OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 010 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, October 29, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 29, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 010 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 010 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 010 (Version officielle) 147 010 29 10 2013 2013/10/29 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Privacy Commissioner The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual report on the Privacy Act of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada for the year 2012-13. [ Translation ] This document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[ English ] First Nations Elections Act Hon. John Duncan (for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-9,

An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations . Bill C-9. Introduction and first reading He said: Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill S-6 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) The Speaker : The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill S-6 when it was before the House at the time of prorogation of the 1st session of the 41st Parliament.

Accordingly, pursuant to the order made on Monday, October 21, 2013, the bill is deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. (Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Mr. Jack Harris : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House that the House immediately adopt the provisions of private member's Motion No. 461, listed on today's Order Paper, that deals specifically with the creation of a special committee of this House on security and intelligence oversight, to be appointed to study and make recommendations with respect to the appropriate method of parliamentary oversight of Canadian government policies, regulations and activities in the areas of intelligence, including all of those departments, agencies and review bodies, civilian and military, involved in the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence for the purpose of Canada's national security.

The Speaker : Does the hon. member for St. John's East have the unanimous consent of the House? Some hon. members: No.

Petitions Human Rights Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have several hundred petitioners among my constituents in Winnipeg, Manitoba. They call upon the House of Commons to ensure that the Holodomor and Canada's first national internment operations are permanently and prominently displayed at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in its galleries.

Criminal Code Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I also have petitions from across Canada calling on Parliament to ensure that the Criminal Code be amended to decriminalize the selling of sexual services, to criminalize the purchasing of sexual services and to provide support to those who desire to leave prostitution.

[ Translation ] VIA Rail Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by 4,288 people who want to put an end to the cuts that VIA Rail is making to its services across the country, particularly in eastern Quebec. The petition also calls upon the federal government to reverse the cuts that have been made, as well as those that are set out in the 2012-13 estimates.

As a result of these cuts, VIA Rail has announced a significant reduction in services in eastern Quebec, particularly for the stations in La Pocatière, Rivière-du-Loup, Mont-Joli, Bonaventure, Port-Daniel, Grande Rivière and Barachois. The Rimouski, Chandler and New Richmond stations are going to lose their staff. I collected the signatures on the petition from people in Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and my colleagues from Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia , Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine collected the signatures from people in their ridings.

The petition calls for VIA Rail to reverse its decision, leave the stations open and keep the staff in place. It also calls upon the federal government to reverse the cuts that have been made. I am therefore pleased to table this petition bearing 4,288 names in the House.

[ English ] Pensions Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition from Albertans calling on the government to take action on the changes to old age security. Petitioners oppose the changes to extend eligibility to the age of 67 as it will take money out of the pockets of future generations when they retire. They call upon the Government of Canada to maintain the retirement age for old age security at 65 years and to make the required investments in the guaranteed income supplement to lift every Canadian senior out of poverty.

Proportional Representation Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first contains a local petition to bring proportional representation to Canada. The petitioners object to our winner-take-all voting system and would like to have a fair system where all votes count.

(1010) Electronic Petitions Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second of the two petitions is to support my motion on electronic petitioning, which constituents think would be a good addition to our parliamentary process.

Navigable Waters Protection Act Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from some 200 residents of the Northwest Territories asking for the attention of the House of Commons to the following. There are a number of rivers within the Northwest Territories and the Yukon that have been excluded from the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The petitioners would like to see these rivers included in that act. This can be done through a simple order in council. The rivers include the Liard River, the Thelon River, the Soper River and the South Nahanni River. These are rivers of significance to northerners and to the rest of the country.

Kitsilano Coast Guard Station Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today. In the first, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to rescind the decision to shut the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. They ask that the government reinstate full funding to maintain this Coast Guard station, which plays a pivotal role in one of the busiest ports in Canada.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fin to Canada.

National Sustainable Seafood Day Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in the final petition, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to designate March 18 as National Sustainable Seafood Day.

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

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate this particular bill, another omnibus bill coming from the Conservative Party, which contains a number of very significant issues. One of those issues deals with

an act that is really only directed toward the constituency I represent, the Northwest Territories. It is called the amendments to the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act, and the bill changes the conditions of a particular fund that was set up through the work of the previous Liberal government and then through the work of the Conservative government in 2006 to deal with potential impacts from the Mackenzie gas project, a project that was put forward by Imperial Oil and, throughout the last decade, went through environment assessment.

Support of most first nations groups along the Mackenzie Valley was achieved for this 1,200-kilometre-long pipeline with a collector field in the Mackenzie Delta. The Inuvialuit of that region also supported the project. We did go through a process by which this project achieved support. Part of that support came because of the decision by the federal government, both Liberals and Conservatives at the time, to a provide socio-economic impact fund to the communities.

This fund, which was established as a trust fund of $500 million, was to be divided among the communities, the regions, the aboriginal organizations that represented the regions down the Mackenzie Valley and in the Mackenzie Delta. The Dehcho region was to receive $150 million; the Gwich’in region, $82 million; the Tulita-Deline region, $61 million; the Inuvialuit $150 million; and the Kasho Gotine-Colville region, $57 million.

These sums were to be distributed over 10 years once the project had been approved and we had seen work going forward with the project, once the companies had initiated efforts to start the project. This money was clearly identified for socio-economic impacts over 10 years, so that the sums of money were to be used for projects designed and developed by the communities.

These communities up and down the Mackenzie Valley, in the Mackenzie Delta, went through an extensive process to identify what they saw were their concerns in developing this pipeline: how it would affect their communities, how their communities could alleviate some of the impacts of such a major project, a $16 billion project, being conducted in an area where there were mostly traditional communities in very much pristine wilderness. We had a situation where these communities had gone into a two-year planning process and came up with detailed plans of how these dollars were to be spent.

The government at the time, through

an act of Parliament, set up an independent corporation that would manage these funds and ensure that the corporation would only provide contributions to regional organizations in respect of a project if the project mitigated the existing or anticipated socio-economic impacts on the communities in the Northwest Territories arising from the Mackenzie gas project. Quite clearly, this was designed solely for that purpose.

(1015) There was an independent body set up by the Conservative government through

an act of Parliament to manage this money and ensure that it was managed in a correct and careful fashion, following the procedures that had been set up and the planning that had taken place in these communities over a period of two years, from 2006 to 2008. All of this work was accomplished and it was put in place. That is the basic history of what has happened with it. Now, the Conservatives are talking about changing this project and the act to one where a minister, who is not designated in the act, will have the sole responsibility for issuing the funds for this rather large amount of money.

We have a situation where the minister is not known. One of the significant differences in the bill is that in the previous bill, a corporation may only deal with this particular aspect when it is dealing with money, but now the new minister may designate the funds. There is a subtle change in the way the legislation is put out, which I have some concerns about, because I represent the people who went through the two-year planning process to come up with the ideas that would be initiated.

Those ideas were ones that spoke to culture, language, young people, the significant and important social impacts that the communities recognized would exist after taking on a major industrial project. It would forever change the landscape in their regions. It would forever change the economics and would put enormous social pressure on these communities. What we have now is a move to a system that would have a Conservative minister handing out cheques for particular projects as he or she deems appropriate. This is a concern that I have.

When we had the corporation in place, the corporation would have followed the directions that the communities had struck. It would have been an impartial body. We would have taken it away from the potential political interference that goes on with funds that are not clearly and carefully delegated to the right areas. Did the government not learn anything from the Muskoka minister's gazebo scandal? Did it not learn anything about the importance of dealing with funds in a non-partial, careful fashion so that the precise purpose of what these funds are developed for is implemented?

We went through the process in the Northwest Territories. We established what these funds were to be used for in agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government. These plans are in place. Where is the protection now for the work that people have done? It is changing. Why is the government changing this? Where was the consultation with anyone in the Northwest Territories about this process?

When did the government actually talk to people and say it wanted to take it out of the hands of an impartial corporation, which is very carefully configured to ensure that the dollars are spent in the way that the communities want, and put it into the hands of a minister who may or may decide to support projects, based on political considerations? Where was that consultation? How did that work? Where is the success of that? What we have is a $500-million fund that has now been cut loose by the Government of Canada, by the Conservative Government of Canada, into the hands of a minister.

It may or may not work in the way that is was designed to work. This is a pattern that we can follow with the Conservative government. It started off with good intentions. It felt accountability was important when it started off. It recognized that it did not want to follow the Liberal pattern. Now it is back. What pattern is it following? It is back to the way the Liberals used to govern. It is back there now. This is just another indication. I really am sorry that this has happened. I see that I only have five seconds left so I will take it up. Thank you. (1020) [ Translation ] Mr.

Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, what really bothers me about the process for Bill C-4 is that, once again, the Conservative government is introducing an omnibus bill and then moving a damn time allocation motion. I am very concerned about this because of the impact it has on Canadian democracy, and I am wondering how we are supposed to properly debate this bill. People across the country are telling us what they think about the environment, the country's finances and employment insurance.

In all seriousness, our job in Ottawa is to share these concerns in the House of Commons in order to work together—like a big family—to find a compromise. I will admit that our family is dysfunctional. However, we have to find solutions to help Canada move forward rather than engaging in a dialogue of the deaf in the House of Commons. I know that we will not solve this problem today on the basis of my comments alone. I would therefore like to ask a question of my NDP colleague, who represents northern Canada.

Is Bill C-4 really designed to properly represent Canadians living in the north or is our government somewhat out of touch with the realities in Quebec and northern Canada and, unfortunately, serving only the interests of party friends? [ English ] Mr. Dennis Bevington : Mr. Speaker, quite clearly, over the past two years, my constituents have rejected omnibus bills. They understand now what they mean, and this bill is no different.

When we do something like this with the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act, following this debate in the House of Commons, a committee should be empowered to bring forward all the participants in the Mackenzie gas impact fund. The people who spent two years designing what their communities were going to do with this money should be brought in front of a committee so that this could be properly aired.

