OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 070 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, April 7, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES April 7, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 070 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 070 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 070 (Version officielle) 147 070 07 04 2014 2014/04/07 11:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayers

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] Election of the Speaker Motion The House resumed from February 24 consideration of the motion.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me stand in my place today to speak in favour of Motion No. 489, in the name of my colleague, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington . Before I begin my remarks, it would be useful for members of this House to understand a couple of points about the motion.

Number one, it is a motion, as opposed to a bill; so it is merely a motion that, if passed, would instruct the procedure and House affairs committee to study the possibility of changing the way in which we now elect Speakers of the House. I believe that the proposal and suggestions contained in Motion No. 489 are extremely worthwhile and certainly worth a study from the procedure and House affairs committee. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my own dissertation, but I noticed my colleague from the Liberal Party who came into the House a little late.

I believe he was supposed to be the first speaker on the motion today. If you wish, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly give leave to my colleague to start— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I appreciate the intervention by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons . I think there will be some time so that we can accommodate the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor and we will be able to get him into the rotation in the time permitting. The hon. parliamentary secretary. Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr.

Speaker, as I said, this is a motion rather than a bill, so it would simply instruct the procedure and House affairs committee to look at the possibility of changing the way we now elect Speakers. As most members in this place know, the election of the Speaker is a relatively new phenomenon, because for the first 80 years or so that Parliament was established, there were no elections for the Speaker of the House. The Speaker was basically appointed based on nominations brought forward by the sitting Prime Minister.

However, in 1986, Speaker Bosley changed all that, and the rules of the House in the election of Speakers were changed. Since that time, elections of Speakers have been done by secret ballot. While that system has worked well for the last 30 years, it is a very cumbersome process, in the minds of many people. If we looked at the voting patterns since 1986, we would find that the average length of time taken to elect a Speaker at the start of each Parliament is over seven hours.

Some would suggest perhaps that is not a bad thing; it allows all members at the start of each Parliament to get together to renew acquaintances and basically enjoy the electoral spirit that comes around elections of any kind. However, from my standpoint and in my view, I would like to see perhaps a more efficient use of time. That is why my colleague's Motion No. 489 suggests that a preferential ballot be established to change the existing rules of electing a Speaker.

Most members here understand how a preferential ballot works, but for those who are perhaps a little unsure, let me try to clarify as much as I can how an election would be held using the preferential ballot. Currently, if there are several members who wish to run for the position of Speaker, all of those names would be included on a ballot, votes would be counted, and only if one member received over 50% of the vote would an election be completed.

We have seen over the course of the last 30 years that getting that 50% threshold is not an easy thing to do, and that is why we take such a length of time to elect a Speaker. It has taken several ballots in most cases. Currently, the system is that after the ballots are counted after the first vote, any candidate who receives the least amount of votes cast or, in the event of a tie, two or more members who receive the least amount of votes, or any member who receives less than 5% of the total votes cast, would be eliminated from the ballot.

The remaining names would then continue to be placed on the ballot, votes would take place and be counted, and only when one name on the ballot receives over 50% of the vote would a Speaker be considered to be elected. Starting in 1986, we have seen several ballots occur almost every time there has been an election of a Speaker. Only once in the last 30 years has there been an acclamation, and that is when former Speaker Milliken was elected in the early 2000s, perhaps 2005. However, every other time, there has been a contested election with several members seeking the position of Speaker.

Again, with the number of ballots cast and the number of times the table officers had to count the ballots, the amount of time it took to elect a Speaker averaged over seven hours. A preferential ballot would streamline that process quite considerably. A preferential ballot means that, at the start, all members who have put their names forward to be considered for the Speaker of this House would see their names on one ballot, and instead of just marking an x under a preferred candidate, all those people who would be seeking the position would be ranked as number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on.

In other words, if there were seven people seeking the position of the Speaker's chair, they would be ranked numbers one through seven. When the ballots are then counted, the same process takes place whereby they would need 50% plus one vote to be elected Speaker. However, if no name or no candidate on that ballot received more than 50% of the votes cast, those who are administering the election would go down the ranking, and the person who received the least number of votes would be stricken from that one ballot.

(1110) Members, however, would not be then compelled to vote again. Those who are administering the count would merely look at that one ballot. In the case of seven candidates on the ballot in the example I am using, the seventh place candidate would be eliminated from the ballot. The voters who voted for candidate number seven with their first-place ballots would obviously not see their candidate elected. On the ballot, however, those who marked an x under preference number one would also have marked a second-place preference.

Those second-place preferences would then be reapplied to the candidates remaining on the ballot and votes would be counted again. If one of the members then got over 50% of the vote, he or she would be elected Speaker. If not, the last-place candidate's name would be removed, an examination would take place of where the preferential ballot votes were cast, votes would be reapplied, so on and so forth, until at the end of the count, there would be one name that received more than 50% of the vote. What this means is that, quite simply, members would only have to vote once.

In other words, members of this place would only have to fill out one ballot. It might take several counts within that one ballot to determine a winner, but we would not see the process of having to mark ballots, fill out names as preferred candidates, wait for the officials to recount, and go through that process over and over again. I would suggest that, by doing it this manner, we would see the time spent on electing Speakers cut back from seven hours, on average, to probably less than two.

