OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 032 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, December 6, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES December 6, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 032 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 032 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 032 (Version officielle) 147 032 06 12 2013 2013/12/06 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

Government Orders Government Orders (1005) [ English ] Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 Hon. John Duncan (for the Minister of Finance) moved 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 third time and passed. Bill C-4. Third reading

Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to highlight many of the pro-growth and job creation measures in Bill C-4 , economic action plan 2013 act no. 2, which is a very important piece of legislation for our government. We all recognize that during the global economic recession and throughout the recovery, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among G7 countries.

Indeed, since the depths of the global economic recession, Canada's economy has created over one million net new jobs, nearly 90% of which are full-time, with over 80% in the private sector. This morning, in fact, Statistics Canada announced that 21,600 net new jobs were created in the month of November, which is great news. Not only did this job growth beat market expectation, but solid gains were made in the manufacturing sector, where 24,900 new jobs were created. This continues Canada's strong job creation record, which is the best in the entire G7 by far.

It is not only that, but Canada's unemployment rate is at its lowest level since December 2008 and remains below that of the U.S. This is a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades. However, that is not all. All the major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch, Standard and Poor's, have affirmed Canada's rock solid AAA credit rating. It is worth mentioning that Canada is one of only a handful of countries that can boast this top-notch rating. We can do this, thankfully, because the Conservative government understands the meaning of fiscal responsibility.

Indeed, when Standard and Poor's affirmed Canada's AAA rating on November 13, here is what it had to say: The ratings on Canada reflect its strong public institutions, prosperous and resilient economy, fiscal and monetary flexibility, and effective policymaking. [...] Canada's success in the past decade in achieving credible monetary and fiscal policy, along with its openness to trade...will continue to support its economic performance.

Unlike other countries, Canada has found the right balance between efforts to support job creation and economic growth by respecting commitments to reduce deficits and return to balanced budgets in 2015. While many European countries, and even the United States, continue to struggle with their national debts, Canada is in the best fiscal position in the G7. In fact, Canada's net debt to GDP ratio was 34.6% in 2012, the lowest level in the G7 by far. Germany was second lowest, and closest to Canada, at 57.2%. If members are still not impressed, how about this: the G7 average is 90.4%.

While the Liberals may want to engage in reckless spending, our government is on track to return to balanced budgets by 2015. Most importantly, unlike the previous Liberal government, we will balance the budget without slashing transfers for health care and education. Our Conservative government rejects that shameful practice and is protecting and growing transfers to help support the services that Canadian families depend on. Unlike the previous Liberal government, we understand that if we make government more efficient and control program spending, we can reduce the deficit while still increasing transfers.

As was recently outlined in the government's annual financial report in 2012-13, the deficit fell to $18.9 billion, which was down by more than one-quarter; that is $7.4 billion from the deficit of $26.3 billion in 2011-12, and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009-10. The Liberals might be interested to know that the reductions in direct program spending played a key role in this outcome. Indeed, expenses fell by 1.2% from the prior year and by 3.8% from 2010-11. Our government will also balance the budget without raising taxes.

Unlike the high-tax NDP and Liberals, our Conservative government believes in low taxes and leaving more money where it belongs, in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job-creating businesses. The opposition may be interested to know that since 2006 we have cut taxes over 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. In fact, our strong record of tax relief has meant that savings for a typical family of four, in 2013, totals nearly $3,400.

This includes cutting the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%, increasing the amount Canadians can earn without paying tax, and introducing pension income splitting for seniors. It also includes measures like reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, which has put an estimated $1,000 back in the pockets of average families. This is a measure that both the Liberals and the NDP opposed. That is not all. It includes introducing measures like the working income tax benefit, and the tax-free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since RRSPs.

Overall, we have removed over one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls. Keeping taxes low also helps the businesses in our communities grow and succeed. That is why, since 2006 we have consistently reduced the tax burden for small businesses. This includes reducing the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, while at the same time increasing the small business limit to $500,000. In fact, our government's low-tax plan has resulted in over $28,000 in savings for the typical small business.

The NDP and Liberals might not understand how the economy works, but lower taxes not only encourage businesses to innovate and grow, it also makes Canada a more attractive destination in which to invest. As a matter of fact, Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7. To question whether this is having a positive impact, one need only look at the facts. Both the independent International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, project that Canada will have the strongest growth among the G7 in the years ahead.

Last week, Statistics Canada announced that the Canadian economy grew 2.7% in the third quarter of 2013. This represents the ninth consecutive quarter of economic growth in Canada and is an encouraging sign that Canada's economy is on the right track. However, while this is certainly encouraging news, we cannot become complacent. While economic conditions are improving, there are still too many Canadians out of work. The global economy looks fragile, especially in the U.S. and Europe, both among our largest trading partners.

This is why our Conservative government remains focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and growing the economy. That is exactly what today's legislation is all about. Bill C-4 would implement key measures from economic action plan 2013, which would help support job creation and growth in communities across the country. One such measure is the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small business. The history of this credit illustrates our government's commitment to small business in Canada.

Indeed, in economic action plan 2011 our government first introduced the hiring credit for small business, which provided up to $1,000 to help defray the cost of hiring new workers. In fact, the credit was so successful that we extended it again in economic action plan 2012. As I mentioned earlier, the economy is showing encouraging signs of growth. At the same time, there is still a large amount of uncertainty in the global economy. We have heard these concerns from business owners. That is why economic action plan 2013 and Bill C-4 extend and expand the hiring credit for small business.

As a result of this legislation, the credit provides for up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2013 EI premiums over that paid in 2012. It applies to employers with total EI premiums of $15,000 or less in 2012, an increase from the previous level of $10,000. Extending this credit would benefit over 560,000 employers, providing them with an estimated $225 million in tax relief in 2013. As the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said recently: The big change for small business is the extension and expansion of the EI hiring credit. [...] That's really good news....

That was from March 21, 2013, on the CTV News channel.

(1010) Clearly, our Conservative government recognizes the vital role that small businesses play in the economy and job creation. That is why we are committed to helping them grow and succeed. On that note, there are many other measures in Bill C-4 that will support small businesses across Canada. Bill C-4 increases and indexes to inflation the lifetime capital gains exemption. Not only will increasing the exemption from $750,000 to $800,000 make investing in small businesses more attractive, it will make it easier for entrepreneurs of today to transfer their family businesses to the entrepreneurs of tomorrow.

Our government also wants to ensure that the value of this exemption is preserved over time. That is why Bill C-4 will index the exemption to inflation for the first time ever. Overall, this will provide an estimated $5 million in tax relief in 2013-14, and $15 million in 2014-15. However, there are still more measures in Bill C-4 that support Canadian job creators. Bill C-4 provides tax relief to encourage more businesses to invest in clean energy generation, by expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance.

The message is simple: keeping taxes low helps attract investment, allows our businesses to expand their operations and to hire more workers. It also helps Canadian families keep more money in their pockets. At the end of the day, Canadians know best how to spend their hard-earned money. How can we keep taxes low if people are gaming the system and exploiting tax loopholes? Our government does not think it is fair when a select few businesses and individuals avoid paying their fair share.

That is why economic action plan 2013 introduces a number of measures to close tax loopholes and address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and reduce international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. When it comes to closing tax loopholes, our record speaks for itself. Since 2006, including measures in economic plan 2013, our government has closed over 75 tax loopholes. Bill C-4 includes some of these measures, such as eliminating the unintended tax benefits from character conversion transactions and 10/8 arrangements.

It also includes a number of measures to strengthen the ability of the Canada Revenue Agency, the CRA, to crack down on tax cheats and combat international tax evasion. Overall, the actions in economic action plan 2013 to close tax loopholes and improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system will provide about $350 million in savings in 2013-14, rising to over $1.2 billion 2017-18, for a total of $4.4 billion over the next five years. Protecting Canada's tax base is essential, as Canadians need to have confidence in their tax system. They need to know it is fair.

Unfortunately, the Liberals and NDP do not seem to share this view. While our government has worked hard to close over 75 tax loopholes, the NDP and Liberals have voted against each of these measures each and every time. I have to ask what the NDP and Liberals have against closing tax loopholes. However, there is no reason to worry. While the Liberals and NDP work to protect these tax loopholes, our government is committed to ensuring that Canadians have a fair and neutral tax system that keeps everyone on a level playing field.

Indeed, Canadians can rest assured that our government will continue to take action to close loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. Our government is also taking steps to crack down on those who are trying to defraud taxpayers. It has come to the attention of the CRA that certain retailers have been using electronic sales suppression software, also known as “zappers”, to selectively delete or modify sales transactions in their computer systems.

By engaging in this practice, certain taxpayers are avoiding the payment of their fair share of taxes. That is why Bill C-4 introduced new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to target those who use, manufacture or possess this type of software.

(1015) The Canadian Restaurant and Food Service Association welcomed this, saying: These measures appropriately target the producers, installers, and users of sales-distorting software, while supporting the competitiveness of Canada's hard-working small business community, among them 81,000 restaurants, the vast majority of which pay their taxes and operate in full transparency. It is important that our government crack down on these types of activities. When some businesses cheat, everyone loses, but when everyone plays by the rules and pays their fair share, we can keep taxes low.

On that note, I would like to quickly conclude my remarks by saying that I hope the opposition will support these measures and Bill C-4 . It is clear that these measures will help grow Canada's economy and will create jobs for Canadians. If the opposition members decide to oppose these measures, as they have done so many times in the past, I hope, at the very least, that they will stop advocating for high taxes.