The government did not do its work by going to these communities prior to this and talking to them about what was going on with the act, how the changes would take place, and ensuring them that the minister's prerogative over projects would not end up with these communities having to deal politically on every single issue. We need to bring these communities in front of the committee now. We need to bring in representatives of the communities so that they can understand better what the government's plans are. Perhaps we could assure them that the government understands.

If there are problems with it, there could be assurances given that these funds would be dealt with in a proper fashion. Those are things that government should do. However, what we see from the other side is a lack of interest in dealing with Canadians in an honest and forthright manner.

(1025) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat difficult to stand up and provide comment on this when we know that many Canadians are watching what is happening in the Prime Minister's Office with the allegations of scandal, untruths and so forth. However, we will try to focus on what the PMO is actually doing here inside the House. There has been a change in attitude in terms of how to present budget implementation bills by the Prime Minister .

This is a Prime Minister who has seen fit to change a wide variety of legislation, which should come into the House as independent pieces of legislation. He has chosen to use the back door in bringing in a lot more legislation than should be brought in. I am talking about unprecedented amounts. Within provincial and national legislators, no prime minister has brought in so much material using the back door of budget legislation.

I wonder if the member might want to provide comment on how individual members are denied the opportunity to provide due diligence because of the current Conservative-Reform Prime Minister's attitude in terms of bringing in this type of legislation. Mr. Dennis Bevington : Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague, perhaps he would go to my website. We did two very detailed analyses on Bill C-45 and Bill C-38 , which are available on my website.

They deal with how this government is changing the nature of doing business here, and talk to the long-term strategy that the Conservative government has to change the nature of Canada. Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to add my support for the swift passage of this important and necessary legislation. We on this side of the House have been very clear. We are focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and the legislation shows how committed we are to this focus.

As the Minister of Finance stated when he tabled Bill C-4 , “In the face of continued global economic uncertainty, it is essential that we remain squarely focused on keeping Canada’s economy strong”. Rest assured the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, is actively advancing this agenda. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, I know the agency is playing a leading role in implementing important initiatives from economic action plan 2013. These initiatives are helping to create jobs and stimulate economic growth.

We need look no further than our determination to fix an issue that matters to all Canadian taxpayers: ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of the taxes they owe. We are doing so by closing tax loopholes in order to keep taxes as low for individuals and families as possible. Since 2006 our government has cut taxes 150 times. As a result, the average family of four now enjoys over $3,200 in extra tax savings. The federal tax burden for all Canadians is the lowest it has been in 50 years. I listened to the opposition criticism of the bill.

Those members can say just about anything they want in the House because they are protected by parliamentary privilege, but they cannot say that we do not have the lowest taxes in the past 50 years. It is a fact and it is time that the opposition applaud that fact. However, like any responsible government there is always room to do more. That is why economic action plan 2013 announced measures to close tax loopholes and improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system.

We owe it to hard-working Canadians who fulfill their tax commitments and understand that their contributions help to fund important government programs and services for their families. It is also critical to honest businesses that find it hard to compete with businesses that cheat on their taxes. When people cheat on their taxes, everyone loses. Among the important changes we intend to address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and fight international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

These efforts will close tax loopholes that were used by a few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Broadening and protecting the tax base supports our government's effort to return to balanced budgets and responds to provincial governments' concerns about protecting provincial revenues on our shared tax base. Equally important is the fact that our budget would give Canadians confidence that the tax system is fair, providing incentives to work, save and invest in Canada.

Another area with a direct impact on Canadian taxpayers is our work to root out electronic suppression of sales software. In plain language it is often referred to as zapper software. What it boils down to is making it more and more difficult for people to cheat on their taxes and operate in the underground economy. While they, the tax cheats, pocket the money, honest taxpayers end up having to shoulder a greater tax burden because of this illegal activity. All taxpayers, particularly businesses, are required to maintain adequate books and records for tax purposes.

This includes maintaining accurate electronic data files. Unfortunately, some businesses use this zapper software to hide their sales figures so they can avoid paying the GST/HST and income taxes they owe on this revenue. This software selectively deletes or modifies sales from electronic cash registers and other point-of-sale and accounting systems. This undermines the competitiveness of businesses and offers an unfair advantage to those who fail to comply with Canada's tax laws. Economic action plan 2013 sent a strong signal that we will no longer tolerate such activity.

Bill C-4 includes new monetary penalties and criminal offences to discourage the possession, use or development of electronic suppression of sales software.

(1030) Anyone who attempts to avoid paying taxes by using electronic suppression of sales tax avoidance, which leaves an unfair burden on Canadian consumers and businesses that contribute their fair share, will now pay a steep price. Businesses caught using, owning, or buying electronic suppression of sales software will face a $5,000 penalty on their first infraction. This penalty rises to $50,000 for any subsequent infraction. Anyone who develops, manufactures, offers for sale, or sells such software will face a $10,000 penalty on the first infraction and $100,000 for any subsequent infraction.

There is no question that our overarching goal is to put more money back in the hands of Canadians through reduced taxes. Our country's tax base is essential for providing necessary benefits, programs, and services that all Canadians depend on. When everyone pays the taxes they owe, we can invest those tax dollars to help Canadian families and communities and our country's economy. For instance, economic action plan 2013 includes tax credits for small businesses that would enable them to create jobs for unemployed Canadians. This would generate increased wealth in their communities.

Bill C-4 introduces measures that would support Canada's job creators. It would extend and expand the hiring credit for small business for an additional year. More businesses than ever would be able to take advantage of this job creation tool. It is especially noteworthy that the hiring credit would leave eligible business owners with up to $1,000 they could put back into their businesses. Eligible employers would receive the credit when they hired new employees or increased wages. New businesses created in 2012 might also be eligible.

If business owners were eligible, they could get the credit automatically when they filed their T4 information returns. This investment yields huge dividends. Based on the success of the existing initiative, we anticipate that 560,000 small businesses would benefit from this measure. If even 50% of those businesses used the hiring credit, this would allow them to reinvest $225 million back into the Canadian economy. Especially good news for businesses is that there would be no extra paperwork to fill out.

That is because of another one of our priorities reflected in Bill C-4 , our commitment to reduce red tape at every opportunity. Business owners and their associations have told us loud and clear that they are frustrated by the amount of paperwork they have to deal with from all levels of government. We have been listening to them. Our government recognizes that too much red tape restricts innovation, productivity, and competitiveness. We understand that when Canadian businesses succeed, all Canadians benefit.

That is why we have taken repeated steps to free up Canadian business owners from paperwork so that they can focus on growing their businesses and creating jobs. I am proud to say that there are now fewer regulations, and the cost of red tape has been reduced by $20 million annually. We continue to make progress. Now certain essential forms that simply cannot be avoided are easier to process. For instance, the CRA recently launched its new online mail service for Canadian businesses, available through My Business Account, which streamlines their interactions with the agency.

Canadian small businesses can now choose to receive notices of assessment and reassessment, as well as some letters for their corporate and GST/HST accounts, electronically. CRA uses the same high level of security that financial institutions use to protect banking information, so businesses can use the new online service with peace of mind. Our government's record speaks for itself. We are keeping taxes low, cutting red tape, and going after tax cheats like never before. No wonder Canada leads the G7 with more than one million net new jobs created since the depth of the global recession.

With the adoption of Bill C-4 , we will be able to carry on this proud tradition of progress. (1035) [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there is clearly a serious problem here. They think they have tabled a budget, but all we see is proof that they have an aptitude—I would even call it a talent—for transforming gold into lead.

You were supposed to create jobs, you were supposed to give us something to make our lives easier, and all we see is a budget that does not even aim to lower the number of unemployed workers, that does not even aim to build affordable housing and that does not even aim to reduce household debt. There is nothing. I have a simple question about taxes. You talk about taxes— The Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind the member that he must always direct his questions to the Chair. Mr. Alain Giguère: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary. [ English ] Mr. Gerald Keddy : Mr.

Speaker, that was a wide-ranging question on a number of issues. It is fairly obvious that the hon. member was not listening intently to my speech. I talked very openly about reducing red tape, reducing the cost for small business, and getting more people hired in the Canadian economy, never mind the one million net new jobs we have created since the great depression. Certainly people would be hired through the Canadian tax credit. That tax credit would benefit 560,000 businesses. If only 50% of those businesses took advantage of the tax credit, that would put $225 million into the Canadian economy.

Putting $225 million into the Canadian economy is a lot of money that would stimulate a lot of jobs. That shows that the government is paying attention to what small business is saying. It shows that we are creating jobs that benefit ordinary Canadians. The hon. member went on to talk about affordable housing. Maybe he needs to take a look at the record of this government in assisting with affordable housing across this nation.

(1040) Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I will quickly say that the municipal budget for the City of Kingston is going to be decreasing because of the expiry of mortgage support from the federal government for affordable housing. My question is about a particular point my hon. colleague made, which is about penalties for software companies that write software to help people avoid paying taxes. It is very hard to enforce penalties when it is so easy for these companies to be offshore. An analogy is legislation to combat spam, which was, in fact, passed before I was elected.

Not very much has come of it. Can we really accomplish something by passing a law that punishes software companies for helping people evade taxes, when the companies are offshore, or is this just feel-good legislation? Mr. Gerald Keddy : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a fair, if incorrect, point. The reality is that we have to cut down on the software suppression material that many businesses are using to avoid paying their fair share of tax. Obviously, if we are going to penalize businesses, that is one part of the equation.

We set that up because some businesses, quite frankly, have this software in place and are not even aware of it. It really would be improper to punish people for using something they are not aware they are using. However, we are serving notice. We are saying that they should recognize that this software is out there and that they should make sure that they are not culpable for using this software. The first fine is $1,000, and the second fine is $50,000. Furthermore, it is difficult, I agree, to go after these companies if they are offshore.

However, there must be a penalty for companies that create and promote this software, because ultimately, they are the problem. Yes, I recognize the difficulty of targeting offshore companies, but at the same time, there has to be a control put in place that at least allows us to go after them. [ Translation ] Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 is a sad new piece of legislative art from the Conservatives. What a masterpiece.

