OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 048 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, February 13, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 13, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 048 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 048 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 048 (Version officielle) 147 048 13 02 2014 2014/02/13 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings Supplementary Estimates (C), 2013-14 A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (

C) for the financial year ending March 31, 2014, was presented by the Leader of the government in the House of Commons for the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House. (1005) [ English ] Petitions Criminal Code Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have with me this morning a petition with 3,000 signatures from all over our great nation, calling on Parliament to decriminalize the selling of sexual services by victims, and to criminalize the purchase of the sexual services by the predators who use them. I respectfully submit this from petitioners all across Canada.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from thousands of Canadians who are calling on the Government of Canada to immediately impose a ban on the importation of shark fins to Canada.

Aboriginal Affairs Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present a petition on behalf of the Native Women's Association of Canada, which urges the government to hold a national public inquiry into the ongoing tragedy of the drastically disproportionate numbers of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada. The petition also calls on the government to involve those most affected by this tragic issue, aboriginal women, in the design and implementation of this inquiry.

I would like to take the opportunity to recognize that the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, Michèle Audette, is on the Hill today, with Elder Annie St. Georges and loved ones of the victims, to speak about their online petition which also calls for a national inquiry. It has more than 17,000 signatures.

Canada Post Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to present petitions from a few hundred Canadians who are upset with Canada Post's decision to axe good jobs and home delivery, and the cost of stamps. They are asking the government to reverse these cuts to services that were recently announced and to look at ways to modernize operations instead.

[ Translation ] VIA Rail Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting part of a petition signed by 24,000 people in New Brunswick who, like those in northern Mauricie, are struggling with cuts to rail service.

Gatineau Park Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting two petitions signed by hundreds of people. They are calling on the government to make regulations to protect Gatineau Park. Gatineau Park is home to about 90 endangered plant and 50 endangered animal species. The park is a gem, and it would be in the government's interest to listen to what Canadians and Quebeckers are saying. The government should make regulations to protect this magnificent park.

[ English ] Multiple Sclerosis Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on CCSVI. It has been four years since Canadians began travelling overseas for treatment for CCSVI. Canadians with MS are wondering how the government is going to judge the radically different CCSVI data from the east and west of Canada, and when there might be an update on the government's MS registry, which was announced in March 2011. The petitioners call upon the Minister of Health to undertake phase III clinical trials on an urgent basis in the multiple centres across Canada, and to require follow-up care.

[ Translation ] VIA Rail Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by more than 100 people. It can be added to the others that have been signed by hundreds of people, urging the Canadian government to take any measure necessary to preserve the rail line between Montreal and Halifax. We know that the segment between Bathurst and Miramichi is currently for sale and may close down, which could compromise rail transportation in eastern Quebec and the Maritimes.

The more than 100 names on this petition are an addition to the hundreds of signatures that the House has already received. We are asking the Canadian government to take action.

(1010) [ English ] The Environment Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is on behalf of my constituents with respect to hydraulic fracturing. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing. They are speaking to the process itself and what is required for it to take place. The petitioners point out that several Canadian provinces, as well as several U.S. states, have halted the practice. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to do the same.

Mining Industry Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from my constituents, who are concerned about mining. The petitioners want the creation of a legislative ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining. The petitioners are saying that there is not enough oversight in terms of mining practices. Therefore, they call upon the Government of Canada to create a legislative ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining.

Parks Canada Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition is from people who are worried about the cutbacks in operation hours for the Rideau Canal and Trent-Severn Waterway. The petitioners would like the hours to be restored to the service level of 2011.

Public Transit Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from constituents who call upon the government to provide long-term, predictable, and non-partisan funding for public transit. The petitioners believe that Canadians deserve fast, reliable, and affordable public transit, and that there is an estimated $32-billion investment gap in public transit infrastructure needs across Canada.

Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of the Native Women's Association of Canada. It is a petition that has been signed by tens of thousands of Canadians. The petitioners are asking the Conservative government to call a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. It is time to do that for the families of those who are grieving for their communities. It is time for justice. I want to acknowledge the hard work in moving this petition by people like Elder Annie St.

Georges; family members of women who are missing, such as Lorna Martin, Sue Martin, and Gail Nepinak; as well as the team at the Native Women's Association of Canada, president Michéle Audette; Irene Goodwin, Teresa Edwards, Daryle Gardipy, Jackie Brennan, Amanda Mitchell, Rebekah Elkerton, and Sarah MacLean. I thank them very much.

Ukraine Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition today that expresses the concerns of people from across Canada who are urging Parliament to take action to help facilitate a peaceful resolution to the current unrest and government-sanctioned, anti-democratic crackdown against Ukrainians. In cities across Ukraine, Euromania protesters are demanding a democratic Ukraine that must allow for opposition voices to exist and be heard. The current treatment of protesters and human rights violations must be admonished.

This petition asks Parliament to stand in solidarity with Ukrainians and to impose targeted sanctions against individuals who are responsible for the ongoing violations in Ukraine.

[ Translation ] Gatineau Park Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I too have the pleasure to present a petition signed by residents of the national capital region who are calling on the government to pass legislation that would give Gatineau Park full protection.

Manawan School Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by 688 people. We, the undersigned, are calling on the Government of Canada to fulfill the commitment it made by adopting Motion No. 571 on September 16, 2010, and address the untenable situation in Manawan. These children are looking forward to going to a building that can actually be called a school.

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

Government Orders The Budget (1015) [ Translation ] The Budget Financial Statement of Minister of Finance Motion The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment. Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to finish the speech I started yesterday on the federal government's 2014 budget. I will start with a quick

summary of what I talked about yesterday. I provided an overview of Canada's economic situation. The government painted a picture of it, but the real picture is not as pretty as the government would have us believe. The last four budgets have been about austerity and cuts, and this budget is no different. The government is not trying to hide that fact. What it is trying to hide is the fact that its cuts are bad for economic growth and job creation. The Parliamentary Budget Officer pointed that out in his latest reports to the House.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer also pointed out that economic growth, or Canada's current economic performance, is about 1.6% lower than it would have been without the cuts. That might not seem like a big difference, but 1.6% amounts to tens of billions of dollars that did not contribute to economic growth and that were lost in terms of potential economic prosperity. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is not the only one to have pointed that out.

In its latest report, published in January, the International Monetary Fund clearly indicated that the Canadian government's austerity measures, including those in the previous budget, resulted in economic growth that was 10% to 15% lower than it would have been without those measures. We can tackle growth and job creation if we delay balancing the budget until 2016 or 2017. Canada is still in a strong position compared to our partners, even though our situation is not as rosy as the government says. Still, when it comes to balancing the budget, the debt-to-GDP ratio, we can wait.

That is what the International Monetary Fund said. The government still says that we are leading the G7 on economic growth, but that is no longer true. The growth outlook puts us third, and we are sliding slowly because of the Conservative government's inaction. The OECD says the same thing: we are now in the middle of the pack, and other countries that have come up with more ways to promote growth and job creation are edging past Canada. While our economic growth is stagnating, the federal government is turning a blind eye.

The goal of this budget, the not-so-secret objective, is to achieve a balanced budget in 2015. The Conservative government's open secret is that it wants to have good news to spread in 2015, just in time for the election. That is not the best way to run a country or to demonstrate good governance. That is not what it means to work for the common good of Canadians, but it is what the Conservative government has decided to do. I would like to mention one final point to remind hon. members of what I was saying yesterday.

I was shocked to hear one particular statement from the Minister of Finance during his budget speech, and I will repeat it again. The Minister of Finance said: ...our government remains committed to balancing the budget in 2015, but I must be clear. We did not do this on the backs of ordinary Canadians or Canadians in need... How can the Minister of Finance say such a thing? I am well aware that, not only in my riding, but in my part of the country, massive cuts have been made to employment insurance.

If the minister does not see that employment insurance provides assistance to people in need, then he is really out of touch. There have been significant cuts in other areas, too, including VIA Rail, Canada Post, Service Canada, veterans' services and food inspection, as well as in science and technology, which help Canada remain competitive in the world, both economically and in terms of technological advances. It is absolutely absurd for the minister to claim that the cuts made over the past four years have had no effect on ordinary Canadians or Canadians in need; on the contrary.

I just mentioned food inspection. There are a handful of measures in the budget that we actually agree with. Of course, as the government members rise to express their support for this budget, they will choose certain measures here and there, mentioning a given fantastic measure on a given page. They will probably choose measures that we agree with.

(1020) The main job creation and economic growth measures are not in the overall budget. To come back to food inspection, we applaud one measure in particular, and that is adding inspectors to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. However, this measure speaks to the government's denial of certain situations. It is good to add 200 inspectors and the equivalent of roughly $350 million or $360 million to improve food safety. The problem is that for two years, the government has been denying that its massive budget cuts have had any impact on food inspection.

It is finally opening its eyes and including a measure in this budget to add 200 inspectors. What did they do for the 300 inspectors who have been laid off in the past two years? They did not say in their budget. At the end of the day, we still have a lot of work to do to make this government realize that it has to have a direct hand in filling the gaps left by its previous budgets. It has to stop waiting two years to consider each major problem pointed out by the opposition. I am also in favour of the measure to provide rural homes with high-speed broadband Internet access. I fully support that measure.

Why did the government eliminate most of the Internet access programs that provided funding for using the Internet at rural libraries? First, the government takes away an essential service from the rural regions for two or three years, and then it wakes up to the fact that the rural regions are suffering from this lack of access and decides to give them something. I look forward to seeing concrete results. Having 280,000 people connected to the Internet may seem like a lot, but countrywide it is not so much per riding. We can get behind many measures that will be beneficial.

The first budget implementation bill will probably be introduced in April. That is when we will be able to discuss it and see how the government would like to begin applying these measures. Often the devil is in the details. If these measures are acceptable, we will support them in the Standing Committee on Finance. The government knows full well that the vote on budget implementation bills, like the vote on the budget itself, includes all the measures.

Although we can agree on some of the smaller measures that will be significant to the community, most of the major job creation and economic growth measures are just not in the budget. I would like to close by talking about the government's approach to its different programs. Take the job grant for example. Trying to connect the unemployed with jobs based on their skills is a noble objective. We agree. However, we are not talking about objectives; we are talking about how it is done.