Whether that is a good thing would be up to members of the procedure and House affairs committee to determine, but I certainly think it is worthy of discussion and review, and that is why I will be supporting this when it comes before this place for a vote. As a last word, I will simply say this. Any time there are changes to the Standing Orders, there should be a note of caution. The wise men and women who developed our Standing Orders well over 100 years ago, did so with great thought, intelligence, and anticipation.

I would suggest that many times there are unintended consequences when one starts changing Standing Orders. I mention that only because the procedure and House affairs committee right now has undertaken a review of the Standing Orders and is certainly looking at a number of ways to improve efficiency within this place. This motion may be one of those places. This is certainly a motion that is worthy of review and consideration, not only by the members of the procedure and House affairs committee but by members throughout the House.

With that, I will let people here know that, since I am a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, I am looking forward to conducting this review. In all probability, I will be casting a vote in favour of Motion No. 489. Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Motion No. 489 which requests that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs study the possibility of adapting a first past the post preferential ballot for the election of the Speaker of the House.

I would like to congratulate the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for this motion, which I am supporting. I would also like to thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for all his hard work, on this and other issues. He is an outstanding member of Parliament, and I am very proud to call him my colleague. I am glad to say that I support this motion, and I support it for two reasons. First, the motion itself has considerable merit. Second, it adds to the spirit of reform that is about this place these days.

There are a number of discussions, as the previous speaker mentioned, that are being considered in the House and at the procedure and House affairs committee, and this motion adds to that debate in a positive way. It is an exciting time in the House of Commons. I am a first-term MP, proudly representing Burnaby—Douglas.

It has been a great pleasure to be part of the debates about reforming or abolishing the Senate, changing our electoral system to perhaps proportional representation, establishing electronic petitions, changing our committee system in how we choose committee chairs, and giving members more power over their leaders. It has been a great pleasure to be part of these debates. However, I must say that my excitement does not extend to Bill C-23,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act . It is an abomination by my count, roundly denounced by all election experts and democratic protectors right across the country. However, I will not dwell on Bill C-23 , but will focus more on the positive efforts that are before us today. As mentioned by the previous speaker, Motion No. 489 proposes that the PROC committee study the possibility of adapting a first past the post preferential ballot for the election of the Speaker.

This would change us from our current practice of having members vote several times, with each round having members with the least of votes being eliminated, and one member receiving the majority of vote eventually elected. This motion proposes a preferential balloting system in which members would only have to vote once, except in the event of a tie. They would do so by voting for the candidates of their choice in order of preference.

This is a common system that is used around the world, and there are plenty of examples for us to draw upon, whether it is through an electoral system or through a selection of speakers. This morning I was reading the hon. member's speech from the first hour of debate, and was very interested to note that between 1867 and the 1980s, Speakers were elected by an open show of hands, with the Speaker being chosen by the prime minister of the day. It was only in the mid-1980s that the Speaker was elected by a secret ballot vote by members of Parliament.

When we think about how large a change that was, from the prime minister of a majority government essentially hand-picking a Speaker, until now, where we have lessened the power of the prime minister and broadened it to all members of Parliament electing a Speaker by a secret ballot, that is a much better way to go.

That spirit of what was happening in the mid-1980s, to where we lessened the power of the prime minister and put more power in the hands of regular members, is what is creeping into the discussions we have been having in the House during the weeks and months that we have been debating various motions and bills coming before Parliament. Members are proposing adjustments to our parliamentary procedures in an attempt to improve the process, and in some cases lessen the concentration of power in the hands of a prime minister. I think there is a range of bills and motions that are being discussed here.

Some are more on the housekeeping side, making sure that we tidy up our procedural matters, and some are much more radical in nature. I will get to those in a second. I noted from the speech by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington in the first hour that he feels these changes are necessary because the current process takes too long, there is no mechanism currently on the Standing Orders for resolving ties, and he thinks it is important to destroy ballots to preserve the dignity of contestants who do not happen to win the contest. These are all very good reasons for why we should support this bill.

It is a tidying sort of measure, and of course procedure and House affairs committee will go through it to make sure that we get the details right. However, from first glance, it does look like a good thing to do. It is something that would tidy our procedures here, save time for the members, make sure that we have written down the procedures for resolving a tie, and make sure that we preserve the dignity of all people who put their names forward to stand for leader.

(1115) However, also in his speech, the member mentioned Motion No. 431, the motion that was put forward by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt . He does not say that he supports the motion outright. Rather, he said that if both motions survive a vote in the House, which Motion No. 431 did, that they would not only draw upon the same pool of experts to discuss the preferential ballot proposals before us today, but also as to how we might select committee chairs.

The member suggested that we should study efficiency, which is what is on his mind here, because he suggests that this pool of experts could be used to look at both motions to inform the procedure and House affairs committee as to whether they should go ahead. It is a good suggestion that we draw upon the expertise that we develop for one motion to look at the other and perhaps save some time. I would like to make a larger point.

The motion before us is not only similar in nature to the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt 's efforts to reform how committee chairs are elected, but it is also similar in spirit to my motion, Motion No. 849, with respect to electronic petitions, and perhaps Bill C-559 , the reform act, put forward by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills . I look at these as a kind of range in terms of how much they would change the structure of how we do business in the House of Commons. The motion before us, Motion No. 489, is probably the most modest change that we could make.

