OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 071 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, April 8, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES April 8, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 071 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 071 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 071 (Version officielle) 147 071 08 04 2014 2014/04/08 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 (1005) [ Translation ] International Labour Organization Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

article 19 of the constitution of the International Labour Organization, the ILO, member states are required to bring recently adopted ILO conventions and recommendations to the attention of the competent authorities. [ English ] I am pleased to submit to the House, in both official languages, two copies of the report of the Canadian position with respect to a convention and recommendations adopted at the 99th session, June 2010; the 100th session, June 2011; and the 101st session, 2012, of the International Labour Convention, in Geneva, Switzerland.

Committees of the House

Agriculture and Agri-Food Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and an honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, in relation to Bill C-30,

An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures . The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) Bill C-588. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-588,

an act to amend the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act (Sambro Island Lighthouse) . She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce my bill for the protection of Sambro Island lighthouse. Sambro Island lighthouse is found off the coast of Nova Scotia at the mouth of the Halifax Harbour, just off the small, proud fishing community of Sambro. It was the earliest lighthouse built in North America, and it is the oldest continuously working lighthouse in the western hemisphere.

In 2010, the government declared almost 1,000 lighthouses surplus to its needs, meaning that Fisheries and Oceans would no longer have the responsibility to care for any of these lighthouses. The community wants to protect the Sambro Island lighthouse. It is a piece of our history, our story, and it is an iconic structure for the area. However, it is not realistic to assume that the community can take on the responsibility of this lighthouse, a lighthouse that is located on an island, in the Atlantic Ocean, a lighthouse that quickly becomes inaccessible due to weather or swells.

My bill would designate the Sambro Island lighthouse as a heritage lighthouse under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, and put the responsibility for this iconic structure where it belongs, with Parks Canada. I would like to thank the community members of Sambro and Ketch Harbour and area, and the Sambro Island Lighthouse Heritage Society, who have worked so hard to draw attention to the fate of the Sambro Island lighthouse and tried to develop a community solution.

I would also like to recognize the work of Barry MacDonald, who has worked tirelessly to protect our lighthouses across the country and who continues to offer his expertise to our cause. I hope that all members can recognize the importance of the Sambro Island lighthouse to Canada, to our country, and that they will support the bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

National Garden Day Act Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) Bill C-589. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-589,

an act respecting a National Garden Day . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a private member's bill that would enact a national day for gardens, which would be the Friday preceding Father's Day. One might wonder why it would be Father's Day, not Mother's Day. In discussions with horticulture societies across the country and the Canadian Horticultural Council, they have acknowledged that the horticultural industry is a billion-dollar industry across the country.

After the severe winter we have all lived through in this country, I think we would all appreciate that one of the things to look forward to would be flowers—flowers blooming in beautiful colours in gardens from coast to coast to coast across this great land of ours. This would be a way, not only to plant our own gardens, but to enjoy our neighbours' gardens as well. That is not to suggest that we should take flowers from our neighbours' gardens, unless, of course, they are offered to us as a donation to plant in our own garden to propagate it even more.

This would be a way for all of us who have lived through this harsh Canadian winter to look forward to something that is truly spring-like, that truly makes us feel good, and that is actually good for our environment. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions Pensions Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from members in my constituency asking the Government of Canada to work with provincial and territorial governments to increase pension benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans, and implement a fully funded plan to phase in such an increase without delay.

Rail Transportation Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a petition, with hundreds of names, from people from Sault Ste. Marie who are very concerned about the federal government's abandonment of the Algoma Central Railway. The Algoma railway plays a very important role in northern Ontario, connecting communities that are unable to be connected in any other way. It is also an economic corridor for many of the outfitters in the small communities along the route. The petitioners are frustrated with the lack of action by the federal government.

The petitioners are asking parliamentarians and New Democrats to stand up to fight for the vision of sustainable rail transportation across Canada, and particularly on the Algoma Central Railway line.

(1010) Pensions Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today I table a petition from residents of Winnipeg North who are concerned about the government's decision to increase the age for receiving OAS from 65 to 67. The petitioners believe that people should be able to continue to have the option to retire at the age of 65, and that the government not in any way diminish the importance and value of Canada's three major seniors programs: OAS, GIS and CPP.

Nuclear Fuel Processing Licence Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present on behalf of my constituents. The first petition centres around the GE Hitachi plant on Lansdowne Avenue. The petition is signed by residents, some of whom have lived around the plant for 40 years and never known exactly what it produced, notwithstanding a condition in the licence that required the plant to tell everyone who lived around the plant. The petitioners are very concerned about the lack of oversight in the enforcement of the licence. Employment Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the second petition pertains to the fact that in Toronto right now, up to 50% of all workers cannot find a full-time stable job, a job that comes with benefits, a workplace pension, and job security. The petitioners are expressing concern for that and support for my private member's bill calling on a national urban workers strategy.

Consumer Protection Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, finally, notwithstanding the government's decision to clamp down on pay-to-pay fees, there are still a multiplicity of examples of companies charging their customers money just to receive their bill in the mail. This unfairly targets seniors and people on fixed incomes.

[ Translation ] VIA Rail Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to table three petitions on the same subject: the decline of VIA Rail service in eastern Canada. One of these petitions was signed by thousands of people in the Acadie—Bathurst region; others were signed by 24,000 people in the Campbellton region; and another was signed by about 5,000 people in my riding, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. The petitions I have here are just some of those many signatures, but they testify to the truly deplorable decline in our region.

In the Gaspé, the train used to run three times a week, but now there is no service at all. In northern New Brunswick, it used to run six times a week; now it runs just three times a week. If CN closes the 70-kilometre line from Miramichi to Bathurst, passenger rail service in all of eastern Canada could be lost for good. [ English ] Sir John A. Macdonald's national dream is at risk. I hope the government will uphold its predecessor's dream and ensure coast-to-coast service.

Mining Industry Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petitions from residents of the Victoria area in support of private member's Bill C-474 . This bill calls for transparency in the activities of mining corporations abroad, requiring the publication of any funds and moneys that have been provided by them or their subsidiaries to any foreign government for purposes of furthering mining, oil, and gas industry activities. The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr.

Speaker, the second petition comes from residents of Vancouver and the Burnaby area. It is very timely, given the opening of the process under the National Energy Board for the proposed Kinder Morgan expansion. The petitioners are calling for the respect of this House, the federal government, and the province for the moratorium on tanker traffic on the B.C. coast, which has existed since 1972.

[ Translation ] Public Transit Operators Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I have two petitions signed by people from Montérégie who are asking MPs to create a separate offence for individuals who assault on-duty bus drivers. They are very concerned about the safety of public transit, particularly in view of the desire to enhance public transit in Montérégie, throughout Quebec and across Canada.

[ English ] Canada Post Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions signed by thousands of Canadians across the country, including those from my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam, and Port Moody. The first is from Canadians who are concerned with cuts to Canada Post, the elimination of door-to-door service, the loss of up to $8,000 jobs, and the significant increase in postage. They call on the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts and look for ways to innovate in areas such as postal banking.

(1015) Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Canadians who want the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning and ensure the responsible conservation and management of sharks. They call on the Government of Canada to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fins to Canada.

[ Translation ] Public Transit Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table three petitions today. The first is about a public transit strategy.

Canada Post Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : The second is about Canada Post. The people want to know the government's position on the Canada Post Corporation Act.

Drug Shortages Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : The third petition is about my Bill C-523 on the mandatory disclosure of drug shortages. The people who signed this petition have observed that the Government of Canada's voluntary approach has not reduced the impact of shortages on patients and health care professionals.

[ English ] Jericho Garrison Lands Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a set of petitions from residents of Vancouver, as well as my riding of Vancouver Quadra, who are concerned about the announcements that there will be a strategic disposal of what is known as the Jericho Garrison lands, which is 22 hectares of land in the middle of west Point Grey. It has significant heritage buildings, trees, and green spaces. They are concerned that there has been no public consultation with respect to this disposal.

The efforts that I have made to get clarity about the timing and a commitment for consultation have been rebuffed by three different ministries. Therefore, they are calling on the Government of Canada to coordinate a full process of public consultation prior to the commencement of any disposal of the Jericho lands.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Question No. 307 will be answered today. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 307--

Mr. Scott Simms :

With regard to the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund (SSOPF): (

a) what actions have been funded by the SSOPF, broken down by (

i) province, (ii) event site, (iii) departments involved, (iv) companies involved, (

v) vessels involved, (vi) cost, (vii) details of all analysis and results, (viii) the file numbers of all departmental or ministerial briefings related to each event; and (

b) what are the details of all events the fund has considered assisting, or for which the fund has been applied to, but not actually funded, broken down by (

i) province, (ii) event site, (iii) departments involved, (iv) companies involved, (

v) vessels involved, (vi) anticipated cost, (vii) details of all analysis and results, (viii) the file numbers of all departmental or ministerial briefings related to each event, (ix) the details of why the request to assist was declined?

Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the ship-source oil pollution fund is independent and operates at arm’s length from the department. The fund has an administrator who is responsible for its management and the payment of claims for compensation.

Questions regarding any claims to or payments made from the ship-source oil pollution fund should be directed to the fund.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 304 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 304--

Hon. Ralph Goodale :

With regard to the costs of providing security to the Prime Minister, what are the total costs for each fiscal year, from 2003-2004 to 2013-2014?

(Return tabled)

[ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Request for Emergency Debate Temporary Foreign Worker Program S. O. 52 Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to request an emergency debate on the huge problems we are having with the temporary foreign worker program. As we know, this is not a new issue, but it has become an emergency since time after time we have had the HD Mining scandal, the RBC scandal, the oil sands, and now McDonald's in Victoria, and other fast food outlets. It is an absolute abuse of this program, where Canadians are being displaced.

As we have no opposition day motions left before Friday is upon us, I am requesting an emergency debate so that we, as parliamentarians, can address the major flaws in this program. Canadians right across this country, whether I speak to them in my riding, or in Toronto or Edmonton, are very worried. In Victoria, there is an example of Canadians being denied jobs while temporary foreign workers are being brought in. Parliamentarians need a detailed debate because when the media reports on something, there is a tiny tinkering with the program and then we carry on. Tinkering will not fix this program.