In terms of the job grant, which is a provincially run training program, the Minister of Finance said that it is the federal government's money and that it is going to spend that money as it pleases. Just imagine the resulting problems with implementing those key measures. Once again, we agree that it is a good objective, but confronting the provinces in their own area of jurisdiction creates problems in implementing those measures.

If those measures are needed now, the government members will agree with us that the provinces must be on board and consulted to ensure that the measures can be implemented as soon as possible. Instead, what is the government doing? It is picking quarrels with the provinces. We saw all the provinces react right away. Let me say that they were also not happy with the Minister of Finance 's comments after the budget was tabled. They did not understand. This is not the only issue on which the Conservatives have failed to respect jurisdictions and to co-operate with the provinces.

There is also the single securities commission. They have renamed it but it is still a move toward a centralized securities regulator. However, that too is an area of provincial jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court said so.

(1025) The federal government's role is to monitor the whole system, even though the provinces apply the rules. The provinces understand the importance of creating a synergy amongst themselves in order to ensure that we have a strong financial system that protects us, while creating as few obstacles as possible for investors. The provinces work together. With a passport system, for example, an issue that creates a legal precedent can be recognized as case law in all provinces, and the accreditation of someone working in the field can be recognized across Canada, even if he or she works in one particular province.

Co-operation among the provinces and the passport system have eliminated many obstacles. Just imagine how quickly we could set up a system that would achieve the government's objectives, if it worked with the provinces that set up this system. Unfortunately, the government prefers its own system and is now looking for the provinces' co-operation. To date, only two provinces are working with the federal government while eight have declined.

How much time will we have to spend trying to convince some provinces that are not really willing to adopt this system, when we could have a system that would achieve the same objectives much more quickly if the government accepted the provinces' initiative? That is not all. This budget would also eliminate the immigrant investor program. We can and should discuss the effectiveness of the program. However, in the end, the government made the decision without the provinces' agreement. Just yesterday, the Premier of Saskatchewan, Brad Wall, rejected the government's one-way initiative.

The government has no idea where it is currently headed or how a federation works. To achieve its objectives as quickly as possible, a federal government has to come to an agreement with the provincial governments and work with them. Instead, this government is being confrontational and as a result it will take much longer to develop the objectives and elements of good governance, even when that is possible. In that sense, this budget clearly does not achieve the objective that a government should set for itself, that is, to focus government resources on economic growth and job creation.

They will talk it over and tell themselves that it can be done, but believe me, this budget will not meet any of its objectives. The only objective in this budget is the arbitrary objective to balance the budget in 2015, so that the Conservatives can hand out goodies and try to win over the Canadian public with their claims of good governance. I guarantee you that the public will not be fooled and that at the next election in 2015 it will hear all about the lack of good governance. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, one easily comes to an understanding that the budget is status quo, a holdback with no real vision for Canada. We get the sense that at the end of the day the Conservatives are putting political priorities ahead of what is in the best interests of Canadians. It is interesting that the highlight of the budget seems to be that we will balance the budget. When the Conservatives took office they had a very healthy surplus, billions of dollars in surplus, compliments of former prime minister Paul Martin. They converted that healthy surplus, even before the recession began, into a deficit.

The finances were in good order when the Conservatives took over. One of the most significant economic factors is international trade. Again, the Conservatives inherited a good, solid, healthy, multibillion-dollar surplus. That means thousands of jobs for Canadians. They have converted that into an unhealthy billion-dollar-plus trade deficit. That means the loss of thousands of jobs. Would the member not agree that one of the ways to best achieve a balanced budget, and even go into a surplus, is to encourage growth in Canada?

We can do that by increasing the trade surplus, or striving to get a trade surplus and so forth. Would the member provide comment on that? (1030) [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his question. Economic growth and job creation are indeed connected to good governance and the policies that go along with that. I completely agree with the member. The Conservatives brag about balancing the budget, but they are the ones who created a deficit before the recession even hit, as a result of the measures they implemented, measures that most economists called ineffective.

As for the Conservatives' management, since they came to power they have increased our national debt by $123 billion. Now they are bragging about balancing the budget eight or nine years after they came to power. Aside from their first two budgets, the one after the 2006 election, when they took over from another administration, and the one in 2007, when the surplus had already shrunk by about half, the last time that a Conservative government balanced the budget was in 1912 under Robert Borden. The government needs to do some soul-searching about how it has managed the economy and about its priorities.

It refuses to do so, which we think is shameful. The economy goes hand in hand with balance, but the Conservatives only seem to talk about the fiscal aspect. The economy is complex. Taxes are an important element, but they are not the only things that help ensure a healthy economy. We need to adopt policies that will address issues such as income inequality, energy and energy prices. Those policies must cover everything that makes Canada attractive to investors. The Conservatives are not doing that.

They are blind to the complexities of the economy and the more sophisticated measures that are required to achieve that prosperity. [ English ] Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the hon. member's speech and to the question from the Liberal member, and I am a little perplexed, because back in 2009, when the global economic recession hit, it was actually with the urging and the support of both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party that our government put about $55 billion into stimulus funding to help spur and support the economy at that very difficult time. It is certainly a huge accomplishment that the world's best Minister of Finance has worked diligently to try to overcome that $55-billion deficit.

The hon. member speaks in very general terms about things he would like to see done. Can he tell this House this: When was the last time, if ever, the New Democratic Party actually costed all of its wishes and recommendations that its members speak to so eloquently in this House? Have the New Democrats ever put a number to what that would cost Canadian taxpayers? It is one thing to stand on the other side and say that they do not like this and they do not like that and that they think something is a better idea.

However, the reality is that they have to have money to pay for the things they are saying, and the New Democrats have never put a number on their wish list. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that the member did not really follow what happened before the budget was tabled. We made four specific requests. We asked that the eco-energy program be reinstated. It had three objectives: to fight climate change, to assist taxpayers and to provide jobs. The eco-energy program provided 15,000 people with work.

That was coupled with our other requests, which were to establish a tax credit for hiring young people and an additional tax credit to help small and medium-sized businesses increase hiring. Our fourth request was to bring back veterans' offices. Our requests would cost approximately $500 million. We were not asking the government to spend an additional $500 million. We were simply saying that the budget is a question of choice. The government's initiatives are less effective. Instead, the government should take the ideas we proposed so that more jobs would be created.

Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance did not listen. I would like to remind the hon. member that the Minister of Finance himself reports on the state of public finances in the federal government and the provinces. Since 1982, or since 1987, depending on where my colleague wants to start, in all the provinces, the NDP governments have been the best and most effective at balancing the budget. Yes, the NDP understands the importance of economic growth and a balanced budget, particularly in an economic cycle.

The Conservative government, however, does not score well in this particular subject, at the federal level in particular.

(1035) Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his very enlightening speech that covered important details about this budget and the government's failure to take action. My Conservative colleague's question referred to the government's highly Manichaean, almost cartoonish approach to extolling the qualities of the greatest minister in all of the universes, known and unknown. However, the government is suffering from wilful blindness.

My colleague said that in his speech, and we saw it at the Standing Committee on Finance, especially when the acting Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared. Despite the Conservatives' desperate attempts to show that all of the jobs created since the end of the recession were the direct result of government measures, analysts have never been able to show the government conclusive evidence that it was all connected. The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer also pointed out that austerity slowed our economy down and resulted in both job losses and loss of economic growth.

I would like my colleague to give us an idea of what this has cost Canadians. The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has one minute to answer. Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I will answer quickly, even though the question does require a little more time. There are two parts to my answer. First of all, when we talk about the choices this government makes in terms of its policies, there is something called the multiplier effect. Each of the various measures has a different effect on economic growth.

For instance, infrastructure measures will help create $1.50 in economic growth for every $1 invested. Measures meant to help the most vulnerable families—whether in the area of employment insurance or social housing—will create about $1.45 for every $1 invested. The reason is that those people spend money and therefore contribute to economic growth. Measures like reducing corporate taxes, as the Conservatives did, can have a positive impact, and they hope it will, but in the end, it has been proven that in the short and medium term, this yields only 30¢ of economic growth for every $1 lost in revenue.

In that sense, the government is clearly not going in the right direction. As for the issue of policies, the former parliamentary budget officer clearly demonstrated that austerity policies usually mean that fewer jobs can be created—sometimes thousands fewer and sometimes more than 10,000 fewer. [ English ] Mr. Chungsen Leung (Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, first I wish to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming .

When I was a university student, one of the first words my professor in the economics department said was, “You cannot spend more than what you have taken in”. Economics is a very simple science. We have to balance what we take in with what we spend. A couple of days ago, the finance minister indicated very clearly that we need to achieve a balanced budget and that it will be done through job creation, economic growth, and ensuring the long-term prosperity of Canada. Let me also explain to members opposite, if they do not understand, microeconomics and macroeconomics.

Microeconomics has to do with one's basic household budget. We cannot spend more than we earn. Businesses also cannot spend more than they earn, or else they go bankrupt. I have served in public companies in the past. I have had to stand in front of my shareholders every year to explain the company's strategy to achieve a balanced budget and to put it in a profitable position year after year. I think the minister has done an excellent job outlining to the nation, to corporate Canada, if we treat Canada as a corporation, in a macroeconomic sense, that we cannot spend more than we take in.

I think that is the basic lesson we have to learn about the economy of this country. In this balanced budget, there is another side that is not being explained at all by the members of the opposition. I do not think they quite understand the concept of assets and liabilities. The country's assets are our human resources, our natural resources, and our ability to educate our youth so that they can carry on building this nation.

Where we cannot internally generate these assets or wealth, we could have policies to bring in immigrants, entrepreneur immigrants, or we could set the most favourable, business-friendly conditions in Canada to attract those types of assets to Canada. On the liability side, we have to spend in a measured way so that we do not overspend what we have. We can argue that, yes, we can sometimes, in a stimulus way, spend a little bit more, as we did in 2008-09, by borrowing from the future. However, at the end of the day, we have to balance the budget.