Much like the three omnibus bills before it—Bill C-38 , Bill C-45 and Bill C-60 —this fourth bill includes some 70 legislative measures—why not—most of which have very little to do with the budget. The bill even creates two brand-new laws: the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act. With this bill, the Conservatives are trying once again to force major changes through Parliament, without letting us do our job.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already pointed out numerous times that members of Parliament do not have access to the information they need to fulfill their critical role and improve our laws. He had to threaten to take the government to court for the Conservatives to finally bother to reveal their budget cut plan. However, here we are again with another omnibus bill. The Minister of Finance tabled budget 2013 in Parliament on March 21. The budget cuts thousands of public service jobs and makes cuts to program spending.

The budget proposes a host of unwarranted economic austerity measures that do not help Canadians. Bill C-4 to implement certain provisions of the budget undermines the health and safety protections in place for workers. It is a direct attack on public servants and labour unions. It causes irreparable damage to our research system and puts employment insurance firmly under the minister's control. I am particularly concerned for the Canadian public and especially for the constituents in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Dorval.

This bill removes from our health and safety officers the authority granted to them under the Canada Labour Code. It significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. It grants virtually all health and safety powers to the minister. This concentration of power in the hands of a minister is very dangerous, especially when we are dealing with a Conservative minister. When the Conservatives attack the Canada Labour Code, they are attacking something that Canadians worked hard to build over the years to make their working conditions healthier and safer.

This is the opposite of progress. This is a step backwards, just like everything else the Conservatives do. They should instead be seeking ways to protect Canadians from having to work in situations that expose them to unacceptable risks. They should protect workers. I had the opportunity to study occupational health and safety in my university program. I took a course that required students to conduct workplace risk assessments.

Therefore, I can say that centralizing everything is exactly the opposite of what companies do to identify risks in order to provide appropriate solutions concerning occupational health and safety. For all these reasons, the NDP will certainly oppose this proposal, which affects the fundamental rights of workers in terms of occupational health and safety. Bill C-4 would also make changes that would allow the minister to determine which services are essential in the public service, in such a way that he could well undermine collective bargaining rights. We know that the Conservatives do not like unions.

This is another attack. This is a direct violation of the social dialogue in the public service. By destabilizing the relationship between the negotiating parties, the government is giving itself the means to gag workers in the public service. It is restricting their right to challenge the deterioration of working conditions due to the unjustified cuts imposed by the Conservatives themselves. By slashing jobs, they are creating the conditions for conflict. They now want to ignore the consequences by preventing workers from expressing their frustration and their complaints.

However, some services seem to be less essential than others, particularly when objective scientific results contradict the Conservatives' vision and plans. They fired hundreds of scientists without considering the medium- or long-term consequences of their decision. Now, Bill C-4 is taking aim at National Research Council Canada and dealing a final blow to our public research system. Well done.

As a final step in their attempt to systematically bleed the labour market dry on the pretense of flexibility, the Conservatives are using Bill C-4 to eliminate the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and give the Minister of Finance the power to manipulate rates. Do the Conservatives want to turn their backs on federal responsibility in this area by dumping it onto the provinces or directly onto the public?

(1045) Bill C-4 also extends the $1,000 hiring tax credit for small business. I acknowledge that that is a step in the right direction, but it is nowhere near enough. The NDP is looking further ahead and proposing a $2,000 hiring tax credit that would not come out of the employment insurance fund and would help businesses hire and train young workers. I want to keep talking about small businesses. The Conservatives are going ahead with their $350 million tax hike on labour-sponsored venture capital funds. However, it is well known that venture capital is essential for creating and developing businesses.

Just listen to our entrepreneurs. Alain-Jacques Simard, CEO of TeraXion, a Quebec company that specializes in fibre optics, said that the Fonds de solidarité FTQ acted as a catalyst and that since its January 2010 investment, his company's sales have doubled. That is important to remember. The Conservatives like to remind everybody that they were elected to lower taxes, but not for unions, apparently. That is very strange. Attacking a financing system does not make sense unless it is part of an agenda to do whatever it takes to undermine the economic influence of Canadian workers and unions.

Still on the subject of small businesses, Bill C-4 increases the lifetime capital gains exemption and indexes it. The NDP supports increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption because that will help small business owners. The NDP knows that small businesses create a lot of jobs. However, they create those jobs only in a climate of better economic and regulatory conditions. That is why the NDP would like to see tax incentives to help these businesses hire Canadians. We can only have a productive debate on these proposals if the Conservatives allow it.

The omnibus bill will not make that possible and suggests that the Conservatives are, sadly, not willing to debate. The Conservatives are showing their true colours by attacking workers, public servants, employment insurance and unions. They are not working for Canadian families. Household debt has reached record levels and is now at 166% of household income. This means that people are spending five months' income every three months, putting them two more months in the hole every five months. The Conservatives have no plan to address the alarming youth unemployment rate.

Bill C-4 is out of touch with what is important to Canadian families. It is a dangerous step backward. This policy is designed to destroy gains made by the middle class. It will force workers and families to pay for services that they have already paid for through their taxes. This bill, like all of its omnibus predecessors, is a policy instrument designed to systematically destroy the social relationships that Canadians have worked hard to build over the past few decades. It is an intolerable attack on the rights of Canadian workers and Canadian families. The NDP will not stand for it.

The NDP will not support the Conservatives' latest attempt to circumvent parliamentary democracy. We should have the opportunity to debate the many subjects covered in Bill C-4 separately and refer them for study by the relevant committee. The NDP is also opposed to budget 2013 and its implementation bills, including Bill C-4 , because they disregard the true priorities of Canadian families: creating good, well-paid jobs, ensuring retirement security, creating job opportunities for youth and creating more affordable living conditions for families. (1050) [ English ] Mrs.

Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with great interest and noted that she said she studied occupational health and safety in school. In looking at the changes to the Canada Labour Code, it is important to note that in 80% of the appeals in the last 10 years, it has been found that there was no danger.

Therefore, if we are looking at changes to the Canadian Labour Code and we note that in 80% of the cases that have been brought forward there was no danger, would she not agree that we need to have a system that would allow our health and safety officers to focus on that 20% where there is true danger? I think it is an absolutely phenomenal number and it speaks to the fact that the system, as it currently exists, is not working, so I would like to ask the member why she would not look positively at a change that would focus on the true and imminent dangers to workers' health. [ Translation ] Ms.

Isabelle Morin : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. As I was explaining, since the government wants to centralize everything, there will be fewer people on the ground to assess all the risks. Furthermore, the bill significantly weakens employees' ability to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. This means that people working in dangerous conditions cannot refuse to work. That is the problem I have with this bill.

I would like to say this to my hon. colleague: when an omnibus bill containing hundreds of pages is introduced—one that we are forced to debate under a time allocation motion and one that will not even be examined by the appropriate committees—this definitely does not encourage any dialogue. This bill may have some good things in it, and I mentioned some of them in my speech. I recognize that. I would like to vote in favour of some of the measure in the budget.

However, when they are all lumped together in an omnibus bill so that we cannot examine them at the appropriate committee, I am sorry, but I cannot accept that and I cannot vote in favour of such a bill.

(1055) Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on the theme discussed by the Parliamentary Secretary and by my colleague. Quebec has the CSST, and matters of occupational health and safety and the right to opt out are legislated. Employees of companies under provincial jurisdiction come under the CSST in Quebec. I would like to know if, in Quebec, everything had to be centralized in the hands of the minister in order to create a system that works. Can we have a good system that works without putting everything in the hands of the minister? Ms. Isabelle Morin : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue , for her question and the good work she does in her riding. She asked me whether we had to leave everything in the hands of the minister. That is what I have seen the Conservatives do since I arrived in Parliament: they have tried to grab more and more power. That was the case for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. The Conservatives want to have all the power and control what is happening on the ground. That is not what the government should be doing.

Instead, it should be creating laws and letting people apply them. I find this to be very dangerous. As my colleague mentioned, Quebec has a system that works quite well. It is not the minister who decides how to manage everything and I believe that things should stay that way. We have a good system that is working, and I think it is deplorable for the Conservatives to once again try to grab more power. [ English ] Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to speak to the budget implementation issue.

I would like to highlight some items that are extremely important to all Canadians. Sometimes when we look at all the issues we forget the umbrella over which the budget was built. Two and a half years ago, Canadians gave our government a mandate to create jobs, keep taxes low, and help make our streets and communities safer. In an uncertain and unstable world, our Conservative government has led us through tough economic times. The results are clear. With one million net new jobs added since the recession, we lead the G7 on job creation and on the strength of our balance sheet.

Canada now leads the G7 in job creation, in income growth, and in keeping debt levels low. We are the leader. Canada is now among only a few countries in the world with an AAA credit rating. However, we know we need to do more. Canadians have a rare opportunity to build on our stable democracy, our sound finances, our expanding trade relationships, our strong communities, and our skilled workforce. This is Canada's moment, and it is our government's job to seize the moment for the benefit of all Canadians. That is why the recent throne speech laid out three priorities for our government moving forward.

Number one is to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians; number two is to support and protect Canadian families; number three is to put Canada first. Our priorities are about making sure that Canada is leading the world so that Canadians who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules can get ahead. Our work will be guided by our values: the belief in low taxes, small government, a thriving private sector that creates jobs for Canadians, protecting our communities from criminals and drug pushers, and believing that Canada is the best country on earth to live in.

In our throne speech, our government committed to pursuing free trade agreements, such as the Canada-EU free trade agreement. I am proud that our government has already delivered on this promise. One in five Canadian jobs depends on exports. Our prosperity hinges on opening new markets for Canadian goods, services, and investments. I congratulate our government for signing an agreement in principle of a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, an agreement that has the potential to create 80,000 new Canadian jobs.

This is an historic win for Canada and means thousands of new jobs for Canadians and half a billion new customers for Canadian businesses. Manitoba has much to gain from this 21st century. I am from Manitoba, and I am very proud because I know 40¢ on the dollar has been put forward from the federal government to keep Manitoba going. Now Manitoba, my province, has much to gain from this 21st century, gold-standard trade agreement.