The key question is why LMOs were granted. I would suggest it is because the proper data, proper enforcement, and procedures required to make sure that Canadians are not being denied the jobs are not in place. As you know, Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are not opposed to the temporary foreign worker program, but it has to be used only when employers are training people for the skill shortages that exist or when there are no Canadians available. It does not mean displacing Canadians from the jobs that they can do. Youth unemployment is in the double digits. This is an emergency right across this country.

(1020) Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I thank the hon. member for raising this issue. Although I am sure that she has a concern, I do not find that it meets the test to grant an emergency debate. I will point out that the House, in a few moments, will resume debate on the budget implementation bill, where, of course, members are granted more latitude on the types of remarks they can speak to. I am sure members who wish to can avail themselves of that opportunity.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ Translation ] Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 The House resumed from April 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures , be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment. Bill C-31. Second reading Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how disappointed I am with this bill. After all this time, one might think that we are accustomed to this kind of bill, which is so bad for Canadians, but I am not. Bill C-31 is a very important reminder of that reality. I rise today to denounce the Conservative government's arbitrary tactics. Last Friday, the government introduced Bill C-31,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures . The problem is that this bill is another omnibus bill. It is over 360 pages long and includes a wide range of complex measures. I would also like to remind any Canadians who are watching that we are debating this bill under a time allocation motion. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to keep Canadians in the dark and make changes to many laws without any consultation or parliamentary oversight.

Among the laws affected or created by the many provisions, such as the Old Age Security Act and the Administrative Tribunals Act, there is the new bridge for the St. Lawrence act, regarding a bridge linking Montreal with the south shore. It should be noted that the Champlain Bridge legislation is well hidden in the 360 pages, and for good reason: we can see right off the bat that the bridge will not be subject to the User Fees Act or the Bridges Act. These two laws that provide consumer protection and safety guarantees will not apply to the Champlain Bridge.

What that means is that safety and inspection provisions of the Bridges Act will not apply to the Champlain Bridge. In other words, it will not have to meet the same safety standards as other bridges. That is very alarming. Who will be responsible for monitoring the safety of this bridge? Furthermore, the new bridge for the St. Lawrence act will not require the holding of mandatory consultations on user fees established by a regulating authority.

This means that the obligations to notify and consult people, justify the fees and create an independent advisory panel to address complaints will not apply to the Champlain Bridge. That is incredible. In other words, the government is casually deciding to make taxpayers pay for using the new Champlain Bridge, but is taking away from them the means to have a say in the matter. This is confirmed in

section 9, which states: 9. Any owner of a vehicle using the bridge must pay any toll, fee or other charge that is applicable to the vehicle under this Act. We do not yet know what the toll will be for vehicles, and it might be higher than other tolls because the User Fees Act will not apply. The law that the government wants to impose is unfair and totally arbitrary. We are going to find ourselves in a situation where people are going to pay to use the new bridge, but would pay nothing if they used the Victoria Bridge, for example. Does the government not see that it is going to shift traffic with these measures? That is really going to impact mobility in the region.

(1025) According to the Agence métropolitaine de transport, 200,000 people travel across this bridge each day. The toll will not only stifle Montreal's economic development, but it will also have an impact on household expenses. Since the Conservatives came to power, they have not stopped imposing taxes on households. They do not let up. The toll the government plans to levy proves once again that it is incapable of listening to Canadians and plans to keep making them pay.

The government talks about the need to get people involved in the bridge construction but has not given us any information about funding for the project. The government likes to boast that it is implementing a public-private partnership contract but has not told us how much it will contribute. There is a lack of transparency when it comes to this project. The legislation governing the new bridge over the St. Lawrence is merely a reflection of the approach the Conservatives have been using since 2011, an arbitrary and abusive approach that is not in keeping with what the provinces want.

To move our country forward, the federal government must work hand in hand with the provinces. On this issue in particular, the government should sit down with elected officials and discuss the progress on the new bridge, since Quebec's situation is special in that it has bridges that fall under federal jurisdiction. In spite of this, the Conservatives are pretending to listen to what people want and are moving forward without consulting those who are directly involved.

Given the urgent need for a new bridge, it is worrisome that the Conservative government is not listening to the Government of Quebec, the mayor of Montreal or the south shore mayors. The federal government should work with provincial and municipal partners, rather than arbitrarily imposing decisions on them. That is why the NDP and members from the south shore—myself included—will not sit on the sidelines. My constituents and others who are affected by this toll are concerned. We live in a democratic country where the government is elected by the people.

Right now, people are saying that they do not want this bill and they do not want this toll. The government needs to listen to them. It needs to listen to reason. In closing, no other government has ever shown so much contempt for our parliamentary institutions and Canadians. This single bill is over 365 pages long and amends more than 40 laws, making it impossible for MPs to do their jobs properly. It is obvious that our democracy is suffering. The work being done by parliamentarians in the House of Commons is also suffering.

Instead of drafting a mammoth bill that is designed to push hundreds of changes through without in-depth study, the government should be taking care of the needs of Canadians. There is nothing in this bill to help the 300,000 Canadians who have become unemployed since the recession find work or to replace the 400,000 manufacturing jobs that have been lost under this Conservative government. (1030) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the two points the member referenced in her speech. The first is with respect to the whole issue of the bill itself.

It is important to recognize that it is only since the Conservative/Reform Party achieved its majority government that it has adopted a new attitude of a lack of respect for proceedings in the House of Commons. That is why we have, yet again, another mega-budget-bill that would change several dozen pieces of legislation by sneaking them in through the back door of a budget bill. It is anti-democratic. The question I have for the member is with respect to infrastructure. She makes reference to the Montreal bridge, which is a very important bridge.

We in the Liberal Party have been advocating for that bridge for years in terms of the changes needed and in terms of making sure that the budget dollars are there. Does the minister want to comment on the budgeted amount last year compared to this year, 2014, when we have seen an 87% decrease in funding for infrastructure, which is what finances bridges and so forth? [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for such a relevant question.

As I said in my speech, ever since I was elected in 2011, this government has repeatedly introduced omnibus bills that contain everything but the kitchen sink. The government has put anything and everything in there, in a deliberate attempt to keep Canadians in the dark and impede our work. We are in Parliament. In French, the word “parlement” contains the word “parle” or “talk”. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening. We know nothing about funding for this bridge. We know that there is a public-private partnership, but the amount of the government contribution is unknown. We have no information about it.

Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her compelling speech. Could she tell us again how the NDP plans to make life more affordable and reduce household debt? Mrs. Djaouida Sellah : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her relevant question. I also thank her for the work she does on her committee. Canadian families are our priority at the NDP. I reiterated that this government is not doing anything for Canadian families. It does not even want to listen to them. It is completely disconnected from reality. We want to give these families a break.

For example, we want to lower credit card interest rates and we want to bring the age of eligibility for pensions back to what it originally was. We are primarily thinking of Canadian families and of the reality they face. We also want to help small and medium-sized businesses. We want to help the manufacturing sector, which has lost 400,000 jobs under the Conservative government. [ English ] Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that she wanted to help Canadian families.

My question is pretty straightforward. Since forming government, and through tax breaks, we are giving, on average, about $3,400 back to Canadian families. That is more money in the pockets of Canadian families. Each one of those measures the opposition party has voted against. How can the member say that she is helping Canadian families when she is voting against tax breaks for Canadian families? [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah : Mr. Speaker, we made it very clear that we are against proposals that are not in the best interests of all Canadian families.

The Conservatives are talking about tax credits for people who want to take music lessons, play piano and so on. I do not think that a family on social assistance can take advantage of that tax credit. This is just one example. The Conservatives work for wealthy families and not for all Canadians. The NDP, on the other hand, takes everyone into consideration, regardless of their family status. (1035) [ English ] Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to highlight today some of the key measures contained in Bill C-31 , economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1. I would like to preface my remarks by congratulating our former minister of finance for setting us firmly on the path to a balanced budget in 2015-16 and commending his successor, our current finance minister, for so quickly and capably stepping into his new shoes. In economic action plan 2014, our Conservative government renews its commitment to Canadians by focusing on three priorities. Number one is returning to a balanced budget.

Number two is promoting jobs and economic growth. Number three is supporting families and communities. Economic action plan 2014 act no. 1 contains a number of important measures that are designed to foster job creation and economic growth; connect Canadian workers with available jobs; improve infrastructure, trade, and resource development in Canada; and support Canadian families and communities. Obviously, in the time I have, I cannot hope to touch on all these subjects, no matter how briefly.

I will, therefore, confine my remarks to highlighting a few of the key initiatives that underscore our government's commitment to Canadian families and communities. As members know, the government has put in place a number of tax relief measures to help hard-working Canadians save money wherever they can. In fact, because of the actions taken by the Conservative government, Canadians now pay $3,400 a year less in taxes than they did during the final year of the previous Liberal government.

We introduced the volunteer firefighters' tax credit three years ago in recognition of the important contribution volunteer firefighters make to the security and safety of their fellow citizens and community members. In the same spirit, in economic action plan 2014, we announced a new search and rescue volunteers' tax credit for ground, air, and marine search and rescue volunteers. These brave men and women support the Canadian Coast Guard, police, and other agencies and are often the first on the scene in the event of a local emergency or natural disaster.

Well-organized, well-trained, and well-equipped, search and rescue volunteers are an integral part of Canada's emergency response system. Search and rescue volunteers dedicate their time and energy to ensure the safety and survival of their fellow citizens, often putting their own safety and even their lives at risk. The new tax credit is a sign of our recognition and appreciation for the important role they play and our commitment to improving the safety and security of all Canadians.

Individuals who perform at least 200 hours of service during a year would be able to claim a non-refundable tax credit on their personal income tax and benefit returns, starting in the 2014 tax year. The search and rescue volunteers' tax credit would provide up to $450 in tax savings for the eligible year.

The hours volunteered for search and rescue could be combined with volunteer firefighter activities, so volunteers with at least 200 hours of combined eligible search and rescue and firefighting services in a year would be able to choose between claiming the volunteer firefighters' tax credit and the new search and rescue volunteers' tax credit. In total, more than 100,000 dedicated volunteer firefighters and search and rescue members might benefit from these credits. Our Conservative government is proud to recognize their outstanding commitment and the difference they make to their communities.