That is absolutely key to the long-term survival of the economy of this country. Let me drill down a bit to help my friends across the way understand what is needed to maintain these sustainable economic conditions. We need to create a business-friendly environment. We need to have safe families. We need to have safe communities. We need to have healthy families. We need to educate our youth from day one until the point that they can contribute to our society. We need to have a stable government.

We cannot be changing a government every year or every two years, as we have witnessed in Italy or in Thailand, where in the last 50 years, they have had 30 changes of government. That is not a stable economy for a business-friendly environment. We need to attract direct foreign investment. Some tools the government has to attract direct foreign investment are low taxes and an investment-friendly environment so that foreign business will say that Canada is a great place to do business, and they will come here and invest. Let me share something about Canada's tax system.

Since the Conservatives have been in power, we have reduced taxes 160 times, from consumption taxes to corporate taxes and just about every kind of tax we can think of.

(1040) Our general federal corporate tax in Canada is 15%. This is probably one of the lowest of the G7 and, as a matter of fact, it is the lowest in the world. I used to do business in Hong Kong, where the corporate tax rate is 16.5%. We are even lower than Hong Kong. Bloomberg and the IMF have agreed that Canada is now one of the best places to do business. We provide our labour, our families, with a very generous universal health system. We have one of the best education systems, which attracts hundreds of thousands of international students, also benefiting our economy.

As far as stimulus to our small and medium-size enterprises, which are the backbone of our economy, our tax rate for businesses under $500,000 is about 11%. I cannot think of a country with that generous a tax regime. Something that we talk about a lot, and the member opposite alluded to, is the government spends $1 and it generates a 50% more multiplier effect. There are many ways to look at this multiplier effect. In a business sense, if we look at the accelerated capital cost allowance, Canada has a very generous accelerated capital cost allowance.

This allows businesses to modernize and to upgrade their equipment so they can be competitive in the 21st century. We have mineral exploration credits so we could have these minerals more effectively explored and then sell them as products around the world. We have scientific research and development credits that assist our corporations to engage in research and innovation and eventually to take that quantum leap from innovation to commercialization. All of these we have to do effectively with the multiplier effect of our generous tax credit.

Opposition members seem to imply that our government is not compassionate with our spending policy. That is totally wrong. Let me share some of the examples where we are totally compassionate on this side. We have the arts credit to encourage our youth to participate in the arts and to develop their literary and musical side. We have a fitness credit to encourage Canadians to be fit. We have a mass transit credit to encourage Canadians to use mass transit to reduce pollution in our environment.

We have a live-in caregiver credit to allow seniors to live a dignified life in their own homes so they are not ending up in hospitals, old age homes, or totally alone. We have disability credits of many sorts that assist people who are hard of hearing, sight-impaired, and with other disabilities. All of these are totally compassionate measures of our government to recognize the needs of our citizens. In the budget we also introduced the search and rescue volunteer credit to recognize the good work volunteers do in our society. There is also the adoption expense credit.

We recognize that in today's world, many families are unable to have children, so we propose to reduce their adoption costs. There is also the medical expense credit. The opposition also mentioned the immigrant investment program that we propose to delete. The immigrant investment program as it has existed for 30 years has not worked. At $800,000 it brings in only jobs like convenience stores, dry cleaners, and small grocery stores. These do not work. We will implement a new investor immigrant venture capital fund that would bring money into Canada and we would treat it almost like the CBC's Dragon's Den .

All the economic elements are there for a balanced budget.

(1045) Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's intervention carefully. He spoke about economics and balanced budgets. If we look across the country, we will find that it is in fact New Democrat governments that have proven track records of good fiscal management. I would like to ask the member why his government has not adopted his balanced budget philosophy in the past eight budgets. It has delivered eight deficit budgets. Could the member explain why the government has not delivered in the past eight budgets? Mr. Chungsen Leung : Mr.

Speaker, the economic cycle has its ups and downs. The last down cycle was in 2008, and if people had invested in the stock market they would have seen their stocks go down about 30%. Rather than using fairly draconian measures to bring the economy out of that down cycle, we have come up with a gradual way. We cannot turn on a dime. A certain amount of time is needed to bring our budget to the country. These gradual changes are a steady method to make changes rather than making dramatic changes that would hurt the economy.

(1050) Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague very well. As a successful businessman, I am sure he would never try to balance his books on hypothetical money coming from here and there, thereby allowing him to declare a surplus. The phoney surplus that is supposed to happen in 2015 is based on inflated employment insurance, on a one-time-only selling of assets, and contingency money. For the government to predict that this would provide a $6.4 billion surplus, which would in turn be invested, is hypothetical. It is phoney, and it is no way to run a business.

Would you look at your books that way? The Deputy Speaker : I would remind all members to address their comments to the chair. Mr. Chungsen Leung : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for recognizing the fact that I was a successful businessman. That is very helpful. It gives my speaking here in the House some credibility. Prior to entering politics and prior to being a successful businessman, I spent over five years in public accounting, where I had the opportunity to audit companies. I audited small corner-grocery stores all the way up to publicly listed companies and multinationals.

When we do a budget, we do not look at hypothetical income coming in or hypothetical expenses. We forecast what expenses would be. We actually forecast what income would be coming in given the economic condition. The assets are then invested behind that. In a way, it is a very measured type of activity. We consult various departments, staff, and experts who give us the input we need. We also look at the entire international environment that we are doing business in. The member mentioned something about a contingency fund.

As prudent businessmen, we always put a contingency reserve on our balance sheets to ensure that we meet our budgets. The $3 billion contingency fund has been put in precisely for that, in order to be prudent and safe and to express to Canadians that we really know what we are doing when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Mr. Jay Aspin (Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to give my full support to economic action plan 2014. This year's budget will continue Canada's global fiscal leadership.

We have been leading the G7 in job creation and debt-to-GDP for some time now. This budget will deliver job creation and debt reduction, which are our government's key priorities. Reducing the debt plays a key role in job creation as it reduces government expense burdens, allowing for more spending on programs and support, and for job creation. The budget also sends a strong signal of stability to businesses and investors. These financial management policies have elevated Canada to be one of the best places in the world to conduct business. Canada is envied around the world.

Most importantly, our government has achieved this result responsibly, not on the backs of taxpayers or with irresponsible fire-sales of important government assets. There will be no reduction in health care, equalization, or other transfers. In fact, they have all risen. In particular, the Province of Ontario will receive $19.2 billion in support from Ottawa in 2014–15, a 56% increase since our government took power in 2006.

Whereas the opposition parties have continued to push for excess and irresponsible spending, our government has stayed the course, invested in job-creating infrastructure and initiatives, and consistently decreased the tax burden on Canadian families. On average, Canadian families pay $3,400 less in taxes every year as a result of our government's initiatives and commitment to making sure Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets. This budget is focused on key initiatives to keep our economy growing.

I would like to cite a few measures in particular that mean a lot to my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming. First and foremost, the continued support for FedNor. FedNor, as members know, particularly in northern Ontario, plays a critical role in economic development. Since May 2011, I have been very successful in working with FedNor, and I am pleased that the funding has been secured in the budget. Second, I argued along with my colleagues in northern Ontario for a fund targeted to small municipalities. I am hopeful that the announcement this afternoon will bear some fruit as part of the building Canada fund.

These funds are important. These funds are for roads, bridges, and older water pipes. Just over $300 million will be invested in broadband Internet access infrastructure in rural and northern Canada. This is an important measure. This is key for many residents in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming. With this infrastructure, 98% of Canadians will have broadband access. That is quite a feat. Apprentices in red-seal programs will gain access to over $100 million in interest-free loans of up to $4,000. This is golden for my riding.

Twenty-six thousand Canadian apprentices will benefit and help close the skills gap in Canada. Local businesses have complained about skills shortages, and this will help them meet the demand and create new jobs. In the next few months, the federal government will complete and launch the Canada jobs grant. This program will indeed be an important measure in my community. Canadians and businesses will have access to training grants of up to $15,000, a key measure in the continued growth and development of our workforce.

Our federal government is committed to ensuring Canadians have access to job and skills training, and it will not allow politics to deny Canadians access to the training needed to gain employment.

(1055) The fifth measure that is indeed important for my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming is innovation, research, and youth employment. During a presentation last night by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, it indicated that we are among the world's leaders in innovation. It encourages our government to step up and keep up that pace.

There will be the establishment of a Canada first research excellence fund; $1.5 billion over the next decade will go to universities and post-graduate programs that would generate long-term economic opportunities for Canada; and up to $40 million will go to 3,000 youth internships, which will target youth unemployment in Canada as well as in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming; and an additional $15 million for up to 1,000 internships in small and medium-sized enterprises. Therefore, Canada is on the right track. However, we need to remain focused, stay on course, and fulfill our commitments to Canadians.

I am proud of this budget. I am proud to support it. The federal government is on the right track to balanced budgets, continued low taxes, and continued global financial leadership.

(1100) Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by the member. It is interesting that there was no mention of northern Ontario, FedNor, or the Ring of Fire in this budget. The Ring of Fire is $60 billion, and the government cannot come to the table. There were a number of NDP MPs up there last Friday. We talked to the stakeholders who, in unison, said that the federal government was absent; so I was hoping there would be some mention of that in the budget. The member mentioned FedNor. It was not mentioned in the budget.

In fact, over the last four or five years, tens of millions of dollars have disappeared from FedNor. I was hoping some of that money would come back in this budget. As I believe we have four Conservative MPs in northern Ontario, why do the Conservatives hate northern Ontario so much? Mr. Jay Aspin : Mr. Speaker, clearly the NDP, including its leader, continue to spread falsehoods in northern Ontario. He was up in northern Ontario just this past spring saying that all this money has disappeared from FedNor. The good news is that FedNor is the same. It is stable.

When we are into a rationalization of government services, the status quo is good news. As I mentioned to my hon. friend, I have achieved record funding with FedNor. FedNor continues to improve the lives and livelihoods of people in northern Ontario. FedNor is there in spades. Our government supports the full services of FedNor. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is not only northern Ontario that the government seems to hate and have a dislike for; it is also Atlantic Canada and basically rural Canada everywhere.

