motivated to reduce its employees' hours of work or lay someone off—although I doubt that would happen—in order to be able to benefit from this contribution holiday.

There is therefore a perverse incentive for companies whose premiums are close to the limit set by the government to take advantage of this contribution holiday. The negative impact of this system must be examined more carefully by the committee. However, we had only five meetings, including the meeting with officials, to look at the impact of this bill. The process was bungled and does not at all reflect the complexity of the issues we examined. [ English ] Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am certainly honoured to be here today to speak to a couple of the key features of the 2014 budget and economic action plan. For Canadian families, this year's budget demonstrates the fulfillment of a promise made by this government to return the Canadian economy back to balanced books and surplus. Currently, this government is right on track to do so. In my limited time here today, I want to give an overview of how this year's budget would meet such a promise through creating jobs, investing in research and development, and supporting Canadian families. Let us first talk about jobs.

Since taking office in 2006, this government has made it a central priority to address what has been on the minds of Canadians from coast to coast to coast: the creation of jobs. Since the economic recession, Canada has recovered more than all of the output and all of the jobs lost during the global recession. The Canadian economy has posted one of the strongest job creation records in the G7, with nearly 1.2 million jobs created since July 2009. Over 80% of the jobs created since that time are full-time positions, nearly 80% are in the private sector, and over 65% are in high-wage industries.

When I have a chance to travel on parliamentary business, I see that colleagues from all over the world are obviously impressed with the kind of record that we have and that we have created, and they want to know how we do it. If we just look at the numbers we heard last month, we see that in October we had an increase of almost 43,000 jobs, which dropped our unemployment rate to 6.5%, the lowest since 2008. This government has created an environment in which businesses can flourish, and almost 182,000 jobs have been created in the past years. That is a pretty impressive record by any stretch of the imagination.

When it comes to other G7 countries, most countries can only wish to have the kind of record that we have. One way in which this government has been able to create this substantial accomplishment is through strengthening the investment, training, and employment opportunities available to our young people here in Canada.

When it comes to training young people to develop the skills necessary for key growth industries in Canada, this government has taken seriously the demand put forth by employers to gain an increased role in training decisions and to gain the support needed to train new employees with minimal red tape. Several programs supported within this budget, such as the Canada summer jobs program, the Canada job grant, and the Canada apprenticeship loan, have provided funding to not-for-profits, the public sector, and small-business employers to create a great number of job opportunities for young people.

I had a chance to meet a number of these individuals in my riding. It is always interesting to see them. For example, I think of the Jordan Historical Museum and having the chance to talk to the two young ladies who were there last year who were given an opportunity. The field that they would like to go into in some capacity is museums, whether as curators or being involved in exhibits, et cetera. Because of the money that the Canada summer jobs program provided, these two ladies had a chance to see first-hand what was going on, to experience this work in the field,

whereas otherwise they might not have been able to have that opportunity. That is just one small example that I think has very practical applications. By developing an accessible path for students to transition out of full-time studies into job sectors that they are passionate about—and I can assure members that these two ladies were very passionate about their jobs with the museum—this year's budget looks to continue the strong legacy established by these programs in helping move forward the aspirations of Canadian employers and students alike.

Since it began in 2007 and through to 2013, the Canada summer jobs program has helped over 260,000 students, while the Canada job grant and the apprentice program have allowed for an investment of over $50 million in up to 4,000 internships in both high-demand and small- and medium-sized business sectors. These initiatives all make Canada's labour force more competitive and shape a path toward enhanced national prosperity and growth. As a member of the Red Tape Reduction Commission, I am pleased to say this government is now implementing another one of our recommendations.

We are cutting the administrative burden on more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account of source deductions. The 2014 economic action plan proposes to continue supporting the elimination of unnecessary barriers for employers and the creation of important programs like these, which put more money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

(1205) Youth employment strategy, or its short form, YES, is another program with strong results supported in this year's budget. YES provides skills development and work experience for youth at risk, summer students, and recent post-secondary graduates. Economic action plan 2014 announces that our government will improve the youth employment strategy to align it with the evolving realities of the job market.

This process would also ensure federal investments in youth employment provide young Canadians with real-life work experience in high-demand fields such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and skilled trades. Creating these jobs for students benefits not only youth and employers but local economies as well. That is why our government will continue to support programs in this year's budget that help connect young Canadians with available jobs. Let me talk a little now about research and development and the Internet.