The search and rescue volunteers' tax credit is just 1 of more than 20 tax measures contained in Bill C-31 . Economic action plan 2014 would build on previous tax relief measures the government has introduced to support Canadian families and improve their quality of life. For example, we have included measures that would make adoption more affordable for Canadian families. We would increase the maximum amount they may claim for the adoption expense credit to $15,000 for the 2014 tax year. The amount would be indexed to inflation in future years.

This is a fantastic new relief for prospective parents who are looking to provide a deserving child with a loving home. Our Conservative government is also making sure that the tax system takes into account the health needs of Canadians and the change in nature of our health care system.

(1040) Through Bill C-31 , we would exempt acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors' professional services from the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax. We would also expand the list of eligible expenses for the medical expense tax credit to include expenses incurred for service animals specifically trained to assist an individual in managing severe diabetes, as well as costs related to design of individual therapy plans for certain disorders and disabilities.

In the same vein, we have expanded the list of GST-HST-free medical and assistive devices to include prescription eyewear that electronically treats or corrects vision. Most importantly, we would remove the need for individuals to apply for the GST-HST credit. Starting with the 2014 tax year, the Canada Revenue Agency would automatically determine the credit each individual is entitled to receive. This would both simplify the process for taxpayers and improve administrative efficiency. In the case of eligible couples, the GST-HST credit would be paid to the individual whose return is assessed first.

This is consistent with CRA's commitment to reduce red tape. Finally, I would like to discuss our government's plan to correct a historic anomaly. The legislation we are debating today includes a proposal that would correct an irrelevant piece of legislation left over from the 1920s, a relic of the prohibition days. As it stands, the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act prohibits Canadians from taking beer or spirits across provincial borders, even for personal use.

Through Bill C-31 , we would take action to remove this federal barrier, just as we did in 2012 in the case of transporting wine from one province to another for personal use. Indeed, while respecting provincial jurisdiction, our government wants to encourage and promote market competitiveness by eliminating provincial trade barriers when possible. I wish to conclude today by saying I am proud of our government's record of achievement and our sound fiscal policies.

We are on a track to balance the budget in 2015-2016, and at the same time that we are delivering on this commitment, we have cut taxes and removed more than one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls since 2006. In short, we have made Canada one of the best places in the world to live, work, and raise a family. Our government will stick to the priorities we have outlined in our economic action plan: supporting jobs and growth, supporting families in communities, balancing the budget, and reducing debt. These are the priorities of all Canadians. I have barely scratched the surface of Bill C-31 today.

I strongly encourage all members of the House to read economic action plan 2014 act no. 1 from cover to cover and give it the support it deserves. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the current budget does not favour job creation, nor does it encourage Canadian businesses to invest. Major corporations rake in $576 billion here in Canada, and this money is not reinvested in job creation.

Could my colleague tell us what concrete measures the government plans on taking in this bill to ensure that businesses reinvest in creating stable, well-paying jobs in all regions of Canada, including the Atlantic region, which is where my colleague is from? (1045) [ English ] Mr. Gerald Keddy : Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. The signing of the free trade agreement with the European Union, which the opposition so far has not supported, would create a number of jobs and great opportunities in Atlantic Canada. The closest ports to Europe are St.

John's, Halifax, and Saint John, New Brunswick, so they would win by default on this trade agreement, with increased container traffic crossing the Atlantic and increased opportunities for Canadian products, especially fish and seafood. However, the hon. member has a good point. It is not just about jobs in one region of the country; it is about jobs across the country from coast to coast to coast and, as my colleagues from Ontario like to say, to the fourth coast, which is the shores of lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior.

There is a fourth coast in Canada that we often forget about, but the budget does not forget about it. It does create jobs from coast to coast to coast to coast. It does that. We have already created one million jobs since the great recession, since we formed government in 2006, one million real jobs for Canadian citizens.

In this budget alone, there are a number of actions we would implement, positive measures to create jobs and opportunities: connecting Canadians with available jobs and fostering job creation; creating the Canada apprentice loan to provide apprentices registered in Red Seal trades with access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year; investing in the expression of interest immigration system to better respond to the needs of Canada's economy; cutting the red tape burden. These are all examples of creating jobs, all included in this budget. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, ministers or members of the Conservative Party often like to use the term “economic action plan”. It is almost as if someone in the Prime Minister 's Office gives them a little star by their name if they make mention of that and say something positive about it. It is nothing more than a platitude for which the taxpayers have had to pay literally tens of millions of dollars in advertising. The Conservatives have invested more money in that platitude than they have in creating jobs for young people across Canada.

In regard to the whole idea of our middle class, that is a portion of society about which the government tends to have forgotten, a fairly important portion. We have a question in regard to the average household income. When we look at the bottom 20%, we see it is now receiving $500 less, on average, than when this government took office.

I wonder if the member might be able to comment on how it is that the middle class is not getting the type of attention it should be getting from the government, given the standard of living, the debt ratio, and the fact that the number of youth who are still living at home has actually gone up under this regime. The Deputy Speaker : The hon. parliamentary secretary, give a short answer, please. We are out of time. Mr. Gerald Keddy : I have a short answer to a long question, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of factors the hon. member mentioned.

First, our advertising budget for this government is significantly less than the advertising budget of the previous government. It is 60% less. Those are real numbers. Second, the hon. member talked about the bottom 20% of society. There is an extra one million people not paying taxes today because of changes we made to the taxation system. Average Canadian families, as I mentioned before, have $3,400 more in their pockets to spend on the commodities and the issues that are important to them than they had under the previous government.

These are all significant changes brought in by our government. (1050) [ Translation ] Ms. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this Conservative government bill, which could be described as another mammoth bill. Obviously, my colleagues and I strongly oppose this bill, because of its contents, of course, but also because of the process, which is increasingly undemocratic. This bill shows real contempt not only for Canadians, but also for Parliament, and for MPs and committees. It is particularly appalling.

This bill does absolutely nothing to support job creation. In fact, there is unfortunately nothing really positive in this bill. It is too bad, because a budget implementation bill could be very constructive and do a lot for Canadians. The government and the official opposition could work together in Parliament. It is really sad that we have to see these kinds of bills. I almost feel jaded when I speak to this kind of mammoth bill, which the Conservatives are ramming down Canadians' throats without consulting them or the opposition, without consulting anyone, really.

The Conservatives bulldoze their way through and impose their agenda on everyone. The Conservatives want to make a large number of changes without properly examining them. They are spreading misinformation. I do not have the bill with me, which is unfortunate, because it would be worth showing just how huge it is. It is over 350 pages long and has 500 clauses. It amends dozens of laws. It contains many measures that were not even mentioned in the budget statement. As I just said, it is completely undemocratic.

The committees are not being given the opportunity to properly examine the sections that concern them, which I see as highly problematic. The Conservatives are making unilateral decisions without consulting anyone. As I was saying, there is nothing in this bill to help unemployed Canadians, and there are 300,000 more of them than before the recession. Nor is there anything to replace the 400,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector that have been lost under the Conservatives. Nor are the Conservatives renewing the job creation tax credit for small businesses, which really need it.

It is clear to me that small and medium-sized businesses in my riding are in desperate need of a helping hand. Let us not forget that SMEs are a major economic driver. They are responsible for at least 70% of Canadian jobs. That figure might not be exact, but it is a huge percentage anyway. It is nothing to sneeze at. Small businesses need help from the government so they can hire people and stay in business. That is all the more true in a recession. There are also a lot of changes to rail safety and transparency.

That comes as quite a surprise and makes no sense considering what happened this summer in Lac Mégantic, which is quite close to my riding. These changes would allow the government to amend or remove several rail safety regulations without notifying the public. Changes could relate to engineering standards, employee training, hours of work, maintenance and performance. Basically, people will not be informed when the Conservatives weaken safety measures, and experts will not be able to express their opinions to the minister before the changes take effect.

I talk about this often because giving more discretionary power to the minister really infuriates me. I do not know why the government is giving even more power to the minister. I do not understand. There are experts in every field, and the minister should consult them. In many municipalities in my riding, the railway is located close to residential areas, and people are worried.

(1055) Shortly after the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, the member for Brossard—La Prairie , the transport critic, held a public consultation in my riding in October. The people told us that they were worried about safety standards and railway transportation in Canada. It makes absolutely no sense to weaken these standards. This budget creates another problem for immigrants, who will now have to live in Canada for 20 years, instead of 10, before they are eligible for GIS, survivor or old age security benefits. Family reunification is also being made much more difficult. This is a step in the wrong direction.

In my riding, there are many refugee families that have moved to Canada, want to contribute to our country, and want to live and work here. It is unfortunate that these people, who make a major contribution to out country, have to wait and be separated from their family for a longer period of time. Why should we make it more difficult for them to come here and why are we complicating the citizenship and family reunification process? Why are we depriving them of what they will need later? This deplorable measure demonstrates just how closed our country is becoming.

I do not understand this because we are recognized as a welcoming country. I have just mentioned a number of problems with this bill, but we also have solutions. The NDP likes to speak out, but we also like to suggest solutions. “Working Together” is still our motto. The government needs to go back to the drawing board and come back to us with a decent budget. It would be great if the government invested in innovation, economic development and high quality jobs for the middle class.

It would also be great if it developed a strategy for youth unemployment, since it is not right that the youth unemployment rate is so high. We need to be proactive, but the government is not. Another solution would be to offer a credit to businesses when they hire and train young people. The government did not renew that credit for SMEs, even though it would make a lot of sense to do so. Furthermore, the government could work with the provinces to address the skills shortage and to develop the labour market. It is not currently working with the provinces.

Instead, it is dumping the problems on the provinces, which is not ideal. The government should also address the serious infrastructure deficit by cancelling the $5.8 billion in cuts to local infrastructure. It would also be important to simplify the procedure for rural communities to request and receive funding for infrastructure projects, since the government is also dumping problems onto municipalities. What they actually need from the federal government is more help.