There is nothing with respect to the grain crisis in western Canada, which is a result of the government's previous decisions. The member mentioned the $40 million over four years for the apprenticeship program. On that we agree. There needs to be an apprenticeship program. It accounts for about 3,000 people. What about the other 259,000 youth that are underemployed or out of work? What is in this budget to address their concerns?

Members know that one of the problems with the government is that it tinkers a little here and a little there, announces a little program here, but then it leaves 90% out, in terms of program availability. That is what it has done with young people in this country. We do need apprentices. However, other young people need opportunities too. Why is there nothing in this budget for them? Mr. Jay Aspin : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. We have started. We have started with $40 million in apprenticeships. That is a start, just like the broadband program we started years ago.

As I mentioned, it covers 98% of Canadians. I will make the member a pledge. As soon as we can recover the $40 million in the sponsorship scandal, we will complete the rest of our apprenticeship program. Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about the good news for the youth of our country, the good news in terms of jobs and skills training, apprenticeship, and youth employment. I would like the member to elaborate on these three areas because in his speech he did a commendable job of doing that.

Perhaps we need to repeat some of that good information, so members opposite can get some new information.

(1105) Mr. Jay Aspin : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hard-working colleague for that question. As I mentioned, it is a start, with respect to apprenticeship loans. Apprentices in the red seal programs would gain access to over $100 million in interest-free loans of up to $4,000, which is a great start, and 26,000 Canadian apprentices would benefit and help close the gaps. It is a new program. It is a start. I am sure it will grow and help youth in Canada in the future. Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I need to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the fantastic member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca . I am looking forward to that, after my speech is over. The important thing to talk about in this budget is that it reminds me of one of my favourite television shows from the mid 1990s to the end of the 1990s, which was Seinfeld . Seinfeld was a show about nothing. It was a show about lots of blunder and lots of talk, but it was really about nothing, which is the same thing we have seen with this budget. There was not a heck of a lot in the budget.

It really comes down to choices and priorities. On this side of the House, we think the government's choices and priorities are wrong. Are there a few good things in the budget? Of course there are. There are some things that we have been calling for, like rural and northern Broadbent—I mean, broadband. That was a Freudian slip. The importance of broadband for northern and rural communities is something we have been stating all along, especially as we have seen the failure of the spectrum auction that the government has been putting out over the last year.

We need broadband to grow our economy in the north, especially in northern cities and in rural communities. Let us look at that and what the government did when it comes to the food inspectors. In the budget, we have 200 new food inspectors. That is fantastic. That is great. However, why is it that we get 200 new food inspectors when the government cut 300? We had to go through the biggest meat recall crisis in our country's history. We had the listeriosis meat recall.

It just keeps showing that, when the government cuts and cuts and then makes the announcement that is putting 200 food inspectors in, it is just a falsehood. When we talk about nothing, we are talking about a do-nothing budget. Areas of northern Ontario, such as the great city of Sudbury that I represent, as well as Thunder Bay and Rainy River and all of the great communities that I can think of there, are not mentioned in the budget. The two words do not come together. My hon. colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming talked earlier about FedNor, saying that the status quo is good enough.

Actually, the status quo is not good enough. When we are keeping the Ring of Fire at bay because there is a lack of leadership, that is not good enough for northern Ontarians. We need the government to act on, to jump on, and to support economic growth in northern Ontario, but this budget does not do it. There is also no mention of any infrastructure projects. It is as if the government completely forgot that northern Ontario existed. Small businesses, again, are very important.

We on this side of the House and maybe everyone in the House will agree that small businesses are the economic drivers and job creators in this country. However, the government eliminated the small business hiring credit. The Conservatives are turning their backs on job creation. The HCSB affects around 560,000 businesses across the country, and it generally captured companies with roughly 20 to 35 employees or fewer. The HCSB was estimated to cost around $225 million annually. Even when the Conservatives decided to include small business related measures in the budget, it was only in vague terms.

For example, once again, business owners are left waiting for real action to combat something that we, on this side of the House, have been fighting on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis: the highest credit card processing fees in the world. What is in the budget? To address the high cost of fees merchants pay banks to process credit cards, the government will consult on how to best disclose the cost of different payment methods. I repeat, consult. There are no further details or timelines.

While we do not have a problem with such disclosure, the NDP is calling for stronger measures to address uncompetitive practices in the market. It is not just the NDP that is calling for this. There are groups out there saying action is needed now. The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association asked why we need to talk about this again and why the Conservatives need to consult about an issue that the organization and many others have been talking about for years.

(1110) Every time we see the interchange rate or these swipe fees go up, it not only affects small business owners, but every single Canadian. For every single Canadian, the price of whatever product they are buying goes up because the credit card companies continue to increase these rates. When they increase these rates, small business owners have two choices. First, they can eat the cost and then, unfortunately, have to close their doors, which none of us want to see, and stop accepting credit cards. In this day and age, credit cards are almost a public utility.

Second, they can increase the price of their products to offset the cost that is being paid. We can have action now on this. We waited until July of 2013 to hear from the Competition Tribunal to act on many of these anti-competitive practices that have been implemented by the credit card companies and the banks. The Competition Tribunal then ruled that they cannot make the decision, that this is a political decision that needs to come back to Parliament. Since July, we have been waiting for action, and what we get from the government is more consultation. That relates right back to this do-nothing budget.

It is a matter of waiting until next year when the government says it will actually have a surplus, and then the government will act. However, if we look at the numbers, which even the Minister of Finance said, we could have been in a surplus this year. Now Canadian businesses and families have to wait another year before they will see any action on this and many other things that would save Canadians' pocketbooks, making life more affordable for them right now. One of my other Conservative colleagues mentioned in his speech that we need to ensure that consumers have a balanced budget at home.

Right now, Canadians have skyrocketing household debt. We could have taken action on many things that could have helped Canadian consumers right now, such as capping ATM fees. That is one. We had that debate here last week. That would keep more money in the pockets of Canadian consumers. While that would not address the household debt, it would still be a small piece in an overall puzzle to ensure that we are keeping money in the pockets of Canadians. That is one example. What about ending the pay-to-pay billing program that we are seeing for many of the large institutions?

I believe that is on page 175 of the budget, but it only seems to be going after the banks on this one. That is great, but what about all of the other ones? We need to have more details on that to ensure that we are not gouging low-income earners and seniors, who are mostly the ones affected by a pay-to-pay program. The pay-to-pay program is very simple: people who are getting paper bills are now being charged $2 by some of these organizations to receive them. Some would say it is only $2, but if we start adding it up, 10 or 15 bills per month multiplied by 12 months add up to a couple of hundred dollars.

For seniors, that is rent or food on the table. There is a lot more we could do to address those types of issues. There are many things we could have done with this budget. If the Conservatives had actually listened to some of our ideas and used them, we could have truly helped Canadians now. One of the issues I am hearing about quite often in my riding relates to veterans. The veterans in my riding and the great citizens of Sudbury are actually appalled at what happened to veterans over the last few weeks. We are seeing offices close.

This was an opportunity for us to act on making a difference in the lives of veterans. Keeping these offices open would have been paramount for so many of them. The citizens that I am hearing from in my riding were appalled at the closure that happened and would have liked to see this budget act on that. Unfortunately, the choices and priorities of the government really did not consider veterans. If we look at small businesses, consumers, and veterans, the priorities and choices of the government are wrong, and by 2015, hopefully, the government will be like a Seinfeld episode, with a lot of reruns.

(1115) Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to my colleague across the way and the Conservatives will not follow any financial or budgetary advice from that party. I would also like to put something on the record. He talked about veterans, but failed to mention that since 2006 we have put more than $5 billion toward veterans. He talked about the closing of the VAC offices, but he did not bother to mention that we have added another 600 points of entry. In five out of the eight offices, the VAC employee will still be in the same building, in HRSDC.

We also know that in fact his group of PSAC members were the ones who created this terrible misunderstanding. I would ask him to correct the facts. Mr. Glenn Thibeault : Mr. Speaker, what they do on their side is first to blame the unions for everything, which is ridiculous. However, let me clear up some of the facts. I had a veteran in my riding who went to one of the 600 points of light; it almost sounds like a George Bush statement when they refer to 600 points of service. He went and got in line at Service Canada, where the people could not pull up the file because they did not know how to get it.

Then they gave him a 1-800 number to go home to call, to tell him to go back to Service Canada. On this side of the House, we respect our veterans. We want to ensure that our veterans who fought for us, who gave us the right to stand here and to debate, get the service they need and that when they can get it, that it is on time, so that they not have to go through this whole rigmarole the current government is putting them through. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I also want to touch on the veterans issue, because one of the clear responsibilities of a federal government is to bring in policies in the interests of all Canadians. This budget would do anything but; it is very selective in what it would do. Also the responsibility of a government is to redress some of the concerns that it may have created, and one of them certainly is the closure of veterans services offices. I will relate my example. A person went to Service Canada, not to get service as a veteran but to get a passport, and waited 40 minutes.

How do members think a veteran with some serious problems is going to feel standing in a line at Service Canada? Is it going to help him or her? I wonder if the member could expand on that a little more and what the government's real responsibility is in the interests of all Canadians, which is not in this budget. Mr. Glenn Thibeault : Mr. Speaker, that relates to my comment on the budget being about choices and priorities. I do not think the choices and the priorities the Conservatives have made are actually helping when we are talking about veterans.

Opening these offices again is a choice that the Conservatives could have made, after hearing from veterans from coast to coast to coast who were asking for that. The government made the choice not to, and instead is choosing to send the veterans to all of the Service Canada offices. The Service Canada offices provide great service. There are great people who are doing great work there. However, the needs of the veterans are different. The needs of our veterans might be so specific that they need that counsellor there to provide that service.

It comes down again to choices and priorities for Canadians, when it comes to being consumers, when it comes to small businesses, when it comes to our youth and our unemployed youth. As my colleague also mentioned, what about the 250,000 unemployed youth in this country? The choice the Conservatives made was not to support them. On this side of the House, we want to ensure that we support our youth, our unions, our veterans, and the great work being done by all of my colleagues on this side of the House.