My idea for electronic petitions, which is currently in front of the procedure and House affairs committee, would adjust our processes a little more radically. Then, when we move to Motion No. 431, with respect to selecting committee chairs from Parliament, that again changes things a little more radically. Finally, Bill C-559 , the reform act, would make the most change. Therefore, I would put my motion, Motion No. 489, more in the category of what the member is suggesting here today, a minor change to modernize our processes and make them more efficient. One of the questions is on why we do these things.

Why do we take the time? I only have one motion or bill that would come forward for a vote in the House, as does the member who is putting this motion forward today, as do the other members I have just mentioned. What we are trying to do is to think of ways to make this place better, how we can improve our processes, and how we can make our democracy better for Canadians. Then we look at what is feasible in the House. The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington has hit the nail on the head. He has suggested a change that would be palatable to all members of the House, providing it has proper study.

I think it is wise of him to do so. What I tried to do with Motion No. 489 with respect to electronic petitioning is to pick something that would perhaps please many members of the House. Hopefully, the procedure and House affairs committee will see that through. As we move to the other motions and bills that I have mentioned, they are more radical. We will require considerable debate on those motions in order for them to pass. What it shows is that there is a genuine spirit of reform in this place.

We are trying to figure out how we can debate these things and come to a consensus, more or less, on what changes are appropriate. I support this motion because the member has correctly calculated that his changes would more than likely be adopted. He would succeed in reforming this place, maybe not quite in the current form that his motion suggests, but after a discussion at the procedure and House affairs committee there is something that would happen. Again, I feel positive vibes in this place from various speeches.

I am hoping that the member will assist the rest of us who are interested in reform in this place, just as we are assisting him. It is only through this co-operation that we can move the democracy of Canada forward. I think we are all interested in making Canada a more democratic place. I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak to this motion.

(1120) Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House now for approximately 10 years. In that decade, I have witnessed a couple of Speakers being elected, all by private ballot, and I thought the exercise was certainly necessary. It was revised back in the mid-1980s, as research tells us, and I would like to reflect back on the history of this House. One of my Conservative colleagues mentioned earlier that we should never change the Standing Orders lightly. Even though the motion seems fairly modest in its reach, at the same time we have to be very careful.

However, there is a long history to this. In House of Commons Procedure and Practice , the version by Marleau and Montpetit, we can see the history of the election of the Speaker from 1867 up until 1985. Typically the convention was that a name was proposed by the prime minister and everyone voted. We could see who voted for whom in the election for the Speaker. Normally the nomination put forward by the prime minister, which in the early days was seconded by a leading minister, was usually accepted.

Granted, there usually was a majority, but even in cases where there was a minority government, it seemed that the recommendation put forward by the prime minister and seconded by the leading minister of the day was accepted by the House and there was no tumultuous debate that followed. In later conventions, although not written down, there was a consensus as to who the Speaker should be.

The name was still brought forward by the prime minister, but by this convention it was seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, which is a far more beneficial way to bring respect to the House, and for all members, despite what party or caucus one might sit with. This method made it much clearer as to who the Speaker should be, and there was no debate. If it was seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, then the vast majority of the House, not just the simple majority of the House, were in favour of a particular Speaker. However, we must bear in mind that this was all done through a recorded vote.

Everyone was able to see where their member of Parliament or their colleague was on a vote. In the 1980s, we realized that a vote would be better among colleagues as to who would be the most unbiased person and could administer the House as Speaker. It is not just speaking in the House and making sure the Standing Orders are followed, but there is the administration of the House over its functions and employees. At the time it was thought that there should be a secret ballot, that we should not be coerced into voting because of what the leader of any particular party felt about who the Speaker should be.

Therefore, the institution of secret ballot was brought in, and I think that was all for the better. Recently there have been talks about having secret ballots for other positions, such as committee chairs, which by extension have the same type of job description when it comes to being unbiased. Members can see the pattern here. Any position that is assumed by a member of Parliament, such as the Speaker of the House, assistant Speaker, Deputy Speaker, or in the case of committees, the chairs or vice-chairs, it is the same sort of function.

One cannot be biased towards any particular policy, and certainly not biased towards any particular party represented in this House. Therefore, a secret ballot is apt. There was also a bill put forward and tabled in this House on the election of committee chairs by the same method, and I support that as well. I mean, if we are going to have a function of electing the Speaker by secret ballot, which has been our practice since the mid-1980s, then obviously the committee chairs, by extension, should have the same sort of thing.

(1125) History tells us that over the past while, we have not had a lot debate, but as my colleagues have pointed out, there has always been an election, with the exception of 2005, I think it was, when Speaker Milliken was acclaimed. We have had these elections, and they go on for a period of time. In the last election, when our current Speaker was elected, there were four candidates. It went on for quite some time, with the counting. The procedure by which we do it is if a candidate does not gather a simple majority of the votes, another vote takes place.

The person who finishes last, or who has the least number of votes, is dropped from the ballot. It is similar to the way parties elect leaders. Speaking of parties, that has been the function of electing the leader of a party for quite some time, where someone needs a majority vote to attain the leadership. In positions as important as that, a simple first-past-the-post system would not suffice. There has to be a situation where someone gets the majority of the votes, which is more than 50%. That is a responsible way of looking at it.

As a matter of fact, I do not mind going on the record to say that maybe that is something we should consider for democratic reform. As the critic for democratic reform, something I support is the preferential ballot idea. A lot of people ask what the preferential ballot is and how it works. The preferential ballot is something we have been using for years, but we have never used it in a preferential ballot way. Allow me to explain. We have always voted, and voted again if necessary, to achieve a simple majority, which is 50% plus one.