I must admit that I was very sad to hear just last week that the leader of the NDP confirmed that he would impose a crippling tax hike on job creators, even as they continue to cope with a challenging global economy. The simple fact remains that we cannot tax our way to prosperity. Thankfully, our Conservative government understands that low taxes promote economic growth and job creation. (1020) [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I serve in the Standing Committee on Finance, for his speech.

This speech is not very different from all the other ones we have heard on Bill C-4 . When the Conservatives deign to rise and speak, they usually just rehash the same old arguments, the same script written for everyone. I would like to correct what the member said. He is very well aware that the NDP and even the third party are in favour of eliminating tax loopholes. We would like the government to act much more forcefully to prevent tax avoidance. My colleague knows this, since he sits on Standing Committee on Finance.

The arguments presented here to tout the government's record contain elements that the government often chooses to ignore. For example, the austerity measures and provisions for deep cuts in Bill C-4 , as well as the other budget bills in the last two years, have a negative impact on the economy. The Parliamentary Budget Officer spoke about this. An International Monetary Fund report released just two weeks ago shows that the budget cuts and various austerity measures enacted by the government will reduce the potential GDP by 0.2% per year.

This is very close to the numbers quoted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would like to hear the member's comments on this question: when I talked about the impact of certain measures included in Bill C-4 , for example the phasing-out of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, his colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River replied that this was a good measure because it would create jobs in his province of Saskatchewan. This measure will eliminate 20,000 jobs in Quebec, which depend on the impact of these labour-sponsored funds.

I would like the member to tell me whether the government's strategy consists of promoting job creation and growth in some regions at the expense of other regions. [ English ] Mr. Dave Van Kesteren : Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member across the way so rightly pointed out, we share a spot on the finance committee, and I have great respect for the member. I would disagree, though. I mentioned in my speech that it is impossible for us to spend our way out of this position. The austerity measures the member mentioned are very modest.

We saw the massive unemployment after 2008-09 and saw the losses in the private sector. The government had to look at the public sector to see if there were some measures we could trim. I know the hon. member shares those opinions. There are economists who feel that austerity will heighten and worsen the situation. I believe that what we have experienced in this country and in the western world is a spending problem, and it is incumbent on governments to address that and do what is necessary. I just want to say again that the measures we have taken have been quite modest, but they were necessary. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, walking into the House, it was encouraging to see the white ribbons we are all wearing today in recognition of the massacre that occurred at École Polytechnique back in 1989 on December 6. I would emphasize how important it is that we never forget it. Having said that, I take issue with my colleague's comments from across the way when he says that Liberals, and in brackets, the NDP too, really do not understand jobs and deficits.

I should remind the member that whether it was under Paul Martin or Jean Chrétien, the Liberals created more jobs than the current Conservative government. There was more small business investment from coast to coast to coast under previous governments than under the current government. In fact, it was the Jean Chrétien government that got rid of the massive billion dollar deficit created by the Brian Mulroney government. Not only did we get rid of that deficit, but when we handed over the books to the current government back in 2006, we provided a multibillion dollar surplus. It was not just the debt issue.

We also provided a multibillion dollar trade surplus. A trade surplus equals thousands of jobs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Does the member not recognize good, solid policy when he sees it? Look at the facts. If he wants to look at good governance, all he needs to do is look at the most recent years prior to the Conservative government. He would recognize that there were balanced budgets, surpluses, job creation, and a trade deficit, which was a lot healthier for Canada back then.

(1025) Mr. Dave Van Kesteren : Mr. Speaker, I would love to answer that. I think he walked right into that one. The fact of the matter is that he is correct. The former Liberal government did slash that deficit, which was massive in its time. However, it did so on the backs of the provinces. The Liberals made cuts to health care. We still feel the reverberations today. They practically eliminated the military as we know it today. They did manage to do those things. We, however, and I brought this out in my speech, managed to do it by lowering taxes.

The member is absolutely correct; there were some strong years of growth in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In those years, there was a budget surplus. We took those moneys and applied them to the national debt to the tune of $39 billion so that when we were faced with the global incident we now know as the great recession, we were able to weather it much better. I would agree that it is important to erase those deficits, but the right way to do it is to lower taxes and to manage properly. [ Translation ] Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-4 introduced by the Conservatives is another undemocratic omnibus bill. What is more, the government has moved a time allocation motion to limit debate. Once again, there was not enough time in committee to study the ins and outs of the bill and the negative impact it will have on the everyday lives of Canadians. This is another bill that attacks workers' rights instead of creating jobs. In this case, it is an attack on their right to work in a healthy and safe environment.

I think that nearly all of the members here met with Unifor workers, who came to tell us just how serious an attack this is and how difficult it was for them to refuse to work in dangerous situations. They feel that this bill makes it more difficult to refuse work when there never used to be an issue between the employers and the employees. How can the member opposite justify those provisions, which now put workers at greater risk? [ English ] Mr. Dave Van Kesteren : Mr. Speaker, the budget consultation last year was an extensive process, as it was this year. We heard from an enormous number of people.

Not only did we hear from them at committee, we were given many other submissions, which the committee looked as well. It was on these recommendations and findings that the budget was created in the spring of this year. The budget implementation we are now debating and that the member says we are rushing through has taken a year. These things must be debated and have been at quite some length. The finance committee spent a significant amount of time working on this. It is the process we go through, and it must be done. I believe that we are prepared to look at this, and we are prepared to vote on it.

I hope the members would also vote for this budget. (1030) [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-4 . We do not have much time to debate it, despite what my colleague said, given that we have only one day for third reading debate. I am referring, of course, to the second budget implementation bill.

First of all, as we have already heard a few times, including during questions and comments this morning, it is worth reminding the House that this is another omnibus bill, at least the fourth one of its kind to be considered by the Standing Committee on Finance, where I was directly involved. In order for an omnibus bill to really be effective, it must contain consistent measures. A budget bill should include budgetary measures, amendments to the Income Tax Act, for example, or the Excise Tax Act. We could understand such measures being in an omnibus bill.

However, the omnibus bill before us has practically everything in it. The Conservatives included measures that amend the process for selecting judges from Quebec for the Supreme Court, to correct an error they made. Furthermore, the bill contains measures dealing with workplace health and safety, as well as measures that alter the relationship between the government as an employer and the public service as employees. These measures are extremely important and should be debated individually. Once again, however, despite what my colleague said, we did not have enough time to debate them.

Time was very limited, particularly at the Standing Committee on Finance. A time limit on the debate was imposed from the very beginning of the committee's examination of the bill. Three meetings were scheduled to study such an important bill that will add, eliminate or amend about 70 different acts. We heard from five witnesses during the first panel, which took about an hour and 45 minutes, and we heard from five witnesses during the second panel,which took less than an hour and 15 minutes.

The Minister of Finance addressed the committee, but he did not really answer questions, as he often asked his officials to respond. Then four other witnesses spoke for about an hour and 15 minutes. We heard from an additional 13 witnesses over a three-hour period. That is the extent of the study that was done of the imposing and important Bill C-4 , just like all of the other budget implementation bills.

The Conservatives have a habit of ramming various measures down our throats, and most of them have absolutely nothing to do with the budget process and were not even in the budget that the Minister of Finance tabled in March. This tendency has been criticized by several extremely credible organizations, which leads me to wonder why the government continues to do this. We heard some very interesting evidence in that regard. There is a generalized sense of frustration among experts and Canadians who are worried and concerned about the state of our democracy.

For example, the Canadian Bar Association gave a presentation on this. No one here can dispute the credibility of that organization. I will quote what the representatives told the Standing Committee on Finance: [ English ] All parties are now disadvantaged as they hastily review unexpected and unexplained changes in Bill C-4. The concern is compounded when those changes arrive in omnibus legislation, as the opportunity for serious reflection and debate is minimal. The [Canadian Bar Association]

Section believes that eschewing consultation and employing omnibus bills diminish the quality of our laws and the democratic process. We urge you to reconsider these practices. [ Translation ] I do not know how we could make it any clearer that the kind of omnibus bills the government has been introducing for the past three years distort the democratic process and force members of Parliament to vote on bills that have a lot of flaws and deserve closer attention. The Association of Justice Counsel agrees. The judicial process is at the heart of what they do.

They testified at the Standing Committee on Finance, which is never mentioned by the government. This is what they said: By virtue of introducing these changes under the umbrella of a budget bill, the government has effectively sidestepped the much-needed consultation process with stakeholders. The scope of this Bill, combined with the very short time span, is unduly pressuring elected officials to make uninformed decisions without the benefit of a solid understanding and healthy discussion and debate.

(1035) When the government tries to claim that there were wide consultations, extensive debates and all kinds of presentations in committee or the House, and that we had time for exhaustive discussion, I have to say that I have some serious doubts. Omnibus bills like this one have a huge impact. They are introduced very quickly with a minimal amount of consultation. Since these bills have a broad scope and there is little time for discussion, they can contain serious errors that the government is then forced to fix. We saw an example of this a year or a year and a half ago.

The government had introduced an omnibus crime bill. We told the government that some of the measures in Bill C-10 were quite problematic. We told the government precisely how it should amend the bill. We did not agree with the scope of the bill, but we made proposals in the House and in committee. The government said no and had the omnibus crime bill passed very quickly. After the bill passed, the Conservatives realized that the opposition was right, that the bill contained a very harmful measure. Do you know what they did? Instead of admitting their mistake, they turned to the Senate to fix the mistake.

Once the bill was amended in the Senate, the government brought it back to the House. The same thing is happening here with the budget bills. The last budget bill contained a measure that affected caisses populaires and credit unions by changing their tax rate from 11% to 15%, effectively eliminating the 4% advantage they had. We felt that the caisses populaires and credit unions deserved that leg up given their mandate. They are not-for-profit organizations, unlike the banks, and they play a major role in local economies.