(1120) Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise to speak to budget 2014. Having looked at the budget, unfortunately, I find it a cynical document with nothing in it to address the most urgent needs of Canadians. I cannot find anything in the budget for child care. I cannot find anything for affordable housing, I cannot find anything for veterans, and I cannot find anything that would help make life more affordable for ordinary families in this country.

Instead, the Conservatives have tabled a political document, one that is much more concerned with setting the stage for an election budget in 2015 than it is in meeting the real needs of Canadians. The Conservatives are unfortunately continuing down the austerity path, with large, though quiet, cuts in government expenditures. These would result in job losses in communities all across the country and reductions in critical government services.

It seems clear that the Conservatives have held back on announcing a balanced budget, both to justify further cuts in services and then to allow them to present an election year budget with whatever tax cuts or new expenditures the Conservatives would think might convince voters to forget their poor economic performance and re-elect them. No matter how much they try to hide that record, we know there are 300,000 more unemployed in Canada now than before the recession. Moreover, federal debt is at an all-time high, and Canada is running all-time high trade deficits.

So much for the Conservatives being better managers of the economy. Where are the incentives for job creation in the budget? New Democrats have proposed practical measures to help Canadians get back to work, like job creation tax credits for youth and small business. Instead, the budget perpetuates the chaos in job training programs and seems likely to prolong a dispute with the provinces over job training. In the meantime, what will we see? I am expecting more ads for non-existent programs.

We have also heard the Conservatives in the last couple of days repeatedly ridicule the leader of the third party for his statement that budgets can somehow balance themselves. While it is, I admit, a somewhat unusual statement, I think it is actually one that describes well the Conservative approach to employment, where they seem to believe that jobs will create themselves and that the government has no role in trying to help make sure Canadians have those family supporting jobs they are looking for.

At a time when we have seen several economists come forward to point out the obvious, that the historical record of austerity budgets is that they never lead to growth and prosperity, we can only wonder where we would actually be now in this country if the minority government situation in Canada had not forced the Conservatives to adopt a stimulus program in the early days of the recession. However, in this budget, we can see that the Conservatives have reverted to their ideological form and are now back to trying to cut their way to prosperity.

There are also some other ways in which the budget reverts to form for the Conservatives. This is also a budget with no mention of climate change. Instead, there is money to speed up project approvals at the National Energy Board, with some $28 million over two years. This, of course, is a confirmation of the intention of the Conservative government to continue down the wrong path of over-investment in the fossil fuel industries, which are, of course, major contributors to global warming.

The budget fails to eliminate the ongoing subsidies to big oil and in fact expands them with the introduction of further tax breaks for offshore oil and gas exploration. What would New Democrats like to see instead? We would like to see restoration of the eco-energy retrofit program. It would not only put us on a path toward more sustainable energy, but also help homeowners reduce their energy bills, making it easier to make ends meet at the end of the month. Some of my colleagues on the other side might ask, is there nothing positive I can see in this budget?

I will admit there are a few things here that may be positive. I say that with reservation, because I too often have seen references to things the government intends to do that have either failed to materialize or have been so deluded to have little real impact on the economy. Still, I am glad to see a promise to do something about pay-to-pay billing. I am glad to see money to expand access to high-speed Internet in rural and remote areas, and I am glad to see interest-free loans for those in the red seal apprenticeship programs.

I am also glad to see the government re-investing in food safety, and I am glad to see this promise to re-hire 200 food inspectors. I have to remind the government that this is necessary, because it previously cut more than 300 inspectors in its ill-advised shift to an approach where companies inspect themselves. This is the same approach it tried to apply to rail safety, which has resulted in tragedies like those we saw in Lac-Mégantic in Quebec.

(1125) Although I am prepared to recognize a few good things, I have to say that these are far outweighed by some important cuts that will have a heavy impact on constituents in my riding. While this is generally a do-nothing budget, and I agree that is true, there are some things here that will have real impacts. One of those things is the attack on the supplemental health benefits of retired public servants. I have more than 1,000 retired public servants living in my riding, who have written to me with concerns about the government's treatment of their future.

The Conservatives are unfairly doubling the health care costs of a large group of seniors who already live on fixed incomes. They made their plans based on a good faith bargain that was struck with the government. That has been betrayed by the Conservative government, and they have no way to respond because they are already retired. This will cause very serious problems. I heard a member on the other side, in debate, say that they can choose not to have extended health benefits. Of course, we know what that will lead to, which is probably financial disaster for seniors without extended health care benefits.

Another serious problem in my riding is the two-year freeze on spending in all government departments. We know that annual operating costs will inevitably increase. This freeze will result in across-the-board reductions in important government services and mounting job losses, whether through attrition or lay-offs. We have seen the Department of National Defence put off capital expenditures that it promised, which will lead to the delay of purchase and delivery of important equipment to the Canadian Forces. Another thing we have seen in this budget is a renewed attack on charities and trade unions.

It is clear that the Conservative government is bound and determined to use bureaucratic witch hunts to go after those it perceives to be its enemies. As I am concerned that I have limited time to talk about this budget, I want to go back to what I think is missing from it. There are many things, easy things, that are not high cost, that the Conservative government could have done to help families make ends meet at the end of the month. In this budget, we find no cap on ATM fees. In the debate on ATM fees, again and again I heard Conservatives stand up and say they did not understand what the problem was.

Why did people not just go to their own bank? I can tell members that there are parts of my riding where people do not have a bank. They are forced to depend on these cash machines that charge up to $6.00 or $7.00 for withdrawals. There is nothing in this budget on excessive credit card fees. I am not just talking about consumers here, but both consumers and small business. These excessive credit card fees contribute to the skyrocketing profits of banks and reduced bottom lines for small businesses.

When many families run out of money at the end of the month, they do not really have a choice other than to use the credit card to buy necessities, and they end up paying these high fees. There is nothing in this budget that restores services to veterans. In my riding, which is a very large military riding, I sat down with veterans at the Legion, along with my NDP leader, just after Remembrance Day.

We met with injured veterans and heard their very personal stories of how tough it is for them, and how tough it will be when they lose face-to-face services that they need to help them with serious operational health injuries, including mental health injuries. Instead, in this budget we see that the government intends to press ahead with its closures and reductions of service for veterans.

Its line, which I frankly find insulting to veterans, is to say that there are basically 600 phone lines, or offices that veterans can go to, which have no specialization in their needs and, in practice, are unable to help them. There is nothing in this budget to address skyrocketing household debt, advance public safety, and there is no commitment to expand the renewable energy sector. The renewable energy sector is one that creates far more jobs in communities across the country per dollar of capital expenditure than does investing in big oil and gas.

There is nothing for the millions of Canadians who are looking for those good family-supporting jobs, which so often disappear from our local economies. What we have is a do-nothing budget. It is a political document designed to give room to the Conservatives to try to bribe Canadians with their own money to vote for them again in 2015. I could not be more disappointed in the Conservatives' record and this budget. Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend across the way continues the NDP's attack on oil sands workers and their families.

A recent study, entitled “Oilsands the giant of Canada's economy”, says that oil sands production supports more than 478,000 direct and indirect jobs. Why the member opposite is attacking these families is beyond me. The study also expects that government revenues from the total effect of oil sands investment in Canada will jump from $28 billion to $61 billion in 2025. My question relates to a recent poll that said there is remarkable consensus about deficit reduction that crosses regional and party lines. Almost 60% of Canadians believe that the deficit should be eliminated before any increased spending occurs.

This is very surprising. The Harris/Decima poll also found that even among self-identified New Democrats, the split was 48 to 44 in favour of retiring any deficit before increasing spending. Could the member opposite inform the House why he and his party are so offside with public opinion?

(1130) Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, I am not going to thank the member for his question because I think his question is quite distorted. I have never said anything to attack the families who work in the oil sands. I am saying that if we put all of our eggs in the basket of fossil fuels we are headed down the wrong road. I am not saying close down the oil sands and lay off those workers. What I am saying is let us have a sustainable future that will provide family-supporting jobs all across the country, and not just in one area.

We will see what happens when we come to the end of those oil sands investments. If oil prices drop, those people are going to be laid off very quickly. This is not an affordable industry in the long term. With regard to the second part of the member's question, I am not opposed to balanced budgets. The government has choices to make, and the government has chosen to give up billions of dollars in revenue by giving tax cuts to big corporations and then paying for those on the backs of ordinary working Canadians. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I enjoy working on the public safety committee with the member who just spoke. I am interested in the energy question. The government seems to emphasize just one part of the energy sector, with no attempt whatsoever to develop a national energy strategy for the country that would encompass everything from wind, to biomass, to oil, to hydro, and that is what we should be doing. My question relates to the budget itself.

I know the government likes to attack unions, but the very title of the budget is “The Road to Balance: Creating Jobs and Opportunities”, and I have not found anything in this document, other than the red seal, that might assist young people to gain jobs. I do not see anything in it that will create jobs. I see the Conservatives have failed to fix a lot of the damage they have already done in seasonal industries, which is taking jobs and opportunities away from people in my region.

Does the member see anything in the budget that is creating jobs and opportunities for Canadians, other than leaving in place the great corporate tax breaks where corporations are sitting on $500 billion and not creating investment in new technology? Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Malpeque for his question. It is one of the things that I was most disappointed with in the budget. As I said in my speech, the government seems to believe that jobs create themselves. We know that one of the quickest ways to get job creation going is to do things that would help promote small business.

If the government had done something about poverty or seniors living in poverty, those people would go out and spend that money in their local communities. They would spend it in small businesses, their corner stores, and they would help to get the economy going again. However, there is nothing here where the government creates a climate that would help small business grow and develop. There is nothing for youth employment, which is a very severe crisis all across this country. Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration . It is a great privilege for me to stand in this House today and speak to economic action plan 2014, which is appropriately titled “The Road to Balance: Creating Jobs and Opportunities”. Our Conservative government has one of the best track records for economic growth and management of national debt in the developed world. We are the envy of many nations around the world who wonder how it is that Canada has done so well.

I think there are a variety of reasons for this, but first and foremost, the leadership and sound fiscal management that our Prime Minister has shown throughout his time in office has had a major impact. I continue to be very proud of the Prime Minister and his efforts. I know of no other leader who has shown such tenacity in making sure that our beloved Canada stays on the right track and eliminates the deficit as promised. In a related subject, I would like to thank our extremely hard-working Minister of Finance . With his economic action plan 2014, he has delivered his tenth budget.