Doing it by preferential ballot, however, means that we are doing all of our voting up front. For example, in a typical party leadership election, if someone does not get more than half the vote, whoever gets the fewest votes is dropped from the list, and we vote again. Once that person is dropped, we vote once more, so back to the ballot box we go to cast our vote. If our candidate is still in the race, chances are that we will vote for that candidate again. If our candidate has been dropped because that person finished last, we now have to vote for someone else, or we may choose not to vote at all.

In most cases, obviously, we would vote again. On a preferential ballot, we rank the candidates. If we were asked who we wanted to be the leader of our party, we would say, “I want this person. She is my choice”. If that person is not elected, is not successful, and is eliminated from the ballot, who would we like to be the leader after that? Basically, we are saying that if our preferred candidate, or first choice, is eliminated, we would choose the person who is our second choice. Doing that saves a lot of time, because there is no going back to the ballot box, which takes quite some time.

Even in a national election, it takes 12 hours. What we are saying is that all of this being done up front would save us a lot of time. In many cases, one's vote would not change. Does it mean that we would have to go over our second, third, and fourth choices? We could simply indicate one choice if we wished, but if our candidate were eliminated, our vote would no longer count. That is exactly what we have here. I would like to congratulate the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for doing this. Some would say that it is a mild measure, but it is a measure that is necessary.

Preferential ballots are becoming very popular within the scope of parties, so why can it not be within the scope of this House? By amending the Standing Orders, we would be allowing preferential balloting to take place. I would like to say that we will be voting in support of this. Again, I thank the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for bringing it forward. (1130) [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the motion moved by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington seeks to amend Standing Order 4 regarding the election of the Speaker of the House of Commons. We in the NDP are always in favour of examining any parliamentary process that promotes democracy. That is why, like my colleagues, I support Bill C-489 going to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee will therefore be mandated to examine the possibility of instituting a single, preferential ballot for the election of the Speaker of the House.

I would like to go over the key elements of the proposed preferential ballot system. Members would receive a ballot paper that contains the full list, in alphabetical order, of the names of those members who are candidates for the position of Speaker. Rather than voting for a single candidate, members would vote for their preferred candidates, in order of preference. The Clerk would then count the number of first preferences recorded in the ballots, and if a candidate had received a majority of first preference votes, then that person would be declared elected.

If, after the first count, no candidate had received a majority of first preference votes, the Clerk would eliminate the candidate who received the least number of first preference votes from further counts. The Clerk would distribute the eliminated ballots based on the second choices, third choices, and so on. This process would continue until a candidate had obtained a majority of the votes. In the event of a tie, another vote would be held with a list of the remaining members.

At present, members vote several times in each round, and the members who received the fewest votes are eliminated, until one member receives a majority of the votes. Ultimately, both methods require that one member obtain the majority of votes in order to be elected Speaker of the House. However, the preferential ballot system has the advantage of being faster. The election in 2011 took six rounds for a candidate to get the majority of votes. I would remind the House that the Standing Orders require at least an hour to pass between ballots, and the process of balloting itself takes a certain amount of time.

As it stands, the election process takes quite some time. With this system, we would have only one round of voting, except to break a tie, which would make the process much more effective and efficient. However, I would like to qualify my support for the preferential balloting system. Each new federal election brings new MPs to the House of Commons. As a newly elected member in 2011, I can attest to the fact that we have to learn the rules and procedures of the House and become familiar with them very quickly. The preferential balloting system is very easy to understand; there is no doubt about that.

My concern is about the fact that new members do not know the candidates. To vote in order of preference, one has to know something about the candidates. The committee must take that into consideration. How can MPs rank candidates in order of preference if they do not know them very well? For virtually all of us, electing the Speaker at the beginning of each parliament is our first task as parliamentarians. This cannot be taken lightly. Another concern I have is about the impartiality of the Speaker of the House of Commons.

It is always helpful to revisit Parliament's democratic practices and assess which procedural methods are the most democratic. However, we need to ensure that the Speaker of the House of Commons remains impartial, which is why it is important that the committee carefully examine changes to the voting process. To conclude, I would like to point out that Bill C-489 would instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the possibility of adopting a preferential ballot to elect the Speaker and to table a report on the issue within six months of this motion being adopted.

(1135) The motion takes a similarly logical approach. It aims to make the process of electing a Speaker more efficient. That is why I am supporting it, and I look forward to reading the report by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Resuming debate? No. Accordingly, I invite the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for his right of reply. The hon. member has five minutes. The hon. member.

(1140) Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all members who participated in the debate. I am very grateful that we appear to have widespread consensus in the House on the virtue of going forward to look at this issue in committee. Following up on my colleague the parliamentary secretary's comments, I took a moment to do a little math. He pointed out that, on average, seven hours have been consumed in electing a Speaker in each of the Parliaments since the procedure was introduced back in the 1980s. I did a little math.

Seven hours times 308 members equals 2,156 hours. In case members are wondering, a person working 40 hours a week all year long, with no holidays, would work fewer hours than that, so essentially, it is an entire work year gone. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we returned to the worst-case scenario, 12 hours of balloting, in the next Parliament, when there will be 338 members, math dictates that we would spend 4,056 hours doing this, which is about two work years.