Investing in employment opportunities is only one part of how the budget proposes to continue to move the Canadian economy forward. The other half of its strategy is that it is investing in the promise of new inventions, new ideas, and new minds. It is these important features that currently give Canada an economic edge over its international competitors. Our government has helped foster these innovations and discoveries by funding research and development projects throughout the country.

In 2014, we continue the trend of increasing annual research and development funding, with the total spending now at $1.6 billion over 5 years. We have long recognized that the development of new ideas and new products is key to Canada's future prosperity. It fuels the growth of small and large businesses and drives productivity improvements that raise the standard of living of Canadians. Improvements to technology and infrastructure, such as our connecting Canadians program, deliver on the government's commitment in economic action plan 2014 to invest in programs that benefit all Canadians.

Bringing high-speed Internet to an additional 280,000 Canadian households in rural and remote regions of the country, this program is ensuring that Canadians are equipped with the skills, tools, and opportunities needed to be competitive and thrive in the 21st century. It is because of programs like these that Canada remains the G7 leader in research and development expenditures in the higher education sector as a share of the economy. Our universities are recognized internationally for providing a world-class education.

We must continue this legacy by investing in the intellectual and social capital that culminates in our places of post-secondary and higher learning. Through our economic action plan 2014, we will continue this legacy through creating funds to support research, academic excellence, and higher learning. Prime examples of the investments the budget makes in the brightest minds of tomorrow are the Canada first research excellence fund and the venture capital action plan. These initiatives help Canadian post-secondary research institutions leverage their key strengths to the benefit of all Canadians.

Within the next decade, the Canada first research excellence fund will provide an additional $1.5 billion to advance the global research leadership of Canadian institutions. The venture capital action plan aims to make significant resources available to support Canada's booming venture capital industry, including the allocation of $400 million to help increase private sector investments in early stage risk capital. Complementing the investment in research and innovation, I want to conclude my time today by focusing on what the budget aims to do for Canadian families.

In my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook, families are very important. There is no higher calling for a government than ensuring that every Canadian family with children will have more money in their pockets to spend on their priorities. The family tax cut, a federal tax credit, will provide tax relief by allowing higher-income spouses to transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket.

Increasing the universal child care benefit for children under age six, doubling the children's fitness tax credit, and increasing the child care expense deduction dollar limits all represent measures that make important priorities, like child care and after-school sports, more affordable for parents. Simply put, these measures put hard-working Canadian families and their children first.

Whether it is creating jobs, investing in young people, research and development, or supporting Canadian families, our government is displaying strong leadership and taking important steps in moving this economy and nation forward. The budget benefits Canadians nationwide and puts in place initiatives that cultivate growth and prosperity. Mr. Speaker, it is for this reason that I am honoured to stand before you today and put forward my support for the implementation of this year's budget.

(1210) Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today and speak on Bill C-43 . The title of the bill is rather misleading as it describes a bill to implement the budget and other measures, which is exactly what I want to start with: the process that got us to this place today. This is yet another omnibus budget bill. It is a bill that would actually do much more than what Canadians might think a budget would do. A budget would be about economic priorities, fiscal matters, and the like.

However, yet again, the bill before us is 460 pages in length with 400 clauses and would do so much more than deal with budget measures. It is misleading, in fact, to call it a budget implementation bill when it deals with matters that have nothing in the world to do with budget. Of course, that is the pattern of the Conservatives. This is number five on a long list of budget bills. I have the honour of representing Victoria, and I sit on the finance committee where, frequently, we deal with matters that have absolutely nothing to do with finance.

I have a little trouble back in the riding explaining what I am doing talking about those measures, but that, I guess, is just the way it is. However, I also have difficulty explaining why amendments are proposed and uniformly voted down by the Conservatives, even when those amendments are self-evident improvements to a bill in specific matters. Having spoken about the failed process, the anti-democratic process that led us to this place, I would like to talk about the substance.

I will speak about the things we would support and oppose in the bill, and the things that are glaringly obvious by omission in the bill. It must be said that there are things that are supportable in the bill. One that comes to mind initially is the NDP's long-standing proposal to deal with the pay-to-pay problem. Seniors in my riding of Victoria constantly complain about paying more for a telecommunications bill if they get it on paper rather than online. They do not have a computer and they do not want to do that. Well, the government, in its typical way, went halfway.

The Conservatives went along with the pay-to-pay provisions vis-à-vis broadcasting enterprises and telcos, but I guess the banks had a better lobby, because glaringly obvious in omission is anything to do with bank fees. I guess that is because the banks had a better lobby than telcos, or perhaps there were disputes elsewhere with that sector of the economy. However, at least the Conservatives went halfway, and we give them credit for that half measure. Second, there were measures to improve the clarity and integrity of the tax code, which is something New Democrats had been proposing for a long time.