For extremely complex technical reasons, this change did not simply shift the tax rate from 11% to 15%. The tax rate actually increased from 11% to 28% for caisses populaires and credit unions. We had very little time to study the bill and therefore did not have the opportunity to address this technicality. The government realized that there was a mistake. The bill before us contains a measure that corrects the tax rate and brings it back down to 15%. Nevertheless, this mistake should not have gone through in the first place.

I wonder how many of these technical mistakes are in bills that we have had to pass hastily over the past two years. Bill C-4 contains numerous measures. As I mentioned, the bill adds, eliminates or amends 70 acts. We are opposed to many of these measures. We agree with some of the government's efforts. There is no problem with the fight against tax havens and tax loopholes. If people look carefully into the testimony and interventions before the Standing Committee on Finance, they will see that we support this measure and indeed find that the government is not going far enough.

This bill has some extremely harmful measures. I find it really interesting that in their speeches the Conservatives talk in very general terms about how their budget bill and their government have such a positive impact. However, they only talk about those tax issues they support. In 2008, the Conservative government established the Employment Insurance Financing Board. It was supposed to be a means of correcting the Liberal government's misuse of the EI fund in the 1990s. We are talking about $57 billion.

The Conservatives did not promise to put this amount in an independent employment insurance fund, but they promised to correct the situation and ensure that such a thing would never happen again. They created the Employment Insurance Financing Board to set EI premiums and to determine EI benefits and eligibility criteria. We are now in 2013, only to find that this bill contains a proposal to eliminate the Employment Insurance Financing Board, which has been essentially an empty shell since it was created in 2008-09.

(1040) We heard testimony from some public servants. They said that, ultimately, the minister will be given significant discretionary power so that he can decide on issues such as premiums, benefits and eligibility. There is a recurring theme in the government's budget bills, and that is the fact that they give more power to the minister, whether it is the Minister of Employment and Social Development with regard to employment insurance or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with regard to changes to the system. The budget bill contains an amendment that will affect immigration and refugees.

Certain provisions will give the minister more discretionary power. Ministers are consistently assuming more and more power, and that poses serious problems. The Association of Justice Counsel commented on the Conservative government's tendency to centralize power in the hands of cabinet. That power used to be more spread out and dispersed among various experts and functions. The witness from the Association of Justice Counsel had this to say: [ English ] The government holds all the keys to the legislative closet. They hold all those cards, to use that analogy.

The whole point of having a choice and giving that choice to the unions in terms of what route they choose was to recognize that unions are stacked when they're dealing with the government. We're not dealing with Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola can't draft legislation and say, “Go back to work”, or, “Here's wage restraint”. This government has used those tools, and our hands are tied. [ Translation ] Of course, the quotation refers to one element of the bill before us, namely the balance of power between the government as an employer—that is to say, the Treasury Board—and the public service.

The government is using the bill to amend various aspects of the bargaining process. For one, it eliminates the possibility of using arbitration. Arbitration is an extremely important tool when a government or an employer and an employee cannot come to an agreement. They may agree to have someone else make the decision for them. That is what arbitration is. The government is taking away that option. Consequently, if the government wants to provoke a dispute with the public service for political reasons, for example, it can do just that.

That poses a significant problem for government operations and for the system that provides public services. If the government wishes to provoke that kind of dispute, it will have a much easier time doing so now that the arbitration process has been amended. Furthermore, the government is giving itself the right to define essential services, even after the fact. The government will be able to declare that a given area of the government, where a labour dispute might be happening, is now an essential service and therefore does not have the right to strike or use any kind of job action.

The balance of power has shifted completely in favour of the employer, who happens to be the legislator. Thus, this is a huge conflict of interest for the government, but it chooses to ignore that fact, for purely political reasons. I also referred to another aspect of Bill C-4 that I find completely appalling. There was a lot of media attention around the fact that the government made a colossal blunder when it appointed Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court to represent Quebec. Now the government is trying to correct that blunder after the fact by adding a measure to the omnibus budget bill.

My comments have nothing to do with Justice Nadon's competency as a possible Supreme Court judge. However, the fact remains that the government really erred in this matter, as many experts agree. The government has included a measure to correct this process in a budget bill—a measure we will not be able to examine in detail. When measures like this are included, it makes it very difficult to see the relevance of the legislative process in terms of the budget. A retroactive measure like this one will not make people forget the blunder, nor will it actually correct the government's blunder in this matter.

I talked about the attack on worker protection. Something else I would like to talk about is the issue of phasing out the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. The government members know exactly where I stand on this issue.

(1045) This measure affects Quebec in particular because 90% of this tax credit goes to Quebeckers. Once again, to clarify, this tax credit does not go to the funds. It does not go to big speculators, but to small investors. More than 600,000 Quebeckers save regularly for their retirement by investing in a program that is really like an RRSP. Instead of investing in speculative funds or mutual funds, where the money does not go directly to job creators, they invest in labour funds that work hand in hand with private venture capital funds and go directly into the Quebec economy.

This money is used to save businesses that need a hand during difficult times or a recession or to start up new companies, especially in very important emerging areas that promote innovation, research and development. I am referring to the medical and pharmaceutical fields and new technologies. The Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN specialize in these areas and work with private venture capital funds.

There is good reason why, the day after the government announced in its budget that it would phase out the tax credit, Canada's Venture Capital & Private Equity Association said it was opposed to this measure, even though the government is also creating a venture capital action plan. Other associations, such as the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Regroupement des jeunes chambres de commerce du Québec and the Manufacturiers et exportateurs du Québec are also opposed to the phasing-out of this tax credit.

Even the witnesses that the government invited to praise the injection of $400 million and the creation of the venture capital action plan supported the opposition's arguments against phasing out the tax credit. They said that it did not make sense for the government to reject the agreement proposed by the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN. That astounds me because the government had the opportunity to really make its venture capital action plan relevant and effective. The two funds proposed an agreement with the government if it would decide to not go ahead with the phase-out.

Under the agreement, the funds would voluntarily put a cap on their share issuing to save the government 30% in tax expenditures—in other words, the government would offer 30% less in tax credits. The funds would also inject the equivalent of $2 billion into the government's venture capital action plan. The government is investing only $400 million. That is all. The funds proposed that they would invest the equivalent of $2 billion not only in Quebec but throughout the country. I strongly believe that this model works in an area where Canada is lagging behind the other OECD countries.

We are at the back of the pack. Quebec is a leading country as a result of the creation and administration of these funds. Of course, Quebec is not a country, but it is one of the leading jurisdictions in the OECD, ranking just below Israel and the United States when it comes to the amount of managed venture capital as a share of its GDP, its economy. The proportion of managed venture capital in Quebec is nearly three times greater than the Canadian average and more than four times greater than Ontario's. The government should take note and learn from what happened in Ontario when it eliminated its tax credit.

It got rid of it. That has been quite harmful to Ontario since its investment in venture capital, its amount of managed venture capital, has decreased steadily since the tax credit was eliminated in 2005. Despite having a much larger GDP than Quebec, Ontario's share of managed venture capital is equal to Quebec's in proportion to the total amount of venture capital invested in Canada. Right now, that figure is 36% for both provinces. In many ways, Bill C-4 does not create jobs; it eliminates them. It stifles economic growth. The IMF report shows the impact this will have on economic growth.

The government should take that into account and take a more serious look at the measures it is proposing. That is why we, on this side of the House, will oppose Bill C-4 .

(1050) Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques made a very well-organized speech. He makes good arguments, and it is obvious that he has a lot of experience with economic issues. Recently, we have basically been reduced to launching a campaign about the Conservative government's abandonment of the regions. A number of the points my colleague made were general, but most of his arguments were specifically connected to realities that are more prevalent in rural regions than in other regions.

I would like to give my colleague a chance to expand on what he said and to go into more detail on the consequences that can sometimes be harsher, relatively speaking, for rural regions, especially in eastern Canada. Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, that is a very relevant question. The measures proposed by this government often affect the regions more than any other area of the country. That was the case. That is why I responded to the speech made by the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River two days ago.

He said that Bill C-4 would create jobs in Saskatchewan, right after I told him that this bill would destroy jobs in Quebec. The member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and I represent heavily rural regions. Some measures in the bill are absolutely disastrous for the regions, such as the reform of EI, as proposed by the government. Now, the government is going further and abolishing the Employment Insurance Financing Board. These measures hit regions like ours particularly hard, since our economies rely on seasonal employment. I mentioned general measures.

However, some of them affect labour-sponsored funds. The Fonds de solidarité and Fondaction have regional funds that specifically invest venture capital and development capital in areas like Rivière-du-Loup, Rimouski and Gaspé, where private venture capital is lacking compared to other regions. These measures will hit rural regions very hard. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, one of the issues facing Winnipeg North, and an issue that faces many other constituencies throughout the country as well, is the issue of crime and safety.

We hear a lot from the government about how it wants to get tough on crime. However, what it seems to shy away from is getting tough on the causes of some of these crimes. If it took a more aggressive approach to dealing with some of these causes, it would be more successful at preventing crimes from taking place in the first place. There is very much we could talk about in the budget, everything from a particular budget line to the amount of legislation that is being brought in through the back door by this budget bill.

One thing that concerns people is that the government is not giving enough attention to dealing with the causes of crime in the hope of actually reducing the amount of crime in our communities from coast to coast to coast. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North and I agree on the issue of prevention, whether we are talking about health and safety or crime. Prevention cannot be taken out of the equation. I think it is extremely important that we try to reduce health and safety problems.