(1100) I see that I am out of time, so I would be pleased to take questions from my colleagues. [ English ] Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we are having to debate these bills in this forum yet again. One of the issues that concerns many of us in relation to budget bills is that we used to have in front of us very clear proposals on how to invest in Canada and in our communities. One of those issues is infrastructure, the city's agenda. I want to ask my colleague about some of the infrastructure issues in her riding.

I know that here in Ottawa we have many issues that we are concerned about and for which we want to see better partnership with the federal government. However, I would like to hear from my colleague about some of the infrastructure needs and the need for immediate investment—not in 10 years from now, but immediate investment—in infrastructure in her riding and how that need affects her constituents. [ Translation ] Ms. Marie-Claude Morin : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his most brilliant question. Infrastructure needs in my riding are indeed desperate.

Municipal elections were held in Quebec recently, and I am in the process of doing another tour of the municipalities to meet with the newly elected officials and meet again with those who were re-elected. The mayors of all 25 municipalities in my riding are telling me about the desperate infrastructure needs. I think that this speaks volumes and that the government should trust these people who are on the ground with citizens and in the communities before making budgets like this. [ English ] Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, quite clearly one of the major issues facing Canadian municipalities and others is the infrastructure deficit. We have seen the Conservatives come up with this idea, and it was clearly expressed by my previous colleague, about the Champlain Bridge and the need for the toll on the bridge. My colleague at that time had a valid argument about the nature of tolls and how they change people's habits.

Anybody who has had time to travel through Mexico by road and see the difference between the toll roads built by Mexicans in public-private partnerships and the free roads where all the traffic goes, while there is very little traffic on these magnificent toll roads, will understand that simply going through these processes is perhaps not going to determine a result that they would want.

Does my colleague believe that infrastructure really is a common need and a common expression of Canadian development, and that it should be covered by means that come out of our public system rather than by this jury-rigged toll system that is being proposed for the Champlain Bridge? [ Translation ] Ms. Marie-Claude Morin : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting question. It is interesting because my colleague is talking about a certain kind of infrastructure democratization.

The Champlain Bridge is not in my riding, but it will affect a lot of people who live there because it is quite nearby. A lot of people in Saint-Hyacinthe work in Montreal and use the Champlain Bridge every day. We will end up with a toll bridge. Suppose it costs $2 to cross the bridge. If we add that up, that makes $4 a day, $20 a week and $100 a month. That will hit many people right in the wallet, and a lot of them will not be able to afford to use the bridge.

We will end up with some people who have the means to use the bridge and will be able to avoid the traffic, sort of like on the highway 25 bridge, and some people who will take the other bridges because they will not be able afford to use the new bridge. The problem here is that people who cannot afford to use toll roads are being excluded. (1105) [ English ] Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-31,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures . Our government has worked tirelessly to deliver effective change for Canadians and to put Canada back on the road to balanced budgets. After consultations across the country, we have produced a plan that not only works for Canadians but that will also make sure that Canada is financially sustainable. Our hon. colleague, the former finance minister, tabled a budget just weeks ago.

Since then, my office has seen an outpouring of support from constituents who value trade, security, and prudent economic management. The world has been hit by repeated crises over the past few years. It is becoming harder for governments to maintain the trust of markets. We are no longer allowed to believe that we can escape the costs of financial recklessness and ineptitude. The budget implementation act before us holds many measures that will markedly improve the lives of Canadians.

Our government is working to ensure that Canadians can fill the skills gap to both provide vital services and ensure viable livelihoods. By increasing paid internships for young Canadians, the government will commit $55 million to help recent graduates find work in their fields. By getting graduates to work, Canada can make the most of its skilled labour force and provide opportunities for young Canadians to flourish. At the same time, the government will ensure that older workers have opportunities to find new employment.

As Canadians are living longer, we must face the unexpected challenges posed by longevity beyond one's financial plan. By investing $75 million in training for older workers, our government will make sure that all Canadians can find good, skilled jobs. Help is not limited to the young and the old. Through the job-matching service, this Conservative government will grease the wheels of commerce and ensure that employers and employees can find their perfect matches.

With Canada's ever-increasing integration, not only into the world economy but between provinces, it is vital for the federal government to play a role in smoothing labour markets across the country. Never before have we seen the kind of mobility we see today, nor have we realized the promise that such mobility creates for families and communities. It is not enough to be looking for a job. We need to support those who are currently training for jobs that will fill much needed positions through the Canada job grant and the Canada apprentice loan.

The federal government is investing in high-skill jobs that are currently going unfilled in many parts of the country. By ensuring that Canada has the skilled tradespeople it needs, our government is making sure that the economy can function smoothly. This budget is about embracing the future with skilled jobs, a thriving economy, and a balanced budget. Through this budget, rural communities will stand to benefit from improved broadband access in rural and remote areas of the country.

It is important that Canadians in rural areas, like parts of the British Columbia interior and northern B.C., have an acceptable degree of access to the Internet. Failing to update Canada's digital infrastructure could doom those outside of well-covered areas to technological backwardness and put them at a perpetual disadvantage. Investments in science and technology, such as the government's $222 million grant to the TRIUMF physics laboratory at the University of British Columbia, promises to pay dividends not just in commercial terms but in academic, intellectual, and technological advances.

British Columbians and Canadians stand to profit immensely from the measures presented in this budget. The budget implementation act goes further by continuing the good work of the red tape reduction action plan. This budget will make life easier for small and medium-sized business owners.

(1110) In too many areas of Canadian life and work, excessive red tape holds us back. The Conservatives have demonstrated a commitment to making Canada work in a way that benefits consumers, workers, and citizens by removing arbitrary and wasteful barriers to businesses. There are also significant changes to the tax code. The tax code is not a subject that gets many people excited, but by eliminating over 800,000 payroll deduction remittances to the Canada Revenue Agency every year, this government will be helping over 50,000 small businesses lower costs imposed by bureaucracy.

Our government is always concerned about the security of Canadians. For any number of reasons, the lives and well-being of Canadians can be in danger, and it is a key role of government to offer solutions. By investing a further $25 million, we are aiming to reduce violence against aboriginal women and girls. This sector of our community is often the target of abuse above and beyond that faced by others,. They deserve a government that comes to their protection.

Our government will invest $11 million to upgrade the earthquake monitoring systems that protect the homes of my constituents in the Lower Mainland and in high-risk areas across the country. Over one million net new jobs have been created since the recession ended in July 2009. During the crisis and afterward, our government has provided a steady hand at the tiller, ensuring that Canada's policies work toward stability, growth, and prosperity. Our banking system has been ranked the most stable in the world for the sixth year running by the World Economic Forum. The numbers do not lie.

The deficit will be a meagre $2.9 billion this year, with a $6.4 billion surplus coming next year. This is a momentous achievement. When the previous government balanced the books, it did so by raising taxes and slashing transfers to the provinces. Our government has none neither. In fact, we have done the compete opposite. Next year, our government will provide British Columbia with $4.17 billion through the Canada health transfer, an all-time high. Not only that, this is $1.3 billion more than under the previous Liberal government. That is a 49% increase.

As well, we have reduced the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. Our strong record of tax relief has meant savings of nearly $3,400 for a typical family of four in 2014. Without raising taxes on Canadians or simply moving costs to other levels of government, the Conservatives have a credible plan for long-term fiscal success. The opposition has made it clear that it will raise taxes and then increase spending beyond even that. Therefore, I commend our Conservative government for such a thoughtful and solid document. [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech. The Conservatives often talk about how they created a million jobs and that they want to create more. However, in February's labour force survey, Statistics Canada said that 2014 employment growth has been weaker since the recession. As well, an additional 300,000 people have become unemployed since the current Prime Minister came to power. Young Canadians are facing an unemployment rate of 13.6%. Does she have any suggestions about how to create jobs for youth? (1115) [ English ] Mrs. Nina Grewal : Mr.

Speaker, our Conservative government is currently focused on what clearly matters to hard-working Canadians in their daily lives: helping create jobs, economic growth, and Canada's long-term prosperity. With the help of Canada's economic action plan, Canada's economy has seen the best economic performance among all G7 countries in recent years, both during the global recession, and of course, throughout the fragile recovery. Here are some facts I would like to tell the hon. member. Over one million net new jobs have been created in Canada since the end of the recession in July 2009.

That is the strongest job growth in the entire G7, by far. Canadians have also enjoyed the strongest income growth in the G7. Canada is the only G7 country to have more than fully recovered business investment lost during the recession. Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investments in the G7. I would like to go on and on, but that is my answer to the member's question. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite a couple of problems with her overview. She talks about the investment by the government in infrastructure, et cetera.

We see at a time when we need critical support for infrastructure that it is actually pulling back. The last time we saw significant spending was when we pushed the government, after the financial crisis, to invest, and of course, before that, in 2005, when our leader at the time, Mr. Layton, convinced the government to, instead of corporate taxes, put money into infrastructure and into cities and to help out with post-secondary education. By the way, that money continued in the budgets of the Conservative government in 2006 and 2007. It is important to note that. I want to ask her this.

When we have a crisis in job training, why is it that the government cannot figure out how to deal with foreign trained workers and actually train Canadians and young Canadians to give them opportunities? All we have gotten from the government are ads. Even in the budget bill they have put in front of us, it is going to be loans for people to train. We actually need to fast-track them and get Red Seal people into the job market now, not just give them more loans, which leads to more debt.

Clearly, I think the government has failed, and I would disagree with the ideas she has put forward, because Canadians deserve better. Mrs. Nina Grewal : Mr. Speaker, our government has invested more money than any other government in infrastructure, with $1.4 billion invested in infrastructure in my riding alone. Just think about the millions of dollars invested all over Canada. I am proud of our government's record. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr.

Speaker, I cannot really say I am pleased to rise today to speak to yet another omnibus budget bill, C-31 . [ Translation ] This is yet another omnibus bill that contains numerous measures from other bills. However, given House procedure, we will not be able to study it adequately. [ English ] This is following up on the February 11, 2014 budget. We really need to get used to using the new term for it. It is the “annual thick brochure”. It does not actually contain a budget any more, and I think Canadians ought to know that.