However, so much more needs to be done about tax evasion, and I will talk about that in just a moment. There are other issues, such as the implementation of a DNA data code to help solve the crisis in missing aboriginal women and girls. This is a long-standing proposal that the government has now recognized, and we accept that. Last, there is the backlog on appeals to the Social Security Tribunal. This will be addressed by allowing more members to be appointed, which, again, is something that has been sought by the NDP for many years. I said that I would talk about what was missing from the bill.

There is $7.8 billion a year that is missing, and that could be available to Canadians if the government were serious about the issue of tax havens. It has been a passion of mine to try to get the government to take this seriously. However, $7.8 billion is an estimate, and it can only be an estimate.

Contrary to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's attempts, our attempts, and the Senate's attempts to get the government to actually measure the tax gap, as our friends in the U.K., France, and the United States have been doing for years, the current Conservative government somehow thinks it is a waste of time and cannot be bothered. If we do not measure something, how can we manage it? Is that not public administration 101? However, the government refuses, and so I can only give an estimate, which can be accused of being high or low, but it is a big number.

Corporate tax avoidance, in particular, is a global epidemic. Even though Canada is proud, and the Conservatives are, of having the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7, we still have corporations that send their money abroad.

(1215) An example is tax shifting or transfer pricing. In order to pay even less tax, those companies that have the lowest corporate tax rates in the G7 still have their favourite trick. What is that? They sell a patent to an offshore subsidiary. Then they charge themselves licensing fees for the use of the same patent. That is a good trick. Other countries have closed that loophole. We do not seem to care.

I have introduced Bill C-621 , which would address the economic substance and require that there actually be economic substance before those paper transactions are allowed, costing the Canadian treasury billions of dollars because the government simply does not want to take the time to go after corporate friends on Bay Street. Bill C-621 would do what Dr. Robert McMechan wrote about in his book Economic Substance and Tax Avoidance: An International Perspective . Dr.

McMechan, who really helped in drafting Bill C-621, pointed out in his doctoral thesis at Osgoode Law School, having been a practitioner with the Department of Justice and doing tax litigation for many years, that the government could close this loophole if the courts could get back on track with looking at the economic substance of transactions rather than whether or not they appear to be okay on paper. That is something like going after the general anti-avoidance rules vis-à-vis corporate tax avoidance. That is what my very short bill, Bill C-621 , would do. It would basically put Canada on track, as Dr.

McMechan points out, as regards our other allies whose courts seem to have stuck to economic substance. Ours, I am afraid, have gone off the rails. There is a lot of money we are not going after. A few years ago the Conservatives, faced with 106 Canadians with secret bank accounts totalling over $100 million in Liechtenstein, did nothing. How many have been charged? How many have they gone after? Apparently they have gone after none.

Compare our woeful record of doing little to go after tax evaders with Australia's Project Wickenby or the action going on in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom to go after tax avoiders. Canadians should be ashamed of their government's performance. Back in September, somebody from inside the department wrote us and said the minister announced that the elimination of a host of senior tax office positions at the local level, including in the international and aggressive tax planning programs.

Seventy individuals, with over 1,000 years of cumulative specialized expertise in going after these intricate, complicated corporate transactions, were gone. Fifty people in CRA alone lost their jobs. That is the priority of the Conservatives in going after what could have been an enormous source of revenue. That is missing in this budget. I have talked about what we like in this budget and what is absolutely missing. In terms of things that ought not to be in a budget but that need to be done is more action on youth unemployment and on homelessness. Homelessness is a crisis in my community of Victoria.

I attended a lecture by Dr. Gaetz of York University, who pointed out that homelessness costs the Canadian economy $7 billion per year if we take into account social services, health care, corrections, and interaction with law enforcement. That is an enormous number. If investments were made to deal with that, the return on the investment—language the Conservatives would apparently like—would be enormous. For example, for the hardest to house, for every $10 we invest in Housing First initiatives to address homelessness, $22 would be achieved through offset costs. There is a crisis in affordable housing.

We are not using the income tax system to incent the creation of affordable, low-cost rental housing in communities. We have lots of condos, but we do not have housing for those people who are living hand to mouth in our communities and who are themselves just a few steps away from being homeless. In conclusion, it is politics 011 that a budget reflects the priorities of a government.