The minister continues to do excellent work for Canadians, and we are looking forward to his continuing guidance and leadership as well. With these things said, this is yet another good plan for Canadians. This is a budget that Canadians can be proud of. This plan will get us back on track and in the black, as promised. Canada will be deficit-free at the federal level by next year, which is the icing on the cake. This budget is great for the people of my home province of Alberta, as well as the people in my riding of Medicine Hat, which I am so very proud to represent in Ottawa.

This budget is indeed good news for my constituents. There are a number of initiatives that will be beneficial to them, and I appreciate the opportunity to enumerate some of those in the time I have today. I think one of the bigger pieces that applies is with respect to first nations education. I was pleased to attend the announcement last week, near Lethbridge, of the first nations control of first nations education bill, with the Prime Minister and my colleagues. This positive step forward is being highly praised.

It is one of those cases where the consultation process worked very well to reach an agreement that was acceptable to all sides. This bill will mean that first nations students from kindergarten to grade 12 on reserve will have access to accountable and higher education. I am pleased that our government has decided to move forward with these important reforms. With the economic action plan, we are pledging to reduce the regulatory burden. We will do this through the red tape reduction plan so that small and medium-sized businesses can save time and money.

I know that a number of initiatives to reduce red tape have been implemented and have been a boon to small business owners in the Medicine Hat riding. These are things like the one-for-one rule, which means that for every new regulatory burden that is placed on small business, one must be removed. Another important piece of the budget that will increase economic activity in my riding is a plan to reduce barriers within Canada. This will help local businesses that may be considering markets.

One of the best markets is right here at home, and we need to do everything we can in our power as federal legislators to ensure we are not obstructing trade within our own country. We have already made some progress on this file, with multi-party support. I make reference to the highly praised legislation that was introduced and worked on tirelessly by my colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla . Thanks to his efforts, the federal restrictions on having wine delivered from other provinces have been removed, and now the ball is in the province's court to act.

Our government will continue with these initiatives to foster internal trade between provinces. With respect to support for farmers, we will continue to hold the best interests of farmers at heart as we craft public policy. I know that many of my farmers are more than satisfied with our government's record on delivering results for people in the agriculture sector. I know that many wheat producers are very pleased that our government got rid of the single-desk at the Canadian Wheat Board. They now have the same rights as wheat and barley farmers in all provinces east of Manitoba.

We will continue to support them with programs, such as the new pilot price insurance program for cattle and hog producers in western Canada. I know that many of my hog producers remember the crisis of the late nineties and early 2000 in their industry. Indeed, that was a dark hour. However, they are resilient folk and they stuck through the lean times. This pilot project will offer insurance against unexpected price declines within a production cycle.

We will also support farmers by extending the tax deferral for livestock to include bees, and all horses over 12 months, that are kept for breeding when sold due to drought or excess moisture. With respect to the review process for pipeline projects, we will provide $28 million to the National Energy Board to ensure that project applications are reviewed in a comprehensive and timely manner. This is going to be important to my constituents, and indeed all Albertans. As we are aware, Alberta is the energy heartland of Canada.

We need to ensure there is a fair process that is implemented within an appropriate amount of time.

(1135) We will be taking steps with economic action plan 2014 to strengthen our justice system. In Alberta, we would create two new positions on the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in order to ensure justice in our communities. Economic action plan 2014 also supports the implementation of a long-awaited victims' bill of rights. Our government has always stood up for the rights of victims of crime when other parties have failed to do so. I am so very proud of our commitment to supporting victims with economic action plan 2014.

We have also pledged $8.1 million over five years, starting in 2016-17, to create a DNA-based missing persons index. Once created, it would help bring closure to the families of missing persons through DNA matching. We are committed to investing over $150 million over the next five years to enhance the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's food safety programs to ensure that Canada's food supply is safe. I know that will speak to many of the meat packers that rely on that industry in my riding.

It also reaffirms our government's commitment to ensure that Canada continues to have one of the highest-rated food safety systems in the world. With this new funding, the CFIA expects to hire 200 new inspectors and other staff, develop programs that would minimize food safety risks, and enhance Canada's capacity to prevent unsafe food from entering Canada, which would offer better protection for consumers. One program that has been popular in the Medicine Hat riding is the new horizons for seniors program, which allows more seniors to be active in their community.

We would be allocating another $5 million through this economic action plan. One of the major initiatives announced in this plan is new tax relief for search and rescue workers. We introducing the search and rescue volunteers tax credit in recognition of the important role played by those who put themselves at risk for the security and safety of our communities. I know there are some folks back in my riding who are very active in search and rescue efforts when needed. I think they would definitely take advantage of this tax credit. I hope they will.

We experienced some very heavy flooding last year in Alberta, as is well documented. With this economic action plan, our government would provide up to $200 million to establish a national disaster mitigation program to better protect Canadians and their communities from natural disasters. For Alberta, total major transfers would be $5.2 billion in 2014-15, including $3.7 billion through the Canada health transfer, which would be an increase of 129% since 2005-06, under the previous Liberal administration.

It would also include $1.5 billion through the Canada social transfer, which would be an increase of almost 148% since 2005-06. Our budget has a major component that focuses on training. We would create the Canada apprenticeship loan, which would provide apprentices in red seal trades with access to over $100 million in interest-free loans. We would also be investing $75 million targeted for older workers. A topic of interest, especially as of late, has been our continued commitment to our Canadian veterans.

I know there has been a certain amount of misinformation out there and I want to ensure that the record is set straight. Our government has invested billions of dollars on programs for our veterans since we came into office in 2006. In the 2012-13 year alone, we spent approximately $3.1 billion in direct support for our veterans and their families. In economic action plan 2014, we would be implementing our priority hiring of veterans strategy.

Essentially, in recognition of their service to Canada, our Conservative government is proposing to enhance employment opportunities in the federal public service for medically released Canadian Armed Forces personnel by creating a statutory hiring priority in the Public Service Employment Act. This would mean there would be a statutory hiring priority for armed forces personnel who are medically released for service-related reasons. There is a large Canadian Forces base in my riding, CFB Suffield.

I am proud that our government is continuing to stand up for our veterans and for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Our government has put Canada on a sound financial footing and continues to ensure that we stay on top as we work to pull our great country out of the great recession. Our record thus far speaks for itself: over one million net new jobs created, many of those in the private sector; low debt-to-GDP ratio; and relatively low unemployment. We have lowered taxes by putting money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadian families.

With this in mind, I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues. (1140) [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague opposite. We now know with certainty that this Conservative government has presented a do-nothing election budget. This government is using a carrot and stick approach. This budget is just a smokescreen. There is nothing in the budget about provincial health transfers and the government has created a fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provinces.

Once again, there is nothing in this budget about that. This time, the government is using the stick to tell Canadian families that are having trouble making ends meet to wait until 2015, when it will dangle the carrot. This is obviously a pre-election game. According to surveys, and as pointed out many times, health is the priority for Canadians. That does not seem to be the case for our colleagues opposite. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the provincial transfers and working with the provinces to possibly cover costs that will rise with an aging population. (1145) [ English ] Mr.

LaVar Payne : Mr. Speaker, as a federal government, we are finally doing what we need to do to make sure we have a balanced budget. A balanced budget means that we will end up with more surpluses, and with that we will be able to pay down debt and maybe spend some more money to help the provinces. However, my colleague must remember that the provinces are responsible for their own debts. They need to make sure that their spending is under control. In terms of the health transfer, we have increased health transfers to the provinces by 6% per year.

It is a huge amount of money that we have committed, and we will continue to commit that money to the provinces. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about debt and the government balancing the books. That is a joke. An op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen this morning stated, “Number of budget deficit targets hit by Finance Minister - 0”. We know this is really a pre-election budget. The Conservatives should have balanced the books this year but did not, because they are leaving that until next year for strictly partisan reasons while leaving many Canadians out there with serious hurt.

My question to the member for Medicine Hat relates to the farm sector. I am looking at the reference in the budget to the farm sector. The member must really find it painful to go home on weekends when out west right now, in his area, grain continues to pile up. Fifty-three ships at the port in Vancouver are waiting for grain. Grain prices have been discounted 40%.

All of this is a result of the decisions the Conservative government made previously relative to the Wheat Board, not in terms of its structure but in failing to realize what the Wheat Board did in terms of the logistics of transportation by collecting of the grain and getting it into the hull of a ship in time. How come there is nothing in the budget to deal with the crisis that exists in the western grain sector? Why did the government not step up to the plate and deal with that problem? Mr. LaVar Payne : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague from Malpeque probably knows that our committee has been studying this difficult situation with the grain farmers. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Canadian Wheat Board. When the Canadian Wheat Board was in operation, it would take only a little bit of grain and send it out, and then maybe a few months later it would take a little bit more. This situation has absolutely nothing to do with the board. We have talked with the railways and with the grain companies. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Canadian Wheat Board.

A number of the problems are with the railways, and they need to make sure that they step up. We have had discussions with them. The minister has had several discussions with them over the last few weeks and will continue to do so to make sure that we resolve the situation for our western grain farmers.

(1150) Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand in the House today to highlight some of the many positive measures contained in economic action plan 2014. Before I begin my remarks, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the great people of Richmond Hill for giving me the privilege of representing them in the House and for their trust and confidence. Canada's economic action plan is working.

Over one million net new jobs, the vast majority being in the private sector and high-wage occupations, have been created since the trough of the recession. These include 15,000 jobs in Richmond Hill and 86,000 jobs in the York region in the manufacturing, construction, wholesale trade, professional and business service sectors, and more.

It is because of the focus of our government on what matters most to my constituents in Richmond Hill and to all Canadians, that being jobs and economic growth, that Canada boasts the strongest job creation record of all the G7 countries, and importantly, Canada's total government net debt burden remains the lowest by far of any G7 country and among the lowest of the advanced G20 countries. That is why I am thrilled that economic action plan 2014 maintains its focus on strengthening our economy while keeping taxes low and returning to a balanced budget by 2015.