The elimination of 98% of all EU tariffs on the first day that the agreement comes into force will translate into increased profits and opportunities for Canadian businesses of all sizes in every part of the country. This historic agreement with the EU is a big win for workers, businesses, and families in Kildonan—St. Paul, Manitoba, and all through Canada. Throughout the province, hard-working people of Manitoba will benefit, especially in key sectors of the local economy, such as advanced manufacturing, construction services, and agriculture.

In addition to tariff elimination, CETA provides improved access to EU markets for Canadian goods and services; greater certainty, transparency, and protection for investments; and new opportunities in EU procurement markets. An earlier joint study concluded that CETA could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12 billion annual increase to Canada's economy. That is the equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian household income or 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. That is amazing.

CETA is by far Canada's most ambitious trade initiative, broader and deeper in scope than the historic North American Free Trade Agreement known as NAFTA.

(1100) Economic action plan 2013 is something else that would strengthen this record with action in all areas that drive economic prosperity. Today I would like to highlight some of the excellent measures that would benefit the hardworking families and individuals in Kildonan—St. Paul and in the province of Manitoba. The act would implement key measures from economic action plan 2013 as well as certain previously announced tax measures to help create jobs, stimulate growth, and secure Canada's long-term prosperity.

Measures in economic action plan 2013 act no. 2 are aimed at spurring job creation and economic growth. These kinds of things include providing record transfer support for social and health services in Manitoba and a significant number of dollars to ensure that necessary programs are well funded, such as in schools and hospitals. In fact, in 2013-2014, the federal transfer support to Manitoba would be $643 million higher than it was under the former Liberal government. We all remember that the former Liberal government slashed transfers for health care and education. I remember it well.

Our Conservative government rejects that shameful practice and is protecting and growing transfers to help support the services Manitoba families depend on. For Manitoba, total major transfers would total $3.4 billion in 2013.

These would include almost $1.8 billion through equalization, an increase of $191 million, or almost 12%, since 2005-2006 under the former Liberal government; $1.1 billion through the Canada health transfer, an increase of $336 million, or almost 43%, since 2005-2006 under the former Liberal government; $443 million through the Canada social transfer, an increase of $109 million, or almost 33%, since 2005-2006 under the former Liberal government; and almost $7 million in total transfer protection. I remember this well, because I was an MLA at the time.

This is good news for Manitoba and a key assurance that our government is committed to the long-term prosperity of our province of Manitoba. One area of the budget I would like to highlight is programs designed to help create jobs. These are very important programs. Our Conservative government would extend and expand the hiring credit for small business, which would benefit an estimated 560,000 employers. Canada's small businesses are engines for job creation that boost economic growth. They represent 48% of the total labour force in the private sector and contribute approximately 30% to Canada's GDP.

The federal government recognizes the important contribution made by small businesses all across the country and the challenges they face. This temporary credit would provide up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2013 employment insurance premiums over those paid in 2012 to employers with total EI premiums of $15,000 or less in 2012. This is very good news for Canadian businesses.

Other job creator initiatives would include increasing and indexing the lifetime capital gains exemption to make investing in small business more rewarding; expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation; and freezing employment insurance premium rates for three years, leaving $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

Another area of the budget implementation act I would like to highlight today is our Conservative government's efforts to control direct program spending with common sense proposals for making government more efficient and productive. This would include setting public service pay and benefits levels that are reasonable, responsible, and in the public interest. There are so many other things, such as closing tax loopholes and the building Canada fund. The building Canada fund would provide $14 billion over ten years to support major economic infrastructure projects in Manitoba and all across Canada.

In this time of economic constraint, it is very important that people are working and that Canadians are able to live well and grow their families in prosperity, happiness, and safety. This is why Canada is a remarkable country under the leadership of our Prime Minister , Stephen Harper, and our government.

(1105) The Deputy Speaker : I would draw to the attention of the member that it is not permitted to use the name of a sitting member of the House. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord . [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about an aspect of Bill C-4 that bothers me. Earlier, during the debate on Bill C-4 , a number of Conservatives boasted that their government has cut taxes, which benefits Canadians. However, they forgot to mention that the Conservative government sometimes increases taxes. This bill contains a tax increase of $350 million.

Who will pay the price? Labour-sponsored venture capital funds, also known as workers' funds. Quebec is known for its good labour-sponsored funds. For some years, these venture capital funds have been invested in communities. These funds are used to help start up and grow businesses. The Conservative government is appalling. I also want to talk about this government's hypocrisy, because it boasts about lowering taxes when it is to their benefit, but increases them in other sectors.

Could my Conservative colleague, whom I respect very much, tell us if the Conservatives will reverse its decision and remove this harmful $350 million tax that will kill jobs. [ English ] Mrs. Joy Smith : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who does such an excellent job on the health committee. I very much respect his question. However, I want to put the focus on the umbrella

part I talked about at the beginning. In terms of helping businesses succeed and relieving tax breaks, our government has put forward a myriad of tax breaks to grow business and prosperity. There is the new manufacturing machinery and equipment tax break for businesses. There is the expansion of the hiring credit for small business, which I talked about in my speech a little earlier. As we know, small business in Quebec, or anyplace else, is the engine of the economy in any province. There is the increasing and indexing of the lifetime capital gains exemption, which is extremely important.

This is very positive for business, because it increases the rewards for investing in small business by making it easier for the owners to transfer their family businesses. As we know, in Quebec, an awful lot of family businesses have grown, prospered, and become very famous for their goods. There is also support for farmers. This is the bread basket of the world, and Quebec is the same. The current deduction limit for the restricted farm loss income tax would go from $8,750 to $17,500. That would help farmers right on the ground.

There are so many tax relief measures our government has given that far offset anything else that might have to be put in place to keep our economy balanced.

(1110) Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the umbrella when she talked about the things the government has been doing. I wonder if she could explain to us whether this umbrella includes the amendments to or repeals of 70 pieces of legislation in over 300 pages in this omnibus budget bill. The bill would strip health and safety officers of their powers and put nearly all of these powers in the hands of the minister, significantly weakening the ability of employees to refuse work in unsafe conditions.

It would move to eliminate binding arbitration as a method to resolve disputes in the public service. It would gut Canada's most scientific research institute, the NRC. It would reduce the number of members on the veterans review board. It would makes changes to the Supreme Court of Canada. Are these the things the umbrella is including? They are right now in this budget bill. We on this side of the House cannot figure out why they would be in a budget bill. Maybe she could explain that. Are they under the umbrella? Mrs. Joy Smith : Mr.

Speaker, Parliament is always interesting, because the job of the opposition is to be in opposition. However, I have to say that in research and innovation, our government has done so much. We have invested $20 million to help small and medium-size enterprises in my province, Manitoba, and all across the country. We have strengthened research partnerships, investing $37 million in Manitoba and across Canada, and have promoted clean projects. There is so much that has been done to help business. Yes, it is the umbrella.

That is why today our country has a sound, stable economic standing, and we have an AAA credit rating. I think the management of the finances of our country has been exemplary. Mr. Jay Aspin (Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-4 , introduced by Minister Flaherty on October 22, 2013. The Deputy Speaker : I do not know what it is about this morning. The use of a sitting member's name is not permitted in the House. Refer to the minister as the Minister of Finance . Mr. Jay Aspin : Mr.

Speaker, before I get into the details of the bill and how it will benefit Canada, and specifically my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming, I would like to take a moment to give this House the context in which we consider this bill. In early 2008, Canada was faced with the worst global economic downturn since the 1930s. However, thanks to the firm and responsible regulations that were put in place, Canada did not sink as low. This alone was not enough to keep Canada from following our neighbours.

Our government saw investments dwindling, an unstable, unconfident marketplace, and millions of Canadians with their jobs at risk. Our government acted with resolve and initiative to introduce the economic action plan, which provided our economy with a $60-billion stimulus, including $12 billion in stimulus and $20 billion in tax relief. Action plan after action plan, the government has continued to responsibly steer Canada through the global recession while simultaneously pushing taxes lower and removing barriers to trade and investment in Canada.

The ultimate result is that all Canadians can take pride that through our government's responsible and disciplined leadership, Canada has the best fiscal record in the G8. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is the absolute lowest. We are on the path to surplus. We hold a AAA credit rating. We have added over a million net new jobs to the economy, which has reduced unemployment lower than before the recession. Our markets remain responsibly regulated, stable, and dynamic. However, our recovery is fragile and vulnerable to the actions of others. That is why Bill C-4 would have impact.

Bill C-4 would project the government's low-tax, consumer, family-focused agenda into the future to ensure continued growth and long-term prosperity. While Bill C-4 touches on all aspects of Canada's economy, I would like to highlight three areas of importance to my region and how Bill C-4 would help Nipissing—Timiskaming grow. First, as we know, businesses are absolutely key to healthy communities. If the cost of business is too high, jobs will disappear. This is the plain truth, and it baffles me that the NDP and Liberals cannot comprehend it.

Fundamentally, they believe that we can tax and spend ourselves out of every problem. Nipissing—Timiskaming is home to many manufacturing companies. Aerospace and mining are major sectors for us. The accelerated capital cost allowance program introduced in Bill C-4 , which would be extended for two years, would allow companies in my region to invest in new machinery and equipment, expand their operations, and stimulate growth and job creation. Economic action plan 2013 would proactively address continued job growth and skills shortages through the Canada job grant.

It is an initiative that would help workers get $15,000 toward valuable skills training. Our government understands that it is not enough to create new jobs; we have to make sure that there are skilled Canadians to fill them. This kind of long-term, experienced thinking is exactly why, under this government, Canada has prospered while other countries continue to flounder. I know that in my region, students and graduates of Canadore College would particularly benefit from the Canada job grant.