It is labelled “the economic action plan 2014, No. 1”, which means that we can expect another budget omnibus bill. It does not deal with the fact that Canada's debt under this administration has increased by $123 billion. It does not deal with the fact that part of the reason that debt has increased and that cuts are being made to the services that we care about is that we now have the lowest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, approximately half that of the United States. I want to turn to a myth that is so often repeated in this place, that all of the other parties always did omnibus budget bills.

That is not just a myth; it is not true. The previous all-time high omnibus budget bill was in 2005 under the administration of former Prime Minister Paul Martin. In 2005, it topped 120 pages. The howls from the opposition, now in government, were so loud that that bill had sections stripped out, and another provision that was to amend the Environmental Protection Act to allow regulation of greenhouse gases was removed altogether. That was due to the protest about 120 pages being too much in an omnibus budget bill.

The current administration is the all-time record holder, and not just that, as the Bruce Cockburn song said, “...the trouble with normal is it always gets worse”. Now we are supposed to expect that we are going to get two omnibus budget bills every year: the first one, 400 pages; the second one, 400 pages. So the cumulative total, the bulk of all the legislation that goes through this place, is in the form of omnibus budget bills, which are so anti-democratic and an abuse of parliamentary process that it must be raised at every turn.

This particular omnibus budget bill, at 362 pages, Bill C-31 , has a lot of good things in it. There is no question that removing the GST from parking fees at hospitals and improving the tax treatment of adoptive families are good things. There are quite a few things in here that I would vote for, such as division 5, increasing the number of judges for Alberta and Quebec. These are all good things. However, what of the things that deserve more study than they are going to get? That list is a very long one indeed.

I turn our attention to 40 pages of this brick, pages 91 to 131, changes to the Hazardous Products Act and consequential amendments to other acts. These may all be, as described on the Health Canada website, good ideas, but they deserve study on their own. There are a lot of details we do not know. This will bring into place the globally harmonized system to deal with workplace hazardous materials. It is very important that we study this properly. Certain sectors of our economy are currently exempt from the WHMIS provisions, including pesticides, consumer products, food, and drugs.

A global system will bring these in, but we do not quite know how Canada will treat this and will not find out from the quick study we are allowed of an omnibus budget bill. There is 40 pages of this. Another 30-plus pages is an entirely new act, the administrative tribunals support service of Canada act.

It occurs in division 29 of Bill C-31 , and it brings in a single administrator, appointed politically, to take control of a huge number of administrative tribunals: the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canada Industrial Relations Board, Competition Tribunal, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Social Security Tribunal, and Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. In the time I have, I cannot read out the names of all the tribunals that are suddenly whipped together under one act with one chief administrator.

Far too few details are being provided about the purpose of this change. There is no purposes

section under this new act; it is left to our imagination. I have to say, given the track record of this administration, given its attitude toward tribunals and officers of Parliament, the things that come to mind are not happy conclusions. This act's division 29 deserves separate treatment and adequate study.

(1120) On the changes to trademark, here we had an opportunity to do something to improve Canada's global competitive position by improving intellectual property rights to protect Canadian corporations abroad. The proposed changes to trademark are largely non-controversial, but why are they stuck in an omnibus budget bill? They have nothing to do with the budget. Pages 207 to 259, over 50 pages of this monster bill, are all about trademark and coming into compliance with agreements from the Singapore and Madrid protocols. Why not have this as a proper study?

Why not take the time to assess whether it is a good idea to reduce trademark protection from 15 years to 10 years? I have been trying to reserve most of my time in this brief opportunity for the most egregious

section of Bill C-31 , which is forcing through, with a limitation on debate that applies to all of Bill C-31, some potentially devastating changes to Canadians' rights found under something called the FATCA. This Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is thrown into Bill C-31 , and I want to refer to the opinions of legal experts. Some time ago, concerned about the FATCA, I did an access to information request and turned up a letter to Finance Canada from Canada's leading constitutional law expert, Professor Peter Hogg.

He wrote to Finance Canada when the department it was in the early stages of working on this, and said that treating Canadians who might have some connection to the United States—not just those who might be born there, such as me, but who is no longer a U.S. citizen, or people who had parents born in the U.S., or once worked or studied there—differently than Canadians with no connection to the U.S. violates

section 3 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in which we are entitled to equal treatment under the law as Canadian citizens. However, it gets worse than that. Here I want to quote extensively from advice to Finance Canada from two very knowledgeable tax policy law experts: Professor Allison Christians, the H. Heward Stikeman Chair in the Law of Taxation at McGill University; and Professor Arthur Cockfield from Queens University.

Both professors conclude that right now it appears that the only reason the current Conservative administration feels it has accomplished anything with FATCA is that it has staved off punitive measures against our commercial banks by the United States. That is the Conservatives' sole rationale for a non-reciprocal agreement that will violate the privacy, and potentially the charter rights, of as many as one million Canadians. They have done it to avoid the U.S. bringing sanctions against them.

These knowledgeable experts say that this implementation act would unduly harm the privacy rights and interests of all Canadians, unduly raise compliance costs for all Canadian financial institutions and Canadian taxpayers, and unduly raise legal exposure for Canadian financial institutions due to the ongoing potential liability for mistakenly transferred personal financial information.

Bear in mind that this FATCA that we are being pressed to pass so quickly would require our banking institutions to decide for themselves whether someone appears to have some connection to the United States, and then they will turn over the personal banking information of that person without their knowledge to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. It would also provide potentially sensitive commercial information held by Canadian firms to the United States, which if improperly revealed could harm a firm's competitiveness. It would interfere with the cross-border mobility of Canadian workers to the United States.

It would impede Canada's efforts to enforce its own tax laws. It would violate the spirit and potentially the letter of a number of Canadian laws. The advice from these knowledgeable tax experts is clear and compelling. Since we have as a nation have now signed this IGA with the U.S., we have protected the commercial banking sector from these penalties, and so we have time to get it right. Here is their advice. We recommend that the government explicitly address what gains have been achieved by Canada in accepting the IGA, if any exist other than the relief of economic sanctions.

If relief of economic sanctions is the only impetus for Canada's acquiescence to U.S. demands, we recommend that the Canadian Government challenge the legality of such economic sanctions....

(1125) In other words, the U.S. has no right to impose sanctions on Canadian banks. It says it does. We should challenge it in international court. These experts say that we should stop the introduction of FATCA, ensure that it does not violate our charter rights, protect the privacy rights of Canadians, and not rush into this. I urge the House to pull FATCA out of Bill C-31 . Hon. Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my notes say that this is an important piece because it updates the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes.

Without an intergovernmental agreement between Canada and the United States, Canadian financial institutions and United States persons holding financial accounts in Canada would be required to comply with that, regardless, starting July 1, 2014, as per the FATCA legislation enacted by the U.S.A. unilaterally. It is important for people to understand that this is important. It is an intergovernmental agreement. It is something that Canada has to support because of recent G8 and G20 commitments on the multilateral automatic exchange of information.

The G20 leaders committed to this automatic exchange as a new global standard, and it was endorsed as the OECD proposal developing a global model. It is important to understand that this is not just enhancing but also protecting Canadians, and it is important for us as we trade more and more.

(1130) Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful that we are actually having a conversation and talking about this issue. The reality of the FATCA that the current administration has accepted is that it does nothing for reciprocal exchange of tax information. It is non-reciprocal; it is asymmetrical. It is unprecedented in international law for one sovereign country to say, “Oh gosh”, and cry uncle, “They are going to get our information whether we like it or not and they are going to punish our banks”.

The best legal minds in our country are advising the administration not to cave in just because the United States says it has a right under its domestically passed legislation, but which has not been ratified as an international treaty by its senate. There are a number of legal issues here, for which I do not think we have shown sufficient backbone in response. We do not need to accept a law passed by the U.S. Congress. Would we accept a law passed by the People's Republic of China that requested information of Chinese citizens in Canada?

Are we to accept that in response to laws passed in other countries with implications for Canadian citizens, the Government of Canada can do nothing but say, “Here's all the information we can provide you. It's private. We're not warning Canadians. We're giving it to you. Good luck”. Everyone knows that Canada is not a tax haven. People who live here, Canadian citizens and residents, pay taxes. We pay more taxes than people do in other countries. We need to protect the privacy and charter rights of Canadians. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I think that the Conservative member, the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification , clearly proved that this portion of Bill C-31 should be studied separately. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands eloquently established and demonstrated that this part of the budget should be studied independently of Bill C-31 . She also demonstrated that parliamentarians, regardless of party, are being denied an opportunity to study this part of the bill in detail, even though it will significantly affect Canadians, financial institutions and the Canada Revenue Agency.

A Radio-Canada report stated that implementing this would cost CRA $100 million. Who does my colleague think will have to foot this pricey bill? Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. I completely agree with the member. It is clear that FATCA is advantageous for the United States alone. There is nothing in it to help Canadians.

As the lawyers and legal experts explained, the only reason why the Government of Canada accepted this agreement, which will violate the rights of Canadians, is that the U.S. government threatened to impose sanctions on our banks. (1135) [ English ] We need to take this very complex

section out. As the legal experts have commented, there was a truncated period for public comment. Very little time was provided for the financial sector, and look at the costs and what it will mean to our banking institutions and credit unions to comb through all the material they have on every customer. It will raise the costs. The banking sector does very well, but this is going to raise consumer costs and it will violate charter rights. Surely it should be removed from an omnibus budget bill for proper study.

Additionally, we should go to international court to challenge the idea that the U.S., through a domestically passed law, has the right to punish commercial banks in Canada. Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it really is a shame that, once again, the Conservatives are pushing through yet another omnibus budget bill.

Since 2011, the NDP in opposition has fought to break down government omnibus budgets brought to the House into manageable legislation so that members have the opportunity to consider and debate the new legislation that is being proposed and deliver better results for Canadians. Omnibus bills have had a bad reputation on Parliament Hill for some time now. No one, other than the Conservatives, seems to really like them. I would like to share some strong words on omnibus bills from a member in the House of Commons from 1994.