Not all of this time would be saved, but if we brought it down to the member's estimate, two hours, and I think that is about right, we would be saving the better part of a work year for a body of people who, I think, without engaging in undue self-praise, are engaged in important alternative activities carrying on the nation's legislative business. Last summer I had the chance to read Boswell's biography of Dr. Samuel Johnson. At one point in the book, he mentions that Dr. Johnson once observed that nothing concentrates the mind like the prospect of being hanged in a fortnight.

By the same token, there is nothing like a month of free time between the first and second hour of debate on a motion to give one a chance to refine one's thinking. Having had that month, I have had the opportunity, with the assistance of my staff, to continue our investigation into the various alternative methods used by different parliamentary bodies in the Commonwealth to elect their Speakers.

It has come to my attention that I had, in the first hour of debate, overlooked the fact that one of the most prestigious bodies in the entire Commonwealth, the House of Lords, in the United Kingdom, has, since 2005, had the practice of electing its Speaker by means of a preferential ballot. It is very similar to the system I am proposing here. The exception, the difference between its system and the system I am proposing, is that in our system, we would retain the practice of keeping the vote totals confidential. They would not be revealed to anyone, including the candidates.

That is, of course, our current practice. In the British system, the vote totals are revealed at each count. It turns out that not only are they revealed and made public but that there is actually a Wikipedia

article discussing them. There is a Wikipedia

article on everything. There is a Wikipedia

article on the Lord Speaker election in 2006. If we were to go to Wikipedia and look that up, we would get the vote totals at each part of the count. There is a separate

article on the Lord Speaker election in 2011. These are the two elections that have been conducted under this system. They reveal certain things that I think may be useful in guiding us as to how much of a change engaging in this electoral process would produce. One of the questions that arises is whether we would see radical shifts among the candidates between counts, as candidates are eliminated from the ballot. The answer to that question is, apparently, that we would not, at least based on this experience.

In the 2006 Lord Speaker election, which involved eight counts, as candidates were dropped from the ballot, no candidate shifted position. Baroness Hayman, who wound up winning, led on the first ballot and also on the eighth count. Lord Grenfell, who was in second place on the first count, was still in second place at the end of the process. The third candidate was still in the same position, and so on. The same thing happened in 2011. Therefore, we are not looking at a radical change in that respect.

However, in a different respect, it seems to me that we would see a change, I think, and one that is very positive. I notice, looking at the 2006 election, that Lord Grenfell, who was in second place, rose from having 103 votes on the first ballot to 236 on the second, which was more than a doubling,

whereas Baroness Hayman, who started off with 201, barely rose, going up to 263.

(1145) This is significant, because Lord Grenfell was an independent member of the House,

whereas Baroness Hayman was a member of the governing party. Looking at the 2011 election, we see that the leading candidate, the one who led on the first ballot and won on the end, Baroness D'Souza, was a cross-bencher—that is, not a member of either party, but what we would think of as an independent. This suggests to me that this process would likely produce the person among the candidates who is the least partisan and the most independent in their thinking, which I have to think is a profitable and beneficial change to what we have had in the past. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I declare the motion carried. (Motion agreed to)

Suspension of Sitting The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : There being several minutes left before noon, the House will suspend until noon, at which time we will carry on with the regular orders of the day. (The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:48 a.m.)

Sitting Resumed (The House resumed at 12 p.m.) Government Orders Government Orders (1200) [ English ] Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 The House resumed from April 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures , be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment. Bill C-31. Second reading Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to stand and bring the voices of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park, but I believe my remarks will also reflect the views of many Canadians across Canada.

I have heard nothing but complaints from members of my community about the fact that the government is once again bringing in an omnibus bill, cramming all kinds of measures into one very large so-called budget bill, making significant changes that would fundamentally affect the lives of Canadians, and then, for more than the 60th time in the House, restricting the time available for Canadians to look at the bill and for parliamentarians to effectively debate the contents of it. This bill is over 300 pages in length and seeks to legislate many distinct areas of the lives of Canadians.

It is not simply on the economy. I have to say that I am also very concerned about what it is not in the bill. There is nothing in this bill that would address the growing number of part-time jobs without benefits that are replacing good-paying, full-time, secure jobs that Canadians are losing and have lost, both during and since the recession. There is nothing for a generation of young people unable to find stable work and start their lives without massive amounts of student debt.

There is nothing to address the apparent use of EI funds to balance the budget, as opposed to giving the majority of unemployed Canadians access to benefits that would help them make the transition from one job to another without an economic calamity taking place in their lives. This is the case for far too many Canadians, and it is certainly affecting many in my community. This is also a government unwilling to protect our environment, even with international governing organizations, such as the UN, calling on Canada to be a leader in reducing climate change.

In fact, as parliamentarians and a growing number of Canadians well know, the government has used these omnibus budget bills to erode and attack environmental provisions that would protect our environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I want to speak about jobs. Good jobs have been lost under the current government, but year after year there is nothing to help Canadians get back to work. This bill fails to renew the NDP's tax credit for small businesses, a tax credit that we know creates jobs.

It would also nullify the existing agreements that identify which jobs are essential and which will effectively disrupt bargaining that is already under way. Over 1.3 million Canadians are still unemployed, and the government has chosen to waste its time legislating measures that were never mentioned in the budget speech rather than taking real action to help Canadians get back to work. The vast majority of jobs created by the government have been part time, including almost 70% of the jobs created in March alone.