These very same students, many of whom go into the skilled trades, would also benefit from the changes we are making to how apprenticeship accreditation works. Four million dollars over three years would be allocated to harmonize requirements among the provinces and to examine assessments. Aerospace, in particular, would benefit. Over $1 billion would be invested in the aerospace and space sectors. Nipissing—Timiskaming has a long and proud history in airways, and I am confident that it will play a key role in our government's plan to consolidate and improve our fifth-place standing in the world.

Aerospace companies and services in my community employ hundreds of people and provide them with secure, good-paying jobs. This will only grow under our government. Second, I would like to specifically talk about small businesses. Small businesses are the lifeblood of the towns and communities in Nipissing—Timiskaming. They, in particular, would benefit from Bill C-4 . Besides being able to take advantage of the Canada job grant, they would benefit from the hiring credit, which would freeze EI premiums, saving small businesses $1,000.

Small businesses, and in particular part-time farmers, would benefit from the increase to the lifetime capital gains exemption, which would increase by $50,000 to $800,000. Farmers would also benefit from the doubling of the restricted farm loss deduction, from $8,750 to $17,500.

(1115) Overall, thanks to the low-tax plan of our government, Bill C-4 and previous Conservative budgets, small businesses are paying $28,600 less in taxes. Canadians get it and Canadians got it in May 2011 when they sent the Conservative government to Ottawa with a majority. However, I will make it clear for my colleagues who remain a little confused that we have been cutting taxes and jobs have been created, one million net new jobs. Bills like Bill C-4 have cut taxes. Unemployment now is lower than before the recession. Our responsible long-term plan is working for Canada and Canadian families.

I hope, after seven years, my colleagues will begin to understand that. I want to touch on infrastructure. A major part of the original economic action plan, investment in infrastructure, underpins this budget and Canada's success. How would this be any different given our national history? In the infant stage of nationhood, it was the building of the transcontinental railroad that united Canada and set it on the path toward economic prosperity.

The building Canada plan, the single largest infrastructure investment in our nation's history, will provide an additional $53 billion over several years to make sure our infrastructure is modern, safe and capable of helping us unlock more economic potential in our communities and from our resources. We cannot expect to grow without a firm base on which to stand. Infrastructure is that base. Nipissing—Timiskaming has greatly benefited from infrastructure projects, particularly through FedNor. In particular, the airport, roads and community assets have been invested in.

The expansion of the airport and upgrading of its services continue to make our region a more attractive place for continued investment in aerospace. Coupled with our government's aerospace prerogative, there is potential for real synergy. Investment in our roads and community infrastructure continues to open up the north and adds to our quality of life. It is unfortunate that many of our neighbours suffered greatly, and continue to suffer, because of the global economic downturn. I as a Canadian am very grateful that our recession was not as impactful. Canadians recognize that our success is no accident.

Canadians recognize that our continued economic leadership of the G8 is no accident. Canadians recognize that the government is not the answer, only a part of the solution. Our country has grown weary of the tax and spend promises of the Liberals and NDP, mostly because the money is never spent on the people, although it is they who are taxed. Last, I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that this government does not draft policy or budgets in a vacuum, but in a long-term, responsible and critical fashion.

The effects of economic action plan 2013, Bill C-4 and future budgets, will greatly benefit from the recently announced Canada-European Union free trade agreement. The synergy is perfect. Bills like Bill C-4 help create a low-tax, investor-friendly market, while CETA removes barriers to trade and investment. In conclusion, thanks to Bill C-4 and parallel government efforts, Canadians can continue to expect net job growth, world leadership in fiscal accountability and political stability, with an explicit focus on Canadian jobs, families and their pocketbooks.

The government fully intends to seize Canada's moment for the benefit of all Canadians and I would urge my colleagues on the opposite side to support it. I look forward to questions from my colleagues. (1120) [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that my riding shares a common border with that of my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming . When I travel by car to my riding, I regularly pass through his riding. It appears that we disagree on the Conservative budget. When I talk to young people in his riding, they tell me that they are worried.

More and more young people are unemployed. Salaries are not going up. Increasingly, they are holding down part-time jobs and the price of houses is very high. It is very hard for them to start a family. There is nothing in this budget for young people. I would like to know if the hon. member has taken the time as well to talk to the young people in his riding and to listen closely to their concerns, or if he is only talking to the members of the business community. [ English ] Mr. Jay Aspin : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague indeed frequents our riding and is always welcome there.

Yes, I talk to young people a number of times throughout the week and throughout the month. Basically, they are telling me that they want opportunities for training, and there are plenty in this budget as I mentioned. One in particular is the Canada jobs grant. When the Canada jobs grant is fully formulated, it will provide $15,000 for young Canadians in my riding to get fully trained and obtain the skills they need to obtain and carry jobs in the future. Another opportunity is the tremendous amount of money that the government has afforded for aerospace.

We have an aerospace forum coming to the riding on November 8 and we hope to grow aerospace in our region as it is growing in Canada. We want to maintain our fifth-place standing and, in fact, want to enhance our standing. It is my hope that we can attract investment to the North Bay region and help grow jobs in the economy, jobs for our younger people. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, at one point in an earlier debate, the Minister of Finance very eloquently said that the purpose of the budget implementation act was to implement the budget.

When the budget speech was given last spring, there was a lengthy speech and there was a thick, glossy volume of some hundreds of pages, with a blue and white cover and an economic action plan title. I wonder if the hon. member might be able to point us to the reference in the budget speech or documents to the proposed changes to the Supreme Court Act.

(1125) Mr. Jay Aspin : Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I cannot specifically point to that reference and am not familiar with it. Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of State (Science and Technology, and Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member in particular for the important work he is doing, not just in Nipissing—Timiskaming but across northern Ontario. He has been a great ambassador. Indeed, he is right about aerospace and he can also talk about and celebrate the fact that North Bay is a world-class city for the mining supply and service sector.

I have been travelling across the North and this world-class theme has been ringing loud and clear. Sudbury is doing astrophysics and leading the world in natural and water sciences. These are not our traditional strengths. Thunder Bay has cyclotron early cancer detection and the world was gathered there. Kenora is becoming a world-class tourist destination. Mayors and first nations community leaders are talking positively and enthusiastically. There is a palpable enthusiasm for northern Ontario, but I am concerned about the bad news bears across the floor.

Could the member tell us why this budget implementation act would take northern Ontario one step forward to the greatness it can and will achieve? Mr. Jay Aspin : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. This budget would provide our region, which is a rural region, with a great deal of unemployment, the opportunity to move forward and seize the moment for the 21st century. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-4 .

Unfortunately, this is another grab bag omnibus bill that has had its time for debate cut off, so some important issues in it will not be adequately aired. I will touch on several aspects of the bill and how they reflect some of the challenges and failures of the government. I am going to start by pointing out that this budget implementation bill would do very little to address the key challenges being faced by middle-class Canadians as a result of rising costs and stagnant incomes. Bill C-4 would do little to create jobs. The bill would increase taxes with respect to mining exploration. That is not very helpful.

If taxes are increased on mining exploration, then much of the good work to encourage mining exploration and mining development would be undermined. Vancouver is at the centre of the mining industry globally. Many people who live in the province of British Columbia and many people in my riding of Vancouver Quadra work in the mining industry. The British Columbia government has spent the last 10 or 12 years rebuilding that industry in our province. In 2001, when the B.C.

Liberal government was first elected, investment in mining exploration was down to about $25 million from the hundreds of millions of dollars of annual investment in the 1990s. Slowly and surely the provincial government built up the confidence of the mining industry until over $250 million a year was invested in British Columbia's mining exploration. Our province spent so much effort in rebuilding this industry by respecting the industry and not adding to its tax burden. Did the Prime Minister consult with the British Columbia premier or the minister of energy and mines when he slapped a tax on this industry?

This is a failure by management, and it shows that the federal government does not understand that for jobs to be created and business opportunities to be provided, the business community needs to have certainty and transparency. We have seen this kind of management failure in spades in the Conservative government in the area of military procurement. All of us would agree that the Canadian navy, air force and army need to replace billions of dollars worth of aging trucks, helicopters, ships, et cetera so our armed forces personnel have safe and effective equipment.

Barely a week has past without yet another story of the Conservative government's incompetence with respect to military procurement. I want to remind the House that the acquisition of F-35 joint strike fighters was restarted after reports by the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the government knowingly misled Canadians on the program's cost. It was, in fact, keeping two sets of books. In 2010 the Prime Minister claimed the cost would be $9 billion for 65 fighters, but by 2012 the full cost was pegged at more than $46 billion.

That is just one example and there are many others, such as helicopters to replace the aging Sea Kings. In some cases, these Sea Kings are 30 years older than the very pilots who are flying them, so this is a safety issue. There have only been delays and uncertainty with respect to that project. The acquisition of new army trucks has been ongoing since 2004. That has been restarted numerous times, but nothing is expected there. The purchase of a new fleet of search and rescue aircraft has taken more than nine years. The government is still not ready to even accept bids.

(1130) There is also the issue around the Arctic offshore patrol ships. An independent reviewer said the cost was extraordinarily high for the design phase alone, but the government just plowed ahead, ignoring that point. There were plans to replace the outdated 50-year-old Lee-Enfield .303 rifles used by our Canadian Rangers in the Arctic; that procurement project has been cancelled with no reason given. It is a very flawed procurement process, unfortunately, potentially impacting the safety of our Canadian Armed Forces, and that is a management failure on the government's part.

I want to touch on another area in the bill, the employment insurance premiums. We support this aspect of the bill and we appreciate that after years of Liberal requests, the government has stopped increasing the tax on jobs, which is increasing the EI premiums, as they have been increased over the years, costing billions of dollars to businesses. We support that aspect, but the very fact that the government has been adding taxes to businesses and small businesses is a level of fiscal incompetence, because it shows the Conservatives are not understanding the impact of these taxes on jobs.

Under the current government, that kind of incompetence has been happening in the military budget as well. Under the Canada First defence strategy, a promised cornerstone was stable increases in funding. However, almost immediately, successive budgets were quietly reduced by billions of dollars, allowing up to $8 billion in funds to lapse or stay unspent.