The member said: ...in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns? We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Who said that? Let me tell members. This blast from the past is absolutely right, and I would introduce him to the Prime Minister if they were not already so close, as it was the Prime Minister himself who said this when he was the leader of the opposition.

Let us get back to the budget implementation bill that is before us. It is amazing that the budget implementation bill is over 350 pages long, has almost 500 clauses, would amend dozens of bills, and—this is the best part—includes a variety of measures that were never even mentioned in the budget speech by the Minister of Finance. One would think that measures in the budget implementation bill would also have actually been in the budget, but not so much this time. I should give credit where credit is due. There are some parts of the bill that the NDP supports.

For example, the government is using the budget implementation bill as an opportunity to rectify its previous attempt to levy the GST and HST on hospital parking, a leftover from budget 2013. This, however, does not make up for other measures included in the budget implementation bill or for Conservative attempts to ram this bill through the House. The truth is that the budget implementation bill includes a large variety of complex measures that deserve thorough consideration and scrutiny.

The tabling of such a large and wide-ranging bill in such a short timeframe undermines Parliament, because it denies individual MPs the ability to thoroughly study the bill and its implications. This is one of the most important jobs of an MP. It is one of the reasons the people of Scarborough—Rouge River sent me here to Ottawa. Unfortunately, the budget implementation bill fails to provide solutions for issues that matter to Canadians and to my constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River, such as jobs and the economy, immigration and family reunification, safety, and retirement.

I will talk about a few of those today. Despite the cries from the Conservative benches that they are the best managers of the economy, the budget implementation bill would fail to help the leading drivers of our economy: the small and medium-sized businesses. We know that small and medium-sized businesses provide 70% of new jobs in the Canadian labour market. Unfortunately, the budget implementation bill would fail to renew the small business job creation tax credit first proposed by the NDP in 2011.

When 300,000 Canadians are struggling to find work, would we not want to make it easier for small businesses to hire more workers? Unfortunately, the budget implementation bill fails to do this and would fail to help these employers. It would also fail the struggling Canadian worker. There is nothing in the budget or this bill to get the almost 300,000 unemployed back to work or to help replace the 400,000 manufacturing jobs that were lost under the Prime Minister 's watch.

The cruel joke is that while 300,000 unemployed Canadians are looking for work, the Conservatives have failed to stop abusing the temporary foreign worker program. The Conservatives promised two years ago to create a blacklist of employers who had broken the rules of the temporary foreign worker program. Today, two years later, there are still no names. Let me repeat that. There are no names on the list, despite Alberta, one province, identifying over 100 cases in which employers broke the rules, and that is just one province. We have ten provinces and three territories.

Why should Canadians take the Conservatives' promise to address the abuse of the temporary foreign program seriously? Why should we trust them now? The truth is that there is not a lot of trust between Canadians and the government. Many Canadians who may have cast their vote for the Conservatives found out the hard way how flimsy that trust is when the government announced changes to the GIS and old age security. Many of my constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River are concerned about their livelihood and future with regard to these changes.

(1140) The budget implementation bill would stop payment of the guaranteed income supplement and the old age security survivor allowance to sponsored immigrants, even those who have lived in Canada for 10 years and even if they are still within the sponsorship period during which their families are financially responsible for them, which of course the Conservatives doubled from 10 years to 20 years just last year. This means that immigrants who arrived under the family reunification program may have to wait up to 20 years to be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement and survivor allowance.

Does this seem fair to new Canadians? Let me repeat that so it is very clear. This bill would change the rules so that there would be no more guaranteed income supplement or old age security survivor allowance for sponsored immigrants during the entire sponsorship period, a waiting period of up to 20 years. That is unbelievable. It is just as unbelievable as yesterday's announcement from the Transportation Safety Board that revealed that Canadian rail companies are not reporting all derailments. My constituents are very concerned about rail safety in our community.

Scarborough—Rouge River is a densely populated community. Trains run through our community, and we have the large eastern Toronto rail yard right in the centre of our community. There is a great concern about our safety and our environment. These concerns have crossed the minds of many Canadians, not only my constituents of Scarborough—Rouge River but any Canadians who live by the rails. This is what makes the Conservatives' unwillingness to open the omnibus budget implementation bill to allow independent study of all of the important parts so dangerous.

The budget implementation act would allow the government to change and repeal a wide variety of railway safety regulations without informing the public. Those include the standards for engineering, worker training, hours of work, maintenance, and performance. Cabinet decisions changing safety requirements for the transport of dangerous goods would also be a secret, including changes to the classification of dangerous goods, the training and qualifications of inspectors, and rules regarding importation and transportation of these goods.

These changes would prevent the public from knowing when Conservatives weaken safety measures and would prevent experts from advising the minister before the changes would come into effect. It would not be a change that would make our railways and communities safer. Why are the Conservatives regressing on railway safety and trying to move the results of government decisions on railway safety behind closed doors? This raises another, larger, question: why are the Conservatives against opening the door to transparency? We see it time and again.

The Conservatives want to keep the changes to railway safety regulations closed. The Conservatives do not want to open this omnibus bill because they do not want members to tell them what Canadians really think. They do not want the 308 of us to tell them what Canadians think is really going on in the country. However, the omnibus budget does not need to be opened for me to share what the New Democrats would like to do. We must invest in economic development and high-quality middle-class jobs. That is a priority for the NDP.

We can do this by working with the private sector to help Canadian businesses strengthen, grow, and create jobs. We should continue to build on the existing job creation tax credit for small and medium-sized businesses to help the true drivers of our economy, the SMEs, to grow. We need to make more jobs available to Canadians by stopping the abuse of the temporary foreign worker program. The Government of Canada should work with the provinces to improve monitoring.

Employment and Skills Development Canada and Citizenship and Immigration must be able to deny employers' labour market opinions and withdraw work permits from employers who abuse the program. We should also set out a path for citizenship for temporary foreign workers to encourage skilled workers to stay in Canada and continue to contribute to the economy. The government needs to fulfill its commitment to help Canadians save and invest for their retirement.

The NDP will continue to fight for the immediate reversal of the federal government's plan to raise the retirement age for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to 67. I could continue, but I do not want to give it all away. I would rather share it with my colleagues across the floor after we open up the omnibus budget bill. However, I fear that the Conservatives will not budge.

(1145) The Conservative government will continue to cry out otherwise, but Canadians recognize that this is just another omnibus budget bill designed to ram through the House hundreds of changes with as little study and as little oversight as possible, and that is just not fair. Canadians deserve better, and that is why the NDP is here to be the real eyes and ears for Canadians and to hold the government to account. Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, there are a number of items the member opposite touched on, but the thing that resonates the most with me is her lack of attention to focusing on jobs and job creation. Economic action plan 2014 focuses substantially on job creation, whether it be the $55 million investment in internships for young Canadians or the new apprenticeship opportunity with the apprenticeship scholarships program that is being created by the Government of Canada to support those young Canadians who are most interested in entering into apprenticeships. We know that substantive support is needed. We are addressing that concern.

It is concerning to me that the member opposite does not focus on those opportunities for young Canadians. These are substantive initiatives that would create jobs and job opportunities and skills training for young Canadians. Why is she is not supporting the budget bill with those fabulous opportunities for young Canadians, many of whom live in her riding and in mine? I am supporting the budget bill because of those initiatives. Why is she not supporting it? Maybe she could be accountable for that and comment on it here in the House. Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the Minister of Labour for the comments and questions she put forward. I wish she would open up the omnibus budget bill so that we could actually debate it, so that we could look at each individual part of it. As I mentioned, there are some parts of the budget that the NDP supports. From day one, we have always been supportive of creating jobs and taking care of the high level of unemployment in this country and the extremely higher level of underemployment in this country.

A quarter of our university graduates with an undergraduate degree are severely unemployed or underemployed, and it was the Conservative government that was in charge of making that happen. The government has been sitting in the driver's seat while we saw a quarter of our university graduates being severely unemployment or underemployed. Why do the minister and the government all of a sudden care about the youth in this country and say that they are doing something for the young people in this country? They sat there and watched as a quarter of our university graduates became unemployed or severely underemployed.

I talk to young people in my community every day, and they are hoping that they can have jobs in our community. The government sat there and watched as it sent jobs out of this country. The Conservatives are the ones who allowed the temporary foreign worker program to be abused and allowed jobs to be taken away from our young people and Canadians, and the minister now has the audacity to say that we are not fighting for Canadians and for our young people's jobs. Please, I do not need to repeat myself. Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Certainly it segued nicely into what I want to talk about, which is, of course, young Canadians and students. We have already heard about the crushing unemployment that youth are facing, and now we have the cancellation of the small business hiring tax credit. However, something else is also happening to young people, and it has not been discussed yet. For some odd reason, the government decided to cancel the $5,000 vehicle exemption that students would get when they applied for student loans.

This will make life much more difficult and education less affordable and accessible for rural and suburban students in particular. Statistics show that if we live between 40 and 80 kilometres away from a post-secondary education institute, we are 31% less likely to attend. Now, with the cancellation of the vehicle exemption of $5,000 that students used to be able to put against their student loans, students will face larger costs in attending school. That applies in particular for a school like U of T Scarborough Campus, which is in my colleague's riding.

(1150) Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan : Mr. Speaker, this is such an important question. I thank my colleague for this question and the statistics that he pointed out. The government is making it harder for already underprivileged students who have to rely on the student loan program to get themselves through school, like I did. If I had not had access to the OSAP loans and the vehicle exemption tax credit, I would not have been able to afford to go to school. I would not have been able to afford to get a university degree. That is what the government is trying to do.

It is trying to make it so that youth who grow up in families that are not privileged do not go to school. It is trying to make it more difficult for students who grow up in poverty or situations where education is the key for them to leave that cycle of poverty, that cycle of discrimination, whatever it might be. The government is making it more difficult for people like me to get an education, to serve my community and country, and to get out of the vicious cycle of poverty. That is not fair. We need to make sure that we are looking out for all students and young people in our country, not just the privileged.

It does not make sense that the government would cancel the $5,000 vehicle exemption credit because rural and suburban communities need to ensure that their young people are getting educated as well. [ Translation ] Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to economic action plan 2014 as Minister of Labour and Minister for the Status of Women. [ English ] To begin with, I take issue with the last comment by the member.