As a result, Canadians who were able to recover employment after the recession often find themselves working two or three part-time jobs to try to make ends meet instead of working the one job they used to be able to work in order to support themselves and their families. It is no wonder that we are seeing growing levels of income and wealth inequality in this country. A report that came out just last week showed that the wealthiest 86 individuals in this country control the same amount of wealth as the poorest 11.4 million. If that is not inequality, I do not know what is.

This bill fails to address that growing inequality and, frankly, Canadians deserve much better. (1205) [ Translation ] I am pleased that the government has finally accepted the NDP's proposal to cap the amount that wireless carriers can charge other suppliers. However, this is too late for many Canadian start-ups. This delay has increased convergence in the wireless market. Consumers have few options, which results in price increases. [ English ] We hear this concern over extremely high rates for telecom services from Canadians across the country. I also want to raise the issue of FATCA.

This may be something the majority of Canadians do not know much about, but for Canadians who hold dual Canadian-American citizenship, the bill is very troubling. An entire bill about FATCA is enclosed in this omnibus budget bill. It would impose the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act amid questions in the United States about the constitutionality of the act. However, the government does not seem to care if FATCA would be found to be unconstitutional because it is not bound by the U.S. Constitution. It is one of the only governments happy to give out the private details of its citizens' financials.

In other words, Canadians' private banking information is to be made available to the U.S. for tax reasons to comply with—wait for it—American law. The bill would give the Minister of National Revenue the power to make any regulation necessary to carry out this highly controversial act. It is entirely inappropriate for the government to present this legislation by burying it in an omnibus bill with time allocation so that we do not get adequate time to study and debate this bill within a bill.

The government is just hoping Canadians will not notice, but I suggest that Canadians are taking notice and are very concerned about these tax changes. I also want to speak a bit about rail safety and transparency. The government does not seem to care about keeping legislation transparent, but it also seems cavalier about Canadians' safety. For example, the bill would allow the government to change and repeal a wide variety of railway safety regulations without even informing the public. Any cabinet decisions that change the safety requirements for the transport of dangerous good would now become secret.

This includes changes to the classification of dangerous goods, the training and qualifications of inspectors, and rules regarding the importation and transport of dangerous goods. The public would have no way of knowing the government has weakened safety measures because it does not have to be made public. The bill would even prevent experts from advising the minister before the changes would come into effect. So much for allowing big data to inform our government policies, as the hon. member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam promised yesterday.

As well, the bill demonstrates to Canadians that the government thinks that our parents and grandparents are a burden. It would make it more difficult for families to reunite in Canada, and new Canadians would have to live an extended period in Canada before receiving GIS or the OAS survivor's allowance. Not only would sponsors be financially responsible for new Canadians for a significantly longer period of time, but this measure would also clearly set a distinction between those Canadians who were born here and those who were not. [ Translation ] Employees in the private sector work hard,

whereas those in the public sector twiddle their thumbs. (1210) [ English ] Apparently wealthy single-income families deserve $3 billion in tax breaks while the other 86% of Canadians do not. New Democrats believe the government has a responsibility to all Canadians, no matter what their income, where they work, or where they were born. That is why, despite the cherry-picked New Democrat policies included in the bill, my hon. colleagues and I cannot support it.

We believe Canadians deserve better, and New Democrats are going to keep fighting every day to ensure Canadians get the better treatment they deserve, despite this government. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is related to what I and we in the Liberal Party believe is a critically important issue to all Canadians, and that is our health care system. As we know, at the end of March the health care accord expired. That was signed by Paul Martin back in 2004.

It was the way in which we ultimately ensured that the national government played a significant role in health care through all regions of our great country. Unfortunately, the budget and the government have failed in terms of being able to deliver a replacement for the health care accord, which raises a lot of concern about the commitment the Conservatives have toward a national health care program. I am wondering if the member might want to provide some comment on how important it was for the government to have found a replacement for the health care accord, which actually expired at the end of March. Ms.

Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, health care remains the top priority of Canadians. Especially with an aging population, Canadians want to ensure that our publicly funded, publicly delivered, regulated health care system remains in place and is not eroded and does not face death by a thousand cuts. Unfortunately, the government has not renewed the health accords with the provinces, and more than that, it will erode funding for health at a level of 6% less per year. That is going to create great hardship, and the provinces are going to have to manage that reduced amount of money they are receiving for health care.

That cannot have any other impact but to affect the health care services Canadians want and need. It is another great omission in this budget and this budget implementation bill that the Conservatives have not stepped up to the plate and provided security for health care funding that Canadians want. Hon. Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a correction. Canadians are not treated differently, as the member tries to suggest in her speech.

One of the areas we are working on with taxes is enhancing reporting and verification, trying to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. That is something I believe the NDP would want to support. To misrepresent any of our clauses in the budget by saying we are treating the American Canadians differently is incorrect, and I just want to put that on the record. Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, in fact that is exactly what is happening.

Those Canadians who hold dual Canadian-American citizenship are in fact going to have their bank records turned over to a foreign country, which is the United States of America, which is treating Canada as though we are a tax haven. New Democrats certainly want to go after legitimate tax havens where there are tens of billions of dollars being squirrelled away around the world. It was this party that fought for a study of tax havens at the finance committee, but it was the government that then subsequently laid off CRA staff who are the people who actually collect that money.

We would rather go after the real tax havens, the real tax evaders, than honest, hard-working Canadians who happen to hold Canadian-American dual citizenship.