There has been essentially no new investment in national defence under the Conservative government, with two small exceptions, and since 2011, successive major budget cuts have been sending departments scrambling to protect the essential capacity and morale required for effective national defence. This is another case of saying one thing and doing another. Canadians and Liberals are proud of the Canadian Forces, who serve Canada on her behalf without reservation.

However, to do their jobs they need to be able to depend on what they are being told, and in fact the government has decreased armed forces personnel in the navy by 11% from its strength in 2004, yet it increased the number of civilian naval employees by 30% over that period. This is managerial incompetence. The army has fared no better under the current government. Between 2011 and 2013 its budget has been slashed by 22%, yet its headquarters received an extra half a billion dollars in budget increases. We hear one thing, but we see another happening.

Most unfortunately, in this bill we have the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, a backlogged board that will see its number of members slashed so that there will be a further backlog. That ties in to the undermining of the armed forces that we have seen under the government whereby military members and their families are falling through the cracks of government bureaucracy. As these national defence budgets that supposedly were to be increased have been slashed, the very programs that support military personnel affected by mental illness and injury have been cut.

Thousands of Canadian Forces members are affected by mental health issues. They need help through the joint personnel support unit and through mental health professionals to help them get strong again and find alternatives within the armed forces where they can be successful, yet those very supports are not there. The government must do so much better for our men and women in uniform, just as it must do much better for Canadians.

(1135) Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Vancouver Quadra trying to direct her comments to an area related to her new role as critic in defence and defence procurement. However, I have to take serious issue with her speech.

I am incredulous that she accuses this government of undermining the Canadian Forces at a time where the Canadian Forces have grown and been properly equipped by this government, as opposed to what happened with the previous government, which balanced its budget on the backs of defence and of our provinces. I would ask the member if she is aware of the veterans transition network, a new mental health facility or program that has been championed by the University of British Columbia in her own province.

It was previously funded by the Royal Canadian Legion, and it is this government that actually helped take it to a national level so that more of our veterans with mental health issues could be addressed. I would like her to speak to the veterans transition network program specifically. Ms. Joyce Murray : Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with that program. The program struggled for years without government support. I appreciate that the government has now picked up the program and is expanding it.

For many years it was supported by the Legions, which had to go out talking about their successes in speech after speech, including one at a breakfast policy event where the leaders of that program spoke to constituents in Vancouver Quadra . However, I want to touch upon the parliamentary secretary's comments about reductions in support for the military. In the decade in which cuts were applied, a number of those years were under Conservative governments, and the cuts occurred because of the deficits that Conservatives had gotten Canadians and Canada into.

It was under the Paul Martin government that funding began to be restored for the Canadian Armed Forces. We are now closing on a decade of deceit by the current Conservative government, which does photo opportunities about supposed increases in funding with troops and equipment in the backdrop, yet has done virtually nothing and is now scrambling to figure out where to put all the hidden cuts that are in its budgets.

(1140) Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a few steps away from here, 600 people are gathering for the first national conference on ending homelessness. As we know, there are 200,000 homeless people in Canada every year. There is a slow-motion crisis going on, and it is definitely a national disaster, yet in the debates, in the throne speech, and in the action plan, there is hardly any investment for building affordable housing. Also, the end of the housing agreement in 2014 will mean that hundreds of thousands of people who now have affordable housing will lose that affordable housing.

Given the homelessness crisis that is facing Canada, what should Canada's response be and what should be in this budget document? Ms. Joyce Murray : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Trinity—Spadina pointing out what a core challenge the issues of affordable housing and homelessness are for Canadians, In 2005, under the minister responsible for housing in the Liberal government, there was a comprehensive plan that had been the product of consultation across the country to invest in solutions to that issue, but the current Conservative government has consistently cut supports for affordable housing.

It is at the core of Canadians' well-being, not just for lower-income people but also for the middle class; for young families in Vancouver who cannot afford to buy a house or rent suitable housing; for the mentally ill, whose situations are worsened when they do not have safe adequate housing; and for seniors, especially women. I thank the member for pointing out that very important issue. Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to add my comments to this important debate that we are having on Bill C-4 today.

Our Conservative government, as we have said many times, is squarely focused on what matters most to Canadians, and that is economic growth and prosperity. We intend to do that by creating jobs across this country. By implementing Canada's economic action plan, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the tough recession that we have had over the last few years and throughout the recovery that is taking place. This morning we are discussing Bill C-4 , the economic action plan 2013.

I want to take a few minutes to outline why the opposition should support this legislation. Our economic action plan 2013 builds on the strong foundation that was laid last year in conjunction with the portfolio of initiatives that we have had since 2006, with affordable measures that would create jobs, promote growth across this country, and contribute to long-term prosperity. It would further unleash the potential of Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to thrive and innovate in the modern economy so that they can begin to create prosperity and economic growth as well.

To me, that is what matters most in this country, while the opposition continues to talk about issues that Canadians do not seem to be concerned about. Our government will put forward legislation that matters from coast to coast to coast. Here are a few of the facts that I think are important. Canada has created over one million net new jobs, 90% of which are full-time, with nearly 80% in the private sector. I think that is something we should be extremely proud of. Our private sector is thriving to the point that it has created nearly 800,000 jobs since the depth of the global recession in July 2009.

Over this period, Canada has had the strongest job creation record in the entire G7. This is in tandem with the fact that our unemployment rate is at its lowest level in four years and is significantly lower than that of the United States. This is a phenomenon that we have not seen in nearly three decades. For the fifth straight year, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world, and all the major credit rating agencies—Moody's, Fitch, Standard and Poor's—have once again affirmed our solid AAA credit rating.

The global economy remains fragile, with growth in major economies slower than expected and our major trading partners not in the enviable position that we find ourselves in. Of course, we are not immune to a global slowdown, and Bill C-4 is one way that our government continues to ensure growth in these fragile times. Let us take a closer look at how Canada's economic action plan makes significant improvements that would benefit all Canadians, but before I go to that, I would like to note another sign of leadership: the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union.

While we are working in terms of a budget and economic action plan 2013, this government is not sitting still. We have gone around the world inking trade deals; the latest one is, of course, the agreement that we are going to be making with the European Union. This agreement alone, as members have heard, has the potential to add more than 80,000 new Canadian jobs. We expect that those jobs will be in all sectors. I come from an agricultural area, and certainly the agriculture folks are very excited and happy about this. There will be opportunities to thrive in all sectors.

There will be opportunities for them to move into new markets. We expect, as they have done so many times over the decades, that the agriculture folks will step up and take advantage of those opportunities and once again show the world-class leadership that they have shown in the past. On this agreement, here is a little bit of what other people have to say about it.

John Manley, the president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, has said that “...the [comprehensive economic and trade agreement] will create jobs, spur investment and promote economic growth”, which is exactly what this government is trying to do. Unlike the opposition, we understand the importance of free trade and that the pursuit of it is beneficial for Canada and for Canadians. Our government's trade agenda has already made us one of the most open and globally engaged economies in the world.

Since 2006, we have reached trade agreements with nine countries, and we are negotiating with many more. We have concluded foreign investment, promotion, and protection agreements with another 16 countries and are in active negotiations with others as well. We are not done yet. We have also joined the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations. We are actively pursuing new trade and investment opportunities in large, dynamic, and growing economies, such as China, India, and Japan.

Those initiatives reflect our belief that freer and more open trade is a key stimulus for global economy recovery, and I might add, for the development of human rights in some of the other countries as well.

(1145) Unlike the opposition, we know that by growing international trade and creating additional export opportunities for Canadian businesses, we will improve the standard of living for all Canadians. Free and open trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy. Canadian businesses need access to key export markets in order to take advantage of new opportunities. Economic action plan 2013 builds on those measures through targeted actions that will help our manufacturers and businesses continue to succeed on the world stage.

We also believe in promoting job creation and keeping more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. When disaster struck the world economy, our economic action plan navigated Canada through the worst recession in a generation while maintaining the lowest debt to GDP level in the G7. During the downturn, our economic action plan took the steps necessary to safeguard our economy and protected Canadian jobs.

It made the largest and the longest federal investment in job creating infrastructure in Canadian history, and it controlled spending while maintaining growing transfers that support health care, education and retirement in those transfers to the provinces. Unlike the previous Liberal government, we have not cut major transfers to Canadian families or other levels of government, particularly the health and social transfers, in order to balance the budget.

We are also not going to engage in risky spending schemes or force a $21-billion carbon tax on Canadians or hike taxes on Canadian businesses, as the NDP has insisted is its economic strategy for this country. Instead, our government has set clear targets to bring our deficit down and to return to a balanced budget by 2015. Our government has been very clear that we are not going to raise taxes on Canadians to balance that budget and the new Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed our economic action plan will see Canada return to surplus before the next election.

The Minister of Finance also recently reiterated our commitment to balancing the budget in 2015. Our plan is working. In the past two years we have already cut the deficit by more than half.

Economic action plan 2013 will build on these efforts to reduce government spending by announcing an additional $1.7 billion in ongoing savings, including examining departmental spending to ensure that government operations are managed efficiently, making government operations more efficient by putting forward plans to control overall employee compensation expenses and enhancing the integrity of the tax system by closing tax loopholes. I want to talk about public service pay and benefits.

Our budget has stated that the Government of Canada's intent is to set public service pay and benefit levels that are reasonable, responsible and in the public interest. The Public Service Labour Relations Act will be amended to ensure that the public service is affordable and that it is modern and high performing, as taxpayers have expected. The proposed amendments will bring savings, will streamline practices and will bring them in line with other jurisdictions. We are glad to be able to sit at a bargaining table on behalf of the taxpayers where the rules are fair and balanced.

Overall, measures taken by our government since budget 2010 will result in total ongoing savings of roughly $14 billion. I would like to talk about how this will impact my province of Saskatchewan. There are a number of things in this budget that are good for us. As everyone knows, we have a very strong economy in western Canada right now, particularly in Saskatchewan. It is the fastest growing province in the country. We have been able to work with the province in moving forward this economic vision for Canadians.