One item in the bill amends the definition of danger at the workplace for organizations that are subject to the Canada Labour Code and runs counter to the notion of prevention. The same goes for crime. In fact, I have not seen very many government initiatives to promote and enhance crime prevention in order to minimize the consequences. During the recent debate on supervised injection sites, the government's approach went completely counter not only to the opposition's approach, but also to that of experts and organizations such as the Canadian Medical Association.

Unfortunately, one of the government's biggest flaws since being elected, and especially since winning a majority, is that prevention does not factor in to its approach to dealing with health and safety and crime.

(1055) Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague on his speech. When the NDP develops its policy, it consults many people affected by the bills. Can my colleague say a few words about the people who support our position and provide some supporting figures? Mr. Guy Caron : Many witnesses support our position on various issues. At one point, we were discussing the gradual elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds.

I found it very interesting to see the government witnesses—who came to say good things about the government's initiatives—learn about certain aspects of the bill that they had ignored or neglected, such as the agreement proposed by the funds. Once they had that information, the government witnesses told us that we were right and that the government should have accepted those proposals.

With regard to omnibus bills and the use of this tool, this bundle of legislation, to fast-track a number of bills, some knowledgeable organizations, such as the Canadian Bar Association and the Association of Justice Counsel, oppose the government's vision. From everything we have seen in the most recent bills, the majority of witnesses are not siding with the government. The government invites its own witnesses and, obviously, it will get support for some aspects of its bills. However, the aspects that do get support are often the same ones that we support in committee.

We feel obliged to vote against bills such as Bill C-4 because of all the damage that these bills will cause and the consequences they will have. These are the reasons for our position. We will continue to fight, not only against the process but also against the damage caused by the government. Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was a privilege to work with him on the Standing Committee on Finance. In addition to being an economist, he is our deputy critic for finance and also for international trade.

This shows how much we trust in his expertise and his skills. I would like my colleague to tell us about the macroeconomic impact of the upcoming budget. Since the Conservative government came to power, Canada has lost 400,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, among other things. In addition, personal household debt increased, rising to 166%. This is a veritable attack on Canadians. Could the member please describe the impact of austerity on the Canadian economy and on Canadians? Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the question because it allows me to elaborate.

In its interventions, the government always talks about the number of jobs that have been created since July 2009. Yes, jobs have been created. However, we were in the depths of the recession in July 2009, which explains the job numbers. I want to point out two things about these numbers. First, when this government was in opposition, it kept saying that governments do not create jobs. However, this government is taking all the credit for job creation since the depths of the recession, to which it had a delayed reaction.

What is more, if we compare job creation to demographic growth or if we include demographic growth in the equation, we have more unemployed workers today than we did before the recession. The government's policies are about one thing only, and that is taxation. Lower taxes is the government's leitmotif. Making good investments can be more advantageous than tax cuts because of the multiplier effect. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and now the International Monetary Fund are deploring the adverse effect that the Conservative government's cuts and austerity measures are having on economic growth.

I hope that the government will take note of that in its next economic forecast.

(1100) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The time provided for government orders has now expired. We will now proceed to statements by members.

Statements by Members Statements by Members [ English ] Burma Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, another atrocity is unfolding, while the world stands by and watches the persecution of Rohingyas in Burma. Violence against Rohingyas has resulted in thousands of men, women and children living in squalid conditions. With a lack of sanitation and no medical supplies, the rainy season and disease are claiming lives. Aid has been blocked. Refugees are attacked if they try to leave. Local police have a record of discrimination and violence toward Rohingyas.

They have failed to provide any adequate protection. The Rohingyas escaping to Bangladesh are denied even the right to register as refugees in that country. Canada has called on Burma to take effective action against ethnic violence and religious discrimination. The world must take notice. The world must act now to compel Burma to assist UN access and to end the violence against Rohingyas.

[ Translation ] Saint-Bruno Charity Drive Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to all the volunteers involved in the Saint-Bruno charity drive, who took to the streets last Sunday to collect donations for needy families in Saint-Bruno. Over 1,000 of us volunteered to brave the cold and knock on doors. I would like to commend the people of Saint-Bruno for their generosity. Thanks to them, the Saint-Bruno charity drive broke its own record by raising over $67,000.

Although much of this success is due to the kindness of the people in my riding, the contribution of the two organizers on whom the charity relies year after year is just as important. Ms. Fleischman and Ms. Lacharité, I sincerely congratulate you on this great achievement and I thank you wholeheartedly for your continued dedication to the needy families of Saint-Bruno. You are remarkable women, and I hope that the Saint-Bruno community can count on you for many years to come.

[ English ] Religious Freedom Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last month, South Korean media reported the execution of 80 people in North Korea, killed for among other crimes, possession of a bible. While North Korea may be the most extreme case, unfortunately, it is not the only country in the world that practises religious persecution. Religious freedom is an inalienable right deeply intertwined with our other rights. Freedom to proselytize, to convert, to worship are all elements of religious freedom that are denied in dozens of countries around the world.

Our Government's establishment of the Office of Religious Freedom clearly shows that Canada continues to view religious freedom as a fundamental value. We will continue to promote religious freedom throughout the world. Canadian MPs, as individual parliamentarians, must continue to press governments around the world on behalf of the persecuted everywhere. On behalf of Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan, Chaldean Christians in Iraq and Evangelical Protestants in Vietnam, we owe religious minorities our voice in defending their rights both in Canada and abroad.

Nelson Mandela Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, people around the world today are remembering the late Nelson Mandela. During one remarkable trip to Canada, Mandela was walking up Parliament Hill to deliver a speech in the House of Commons. By complete chance, he encountered a group of Metis from Saskatchewan. It too was headed up the Hill to sit in the gallery to hear what this champion of human dignity would have to say.

As a spontaneous gesture of affection from a group in Canada that had felt the sting of discrimination and disadvantage, one of the Metis took off his traditional sash and presented it to the South African icon. A short while later, Mandela honoured the Metis by wearing that sash in the Canadian Parliament, while he delivered his speech. He knew how much that would mean. Nelson Mandela was a beacon of goodness in his own country and his life illuminated the whole world. He changed things for the better and millions are grateful for the hope he inspired.

Fort St. John Army Cadets Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the young men and women who are serving proudly with the 2276 Fort St. John Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps. In October, the cadet corps changed its affiliation from the Kamloops-based Rocky Mountain Rangers to the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry based out of Edmonton. The change will mean less travel time and more opportunity for the cadet corps to receive support and to learn from active military personnel.

The cadets will hold their change of affiliation parade this Saturday in Fort St. John to mark the occasion, which is a result of 10 years of hard work. I congratulate Major Dan Davies, Captain Linda Nielsen, Captain Thor Toms, current commanding officer, Captain Ken Lane, and everyone involved with the Fort St. John army cadets. Last, I would like to wish everybody a very merry Christmas.

(1105) [ Translation ] Nelson Mandela Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the world lost a great man. The tributes from around the world reflect our love for Nelson Mandela. We drew inspiration from his fight for social justice, for democracy and, above all, for freedom. Despite his 27 years of imprisonment, he chose reconciliation instead of resentment and anger. Through sacrifice, courage and compassion, he brought a nation together to conquer institutionalized racism, apartheid.

South Africa and the entire world have lost a father, but human history has gained a president, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and a great hero. [ English ] I wish to end with one of his quotes. It is simple and full of optimism. “It always seems impossible until it's done”.

Halifax Explosion Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the Halifax explosion that occurred 96 years ago today. The explosion destroyed much of the city of Halifax, the unfortunate result of a collision in the harbour between the SS Imo and the SS Mont Blanc . The ensuing explosion travelled at more than 1,000 metres per second, propelling the barrel of one of Mont Blanc 's big guns nearly six kilometres away to land in Dartmouth, while part of her anchor landed three kilometres south in Armdale.

Every building within 2.6 kilometres, over 12,000 in total, was destroyed or badly damaged. The entire city of Halifax was devastated in what was to become the largest man-made explosion prior to the atomic bomb. Over 1,600 people were killed instantly and another 9,000 were injured. Worse yet, the next day a severe nor'easter brought freezing temperatures and heavy snow, making the rescue effort even more difficult.

To this day, the province of Nova Scotia sends a 50-foot Christmas tree to Boston every year in recognition of that explosion and the fact that the first relief train to come in with supplies and help arrived from Boston, Massachusetts.

Organ Donation Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Minister of Health launched a new social media program and website to help promote organ and tissue donations. Today, in Canada more than 4,500 people are waiting for organ transplants. Oftentimes the needs of these patients will not be met as too few Canadians are registered donors. Being a registered organ donor is one of the most important things one can do in life. We all have the ability to give the gift of life to others.

I urge all members of the House to please visit healthycanadians.gc.ca and spread the word that anywhere in Canada people can register to become a donor and give the gift of life. During this Christmas season, we celebrate the greatest gift of life that was freely given. The donor gave us a new heart. I would encourage all Canadians to get on Twitter and voice their support by using hashtag giftoflife to help promote this lifesaving campaign this holiday season.

Violence Against Women Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today we mark the 24th anniversary of one of the darkest days in Canadian history. On December 6, 1989, unspeakable horror unfolded on a Montreal campus. In

an act of unimaginable cruelty, 14 brilliant young women, in the prime of their lives, were shot dead. They were killed because they were women. As a mother and grandmother, I want to say for the families of the women who lost their lives that day that we do not forget, we will not forget and we dare not imagine their pain. Barbara Klucznik Widajewicz, Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte. We remember and we owe these 14 women nothing less.

(1110) The Economy Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting Canadian jobs and economic growth, our Conservative government is on the right track. Last week, Statistics Canada announced that the Canadian economy grew 2.7% in the third quarter in 2013, the ninth consecutive quarter of economic growth for Canada. What is more, today we learn that almost 22,000 new jobs, largely in the private sector, were created in the month of November.