(1215) Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on the issue of FATCA, there are probably hundreds of thousands of accidental American citizens who will also be found in this great schism of sending their data to the U.S. Those are the children who were born in Canada, who have never lived in the United States, who have never been a United States citizen, who the U.S. is now declaring are United States citizens as a result of their parents having been American. Those children would now be subject to having their banking information sent to the U.S. It would create a divide.

Two children born on the same day in the same hospital in Canada, one with American parents and one with Canadian parents, would be treated differently. Maybe the member would like to comment. Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of people who are just discovering that, in fact, they hold dual Canadian-American citizenship; and the member is quite right that even if they have never worked in the United States, the fact that they are American citizens because they hold dual citizenship scoops them into this net of FATCA.

My office has been deluged with calls from concerned citizens since this initiative by the U.S. was first announced. We do not believe that the government has effectively protected the interests of Canadians. Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak on one specific component of this bill, which is often not discussed in this place but is one that is really dear to my heart, which is the protection of intellectual property.

The protection of intellectual property has a strong correlation to how we see the commercialization of innovative products in this country, as well as the economic growth and prosperity of our country. I would like my hon. colleagues to pay attention to division 25 of this bill, which would make amendments relating to international treaties on trademarks. This is a discussion I had been following in my professional career prior to entering politics. Prior to entering politics, I did a lot of work dealing with intellectual property management and protection.

This particular issue has been consulted on by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. I give a shout-out to the staff there from the House of Commons. A lot of hard-working staff there deal with this issue on a daily basis. I believe there was a consultation conducted in the 2005-06 period, roughly, and then another one in 2010. Additionally, the industry committee on the House of Commons side conducted a study on intellectual property, I believe, last year. It has been interesting to follow this discussion and then see the changes reflected in this bill today. I want to speak in favour of them.

For those of my colleagues here who are not familiar with what a trademark is, the current definition, according to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, is: Trade-marks may be one or a combination of words, sounds or designs used to distinguish the goods or services of one person or organization from those of others in the marketplace. I am just going to talk a little bit about the rationale for division 25. The amendments contained therein would create the necessary authority to develop regulations that would implement the Madrid protocol.

The Madrid protocol offers trademark owners the ability to obtain protections for their trademark in a number of countries through a single international application. They would ensure consistency with the standards and rules established by the Singapore treaty on the law of trademarks. The Singapore treaty seeks to harmonize and streamline national trademark registration systems in ways that are user-friendly and reduce business compliance costs for trademark owners.

The amendments would adopt the Nice classification system that is used by most countries to categorize goods and services for the purposes of the registration of trademarks.

The Nice system facilitates searching for and comparing different marks, which promotes the efficient administration of the trademark system, and effects other consequential amendments arising from adherence to the Madrid protocol or the Singapore treaty, such as simplifying the requirements for obtaining a filing date, eliminating the need to declare the use of a trademark before registration, which would greatly reduce the time it takes to obtain registration, and requiring use of a trademark in the Canadian market in order to seek injunction relief from the courts. What does that mean in simple terms?

If individuals are owners of a trademark or have something they want to trademark, they have to make the decision on where they want to file for that protection. This applies to other forms of intellectual property protection as well, including patents. A lot of the time, people think that when they have a trademark, it means it is valid the world over, but that is not the case. They actually have to register it in separate jurisdictions. Usually, when people discuss whether or not they are going to do it in one jurisdiction or another, there are a few things that come into play.

Are they going to sell their product in that jurisdiction? Do they need to have that trademark there in order to enforce their ownership of that? They also have to consider the cost. When I was working in the university system, oftentimes when we had researchers come to us to ask whether or not they should seek patent protection, one of the things we had to look at was the cost of doing so.

There is the cost associated with registering intellectual property protections with the various countries, but often the big cost is related to legal fees, because the owners have to use the appropriate agent or lawyer to do that. In Canada, because we have not had adherence to these types of protocols—we are actually one of the few developed countries that has not signed on to some of them—some of our inventors and innovators are subject to more costs. I would like to read a note.

It was submitted to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office on February 2, 2010, in relation to the consultation I mentioned earlier, and it is specific to the Madrid protocol. It was submitted by somebody named Rupi Badwal.

(1220) It says as follows: I have been registering trade-marks in Canada for my clients, the majority of which are small to medium-sized businesses. Many of them have success in Canada and wish to enter other markets. In facilitating their trade-mark applications in Canada, I am often asked if I can register the mark in the US or Europe or Asia on their behalf. When I advise that we cannot do so without use of a local agent, the cost for which can be quite substantial, many of them decline.

Acceding to the Madrid Protocol would permit my clients the opportunity to obtain the protection they seek without paying inordinate legal fees. So first, I have to speak in support of the intellectual property profession in this country. In Canada, we have an enormous wealth of knowledge, people who act as patent agents both in house with legal firms and at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, et cetera. However, at the end of the day, we have to look at ways in which we can reduce barriers to entry into the marketplace for Canadian innovators.

The changes we would make to the Trade-marks Act in this bill would actually be quite significant, and I believe they would make it a lot easier for Canadian innovators to protect their intellectual property. I know this is something that is a bit technical, but it is something that I hope a lot of my colleagues will support because it is a common-sense, practical change that a lot of people have been predicting will come to pass in this country. It is nice to see this finally happen.