It is interesting that we finally shed ourselves of the NDP heritage we had in Saskatchewan, which held us back for so long. It is interesting that even as the world was going into recession, Saskatchewan has finally really begun to bloom. We have worked to keep taxes low from our perspective. We have worked to return to a balanced budget and the government in Saskatchewan has done a good job of managing its resources as well.

Things such as the community improvement fund where we have been able to contribute to infrastructure, the building Canada fund, where we have been able to work with the provinces has actually worked very well. I see my time is almost up, so I want to say Canada is leading the world in job creation with more than one million net new jobs as I pointed out. At the same time we have created an environment that encourages new investment, growth and job creation, and one that ensures that Canada has the strongest fiscal position and the lowest business tax costs in the G7. We continue to work.

In economic action plan 2013 we are committed to helping businesses grow and succeed further. We are committed to helping Canadians get the rewards from that. We will deliver high-quality jobs to them, economic growth and prosperity for the future. (1150) [ Translation ] Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government appears to have a strategy: neglect infrastructure in order to avoid tax increases.

If everything is going so well, can my colleague explain to me then why there are still some old DOT-111 rail cars in service transporting oil on questionable tracks and why there are old locomotives from the 1960s catching fire and crashing into towns like Lac-Mégantic and ones in Alberta on two different occasions? Would it not have been better for the Conservatives to have given the matter some thought last spring when my colleague raised a question about rail transportation? [ English ] Mr. David Anderson : Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is mixing a number of issues together.

We have had an infrastructure plan in place over the last few years. The community improvement fund has been funded through the gas tax fund, which we have made permanent, and the GST rebate. That helps municipalities across Canada with stable funding to build economic infrastructure. I do not want to lessen what happened this summer in terms of rail safety at all, but the government is not in the business of managing or owning rail lines. We have committed to infrastructure. The infrastructure we have committed to in my riding has primarily been roads and water treatment systems.

Those communities that have received help with that have been happy to have that kind of help. Those are things that one can easily say our government should be putting money into. We need a good road and infrastructure system. We certainly need water treatment plants. As we are raising the standards of water requirements across this country, it is reasonable that the government would also participate in those types of infrastructure projects.

(1155) Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talked about how helpful the economic policies of the government are to his province. I can say that is not the case across the country. I come from Prince Edward Island and when the federal government decided to downsize the civil service, it did so by 4.8% across the country, except in my province where it was double that rate. He talked about transfer payments. The decision by the government to go with per capita transfers on the health transfer has disproportionately affected my province.

My province depends on a seasonal economy. The changes to EI have devastated our economy. Does the parliamentary secretary not feel that the policies of the government should provide opportunity for all and not just for those who had the good sense to bury resources in the ground? Mr. David Anderson : Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are the specialists in downloading costs onto others because they spent their entire existence downloading costs onto the provinces and virtually destroyed the economy of provinces across this country. We have been very generous in terms of our transfer payments.

We have continued the transfer payments for health and social services at 6% and others at 3%. We have been generous and continued those commitments. There are some other measures the member should be thanking us for, such as creating opportunities for apprentices. We are trying to get the focus back onto the trades and the importance of trades to this country because we have many people who are unemployed, many of whom do not have a trade. We are trying to encourage people to go into the trades because we need tradespeople across the country.

We have the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small business people to encourage small businesses to expand their business. We know that small and medium-size businesses are the heartbeat of this country. The member seems to think that the government is. It is the NDP's position that the government has to do everything for Canadians in this country. We know that small and medium-size businesses are the job creators. As I mentioned before, nearly 80% of the jobs that have been created across this country have been created by private business.

Maybe the member should turn his thinking a bit more to encouraging those folks who are running businesses to find ways to expand their business. There are a number of other initiatives I can talk about as well, but I see that the Speaker would like me to sit down. Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak on Bill C-4 today. We have heard a lot of good conversations and the benefits of what Bill C-4 would do for our country. What is the importance of the bill, some may ask.

Over time and particularly over this summer, I was able to visit many of the businesses, farms and constituents in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. Just so that the viewers and you, Mr. Speaker, may have a handle on what Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is in terms of a constituency, it is a riding that is a little bigger than the province of Prince Edward Island. It is a very rural riding, made up of small communities. My largest urban area is made up of 14,000 people. The next largest urban area is somewhere around 12,500. It is made up of agriculture and small businesses within our towns and communities.

I travelled across the riding and met with businesses, individuals and people in agriculture with the main purpose of finding out what they thought about our budget and what we were doing for business. One of the things that they told us is that they trust our Conservative government to maintain a stable economy. That is actually the main purpose of budget 2013, and consequently, of the implementation bills that followed to support and grow our Canadian economy. We can see how we are on track, for example, to balance the budget. It has been talked about a number of times.

The annual financial report of the Government of Canada for fiscal year 2012-13 shows the continued downward track of Canada's annual deficit. In 2013, the deficit fell by $18.9 billion. The deficit was $26.3 billion in 2011-12. The new number now, quite honestly, is more than one-quarter less than previously determined, $7.14 billion, and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009 and 2010. These are big numbers, but I can tell the House that, big numbers or not, we remain committed to continuing this downward trend in our deficit.

We can also see the economic growth in the creation of jobs. We are leading the G7 with more than one million net new jobs having been created. These jobs were not created by the government. The government prefers an environment in which businesses create these jobs. Approximately 90% of those jobs are full-time and over 80% are in the private sector. What does that actually mean to the businesses in my riding and ridings across this great country of Canada? It means that we are creating sustainable growth. We are not just pumping money into a system that may get lost again if the global economy turns.

We are creating jobs for the long term. We are creating a stable economy. We want to stay focused. As the Minister of Finance put it: ...we are not immune from the challenges beyond our borders. We cannot afford to become complacent. We will not do so. We heard the measures in economic action plan 2013 no. 2 that are aimed at providing support for job creators being talked about before. They include the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small businesses, which will benefit an estimated 560,000 employers. That is 560,000 employers.

If only 50% of them tap into that hiring credit, it means a benefit to our small businesses of $225 million, should they use it. The measures also include indexing the lifetime capital gains exemption to make investing in small businesses more rewarding. This is so important. It is moving from $500,000 to $750,000, but it is now indexed. That means that it is now indexed to keep up with the traffic that is in the economy.

(1200) The measures also include expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in small businesses, whether they are clean energy businesses or others. A proposal in budget 2013, which many of the businesses in my riding are looking forward to seeing implemented, is the changes to the Employment Insurance Act. Freezing employment insurance premium rates for three years will leave approximately $660 million in the pockets of job-creators and workers in 2014 alone. Sometimes we sort of wonder what these numbers mean.

I remember the day we were talking about moving the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. Quite honestly, we are the only government that said we were going to do it and have actually done it. I used to get comments about how if someone buys jeans, it is only going to mean a few cents here and a dollar or so there. In my riding, every 1% left $18 million in the pockets of people in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. That 2% left $36 million in my rural riding of small towns and small businesses. We never want to underestimate.

Sometimes when we say we are going to take these small steps, they seem small; however, they mean a great benefit to the people in our ridings. Going back to employment insurance, we know this will put money back into the pockets of small businesses that are the cornerstone of many of our communities in rural areas. In turn, that means more money they can invest back in their business. It almost means job creation and economic prosperity for them, and then that rolls out. If it is good for them, it is good for the community; and it is obviously good for governments when they collect taxes.

These are only a few examples of what we are doing to ensure Canadians have available jobs for themselves and their children, and that benefits the Canadian economy. We can also see our support for economic prosperity in the reduction of taxes. It is twofold, in closing the tax loopholes and combatting tax evasion. We are going to introduce new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion. Other members have had that discussion today.

We know there are some difficulties. It is easier to say it than to actually implement it. However, we know that if we do not implement, then we will never move down the road. That is an important part of being able to deal with that suppression part. We will be closing tax loopholes to make sure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes. On the other hand, the period during which Canada Revenue Agency can reassess a taxpayer who fails to report income from foreign property will be longer, to ensure that when the examinations happen they are exact, accurate and are carried out in a responsible manner.

Second, we always want to respect taxpayers' dollars, but we also want to give the benefit to some of our young people; so we will be modernizing the Canada student loan program and the temporary foreign worker program by expanding electronic service delivery. In the short time I have left I want to talk about CETA and the importance that agreement has, not only in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex because of the small businesses and agriculture but for the economy. We know it is going to create about $12 billion annually and a 20% increase in bilateral trade.

Out of that $12 billion, agriculture is going to gain the benefit of $1.3 billion. I am glad to take questions and move on that. Canada is a leader around the world in terms of economic growth. On this side, we plan to keep it this way.

(1205) Mr. Greg Rickford : Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the member's speech, but no less than twice in the short time he spoke, cellphones were ringing from across the opposition benches. I know it was constituents urging those members to support this budget implementation act to create jobs and strengthen Canada's economy, but I do not want to hear good speeches like that interrupted by phone calls and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to just remind the members of the importance of putting their cellphones— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please.

The Minister of State does raise a valid point, and I know from time to time members forget to turn off the ringers on their phones when they bring them into this place. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sudbury. Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his participation in the debate today. He always brings forward a very good presentation. I may not always agree with everything he is saying, but he does bring forward a good presentation.

The member was talking a lot about economic growth and jobs, and I know we hear that from that side of the House all the time, and one of the interesting points was that the economy is still fragile. With all of that being said about the economy, about jobs and about a fragile economy, it makes me scratch my head and wonder why, in a budget bill, we are talking about reducing the number of members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Why, in a budget bill, are we talking about changes to the Supreme Court Act? Why are we seeing 70 pieces of legislation changing, in over 300 pages, in a budget bill?

Maybe the hon. member can answer that for me, because on this side of the House we do not understand how all those issues correlate. Mr. Bev Shipley : Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague and friend from Sudbury . I think it is snowing up there, and where I come from it is actually nice and warm. In all seriousness, in terms of what some of those items are doing in our budget, as I mentioned, 95% to 98% of the businesses across Canada are small businesses.