With over one million net new jobs created since the depth of the global economic recession, Canada has the best job growth record in the G7. However, despite this positive news, the global economy remains fragile and too many Canadians are still out of work. That is why our Conservative government remains focused on the economy and job creation. This is in sharp contrast to the NDP, which wants to introduce a $20 billion carbon tax and impose a crippling tax hike on the job creators or the Liberals, whose leader has no plan for the economy.

Nelson Mandela Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today we are a country and a world united in mourning the loss of Nelson Mandela. If ever proof were needed that one person could change the world, Nelson Mandela was that proof. He was a giant of humanity, one of the great people of our time. Around the world, his name means “freedom”. His commitment to peace and justice embodied those very concepts. He inspired a movement, transformed a nation and allowed us all to believe that a better world was possible. I grew up following Nelson Mandela. He lost his freedom around the same time I was born.

I was one of the countless people inspired by his leadership and by his example. Madiba restored our faith, not only in the power of a just cause, but in politics itself. Today, let us once again find inspiration in his words, “I dare not linger, for my long walk is not yet ended”. Madiba's walk is done. He is going home, but we must not linger. Our walk continues.

Nelson Mandela Mr. Peter Braid (Kitchener—Waterloo, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the world learned that it had lost one of its most influential, respected and loved leaders. Nelson Mandela ended apartheid and in doing so chose the way of reconciliation and understanding. Canada is proud to have hosted Nelson Mandela three times through the years. He addressed our Parliament and became the first living person to receive honorary Canadian citizenship in recognition of his moral leadership. We were honoured to present him with a number of accolades, including two Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medals.

Canadians join the people of South Africa, and indeed the world, in mourning and celebrating Nelson Mandela's life. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and all citizens of South Africa. Nelson Mandela was a great testament to his country and to humanity. It is up to all of us to ensure his great legacy lives on. May he rest in peace.

[ Translation ] Violence Against Women Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise today to mark the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Twenty-four years after the Polytechnique massacre, now more than ever, we must remember the 14 students who were targeted because they were women. Today is an opportunity for each and every one of us to denounce all forms of violence against women loudly and clearly. December 6 gives us a chance to measure our progress, but more importantly, to look at how much still needs to be done.

Let us take a moment to reflect and to remember the 14 victims. Let us also think of those women who have suffered and continue to suffer from all kinds of violence, and let us hope they find the support they need. We must be ever vigilant and always take action to put an end to violence against women.

(1115) [ English ] Violence Against Women Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today we remember 14 young smart women who had bright futures ahead, their families and all those who knew them. Each of us in the House hopes their families feel the loving arms of the nation around them. [ Translation ] Those young women were killed that terrible day simply because they were women. That night, all parents held their girls just little bit tighter in their arms.

Today, the scars remain. [ English ] Let us honour these young women's memories by being strong women who fight hard for other women and by ending violence here in Canada and around the world. To the families, we would like them to know that their daughters are not forgotten. They instill courage, they inspire and they remind us all to fight tirelessly to end violence. We profoundly thank these families for sharing their daughters with us and we keep them in our prayers.

[ Translation ] Violence Against Women Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today we remember the 14 women who were killed in cold blood 24 years ago just because they were women. We will never forget them. [ English ] Today we remember with grief the murder of 14 young women, killed because they wanted to live their lives fully.

As we remember them, we also commit ourselves to fight against all forms of violence against women and bring justice for those who have fallen, including hundreds of missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada. [ Translation ] It is not enough to commemorate them. On behalf of these 14 women, it is our duty to continue to fight against all forms of violence and discrimination against women by standing up for rights and gun control, the fight against poverty and justice for missing and murdered aboriginal women. In memory of all these innocent women, we can do more. We must do more.

[ English ] Violence Against Women Mrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today is Canada's National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Parliament established this day to remember the tragic deaths of 14 young women at École Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989. These victims were targeted simply because they were women. Today also serves to remind Canadians that violence and the threat of violence are daily realities for so many women and girls, and that gender-based violence is not just a woman's issue. It affects all of us and we must all be part of the solution.

I urge all Canadians to take action, observe a minute of silence, wear a white ribbon or attend one of the many vigils being held across our country. Let us all work together so women and girls can live free of violence. [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : I invite hon. members to rise and observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the tragic events that took place 24 years ago at the École Polytechnique de Montréal.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Status of Women Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of l'École Polytechnique shocked us at the time and 24 years later continues to affect us. Today our thoughts are with the families of the women who lost their lives on December 6,1989, but we also remember that women continue to face violence in their workplaces and in their homes. Can the minister tell the House what the government's plan is to eradicate violence against women in our communities?

(1120) Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our hearts and prayers go out to the families of the 14 women. Our government recognizes that violence against women and girls is a sad reality and takes a heavy toll on individuals and communities. That is why we are taking action across the country to combat violence against women through measures such as greater resources to support victims of crime and protecting aboriginal women, and launching a national action plan to combat human trafficking, just to name a few.

This was already an atrocious act, but even more so when one considers the motivation that was behind it. This government will always stand up for women and girls. Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, December 6 is a day of remembrance and action, and words must be backed up with a resolve to act. Women continue to be victimized, facing violence at home, work and in their communities. We are still not doing enough to support safe environments for women escaping violence. The tragedy of the missing and murdered indigenous women has affected generations.

Will the minister listen to the victims, listen to their families and agree today to convene a national inquiry? Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to women and girls across Canada and we are reminded that violence and the threat of violence remain daily realities for so many women and girls. That is why we are committed to preventing all forms of violence against women and girls throughout Canada. Let us all work together so women and girls can live free of violence.

Our government has done more for women and girls across Canada than any other government. Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that while rates of violent crimes are dropping, the rates of violence against women are not. Being tough on crime must also mean making a priority of protecting women and girls from violence. Will the minister demonstrate her commitment to ending violence against women and support the motion from the member for Churchill for a national action plan to end violence against women? Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, again, our hearts and prayers go out to the families of the 14 women. Our government is committed to preventing all forms of violence against women and girls. Since 2007, we have invested over $62 million in funding for over 300 projects to end violence against women and girls. This is the highest level of funding ever in the history of our government. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 24 years ago, 14 women were brutally murdered simply because they were women.

In the days after this tragedy, we swore to put an end to violence against women, but this violence is unfortunately still a daily reality for far too many Canadian women. When will the government create a real national strategy to combat violence against women? [ English ] Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today also serves to remind Canadians that violence and the threat of violence are daily realities for so many women and girls, and that gender-based violence is not just a women's issue. It affects all of us and we must all be part of the solution.

Our government is committed to preventing all forms of violence against women and girls and we will continue to do so.

[ Translation ] Public Safety Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the December 6 tragedy taught us that public safety—not politics—should be the priority when it comes to gun control. Instead of listening to victims, the police or experts, the Conservatives listen to the gun lobby. I should point out that they just delayed the adoption of firearms marking regulations, which are important in identifying illegal firearms. When will the Conservatives put public safety before the interests of lobbyists? [ English ] Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, first, our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy. Today is a sad reminder of the anniversary. We must continue to act to end the violence against women and girls. In recognition of all the things we have done to end violence against women and girls, our government has taken strong action to prevent violence and illegal firearms in this country. In fact, we have implemented mandatory sentences for very serious gun crimes.

Unfortunately and sadly, the opposition parties have voted against all of that legislation.

(1125) International Development Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, from Diefenbaker to Clark and Mulroney, Canadian governments stood with the people of South Africa, especially Nelson Mandela, in the fight against apartheid. Mr. Chrétien made him an honorary citizen of Canada. In his final days, Mandela expressed just one regret, that he had not won the battle against HIV/AIDS, which claimed the life of his own son.

As a fitting memorial to this global icon, will the Canadian government establish an ever more robust initiative in Mandela's name to battle the scourge of AIDS in Africa, just as Canadians helped Mandela battle apartheid? Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I said before, our thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Mandela's family, and we thank him for his great service to the world in doing the things he did to fight apartheid.

We have been a stronger supporter of the global fund, which is the fund that is fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. I was privileged to be in Washington on Monday and Tuesday at the replenishment conference, where Canada pledged $650 million. We are one of the highest supporters of the global fund, and we will continue to do our part to help eradicate these terrible diseases from the world.

[ Translation ] Status of Women Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, on this sad anniversary of the tragedy at École Polytechnique, we remember the 14 young women and their families. As we come together today, we invite the government to lead the way in putting an end to violence against women and girls in Canada. Can we all come together and—with the help of our partners, the provinces and territories, the first nations, women's groups, victims' groups and law enforcement—develop a national strategy and put an end to this tragic violence? [ English ] Mrs.

Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are taking action across the country to combat violence against women through measures such as greater resources to support victims of crime and protecting aboriginal women, launching a national action plan to combat human trafficking, increasing penalties for violent crimes and supporting child advocacy centres to better serve young victims and witnesses of crime. In our economic action plan of 2013, our government also committed $24 million over two years for the family violence prevention program.

This government sticks up for women and girls. Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, on this sad anniversary, we remember 14 young women and their families. As we draw together, we invite the government to take the lead to end violence against women and girls in Canada. Working with our partners across the country, the provinces and territories, first nations, women's groups, victims' groups and law enforcement, can we all come together to develop a national action plan to end the tragedy of violence in our country? Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, since 2007, we have invested over $62 million in funding for over 300 projects to end violence against women and girls through Status of Women. This is the highest level of funding ever. We have also ended house arrest for sexual assault involving serious personal injury and aggravated sexual assault, strengthened sentences for child sexual abuse and toughened penalties for those who import, produce and traffic date rape drugs. If the member opposite was so concerned about helping women and girls, perhaps she should have voted for Bill S-2 .