Balancing the books is essential to our long-term prosperity. Our long-standing belief that a sound fiscal position is essential for Canada's long-term economic growth is the driving force behind economic action plan 2014. The actions in economic action plan 2014 will not only return us to budgetary balance by 2015 but will produce savings totalling $9.1 billion over the next six years. These savings are in addition to our previous actions taken since budget 2010.

These actions over the last four years, including 160 different tax reductions and lowering federal tax to levels not seen in 50 years, benefit Canadians every single day. At the same time, we are supporting the sustainability of the services and programs Canadians rely on and inspiring investor confidence. We are making record transfer payments to the provinces and territories. For example, transfers in Ontario are currently $19.2 billion per year from the federal government. This is an increase of 76% from what they were under the old Liberal government.

These actions have all contributed to making Canada a recognized leader on the world economic stage for prudent fiscal management. Canada has recently leapt from sixth to second in Bloomberg's list of the best places in the world to do business. This is an incredible accomplishment. The height of the global economic crisis in fiscal year 2009-10 was not that long ago. That same year, at the urging of and with the support of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, our government took a deficit of $55 billion.

That spending was necessary to pull Canada out of the depths of the deep and sudden recession, and it worked. Owing to the prudent actions of our government prior to that global economic collapse, when we paid down $37 billion worth of debt that we had inherited from the Liberal government, we had the room to react quickly when it was required to do so. The complete elimination of a $55 billion deficit in just five years is nothing short of amazing, and I thank the world's greatest Minister of Finance for that historic accomplishment.

Balancing the budget and reducing debt will allow tax dollars to be spent on more important programs instead of interest costs. It will strengthen our ability to respond to longer-term challenges, such as an unexpected global economic shock or an aging population. Indeed, economic action plan 2014 steps up to the plate in response to the reality of a looming older demographic. For example, $5 million has been allocated annually to the new horizons for seniors program. This is in addition to the current allocation. The new horizons program has been incredibly successful in Richmond Hill.

It has provided funding for community-based projects that encourage seniors to share their skills and experience with others and it allows them to benefit from and contribute to the quality of life in the community.

(1155) By providing a way for seniors to mentor others, volunteer, and enjoy and benefit from social and educational opportunities, new horizons for seniors is improving the quality of life of our seniors in Canada from coast to coast to coast. Our Conservative government recognizes the challenges many working Canadians face in balancing their work obligations with caring for an infirm or older adult at home. In response, we would launch a Canadian employers for caregivers plan that would identify promising workplace practices that support caregivers.

We also know that small businesses are crucial to Richmond Hill's economy, to Canadian communities across the country, and to Canada's long-term prosperity. We are firmly committed to delivering both lower taxes and less red tape. I am pleased that economic action plan 2014 would provide further support for our small businesses and entrepreneurs so that they could create even more jobs in our communities.

For example, the reductions in the small business tax rate to 11% and increases in the small business income limit to $500,000 would provide small businesses with approximately $2.2 billion in tax relief in 2014. That is money that could be invested in equipment and new jobs. The need to cut business red tape was consistently one of the top recommendations I heard at my Richmond Hill pre-budget consultations. I will be pleased to tell them that cutting unnecessary red tape is exactly what this budget would commit to doing.

In so doing, entrepreneurs would have more time to focus on what they do best: creating jobs and economic growth. During our pre-budget consultations, small businesses told us that now is not the time to increase CPP or EI premiums. I am pleased that our budget would maintain the levels at 2013 levels. The business sector in my riding is pleased with this support. I was happy to receive an email yesterday from the Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce that said: This budget presents the continuity of a plan for economic growth that builds on Canada's economic and fiscal advantages.

The measures announced by the government will help Canadian businesses prosper and compete. Also high on the list of recommendations from my residents was an investment in skills training, beyond that of just resumé or interview preparation, that would actually provide the on-the-job training necessary for new employees to succeed. I am happy to tell them that the new Canada job grant would be launched to better align training with labour market needs. Employers have told us that they would support skills training in a way that is easy to access and that has minimal red tape.

The Canada job grant would do just that by taking into account the flexibility employers need. Businesses with a plan to train unemployed Canadians would receive two-thirds of the cost, up to $10,000, in government contributions. The federal government is working closely with provinces and territories toward the implementation of the Canada job grant and the renewal of labour market agreements. In jurisdictions where agreements are not secured, the Government of Canada would deliver the Canada job grant starting April 1, 2014, directly through Service Canada.

I would also like to highlight that a new generation of labour market agreements for persons with disabilities would also come into effect. Over the next four years, we would provide $222 million annually through those transfers, to be matched by the provinces and territories, to better meet the needs of people with disabilities. There are many other ways economic action plan 2014 would benefit Canadians. It would take additional steps to support the charitable sector, improve the health of Canadians, support our arts and cultural communities, honour our veterans, and help Canadians in need.

It would strengthen the regulatory environment and provide the basis for the implementation of an expression-of-interest economic immigration system to support Canada's labour markets. As it has been mentioned elsewhere, our plan to return to balanced budgets is not an end unto itself but a means to increase Canada's economic potential, improve employment opportunities for all Canadians, and raise our standard of living. On behalf of my constituents in Richmond Hill, I look forward to the speedy passage and implementation of economic action plan 2014.

I call on all members of the House to support its passage. (1200) [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I am very pleased to be able to ask him a question because he is very familiar with the immigration file. He may be one of the few people in the House who can answer my question. My question concerns the immigrant investor program. The government announced in the budget that this program will be abolished. However, Quebec seems surprised and concerned. This is my first question.

Will Quebec be able to continue using the immigrant investor program? My second question is on the same issue. This morning, in La Presse , the Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Wall, said he was frustrated with the elimination of this program. He believes that it was working and that it was important for Saskatchewan. What would my colleague say to Mr. Wall? [ English ] Mr. Costas Menegakis : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and welcome her to the citizenship and immigration committee, where she is both an amicable and intelligent contributor on an ongoing basis.

The investor program, quite frankly, was not working. It was not effective. What is in the budget would be an improvement to the program. It is a new investor program that would include venture capital investment and would set limits that would be beneficial to both companies and individuals who want to invest in Canada. It would also set a standard that Canadians expect of people who want to use the economic stream in our immigration system to come to Canada.

We believe that the new system would help create employment and would be more beneficial to both investors and Canadians, and we look forward to its implementation. I hope the hon. member will support the budget so that we can get to it in an expeditious manner. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the government side referred to the finance minister as the greatest finance minister in the world. I want to ask a question related to that, because he just delivered the budget.

I want to cast my mind back to when the Prime Minister , in 2011, talked about a promise he was going to deliver if the budget was balanced by about this time. It dealt with income splitting. At the time, I thought he was getting a little ahead of himself, but he made that solemn engagement. We did not hear anything about it until very recently.

Now the world's greatest finance minister seems to be casting some doubt on whether that is a good policy, yet based on yesterday's question period, I got the distinct impression that the Prime Minister felt that, yes, this was something, because he had given his solemn promise back in 2011. I would like to hear from my hon. colleague whether it is the intention of his party and government to hold to that promise made the Prime Minister in 2011. Mr. Costas Menegakis : Mr. Speaker, the finance minister was abundantly clear.

We will visit new opportunities for investment in the budget that will benefit all Canadians when we get to a balanced budget. At this point, we are very close to balancing the budget. We expect that by 2015, we will be there. It is premature at this point to speculate on what will be implemented in the budget of 2015, but I have every confidence in the finance minister , who I firmly believe is the best finance minister in the world, and certainly every confidence in my leader, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, that we will deliver on our promise. Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am proud to be sharing my time with the member for Compton—Stanstead with regard to this debate on the budget. In the first moments, I want to note that this budget comes with an interesting caveat. I heard the Conservatives complain many times that the Liberals were building in contingency funds and surpluses and money that would be used for political advantage later on. There is a “$3-billion risk adjustment” included in this budget. At the same time, with regard to this budget, there is some hypocrisy relative to the past in this chamber. The Conservatives were very clear about saying that.

It was the Jean Chrétien government in particular, with Paul Martin as finance minister, that liked to do this. It always had a contingency fund, and all of a sudden, magical money would show up at the last minute. Ironically, it often happened just prior to an election year. It seems to me that this is going to be the path, if we believe the numbers we have in front of us. Every budget has some good things.

When members of Parliament come to this chamber for budget day, they have been working all year advocating and pushing for different items, whether it be in their constituencies, in Ottawa, at committee, in the chamber here, or in the hallways. All these issues deal with our one Canada. Unfortunately, it appears that over the last number of years, when the Conservatives have talked about money, programs, and services, they have talked about it as if it is their own money. It is not.

It is Canadian taxpayers' money, and the Canadian taxpayers deserve accountability for it, which comes from every single one of the members who sit in this chamber. This budget has some good things in it. I would say that money for the Windsor–Detroit border crossing is positive. I will go into some issues related to how it is being dispensed, but it is a positive step forward. There are some challenges with some of the practices, and the vulnerabilities are significant. We also have some positive auto announcements in this budget.

Thanks to the government, it is having to renew early, way ahead of time, a program the New Democrats said was deficient, because the industry is telling it that they need to be at the table. Unfortunately, we are in a reactive mode as opposed to a proactive mode. That is a change we would like to see. With regard to my community, some interesting things took place after the last budget. We saw the erosion of significant services that are affecting our economy.

We saw some significant closures of offices that affect Canadians from different walks of life: seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, business owners, and business operators. All are being affected by a shortsighted attempt to attack our public service and an ideological drive for across-the-board cuts. That is not a business plan for managing a nation, departments, and economic and social activity in this country. It is an ideological drive just to reduce costs, and it does not always do that.

I would point out that one of the significant cuts we have had in the Windsor region was the loss of our mail sorting. Our mail sorting used to be done more efficiently in Windsor than anywhere else. It had an excellent record for many years, and we lost all of that. Instead of being done in Windsor, the mail is now stacked up on trucks, sent to London on Highway 401, which is crowded as it is and which affects the infrastructure, through all kinds of inclement weather. It is sorted and brought back to Windsor, where it is finally redistributed back to the businesses and homeowners.