When those business owners look at how they are going to operate their businesses to be sustainable in the long term, they look at what they can do within their management system to become effective and efficient and, yes, become and stay profitable. When we look at a number of initiatives or issues in terms of reducing, for example, the number of members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, I believe we have to always look at how we are going to provide a service that we need to provide but also how we do it more effectively and efficiently. I rely on those members in the veterans affairs committee.

I do not know if the member was on it at one time, but I was, and it was one of the greatest benefits I had, being able to be on that committee to—

(1210) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. I just remind all hon. members that, if they are asking or answering a question, they should pay attention to the Chair. They will get a signal when their time has expired. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague should be ashamed of his answer. I am flabbergasted to hear the member opposite justify the reduction in the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

The very purpose of that body is to review files and hear appeals from veterans who have a problem with Veterans Affairs Canada. Some of them come to see me at my office because they have fallen between the cracks. They have a problem with the department. The Veterans Review and Appeal Board is there to help them. According to the Conservative member opposite, if salaries are cut, then Canadian businesses will be happy. What a disgrace. I am shocked that our veterans are paying the price for the Conservatives’ incompetence. Canada’s finances are being totally mismanaged.

The Conservatives should slash the programs that they cannot manage properly, instead of penalizing veterans. My colleague should be ashamed of his answer. I do not even have a question for him. [ English ] Mr. Bev Shipley : Mr. Speaker, in terms of service, we need to ensure we look at what our government has done for Veterans Affairs and for our veterans across this country. Veterans are the ones we need to make sure we stand behind, and that is why we not only have implemented the charter but have made a number of changes within that charter to make sure our veterans are looked after.

We have created service centres to which they now have more access, to make sure those in need of treatment and information have access to those facilities. We want to make sure we are there for veterans in terms of their compensation. When people come back with injuries, we have extraordinary amounts that we want to help them with, so they are protected in the long term for their life ahead of them. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to talk about Bill C-4 and explain the opposition's interest both in its form and in its substance.

I should say that with respect to form, we have another omnibus bill that is a collection of dissimilar and disconnected measures. It is really another cat’s cradle designed to thwart democracy. We go from legislation relating to Canada’s coal reserves, to legislation about the right to opt out when it comes to the health and safety of federal employees. We are really moving from department to department,

whereas this is actually a budget bill. As a result, we might expect measures directly concerning the Minister of Finance . That is not necessarily the way this government seems to want to operate, however. With respect to the budget bill, the Minister of Finance is dictating to the other ministers what action they should take. There is a flagrant disrespect for ministerial responsibilities. It leaves us puzzled, and shows to what extent the Conservative government is a centralizing one that intrudes in all areas in an inconsistent manner.

If I had just been appointed to cabinet, as some people were during the summer, I would like to be able myself to present the measures of concern to my department. It appears, however, that it does not bother the new ministers on the other side to have the Minister of Finance dictating measures that are under their jurisdiction. Canadians might well wonder how many nails this bill seeks to hammer into the coffin of democracy. After the prorogation, the gift packages from the Conservative government look once again like Pandora's box.

Is it really the purpose of a budget bill to add new legislation respecting labour relations? I think not. I would not like to be the Minister of Labour and have someone tell me how to do my job. I would now like to address the substance of the bill. The Minister of Finance should rather focus on the financial priorities of Canadians. For example, in 1980, the ratio of household debt to personal disposable income was 66%. According to the figures for 2011, it has now risen to over 150%. This means that every household owes $1.50 for every dollar earned. People owe more than they are earning. It makes no sense.

As a result, household debt is becoming an increasingly significant factor in the finances of many Canadian families, and the government is not taking concrete action in this area. The data on employment are also revealing. In September, job numbers increased in Quebec. We have 15,000 more jobs, but they are part-time. The number of full-time jobs is decreasing. The Conservatives say they are creating jobs, and it is true. However, they are creating jobs that are part-time and offer no security, instead of preserving good, secure full-time jobs. I believe that should be a priority for this government.

The only thing that interests the Conservatives is job creation. They do not consider job security or the fact that these are part-time jobs as opposed to full-time jobs. Anyone at home knows that a part-time job is not equivalent to a full-time job. Anyway, I know it, and I think even the five-year-old girl next door knows it. The Conservative member for Northumberland—Quinte West referred indirectly to this increased vulnerability in the job market in the example he gave last Friday.

The measures he read from his notes show that the government is not taking the necessary measures to deal appropriately with the lack of social housing in Canada. His short-term view is based on volunteer work in construction and reliance on charities, like Habitat for Humanity, to provide housing for Canadians. It is shameful that we cannot have social housing built by our own tradespeople who are looking for work. My colleague from Chambly—Borduas pointed out that the youth employment rate is double the rate for other groups.

This indicates the ineffectiveness of the action taken to date by the government to enable young people to take their rightful place in the Canadian economy. In order to develop the Canadian economy, we expect better than replacing a strong economy and proper training with services provided through charitable organizations set up by former U.S. presidents.

(1215) The median after-tax income of a family of two or more persons was $68,000 in 2011, virtually the same as in 2010. That was the fourth consecutive year in which there was no significant change in after-tax income. Factoring in inflation, this means that Canadian families got poorer. However, as the Canadian Press noted and Le Devoir reported on September 12, "These statistics are taken from the controversial National Household Survey…, which replaced the long form census abolished by the Conservative government in 2010.

As a result, comparisons with past figures are very hard to make, since the form has been changed and is no longer mandatory." I therefore wonder whether the Conservatives' lack of scientific rigour might not throw off their economic compass when they come up with random measures that have no sound basis. Reliable data are required in order to put economic measures in place that provide real assistance to our youth. The long form questionnaire gave us those reliable figures before it was cancelled. As regards the soundness of our economy, more than 4.5 million union members worked across Canada in 2012.

That amounts to 32% of the total labour force. In addition, their weekly payroll of $4.59 billion represented 35.6% of the total national payroll. That is why I want to emphasize the importance of unions in Canada. The Canadian Labour Congress included comments in a study it published to illustrate the real importance of the union advantage in 30 Canadian communities and in this country as a whole. That study showed that unionized workers earn $4.97 more an hour, on average, than non-unionized workers. That means that the union advantage adds $785.8 million a week to incomes across the country.

That money is spent mainly in our local communities and therefore contributes to the Canadian economy. The Conservatives' attacks on our unions are unfortunately ongoing, and the possibility that they may strip unionized Canadians of their bargaining powers only further undermines the equal justice measures that are being used to combat the growing inequalities in our society. This is another deceitful attempt by the Conservative government to shirk its responsibilities. It is important to note that we would not have safe workplaces if it were not for the unions.

The Conservatives will disrupt the fragile health and safety balance by stripping officers of their powers. This is dangerous. Need I recall the consequences of the self-regulation of the Canadian railway industry or the deregulation of food safety at the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food? I also think we must reconsider a question that was raised by the member for Gatineau . She asked what a clause on judicial appointments was doing in a budget.

I have no idea, and I would add my voice to the general consternation at seeing that the budget implementation bill is once again interfering in other departments' matters and amending acts that have nothing to do with finance. The Minister of Justice has been here for several years, and he would have been able to manage that on his own. Instead, that task has been assigned to the Minister of Finance . I do not understand. This makes no sense. Unless I am mistaken, I was not even an adult when the current Minister of Justice first entered the House of Commons.

He is therefore capable of managing his own files, but he is not doing so. We have to ask ourselves some questions. What items have no place in a budget bill? There are hundreds of examples. As we can see, parliamentary oversight has no place in the process, and the department is being given free rein to centralize everything once more. The history of Conservative omnibus bills is repeating itself yet again.

(1220) Instead of reoffending, the Conservatives should learn from their mistakes. That is unfortunately not what they are doing. [ English ] Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, all morning we have been hearing Conservative members lauding the Canada jobs grant, which amounts to a $15,000 contribution to training, $5,000 from the federal government, $5,000 from the provincial government and $5,000 from independent industry. Do members know where the government got the $300 million that it will put into this program?

The government took it from the provinces and now it wants the provinces to invest money. The money was taken away from the provinces, money they were deploying in their provinces in a way they thought was appropriate and in a way that was working. Not only that, but all the provinces have said that they will not participate. To exacerbate the problem, the government has been advertising the program as if it already exists, at a cost of $90,000 a shot on TV. The program does not exist, but it is needed to fill our jobs training gap.

Could the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue speak about this issue? (1225) [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore : Mr. Speaker, indeed, something does not add up. The government is advertising a program that it still has not negotiated with the provinces. When we talk about education or training, unless I am mistaken—and I certainly do not think I am—we are talking about a provincial jurisdiction. There is some nice advertising announcing programs and money, when in fact there are no programs and no money.

The government took money away from the provinces, although they managed those programs quite well and that was not what they wanted. They were given no leeway. They were told they had no choice and if they did not like it, that was not the government's problem. This is not a responsible approach. When it comes to funding, it is important to sit down with the provinces and discuss the issues in order to put in place measures that will meet their needs. Here, the Conservatives are doing precisely the opposite. As usual, the Conservative government could not care less about the provinces, especially Quebec. Mr.

Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the training program was established in 1997. I remember clearly that it was first introduced in New Brunswick. It involved the transfer of EI

Part II benefits for training in the provinces, and that was a provincial responsibility. The government agreed that this was under provincial jurisdiction and at the same time, it was an opportunity to provide training for jobs in small and medium-sized businesses. The problem with the new federal government program is that small and medium-sized businesses do not get that money. Does my colleague agree that what the federal government has actually done is to transfer training funds to the large companies that already have money and are responsible for the training of their workforce?

This does not help economic development in rural areas, as the old program did. Ms. Christine Moore : Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. My riding is predominantly made up of small and medium-sized businesses. If the money is used in that way, it will be funnelled out of rural areas. It is important for those areas to be able to keep young people there. We are fighting to put measures in place to keep young people at home, in rural areas, and the Conservatives are tearing down those efforts. Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I believe that my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I am wonder