Ethics Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it was another week of changing stories on the Conservative Senate scandal, another week of the Prime Minister trying to have everyone except himself take any modicum of responsibility, another week of the Senate's blocking an investigation into Senator Gerstein and the Deloitte audit. Every single Conservative senator voted for the cover-up. It is obvious to everyone watching that the PMO continues to play puppet master to the so-called independent Senate. Here is a simple question.

Who in the Prime Minister 's Office contacted the Conservative senators to help deliver the vote and help cover up Senator Gerstein's tracks? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, no one. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way thinks that by having shorter answers he might appear more credible, but no one believes the Conservatives did not contact sitting Conservative senators to help cover up for their friend and bagman, Senator Gerstein.

On February 15, Nigel Wright wrote that he was not only concerned about Senator Duffy's residency claims, but “Possibly Senator Patterson in BC too”. Wait, that could not be the same Patterson who represents Nunavut in the Senate, could it? No, because then he would not meet the residency requirements to sit in the Senate. Does the parliamentary secretary actually believe that this Prime Minister appointed a senator from British Columbia to represent Nunavut legally?

(1130) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Senator Patterson is a great advocate for the region of the country that he represents. He has done some tremendous work in the Senate, and of course I am very proud to serve with the senator. With respect to the Senate, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has brought in a number of reforms that are being discussed at the Supreme Court right now. I note that the New Democrats have no opinion on those discussions in front of the Supreme Court.

They are always full of a lot of hot air, but when it comes to action, they never act. Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, talking about hot air, we got absolutely no answer on why the PM's chief of staff was worried about whether Senator Patterson was actually qualified to sit in the Senate. The Prime Minister said he learned of the Conservative Party's cheque to pay Mike Duffy's legal expenses on May 15. Then, for 167 days the Prime Minister failed to mention this, until Mike Duffy spoke to the Senate.

Why did the Prime Minister not tell Canadians about that second cheque for almost six months? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as we have said, the party does assist members of caucus with their legal fees. That is not something that is abnormal. That is something that the NDP does. Of course, we understand that the Leader of the Opposition himself took thousands of dollars from his own political party to cover his legal fees.

In fact, once the Leader of the Opposition was found guilty, in order to pay thousands of dollars he actually asked his party to pay for that as well. Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a record-breaking day for the hot air that the member was talking about a little while ago. What we are interested in is what the Prime Minister knew after May 15 but hid from Canadians. He must have discovered from his staff that his lawyer, Ben Perrin, and his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, had arranged a second cheque as part of their $90,000 cover-up.

The Prime Minister must have learned about the legal arrangement in May, so why did he keep telling the House that there was no legal agreement for months on end? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member asked about what the Prime Minister knew. As the Prime Minister has said, as soon as he found out on May 15, he made this public. However, he went even further.

As is stated on page 20 of the RCMP documents, it is quite clear: Rob Staley, legal representative for the PMO, advised my office [the RCMP] that he had clear orders from the Prime Minister to provide complete cooperation with the investigation, and to provide any assistance or documentation that the RCMP requested. That is the real type of leadership that this Prime Minister shows day in and day out. Full co-operation and full assistance are what Canadians expect, and that is what this Prime Minister delivered. Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, this week ends like so many others, with Conservatives blaming everyone else and taking no responsibility for their actions. One day the Prime Minister blamed “the bureaucracy”, which really is his own department, for Ben Perrin's missing emails; the next he blamed Ben Perrin for destroying them. Does the Prime Minister expect us to believe that Ben Perrin could have been able to permanently erase all of his emails simply by hitting the delete button? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it was the assistant secretary to the cabinet who informed the Prime Minister 's Office that they had actually preserved those emails. They had been preserved in another file for different litigation that was ongoing. At the same time, the assistant clerk of the Privy Council did apologize to the Prime Minister's Office and informed the RCMP that these emails would be made available. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that Benjamin Perrin was not involved in a legal agreement, but the RCMP documents show that that is not true.

The Prime Minister said that only Nigel Wright was aware of the agreement, but the documents show that that is not true. How many times does the RCMP have to contradict the Prime Minister before he starts telling the truth? (1135) [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, the exact same documents that the member refers to clearly indicate it is Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy who are the subjects of this investigation.

Page 72, of course, goes on further to say that the RCMP have absolutely no evidence that the Prime Minister knew of this plan. At the same time, as the Prime Minister has said, had he known that this plan was being undertaken, he would have put an immediate stop to it. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister 's Office is not just blaming public servants for the saga of the lost and found emails. It is also blaming Benjamin Perrin. Mr. Perrin no longer works for the Prime Minister 's Office.

Can the Prime Minister or his parliamentary secretary tell us whether Mr. Perrin was dismissed or whether he resigned? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister answered that two days ago in the House. I think I have, as well. Mr. Perrin left the Prime Minister's Office to accept employment at a Canadian university. If I am not mistaken, it is the University of British Columbia.

[ Translation ] Employment Insurance Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the tourism minister came off sounding very pleased with himself in front of Quebec farmers. He seems to think that the people who are having their employment insurance benefits taken away just need to stop flaunting their Speedos on Cuban beaches.

One would have to be quite heartless and have a lot of nerve to say that to these farmers, who have been watching their qualified employees slip between their fingers since the Conservatives implemented their reform that is an attack on seasonal industries. Will the Conservatives start listening to concerned farmers and employers instead of insulting them? [ English ] Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this kind of fearmongering is frankly very irresponsible. The fact is that the changes we made to EI are modest. They will only impact 1% of recipients.

In fact, no changes to the rules have had any impact on the process whereby individuals can apply for, or qualify for, EI. While the opposition wants to build an economy around temporary foreign workers and EI, we want to build an economy around jobs and opportunity for Canadians across the country. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I challenge her to say that to the people of eastern Quebec and the Maritimes. It is easy for her to stand there in her Armani suit and pretty pink blouse and insult people.

Farmers and Quebeckers in general know that the unemployed are people just like the rest of us, people who are going through a difficult time. It is also a difficult time for seasonal industries. These people are not taking advantage of the system to go spend time on Cuban beaches, as the member for Beauce alleges from his ivory tower. As if ignoring the concerns of the agricultural community were not enough, did the government really need to insult the unemployed as well? [ English ] Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the fact is that 80% of individuals who are disqualified for EI benefits disqualify because they are not in the country. Maybe the opposition members, including their 45 day work week, now want to start paying people EI benefits when they are outside of the country. On this side of the House, we are responsible with taxpayers' dollars, and more importantly we want Canadians who want to work to have jobs. That is why we have created over one million net new jobs. CETA, for example, is helping farmers across this country, in my riding, in Quebec, and in provinces across the country.

We are acting to get Canadians to work. They just want to bring in temporary foreign— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. member for Avalon.

Ethics Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the RCMP had to ask repeatedly for Benjamin Perrin's emails before the Prime Minister finally coughed them up. No one believes the story that they were simply forgotten about. The only way to get to the bottom of why Perrin's emails were hidden from the RCMP is for the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, Wayne Wouters, to appear before the ethics committee under oath. Will the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council appear before the ethics committee? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will tell you who does believe that the Privy Council made an honest mistake in not being able to find those emails. It was actually the member for Wascana , who on Sunday night said, “Beyond apologies to the PMO+RCMP, the Privy Council owes its biggest apology to all Canadians”. That was the member for Wascana on Sunday, before he came to the office on Monday and was beaten up by his advisers who then told him to change his mind and say something different on Monday in the House.

I accept the Privy Council— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, the hon. member for Avalon. Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, also this week, Conservative senators voted to block Michael Runia from appearing before a committee to explain his interference with the Senate ordered audit. Senator Gerstein, using his position as chair of the Senate banking committee, removed himself to explain his role, to protect his own self. I have a motion before the ethics committee to call Senator Gerstein and Michael Runia to appear and testify.

Will the Prime Minister and the Conservatives commit to supporting the motion on Tuesday to finally end this cover-up?

(1140) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the committee will deal with its own affairs when that motion is brought forward. By way of an update for the hon. member, after a number of months Mr. Runia was not one of the three auditors on the file. The three auditors who actually were on the file did appear before the Senate committee. They did confirm that the audit was done with the utmost in confidentiality. They did confirm that the Senate could have confidence in the report that was issued.

Of course, that was the report that we used as the basis to remove these three senators from the Senate. The Liberals fought every step of the way. They fought for the status quo. We fought for taxpayers. [ Translation ] Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the sworn RCMP statements are very clear. Thanks to Senator Gerstein, the Prime Minister's Office received inappropriate information about the audit of Mike Duffy. The evidence clearly shows that Gerstein not only tried to put an end to the audit, but he also offered payment to a sitting senator. The Prime Minister knows that.

When will the Prime Minister finally allow his former employees and Senator Gerstein to testify, under oath, about what they did? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will restate for the hon. member what I said earlier for another question. Rob Staley, legal representative for the PMO, advised my office, [that's the RCMP] that he had clear orders from the Prime Minister to provide complete cooperation with the investigation, and to provide any assistance or documentation that the RCMP requested.

The PMO employees (current and former) whose e-mails I deemed relevant, have all provided privacy waivers though their legal counsel relating to the content of the e-mails. The PMO has also waived solicitor-client privilege for those e-mails. That is real leadership.