We have seen a significant change in the turnaround of mail. That is to the detriment of our businesses and citizens who use the service.

(1205) Now we see the attack on home delivery. Despite the post office having made a profit 17 out of the last 18 years, we are going to lose home delivery. Then we are actually going to have the cost of delayed mail service. There will be a cost to that. Retail has things at the end of their aisles, loss leaders, which are a particular service or item that may not make money but leads to other economic activity. I would argue that our postal service is the same thing, even though it does make money almost all of the time. We saw the loss of that service and it affected us as well.

The Consulate General of Canada office is closed in Detroit. We have one of the highest diversity rates in immigration in my constituency and yet one cannot go into the Walker Road immigration office as a member of the public. People are not allowed there unless they are being sworn in. People cannot go in and check on their case anymore. The office does not open its doors. This is despite the fact that the immigration cases that we process directly affect our economy and our social vibrancy because those individuals are in a holding pattern until their cases are processed.

When they are finally done, we are talking about employment opportunities, school for children, and family reunification. We are talking about the individual and the family being able to move on. We have seen cuts to front-line services, like the CBSA. A government that is supposed to be tough on crime has taken away front-line officers who work in counter-intelligence to break cases and also stop guns, drugs, and smuggling into Canada. We have seen cuts in other areas. Thank goodness, one of the positive things we have in the budget is the increase in food inspections.

However, that came because hundreds were laid off before that, as deregulation was attempted in an industry that is very important for our export economy. One of the most significant closures we have seen is our veterans office. Our veterans office in Windsor had activity of approximately 4,000 cases per year. We had 13 workers. It cost $1 million and was worth every cent. It is closed now. Our veterans are not happy with this. It was a place where they could go with dignity and privacy to have their case examined.

Why does the government want to cut these offices across Windsor, only saving a little on the surface, and force our veterans to alternative services that just do not meet the same needs? At Service Canada there is no privacy. They do not know the veteran's case file and veterans are often rerouted somewhere else. It does not work. As for the promise that they can be visited at home, as a former social worker I can say that home visits are a very serious thing to consider.

There is not only the safety of the individual, they have to be comfortable with someone coming to their home, but there are also other issues to ensure the integrity of the service provided for both parties and other complications. Our caseworkers are going to have to drive from London, Ontario, which means per diems, costs, longer waiting times, and all those things. I spent a lot of time talking about those cuts, but I want to conclude with this. The border crossing and the auto funds in Windsor are critically important.

However, we want to see them done with accountability, and we will be pressing the government on those accountability issues. We were there from the beginning and we will see it through to the end, but it is going to be transparent. It is going to be done the proper way, and we are going to make sure that taxpayers get what they deserve. (1210) [ Translation ] Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent demonstration that the announcements in the budget are attempts to fix glaring errors made over the past two or three years.

He mentioned the cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the RCMP, as well as the cuts to programs and the workforce. Over the last few years, we have been strongly opposed to those errors. The government is now making a modest attempt—let us face it— to fix them, thinking that everything will work out and making people believe that it will balance the budget next year. I am sorry, but the government is once again mistaken in thinking that Canadians are so forgiving.

Could my colleague elaborate on the government's attempts to fix its past mistakes? (1215) [ English ] Mr. Brian Masse : Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have raised with the border crossing in Windsor is that now, because of the focus of the Conservative government being on Keystone in Washington, we do not have some of the supports we had on the Michigan and the U.S. side that we used to have as an ally. We are actually having to spend money to buy property acquisitions on the U.S. side and also move hydro and a number of different things for their plaza.

What I have raised is in the agreement we have with the United States, there is still no plan for it to fund its plaza. However, in our agreement is the following section, and note that the crossing authority is the binational crossing authority where we get toll fares back to pay for it. It is the Canadian money that has been borrowed.

The Crossing Authority shall enter into discussions with the appropriate US Federal Agencies to determine whether and the extent to which US Federal Agencies or the Crossing Authority shall be responsible for one or more of the design, construction, finance and maintenance of the US Federal Plaza. I raise this because we have not been focused on making sure that our American partners are at the table with us. This crossing has to be done, but it should be done with full partnership. Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about some of the supportive organizations that are so pleased that this government is working toward balancing the budget and that we are very close. I would like to specifically mention the Canadian Federation of Independent Business because it talks about small-business owners. They recognize that today's deficits are tomorrow's taxes. This is something that in Ontario we have acknowledged since the 1990s. When governments exercise fiscal restraint and prudence, it leads to prosperity in the future.

Organizations like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have come out and said that they are pleased with our efforts to balance the budget. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has said that “The government has acted…. The result will be a stronger economy and more jobs”. I would like to know what the member from the New Democratic Party would do differently. Mr. Brian Masse : Mr. Speaker, my mother-in-law and father-in-law had a small business; a restaurant.

I can tell members that one of the things I would first do is cap those terrible fees on small businesses that the banks with the credit cards are costing them. It is unreasonable. Mrs. Stella Ambler : Oh, that is ridiculous. Mr. Brian Masse : No, Mr. Speaker, it is not ridiculous. The member is saying that it is ridiculous, but it is not. Those fees are costing small business a significant amount of revenue at the expense of the consumer and the business. Some businesses actually encourage people not to use their credit cards because it costs them more. That is a fact. It is a reality.

The banks are doing well enough, but they are also getting corporate tax cuts right now. So if we are in a deficit still, according to the Conservative government, then we are still borrowing money to pay for corporate taxes because we do not have a surplus. That is wrong. That is what I would change. [ Translation ] Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, I will focus on the reaction of my constituents to this non-budget tabled by the “sinister” Minister of Finance.

Clearly, the government's intent was to go after the middle class and the working class—our country's workforce and the pillars of our economy—in order to actually destroy Canada's social fabric. This social fabric, woven by our predecessors, great prime ministers and people from across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, who have worked tirelessly for decades to uphold the fundamental rights— [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order. The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex is rising on a point of order. Mr. Dave Van Kesteren : Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification.

I thought I heard the member refer to the Minister of Finance as the “Sinister of Finance”. That is totally unparliamentary behaviour. I wonder if we could maybe have that checked and, if that is the case, if we could have an apology.

(1220) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The chair appreciates the point of order, and I would remind all hon. members that in this place they are to refer to their colleagues either by their riding or by their office and to refrain from taking those titles or names of ridings and using them in a disparaging way. The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead. [ Translation ] Mr. Jean Rousseau : Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to my colleagues. I misspoke and I apologize. What I said was inappropriate. Thank you for the reminder. However, what is going on right now is a national catastrophe.

The Conservatives show no regard for the environment. They ignore climate change and have absolutely no use for science. Now, they are targeting people and workers all across Canada. That is unacceptable. Perhaps that is why I got carried away and misspoke. GDP growth has been going down after each budget, year after year. Why? Because the government is not thinking about stimulating the economy. It has not developed the framework and the environment needed to stimulate and diversify Canada's economy. That is evident everywhere, especially in the rural regions.

Rural regions are doing especially poorly, since the government has abandoned the pioneering sectors that helped build our country, such as forestry and agriculture. Furthermore, it is cutting employment insurance, a program that is meant to be there during tough times, when people are transitioning between jobs. Once again, from coast to coast, rural economies are in jeopardy because the government is not supporting workers during these transitional periods. We currently have $618 billion of national debt. We had a $20 billion surplus and now, over the past few years, we have had a $60 billion deficit.

Debt has increased by nearly $130 billion in recent years. That is unacceptable. This has all happened at the expense of public services. The government has cut essential services for veterans, employment insurance and social housing, which is essential in our urban communities. Not necessarily in rural areas, but certainly in urban areas. The government has also completely ignored public transit. I think members can understand why some ministers are considered as sinister. I apologize, but it is what it is. That is what people are telling me. They are disappointed.

They seriously think that this is a violation of their rights and freedoms. Why? Because 39% of people voted for this government, which means that 61% of the people who voted in the 2011 election did not vote for this government. When the time comes to draft a budget and create programs to stimulate the economy, the government abandons people. We have talked more than once about the need to address the high costs that retailers pay banks to process credit card transactions, as my colleague who spoke before me mentioned.

The only thing the government can come up with is to hold consultations to determine the best way to disclose these costs. What we want are much stricter, more draconian measures to fight these practices that are costing consumers because the costs are passed down to them after all. Again, if the government wants to stimulate the retail economy then it will have to address these costs one of these days. I was talking about workers' rights earlier.

Cutting the public service, the services that Canadians are entitled to, by attacking the pay and benefits that have been negotiated over the past few decades is an affront.

(1225) It is no wonder that occupational illnesses are on the rise, especially in the public service. The workplace is no longer healthy. It has become unbearable, including for some employment insurance officers who are under pressure because of quotas that are forcing them to attack people who are entitled to benefits. These measures are hindering tourism, agriculture, culture and sports in the regions. It is unbelievable. On the topic of transport, infrastructure and communities, need I mention the Lac-Mégantic tragedy to explain how important rail safety is to the people in my region?

Again yesterday, a group stood up to Transport Canada to denounce its ineptitude at dealing with the infractions committed by private companies. It is inaction. In the past three years, there was a tremendous number of infractions in my region, and no one ever did anything about it. There was a three-foot stretch of track that had not been repaired in two years. A month before the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, there was a spill that caused environmental damage. A month later, tragedy struck.

It is irresponsible and unacceptable for an industrialized country that is a member of the G7 and the G20 to table such a budget, given that the railway sector supports economic development across Canada. The government literally could not care less about rail safety. People living next to railway tracks are scratching their heads and wondering when the next tragedy will strike. Well, there was already one in New Brunswick a few months ago, and we knew that would happen. All the players reviewing the Lac-Mégantic tragedy were certain that another tragedy would occur in that part of the country.

People were abandoned. It is the government's responsibility to make sure that private and public railways are safe. However, there is still nothing in this budget to protect my constituents. It is unacceptable. I will quickly mention the government's interference in health and education. The only thing the provinces have always asked for is the money owed to them. It is up to them to decide where and how to invest it. They have this right under the Constitution. The NDP reaffirmed this right in the Sher