Whether it be the working income tax benefit or numerous other opportunities for Canadians, there are over a million low-income Canadians who are no longer on the tax rolls. Therefore, I encourage the member opposite to please look at the facts. The facts are that low-income Canadians are actually way better off under this government. The former minister of finance did an outstanding job of making sure that they were protected. Canada has weathered the economic storm very well, especially compared to other countries.

Since our government introduced economic action plan 2009 to respond to the global recession, Canada has not only recovered all of its output and all of the jobs lost during the recession, but it has exceeded pre-recession levels. Over the last four years, employment has increased by over one million and is now approximately 590,000 above its pre-recession peak, giving Canada the strongest job growth record among G7 countries over the recovery. Our economic performance has not gone unrecognized.

Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over the years to come. As well, for the sixth year in a row, the World Economic Forum rated Canada's banking system as the world's soundest.

Three major credit rating agencies have reaffirmed our top rating for Canada, and it is expected that Canada will maintain its triple-A rating in the year ahead. [ Translation ] Even before the global crisis, our government moved to lower taxes, reduce red tape and promote trade and innovation. [ English ] That said, there is still work to be done. That is why economic action plan 2014 continues our focus on the drivers of growth and job creation: innovation, investment, education, skills, and communities. [ Translation ] It marks the next

chapter in our economic plan and leads us to a balanced budget by 2015. [ English ] Our plan also includes a number of initiatives to support Canadian individuals and families, Canadian students, and single parents. We have introduced the new Canada loan program that provides apprentices and Red Seal trades with over $100 million in interest-free loans. We are further supporting young Canadians entering the economy by investing $55 million to create paid internships for recent graduates in small and medium-sized businesses.

We are helping older workers get back to work by investing $75 million in a targeted initiative to support older workers who want to participate in the job market.

There are also a number of initiatives in economic action plan 2014 that pertain directly to my responsibilities as Minister of Status of Women , such as, increasing support to Status of Women Canada to increase a mentorship program for women entrepreneurs; proposing that over the next number of months, the Minister of Status of Women will consult on how to increase the number of women entering business, and succeeding and participating in business; and, providing an additional $40 million to the Canada's accelerator and incubator program to help entrepreneurs create new companies and realize the potential of their ideas, through intensive mentoring and other resources to make sure they are successful in creating jobs.

There are also a number of initiatives in the budget that will help address violence against women and girls, including indigenous women and girls, by promoting justice and the protection of the most vulnerable in our communities.

These include the implementation of the Canadian victims bill of rights; $22 million, over two years, for the aboriginal justice strategy; $8.1 million, starting in 2016-17, with $1.3 million per year ongoing, to create a DNA-based missing persons index, something we have heard a significant amount about and I am delighted we are moving forward on; and, an additional $25 million to renew our efforts to directly address the issue of murdered and missing aboriginal women.

As hon. members will recall, the Helping Families in Need Act passed in this House last year, providing support for parents of critically ill children. It also supports parents of children who are missing or have been killed as a result of a crime, one of the most terrifying and difficult experiences that a parent may go through. As the previous minister of finance stated in his February budget, we are now enhancing our support for families.

We are making access to sickness benefits through the employment insurance program more flexible for those receiving parents of critically ill children or compassionate care benefits. This builds on the enhancements for those who are receiving parental benefits introduced in the Helping Families in Need Act. This legislation means that parents will benefit from temporary income support while caring for their critically ill child. For employers, it means retaining valuable employees who otherwise may give up their jobs to take care of their child.

As a practising physician, I can attest that one of the most important components of making sure that a child becomes well is making sure that his or her parent is with him or her. As a government, we need to do all we can to support these families in that absolutely critical time of crisis. This means that for a couple of those children who were diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, their parents will be eligible for the 35 weeks of critically ill benefits, and they are entitled to and may receive more weeks than they had before.

To ensure that leave provisions match the compassionate care leave and leave related to critical illnesses that are fully engaged in employment insurance provisions, the Canada Labour Code will also be amended. The federal income support for the parents of murdered and missing children grant allows recipients to interrupt these payments to get access to employment insurance sickness benefits as well. Currently, the Canada Labour Code does not explicitly provide job protection to federally regulated employees under these circumstances.

These amendments will ensure that the code is fully aligned with that grant, allowing Canadian parents to grieve, to search for their child, or to be with their child if he or she is critically ill. Other consequential changes are also being put in place to be consistent with the application of the code. All these amendments will come into force on the same day as the related amendments to the employment insurance act.

The adjustments to the Helping Families in Need legislation are the latest in a number of initiatives taken by the government to help Canadian parents balance work life and family responsibilities, in this case, in one of the most important roles they have, that of caring for their child. This government has earned a strong and well-deserved reputation for wise economic management. In the lead-up to the global recession, we paid down over $37 billion in debt.

Unlike other countries, when hard times came, Canada had the leeway and flexibility to navigate through the economic and financial storms that arose outside of our borders. Canada's deficit has been reduced by two-thirds since 2009. This puts us well on our way toward our goal of a budget surplus of over $6 billion in 2015, even after taking into account the $3-billion annual adjustment of risk. Balancing the budget and reducing debt will provide a host of benefits that will go beyond the bottom line. It frees up tax dollars that might otherwise be spent on interest costs.

These can be used to lower taxes or invest in other priorities for Canadians. (1200) [ Translation ] It will strengthen our country’s ability to respond to longer-term challenges, such as population aging, and unexpected global economic shocks. [ English ] It would strengthen our country's ability to respond to long-term challenges, such as an aging population and unexpected global shocks.

It would help to ensure fairness and equity for generations to come, by avoiding future tax increases and a reduction in services. [ Translation ] Good economic management requires tough decisions, a focus on priorities, and sound judgment. This has been the approach of our government from day one, and it continues in economic action plan 2014. [ English ] I sincerely hope that all hon. members will join us in giving the budget their full support. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women for her speech.

The picture she paints of the Conservative government's measures does not capture the reality in my riding. Many older women often live alone and have very little means. Pensions have been stagnating for years and incomes are quite low, while the cost of housing and devices such as hearing aids is going up. Can the Minister of Status of Women tell us what measures the government is implementing for these older, retired women whose pension incomes have been stagnating for years because the government refuses to increase them? [ English ] Hon. K. Kellie Leitch : Mr.

Speaker, to reiterate what has happened in previous economic action plans, one item was the government's most substantive investment in 25 years, augmenting the GIS and the OAS, ensuring that low-income senior Canadians are provided with the opportunity to be better supported. With respect to this budget in particular, economic action plan 2014, there are a number of items, particularly on the medical care side, that I think many of her constituents would have great benefit from.

One is the expanded tax relief under the medical expenses tax credit, ensuring that the costs associated with many of the items receive the tax credit—I know that in my capacity as a physician, many elderly individuals have diabetes, so those items—and also removing the GST/HST on many health products and care. These are issues that are top of mind for older Canadians. I recognize that the aging population has health care needs. These are two specific initiatives that would address those concerns. Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, my question for the minister relates to investments that our government is making in Canada's youth. Providing Canada's youth with opportunities, information, and education is vital to the success of our country. Economic action plan 2014 would make a number of key investments to ensure that today's youth have the skills they need to get the jobs of today and tomorrow. These are programs such as the Canada apprentice loan, the internship for young Canadians, simplifying the Canada student loan program, helping young entrepreneurs, promoting healthier lifestyles, and on and on.

It is a terrific list of programs. Would the minister explain to the House how these significant investments would create employment opportunities for young Canadians? Hon. K. Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, similar to myself, the hon. member has a rural riding. I know in my riding of Simcoe—Grey , whether it be in Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, or Elmvale, the issue of ensuring that young apprentices are supported is top of mind. The dinner table conversation that took place about only going to university is changing to college because of those great opportunities when one graduates to have a well-paying job.

This government recognizes that. That is why we have created a new apprenticeship loan program, $100 million of interest-free money for young Canadians who want to educate themselves for the jobs available today. We know there are tens of thousands of jobs available, and we want to ensure they are prepared. In addition, there is $55 million for paid internships. It is ensuring that young Canadians have the skills they need and are provided with supports, so they can develop them and then expand those opportunities in businesses. I have a wealth of small businesses across my riding.

Whether they be in Alliston or in Creemore, they want to ensure they have young Canadians working for them so they can grow their firms. These internships for small and medium-sized businesses would provide exactly that opportunity.

(1205) Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31 , the Conservatives' first bill to implement budget 2014. Yet again, it is another massive omnibus budget bill of over 350 pages and 500 separate clauses. I will not be supporting this bill, because it fails to address the very real challenges faced by the middle class. Moreover, it does little to help Canadian youth find jobs at a time when there is persistently high youth unemployment and underemployment. Today, there are still 264,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the economic downturn.

The bill does little to help middle class parents and grandparents make ends meet and tackle record high levels of personal debt. Today, the average household owes a record $1.66 for every dollar of disposable income. A few weeks ago, we had two weeks in our constituency offices, and 80% of my meetings were with people who are unemployed and looking for work. These were skilled people, engineers, lawyers, and Ph.D.s. There was one young man who had just graduated in nursing. Unfortunately, he could not afford the $500 for the exam. As a result, he could not work in the field for which he had studied so hard.

I cannot be clearer: people in my community have education, are skilled, and are desperate to work, but they cannot find jobs. Instead of the government putting new programs in place, support services are being cut in my Etobicoke North community. I have gone to the minister several times on this issue, for both settlement programs and job programs. During those past two constituency weeks, we needed to get weekly food programs for five families.

They did not ask for the help, but I realized the need when I reviewed their resumés and saw the last time they had worked and the number of family members they needed to feed. Four individuals asked for counselling to deal with their depression as a result of not having a job, and one talked of suicide. I will bring up one more case. A refugee woman, 18 weeks pregnant, bled through the night. She was afraid to go to the hospital because she could not afford the health care. Now she is afraid of getting an ultrasound because she cannot afford to pay for it.