[ Translation ] Status of Women Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government's record on gender equality is pathetic. The Conservatives closed 12 Status of Women Canada offices. They gutted pay equity legislation. They eliminated funding for organizations advocating for women's interests. When will the minister start working with the NDP to adequately fund organizations that promote gender equality and those working to end violence against women? [ English ] Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our government continues to take decisive action to advance equality for women and girls. That is why international reports continue to rank Canada as a leader in achieving gender equality. For example, in 2012, a global poll of experts found that Canada was the best place in the G20 to be a woman. The United Nations commissioned the 2013 human development report, which ranked Canada among the top countries on human development and gender equality. This is one of the best places to a woman or a girl. [ Translation ] Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Conservatives' record shows that there is still too much violence against women and that gender equality has not yet been achieved. Every day, 3,000 Canadian women sleep in shelters to escape violence. Today, some 420 women will be turned away from a shelter because there is not enough space to accommodate them. Too many women are not getting the help they need. How long will these women have to wait before the government finally decides to act? [ English ] Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, again, as far as violence against women and girls, our government is committed to preventing all forms of violence against women and girls. Since 2007, we have invested over $62 million, for over 300 projects, through Status of Women Canada. This is the highest level ever. Ending violence against women is a priority for the government and will continue to be so.

Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, empty words will not shelter women fleeing violence. A year ago yesterday, the body of a young girl from Gitanmaax First Nation was found in Kamloops. Her name was C J Fowler. She was 16, and her murder is still unsolved. She is one of hundreds of missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada. The families and communities of these women deserve answers. They deserve justice. When will the government launch an open public inquiry into the cases of missing and murdered indigenous women?

(1145) Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on taking action to actually deal with the tragic issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women. For example, we recently passed legislation that gives women living on first nations reserves the same matrimonial rights as all Canadians, including access to emergency protection orders in violent situations. Unfortunately, the opposition parties voted against that legislation and against advancing the rights of first nations women. Shame on them.

The special parliamentary committee is continuing its study, and we look forward to participating in that study. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we all need to stand up and take action to end violence against women, and start with an inquiry. Political will is essential. We mourn. We pray, but we must also act. We need to follow the leadership of women in our communities, who are working day in and day out in our neighbourhoods to make them safer. We all need to recognize that men and boys have an essential role to play in ending violence against women. This is something we have to address.

Will the members opposite stand with us today and pledge action to end violence against women in our time? Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are reminded on a daily basis that violence and the threat violence remain daily realities for so many women and girls, and that is why our government is firmly committed to preventing all forms of violence against women and girls. Let me give some examples of some of the actions we have taken.

We passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act to improve the safety of all Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable members of society. We increased support for victims of crime. We launched the national action plan to combat human trafficking and provided $24 million over two years for the family violence prevention program to help improve safety on reserves. Let us all work together so that women and girls can live free of violence.

Multiculturalism Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last night there was a report from the city of Vancouver about a disgraceful act of vandalism conducted at the Komagata Maru monument. The monument to the Komagata Maru commemorates the 376 Punjabi passengers who were aboard the ship by that name, which was turned away 100 years ago next year. This shameful incident of vandalism is very upsetting. Would the Minister of State for Multiculturalism please remind the House of the importance of this monument? Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, this was, indeed, a disgraceful act, and we are pleased that the Vancouver police are investigating it further. The tragic events of the Komagata Maru were a regrettable

chapter in Canada's history. That is why we worked with the Khalsa Diwan Society to build this important monument and fund other projects to educate Canadians, and thanks to the member for Brampton—Springdale , Canada Post will issue a commemorative stamp to commemorate it. That is why this Prime Minister was the first to officially apologize for what happened to the passengers of the Komagata Maru on behalf of all Canadians.

National Defence Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, injured soldiers, especially those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, need to have something to look forward to. However, many about to be medically released feel abandoned to an uncertain future. They feel they have been betrayed by a military system after serving their country and risking their lives. The fact is, they need actual solutions, not only counselling and treatment. When is the government going to listen?

We are all concerned about the lives that have been lost, but the real question is, what is the minister going to do to ensure that more lives are not lost? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff has reached out to our men and women in uniform, urging them to seek the help and support they need, and the government stands with him in supporting those dealing with mental illness.

Suicide is a public health issue and we all have a role to play in reaching out to help those who are hurting and encouraging them to get the help they need. I want to take a moment to remind those who may be going through difficult times that they are not alone, and there is support available to help get them through this. I would ask that the hon. member not alarm those individuals who are thinking of coming forward. Help is available, and we ought to encourage all of them to seek these resources if they need them. [ Translation ] Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, there were four deaths by suicide on military bases across Canada in just a little over a week. We are talking about people who risked their lives for Canada and are now paying the price. The minister is telling us not to talk about it. He believes that the necessary supports are already in place, but that is clearly not the case. Our soldiers need clinics to diagnose problems and they need more mental health specialists. When will the minister finally take action? (1150) [ English ] Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our government has done more than any other before it when it comes to taking care of our ill and injured men and women in uniform. Today, the Canadian Armed Forces have nearly 400 full-time mental health professionals and are working to hire more. We saw that just yesterday at CFB Petawawa. We have provided mental health care through 29 clinics across Canada, called wounded warrior centres, from Esquimalt right across to Halifax, and support is provided throughout the entire career and deployment cycle of a Canadian Forces member.

We have created joint personnel support units to allow our ill and injured members to work with medical and personal social workers, occupational therapists, and others in order to help them return to work.

[ Translation ] Rail Transportation Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, keeping Canadians safe is one of the government's fundamental responsibilities. In the report he released a few weeks ago, the Auditor General was very clear: serious problems in our railway safety system were raised long before the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. The Auditor General noted in particular that inspectors did not have proper training, records were not properly maintained and there was not enough follow-up when problems were identified.

Can the minister tell us when she became aware of the problems raised by the Auditor General? [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in fact, the health and safety of Canadians is our top priority. We obviously thank the Auditor General for his report and his recommendations. I understand that Transport Canada has accepted all of the recommendations in the report.

Not only that, the minister has tasked the standing committee on transport to study the transportation of dangerous goods to ensure that they are moved safely, including the implementation of safety management systems across air, marine, and rail sectors. We are taking the same approach to that of the world-class tanker safety initiative we developed to focused on prevention, response, and liability. Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, to date the safety management systems have led to inspectors inspecting paperwork instead of planes and trains.

The reality is that Canada's rail tracks have deteriorated, and the rules were repeatedly broken. Experts on the Transportation Safety Board have repeatedly demanded that the federal government mandate anti-crash systems that automatically slow speeding trains down. Why are Conservatives ignoring these repeated warnings? Why have they not required the automatic anti-crash systems that safety experts are calling for? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, positive train control, which has been talked about a lot by New Democrats, in fact is not part of the TSB's recommendations, though Transport Canada is monitoring its implementation in the United States. Transport Canada is currently working with industry to look at possible fail-safe train controls here.

Post-Secondary Education Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I met with Melissa O’Rourke from Mount Allison University and Luke Robertson from St. Thomas. Both are impressive student leaders who know the difficulties post-secondary students face. They described the benefits of the Canada student grants program, and previously, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. However, the grants program has not been increased since its creation, while tuition and university costs have skyrocketed.

Could the minister tell us what plans he has to finally make up the difference and increase the Canada grants program for students so that the high cost of post-secondary education is not a factor that discourages people from going to university and college? Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. Under our government, we have done more to support young people when it comes to their education or getting the skills they need to get the jobs that are available.

It is under our youth employment strategy, and it includes our Canada student loans program. It includes summer jobs, about which we just made recent announcements regarding the application process starting sooner. It also includes our skills link, which helps young people get the needed skills to either go back to school or to get jobs in their area. Whether it is student loans, whether it is grants, the funds we are providing are targeted, and they are creating more jobs.

Employment Insurance Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance used to call EI a job-killing payroll tax, but according to the PBO, the Conservatives are keeping EI taxes “higher than necessary” in 2015 and 2016. If the Conservatives kept their promise to set EI taxes at a break-even rate, the EI taxes would fall significantly in 2015. With a sluggish Canadian economy, why are the Conservatives breaking their promise by freezing EI premiums at an artificially high rate until the end of 2016?

(1155) Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are glad to see that the PBO has confirmed what we already know: our government will balance the budget in 2015. Unlike the old Liberal government, which raided the EI fund for its own pet projects, we are ensuring that EI premiums are only used for EI payments. Indeed, it is a bit rich to hear the Liberals talk about EI rates, when it was they who supported a 45-day work year that would have seen EI premiums increase by over 35%.

Thankfully, members on this side of the House had the common sense to oppose that job-killing proposal. [ Translation ] Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, rather than insulting the unemployed and accusing them of being lazy and abusing the system, the member for Beauce should apologize. Not too long ago, the member for Beauce was involved in raising money for the food banks in his riding. Is he aware that some people who use food banks have lost their jobs and are not eligible for EI benefits? [ English ] Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the member is wrong. The modest changes we have made have not affected the availability for individuals who are on EI. Whether it is persons with disabilities, whether it is youth who are looking for jobs, or whether it is aboriginal people, we are creating more jobs and more opportunity so that people can work. However, if they cannot, EI is there. It is there for those who have paid in. That is what the changes have attempted to do so that, as well, employers who are looking for workers have people available who want to work.

Eighty per cent of those who are disqualified are outside of the country on holidays. We are not-- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister of tourism went out of his way to call seasonal workers lazy and implied that they spend more time in the Caribbean than looking for work. How out of touch can he be with reality?

It is his government that has pushed seasonal workers out of work, and it is its regressive cuts to employment insurance that have negatively impacted seasonal industries and have hurt so many Canadians. Seasonal workers are not on a beach somewhere. They are trying to put food on a table for their families. Will the minister stand up and apologize for these incredibly insulting comments? Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, is the opposition suggesting that EI benefits should be paid to people who are not in the country looking for work?