The government's priorities do not deal with the crises of unemployment and homelessness, nor fairness and equity, nor does it provide income for Canadians by actually going after money in tax havens in a more aggressive way, as so many of our allies have done. (1220) [ Translation ] Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He very clearly highlighted what is missing from this budget. Everyone knows that a budget contains revenues and expenditures. This government has made many cuts in order to reduce expenditures.

The hon. member outlined a way to increase revenues and, at the same time, show fairness to those who pay their taxes honestly. He spoke about tax evasion. It is surprising that, on one hand, the government is eliminating the positions of public servants who deal with the tax evasion issue in order to cut down on government expenditures. On the other hand, this government has cut corporate taxes to historic low levels. Tax evasion is a very important issue. What would an NDP government, with Thomas Mulcair as prime minister, do to restore tax fairness? [ English ] Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's excellent, thoughtful question. There are a number of things. We would invest in return on investment. That is to say, ROI from expenditures on real people doing the job in the CRA would produce the kinds of enormous returns we have seen in other countries. We think it is good business. We think it would deal with the fairness aspect and the equity my colleague referred to so persuasively in his remarks. That investment would help on both of those fronts.

There would be more income for all of us to build roads, schools, bridges, and so on, and of course, it would deal with the glaring unfairness the current tax code reflects. We would close tax loopholes, stock options, and those sorts of things. Many of the proposals the Canadians for Tax Fairness brought to this place and to the finance committee would find favour in an NDP government. (1225) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his visionary speech. Everyone knows that finance and numbers are his forte. I trust his analysis.

We have to admit, as the hon. member for Louis-Hébert said, this is not complicated: there are economic challenges. I think that nearly all of the western world is facing new challenges. At this very moment, the government continues to cut services and transfers, playing hardball when it comes to spending. That being said, to put it in terms of a family analogy, money is being thrown out the window. I would like to hear my colleague talk about how much money we are losing to tax evasion. [ English ] Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr.

Speaker, going after tax havens would appear to be the most fruitful way in which Canadians could recover income to do some of the things on infrastructure spending, homelessness, and issues that were alluded to by my friend, which, of course, we think are priorities of the government. Integrated work with the OECD is an excellent start, but we need to have people who know what they are doing. As a law professor, I saw some of the best and the brightest drawn to the tax field, because it is complicated, intricate, and rewarding for those who have a brain for that sort of thing.

The best and the brightest are there every day on Bay Street figuring out just how to take advantage of this complicated tax code that gets bigger and bigger every year. We need people who can fight fire with fire. We need that kind of expertise to be hired. We need to bring people on in a number of ways to do the job. They are not there anymore, because the senior people, by the CRA's own admission, are no longer in place. How can we fight fire with fire if we do not have the people there to do the job? Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of our government's economic action plan for 2014, a plan that contains many measures that will benefit the constituents in my riding of Richmond Hill and indeed all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is a plan that promises to help foster economic growth, to create jobs, and to reduce taxes. Today I would like to focus my remarks on how our government plans to provide more flexibility to the provinces and territories on the design of their social assistance programs. Social assistance payments are the jurisdiction of provincial and territorial governments.

Through the Canada social transfer, the Government of Canada will transfer more than $12 billion to provinces and territories this year in support of post-secondary education, social assistance, and social services as well as early childhood development, early learning, and child care. As part of Bill C-43 , our government proposes an amendment to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act that would give provinces and territories the flexibility to introduce a minimum period of residence before most foreign nationals could access social assistance in their jurisdictions.

While provinces and territories are responsible for determining eligibility for social assistance, if they decide to impose a minimum residency requirement, they currently risk a reduction in their Canada social transfer payments. With our proposed changes, provinces and territories would no longer be penalized should they choose to establish a minimum waiting period. On this side of the House, we respect provincial and territorial jurisdiction. That is why we are proposing to allow provinces and territories to make all the decisions surrounding social services.

These changes would allow provinces and territories to introduce a residency requirement for most temporary foreign nationals. As is currently the case, Canadian citizens and permanent residents would not be subject to these provisions. Those who have been determined to be in genuine need of protection would also be excluded from this provision. I remind this House that temporary residents include temporary foreign workers, international students, and visitors.

To obtain a visitor visa or a study or work permit, all foreign nationals must demonstrate that they can support themselves and their dependents financially for the duration of their stay. However, temporary residents are just that. They are here on a temporary basis to study, to work, or to visit Canada as tourists. Our proposed amendment is in line with this requirement in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. What we are prop