The Conservatives' changes to Canadian society do not happen in a vacuum. They impact real Canadians who are hurting. The government needs to learn to see the hurt and to respond. Our community is seeing real economic challenges. The government seems out of touch when it talks about this recovery as if it were a uniform recovery that is affecting and helping people in all regions of the country. The reality is that there are groups that are simply being left behind. A lot of families are struggling just to get by.

University graduates have come in to get help after being out of school and out of work for two years. Grandparents have come on behalf of their grandchildren—the first in the family to graduate from university and college—asking why they had fled their country of origin to come to Canada, the land of promise, so their children could have an education, but now that they have an education, they still do not have a job. The people in my constituency need jobs. I have worked hard to get them jobs. In fact, I obtained funding for a completing the circle program, a $500,000 job program in our community.

I personally review and edit resumés late into the night, sometimes doing two and three drafts. We get our people into jobs programs. We follow up with them to make sure their job searches are going in the right direction. While they search, we help them with food, clothing, and whatever other supports they might need. We should all remember that we have seen a 31% increase in food bank usage since 2008. At critical times, I have personally bought bedding, food, furniture, and medicine to help hurting Etobicoke North families. We had one lady come looking for help.

She was in agony due to an ear infection that had raged for three weeks. She had pus and blood running down her face. The sad reality is that she could not afford antibiotics because she could not find a job.

(1210) I have MS patients who cannot take their drugs because they cannot work. How many more stories are there like theirs? What I was looking for in the budget implementation bill, first and foremost, was real help for the people of Etobicoke North for jobs. Instead, we have over 350 pages with 500 separate clauses. Once again, my constituents are saddened by the fact that this is an omnibus bill with multiple sections that deserve full and proper hearings in committee and full parliamentary scrutiny.

Bill C-31 includes numerous measures that do not belong in a budget implementation bill; for example, rules about food safety, hazardous products, rail safety, and even the number of federal judges. The bill continues the Conservatives' battle against openness and transparency by weakening requirements to consult and inform Canadians about safety regulations and user fees. These changes have nothing to do with the implementation bill and are meant only to limit debate on important issues to Canadians.

The Conservatives chose this anti-democratic route in order to adopt the bill's measures quickly and to avoid having them reviewed by Parliament. The Conservatives have repeatedly abused Parliament by ramming through outrageous omnibus bills. For example, a few years ago the government introduced an 880-page omnibus bill, a grab bag of bills the government wanted to pass quickly. In fact, it was half the entire workload of Parliament from the previous year. As a result, the government was severely condemned for turning the legislative process into a farce.

More recently, the government introduced Bill C-38 , the 400-plus page omnibus budget implementation bill. Through the bill, the government sprung sweeping changes on our country, affecting everything from employment insurance, to environmental protection, to immigration, to old age security. None of these changes were in the Conservative platform. They were rushed into law by “an arrogant majority government that’s in a hurry to impose its agenda on the country”. The government's actions reek of hypocrisy.

In the 1990s, the right hon. member for Calgary Southwest criticized omnibus legislation, suggesting that the subject matter of such bills is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles and that dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent the views of their constituents on each part of the bill. The right hon. member is now using the very tactics he once denounced. It is a shame that he changed his tune when he was elected to the highest office in the land.

One newspaper previously stated that omnibus bills are: ...political sleight-of-hand and message control, and it appears to be an accelerating trend. These shabby tactics keep Parliament in the dark, swamp MPs with so much legislation that they can’t absorb it all, and hobble scrutiny. This is not good, accountable, transparent government. In this omnibus budget implementation bill, Bill C-31 , parliamentarians are being asked to consider measures including compassionate leave, expansion of the adoption expense tax credit, medical expense tax credits, and sickness benefits.

We would actually be supportive of these measures as individual measures, but unfortunately these positive measures are being lumped together with some very unreasonable, harmful, and regressive measures that we cannot support. Like the omnibus bills before it, Bill C-31 includes corrections to mistakes in previous budget bills. For the people of Etobicoke North and for young people across Canada, Bill C-31 offers very little. My constituents and Canadians need better and deserve better. (1215) [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

We have the chance to work together on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know how hard she works at studying her files and delving into the issues. I would like to ask her what disastrous consequences these successive omnibus budgets have for the economic situation of women in Canada. Also, how did this situation deteriorate over the years, with the cuts to direct services for Canadians and the creation of low-paying unstable jobs that are often held by women? [ English ] Ms. Kirsty Duncan : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question.

It is a pleasure to work with her on committee. There have been tremendous cuts to women's groups, to Status of Women, a huge reduction in the service centres. We could be tackling the major issues affecting women, like violence against women. We absolutely need a national action plan to end the violence. We need an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. We need to tackle pay equity. It is unconscionable that women in Canada earn 81 cents for every $1 a man earns.

There was a 2005 study by the Royal Bank of Canada, saying we are losing $156 billion annually because of the pay equity gap. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc : Mr. Speaker, can my colleague elaborate on the disastrous long-term consequences of this omnibus budget implementation bill? Over the years, how will this bill, and particularly the change having to do with FATCA, change the principles that are important to us? What impact will this bill have on the laws that protect Canadians' privacy? [ English ] Ms. Kirsty Duncan : Mr. Speaker, there is an increasing trend in omnibus bills.

We need to be able to undertake scrutiny, and we cannot. One of the big changes is that the Canada I grew up in believed in a fair and just society, where everyone had an equal shot. If we worked hard, we had enough food on the table and a roof over our heads, we could send our children to college or university, and we could save for our retirement. Where is that Canada today? The Canada I grew up in believed in feeding our neighbours' child when there was need, and believed that the government was there to look after our most vulnerable citizens.

It is really shameful that the government has forgotten these core Canadian values. We need to honour the promise. In 1989 and 1992, we promised to eliminate child poverty in Canada and to ensure safe, nutritious food for all. There are 169 other countries that feed their children every morning. In Toronto, 40% of elementary school students and 62% of secondary school students go to school hungry. Hungry children cannot learn. It is unconscionable.

(1220) Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride today to rise here in my place and lend my voice to support Bill C-31 ,

an act to implement certain provisions of the federal budget that was brought down on February 11, 2014, here in this House. I represent the great riding of York Centre. York Centre is a unique riding. We have 15 different ethnocultural groups that represent at least 5% of the population. People come from all over the world to the riding of York Centre, and they come for a variety of reasons. They are escaping persecution. They are escaping racism. Most importantly, they are coming to this great country of Canada to seek opportunity for themselves, but more importantly, for their children.

Recently I read about a poll taken around the world asking people where they would like to live. What was their number one country, given their choice? The number one answer given was “Canada”. We have read in the history books that 2,000 years ago, in the Roman Empire, the greatest thing one could say was “ civis Romanus sum ”, “I am a citizen of Rome”. Today, thanks to our Prime Minister and to the actions of our government, the proudest thing Canadians can say, no matter where they are, whether in Canada or around the world, is “I am a citizen of Canada”.

That is why we have people wanting to come to Canada from every corner of the earth. Let me just step back a bit. Canadians have no monopoly on brains and ingenuity and creativity. That exists around the world. This is, however, one of the very few countries around the world that offers opportunity, so people come here seeking that opportunity to get a better life for themselves and their children. That is what Canada is about. That is the most Canadian thing. We are so fortunate under this government.

We have had a plan since 2006, unlike the previous Liberal government, which for 13 years balanced the federal budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our society: seniors and children. It was actually quite an outrage. What we have done is increase transfer payments to the provinces. We increased the GIS, at a record level of 25%, just before the last election. We now have the best-performing economy of any G7 country. It is a jobs-driven economy. We have created over one million net new jobs since the depth of the recession in July 2009. We are leading the G7.

In the month of January, we had a budgetary surplus of $2.9 billion and are on course to get a $6.5 billion budgetary surplus by the time our next budget comes down in 2015. We have done this by lowering taxes to record levels. We have lowered the corporate income tax to 15%, which has made Canada a huge investment opportunity and a destination for businesses to create jobs. We have negotiated nine free trade agreements, more than any Canadian government in history. We just closed negotiations on the Canada–Korea free trade agreement. Preceding that was the Canada–European Union free trade agreement.

Trade means jobs, and this government knows that. People in my riding tell me, when I go to door to door, which I do every weekend, that they have never had it better than under this government under the leadership of our current Prime Minister . Our economy has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 economy, at 36%. The G7 average is 90%. Our second closest competitor is Germany, at just over 50%. We have the highest, strongest income growth of any G7 country, and we have recovered all of the business investment lost during the economic recession.

The IMF, the OECD, and the World Economic Forum have said that Canada is the best place to do business. We have the strongest financial system in the world, exceeding Basel III.

(1225) We have the strongest fundamentals in place over the next 50 years to grow our economy substantially. That is what business looks for. We have frozen EI premiums. Businesses want stability to create jobs. They need to know that, and this government has done that. All the credit rating agencies, from Standard & Poor's to Moody's, have reiterated our AAA credit rating. No other G7 country has benefited from such a credit rating as Canada has. We have brought in a series of budgets since 2006 that are not Conservative budgets or ideologically driven budgets. These are Canadian budgets.

These are budgets that are good for the people of Canada. We have job creation. We have an economy that will stimulate jobs and encourage investment, unlike the New Democrats, whose ideology gives them the answers before they even look at the evidence. That is why they do not bother to read bills that come before the House, because their ideology will give them the answer before they even need to read them. We have lowered taxes on average Canadians. We have lowered the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, putting a thousand extra dollars in the pockets of Canadians.

We believe that Canadians know what to do with their money better than what governments can do with it. We have enhanced the working income tax benefit. Eight million Canadians have opened up tax-free savings accounts. We have reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11% and the general business tax from 21% to 15%, as I indicated earlier. We are increasing the age credit and the pension income credit. We have taken more than one million Canadians off the tax rolls. No other government in Canadian history has ever been able to achieve that.

Our current unemployment rate, with a record number of people who want jobs in Canada because our economy is doing so well, is below 7%. In the heyday of the Liberals, in the mid 1990s, in an economy that was doing extremely well around the world, the unemployment rate never fell below 7%. We, in a fragile economy, must be doing something right, and it is not me who is saying that. It is all the economic institutions around the world who are saying that Canada is the model of economic performance. When