We absolutely do not believe that. Those people who are paying into EI benefits—employers and employees—do not believe that. We want to make sure that EI remains there for Canadians who, by no fault of their own, find themselves out of work. We do not believe in the 45-day work year. We do not believe in paying EI benefits to people who are outside of the country. We believe in integrity in the EI system so that it is there for Canadians who have paid into it.

Nelson Mandela Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada and the world is deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Nelson Mandela yesterday. The son of a tribal chief, Nelson Mandela sought an education, went on to actively participate in politics, and became a leading symbol in the fight against apartheid. Even after retirement, he remained committed to peace and stability. He accomplished so much in his long, inspirational life. Could the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs please remind the House of some of Nelson Mandela's most impressive accomplishments?

Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Chatham—Kent Essex for this question. Nelson Mandela's fight to end apartheid had a tremendous impact on me when I was growing up in Tanzania, when apartheid dominated southern Africa. Canadians were touched deeply by his life and his active pursuit of equality, justice, and freedom for all people. Nelson Mandela was also a passionate crusader against AIDS.

He received the Nobel Peace Prize, became an honorary Canadian citizen, and was made a Companion of the Order of Canada. Canada joins South Africa and the world in mourning and celebrating a unique and special leader. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Employment Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the hemorrhaging of jobs for young people in this country is troubling. There are now 70,000 fewer youth employed in this country than when the Conservative government took power eight years ago. As the minister indicated, the Canada summer jobs program opens today. That program funds fewer jobs now than it did in 2005. Today's job numbers show that we have lost an additional 26,000 youth jobs in the last month. Does the minister even recognize this? Young Canadians do. Does the minister recognize this troubling trend?

(1200) Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the fact is that our economic action plan is delivering results for young Canadians. This year alone, over 70,000 jobs were created for youth. What our strategy does goes beyond anything that has been done before. We are training young people for jobs that are available, whether it is skilled trades, whether it is apprenticeships, or whether it is some of the skills they need to even get into school. We are providing that kind of training. The results are there. Canada remains strong.

In fact, under our action plan, we will continue to have one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the G7. We know the youth unemployment rate is still high. We--

[ Translation ] Health Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, drug shortages are a serious public health problem. Unlike the United States, the European Union and New Zealand, Canada does not have a mandatory drug shortage registry. This situation is unacceptable. We cannot leave it to companies to decide whether to disclose, or not disclose, shortages. A voluntary approach is not a solution. Will the government work with the NDP to pass my bill in order to ensure that a mandatory registry is created, yes or no? [ English ] Mr.

Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the bill brought forward by the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert fails to recognize the progress that we have been making. It is unenforceable and amends the wrong act. Companies are posting about shortages online because, with our approach, it gives doctors the information they need. We will continue to monitor whether companies make information on shortages available to doctors and patients voluntarily. If they do not, we are open to considering a mandatory approach.

Employment Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, while Canada's economy is showing signs of improvement, the global economy remains fragile. Business owners in my riding of Northumberland—Quinte West tell me that during these challenging global economic times, the last thing they need is higher taxes that will kill job creation. Remarkably, just last week the leader of the NDP said he would raise taxes on Canadian job creators. Unlike the NDP, our government understands that a low-tax environment is just what job creators need to expand their operations and hire more workers.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please update this House on Canada's job market? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Northumberland—Quinte West for that excellent question. After announcing just last week that Canada's economy grew for a ninth consecutive quarter, Statistics Canada today announced that 21,600 net new jobs were created in November, with solid gains in the manufacturing sector. The unemployment rate remains at the lowest level since 2008.

While our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians, that being growing the economy and helping create jobs, the Liberal leader still has not produced a single economic policy. While he demonstrates poor judgment and inexperience, we continue our prudent, responsible economic action plan— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. The hon. member for Jonquière—Alma.

[ Translation ] Intergovernmental Relations Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, it took only two weeks for the federal government to give $280 million to Newfoundland and Labrador fishers affected by the agreement with the EU, but the Minister of State for Agriculture is saying that Quebec cheese producers will have to wait up to two years to be compensated. Worse yet, the minister has refused to recognize the negative impact of the employment insurance reform, which is harshly penalizing agricultural producers.

Will the minister acknowledge that this is a double standard when it comes to Quebec? [ English ] Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to consider the pork and beef farmers in the province of Quebec, who will benefit greatly from the Canada-Europe trade agreement. [ Translation ] As far as supply management is concerned, our government has always defended Canada's supply management system and maintains that position in this agreement.

The three main pillars of our internal supply management system remain untouched, and we will monitor how the Canada-Europe free trade agreement affects milk producers' income. If production levels suffer, we will help the producers financially.

(1205) Nelson Mandela Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleagues' eloquent tributes to Nelson Mandela. I believe that we all agree that future generations should always remember the profound friendship and the ideals that united and continue to unite Canada and this great man. Would the government consider instituting a national Nelson Mandela day? [ English ] Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would join the member in giving tribute to a great statesman and a great leader, Nelson Mandela, who passed away yesterday. He was an honorary citizen of Canada. In answer to that question, Mr. Mandela was honoured by Canada for his fight against apartheid by being appointed a Companion of the Order of Canada.

Telecommunications Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, as offensive as the $548 million spent on blatant partisan advertising by the government was, much of it for policies that do not exist, such as the Canada job grant, a new limbo bar has been lowered. That is the $9 million spent on TV and print ads targeting and, might I say, attacking Canadian cellphone companies. These ads offer no real information and mention no policy whatsoever. How does the government defend attacking a Canadian industry that employs 300,000 Canadians? Is this really a good use of taxpayer dollars? Hon.

Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the government to communicate on important programs and services available to Canadians. Advertising is a key way for the government to inform Canadians about such important issues as time-limited stimulus measures, tax credits, public health issues, the importance of competition and fair pricing in the wireless sector, and what the government is doing to make that happen for Canadians.

For important context, advertising expenses for 2011 were almost 30% below the last full year under the former Liberal government.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Government Response to Petitions

Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.

Foreign Affairs Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the following treaties: the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, done in Vienna on September 12, 1997; the Agreement Between the Government Of Canada and the Government Of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, done in Astana on November 13, 2013; and the Amendment to Annex IX of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, adopted at the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention held in Geneva from April 28 to May 10, 2013.

An explanatory memorandum is included with each treaty.

(1210) Food and Drugs Act Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (for the Minister of the Health) Bill C-17. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-17,

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Divorce Act Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) Bill C-560. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-560,

An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am quite honoured in these few moments to be introducing a private member's bill that would direct the courts in regard to divorce to make equal shared parenting the presumptive arrangement in the best interest of the child, except in proven cases of abuse or neglect. Fifteen years ago, a joint House-Senate committee presented to Parliament a report entitled “For the Sake of the Children”.

That report urged Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to make equal shared parenting the normative determination by courts dealing with situations of divorce involving children. This non-partisan recommendation from that joint House-Senate report was based on compelling research made available to the committee members. Over the past 15 years, the best research has continued to demonstrate far superior outcomes for children in general when both parents, mom and dad, are actively involved in their children's lives, even if the parents divorce or separate.

Polling from the past several years demonstrates overwhelming support from Canadians for this equal shared parenting. There is in fact slightly more support among women than men for equal parenting. This strong support from almost 80% of Canadians exists across the country, with the strongest regional support coming from Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Canadians claiming to be Liberal and Bloc supporters expressed the strongest endorsement for equal shared parenting, at 80.6% among Liberals and 82.9% among Bloc Québécois supporters, with the NDP and Conservatives just slightly under 80%.

A variety of countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and Australia, and various U.S. states have implemented equal parenting, joint custody, or shared parenting presumptive legislation, which has resulted in lower court costs, less conflict, and improved social outcomes for the children of divorce. This bill is one of the most apolitical, non-partisan pieces of legislation introduced in this current Parliament.

I look forward to strong support for this important piece of legislation from all members of Parliament who are committed to the best interests of our children. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.)

Bill C-561. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-561,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking and transplanting human organs and other body parts) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to introduce legislation to address one of the most heinous practices in the modern world, namely organ harvesting. This legislation, if adopted, would create penal sanctions for persons who in Canada or outside Canada are knowingly involved in the medical transplant of human organs or other body parts obtained or acquired as a consequence of a direct or indirect financial transaction, or without the donor's consent.

Beyond new criminal sanctions, it would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prevent entry into Canada of those who would engage in or otherwise facilitate such practices. Evidence points to organ harvesting in China where Falun Gong practitioners suffer unspeakable horrors. Yet there are cases as well, such as this summer in the U.K. of a child being trafficked for her organs.

We must combat human and organ trafficking in all forms, and I hope this legislation will add to Canada's abilities to prosecute and prevent any involvement with this abhorrent practice. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House International Trade Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have some motions for which I seek unanimous consent. These are consolidated travel motions for two different committees.

I move: Motion That, in relation to its studies on the benefits for Canada in joining the Pacific Alliance as a full member and on the benefits for Canada of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), six members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to Santiago, Chile and Lima, Peru, in the Winter-Spring of 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. (Motion agreed to) Hon. Duncan: Mr.

Speaker, I move: Motion That, in relation to its studies on the benefits for Canada in joining the Pacific Alliance as a full member and on the benefits for Canada of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), six members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to Bogota, Colombia and Mexico City, Mexico, in the Winter-Spring of 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. (Motion agreed to)

(1215) Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC) : Motion Mr. Speaker, I move: That in relation to its study on the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, seven members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development be authorized to travel to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, in the Winter of 2014, that the necessary staff accompany the Committee and that the Committee be authorized to televise its hearings. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Income Tax Deductions for Tradespeople Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as members know, the Conservatives have said for quite some time that they are concerned about regional skills shortages in our country, and yet the government has not done very much to address labour mobility. In fact, the petitioners point out that many tradespeople can be out of work in one area of the country, w