It is a great pleasure to be able to speak to it in the House, as someone with some domain expertise on this, because I do think it is a very good change. This change was also recommended by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in its June 2013 report.

I am looking at the government response to that, but one of the recommendations from that report was: ...that the Government of Canada (in order to support Canadian businesses on the global stage and ensure the administration of Canada's IP regime is internationally compatible and streamlined) ratify the following key international agreements: the Patent Law Treaty, the Madrid Protocol and Singapore Treaty for trademarks, and the Hague Agreement for Industrial Designs; ...that the Government of Canada work with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office to introduce regulations and legislations that will reduce the time it takes to grant IP rights and bring Canada in line with other countries.

Division 25 of this bill would do exactly what was recommended in this report. Looking at the list of speakers and folks who contributed to this study, we see that it crosses the range of people, from the IP profession, to people who work in law offices, to people who are in-house, to investigators themselves. I also looked at some of the other comments that came in during the original CIPO study.

A letter from Intel Corporation states, in part: The Madrid Protocol of 1995 (in conjunction with the 1891 Madrid Agreement) enables trademark owners to obtain a single International Registration that can extend protection to any country that has signed the Protocol by a single filing in one language, under one procedure, with the payment of one fee. The Protocol also allows for 10 year registrations and a single renewal filing. Outside of Canada, Intel often utilizes the Madrid Protocol for cost savings and efficiencies in its trademark prosecution.

Canada is the only developed country not yet a party to the Protocol. Its accession to the protocol would allow trademark owners to more easily and cost effectively secure and maintain trademark protection in Canada. If we talk to a lot of the innovative companies, many of which are small and medium-size enterprises in this country, we will see that this is a common theme. I have a strong passion for seeing innovation in Canada—certainly the work that Western Economic Diversification is doing, the ministry I am responsible for—and to see that innovation spur.

However, we need to have the appropriate intellectual property regime in this country—modern and standardized with other countries—to allow that intellectual property to be protected and translated into the marketplace and, more importantly, bring us into alignment with some of our key trading partners as we seek to look at other trade agreements. Therefore this is a very good response. While this might be something that is not top of mind for many of my colleagues, I hope they will familiarize themselves with this particular part of the bill.

Also, anytime we can talk about intellectual property protection in this place, it is a good thing. It is a signal to innovators and to small and medium-size enterprises that, when they take a risk and innovate and when they take a risk as a business and say they are going to spend time and resources on developing new products and new technologies, which are the drivers of long-term economic growth in this country, that the government gets it and that we have protection that is well in alignment. I am happy to take questions from my colleagues.

(1225) Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments. However, this piece of this budget implementation bill is actually 52 pages or more of fairly detailed, fairly complex material that, generally speaking, according to the parliamentary secretary, is good for Canada and good for Canadians and good for people who have trademarks. However, it is buried in a 350-page bill, which renders it almost impossible to have the kind of scrutiny and analysis that would be possible if this were introduced as its own bill.

We are now facing time allocation on this bill. We have another one and a half days of debate available to us, including debate on what may well be a very interesting piece of legislation were it to stand on its own. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have chosen to introduce it as part of something else, so it will not get the scrutiny it needs. Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague brought this up today. It is incumbent upon us as legislators to pay attention to a wide variety of topics that are important to our constituents.

That is why I talked about the long road to seeing this legislation come into place. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office has consulted on this twice. All of its responses are available online. It was also reviewed by the standing committee on industry. I did this on my own time. I used Google and found all of the responses from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office consultations. As well, I read through the committee report. Accordingly, I was able to come to this place and engage in a relevant discussion on a particular topic that is long overdue.

I am glad to see this legislation included in this bill and I hope to see it pass. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, to pick up on the debate here, I appreciate the hard work that the parliamentary secretary has done to inform herself about the changes to trademarks. As my NDP colleague said, they may well be positive changes, but that is the parliamentary secretary's job. She is the parliamentary secretary for an economic portfolio and her stakeholders would be interested in this. The point remains that an omnibus bill is not supposed to be for introducing new policy elements into law.

Until the current government came into power, the convention in this House was that changes that were substantive and of interest to a broad range of Canadians should be debated in their own bill, not slipped into an omnibus bill. This is a brand new area of policy. It has little to do with the budget. Hiding it in this bill is simply not appropriate and is anti-democratic. Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce myself to my critic. I am the minister for the portfolio.

Perhaps if she paid attention to that, she might ask some questions on western economic diversification in the House or engage with me on this topic. I was pleased to be appointed minister of state to this portfolio and I would welcome her comments on this as the critic, hopefully at some point during question period. The member also made the false assertion that this does not have anything to do with the budget. The protection of intellectual property is one of the key components of an innovative economy.

Having innovative intellectual property laws that are streamlined with other jurisdictions' in the world makes Canada a stronger place to do business and, therefore, a stronger economy.

(1230) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I agree that innovation is important and that it is extremely important that we address the innovation gap in Canada. This particular

section of an omnibus bill is not the right way to do it. Recently, I have been reading some of the commentary by one of Canada's better known innovators, Jim Balsillie, who has been talking about the fact that where we fall down globally in multi-factor productivity relates to our failure to protect our IPR rights globally. This

section of the omnibus budget bill would not get us to where we need to be. I agree with my hon. friend that any time we talk about this issue it is a good thing, but burying it in an omnibus bill is not the right place to do this. What we find with making trademark one word and having copyright protection around trademark is that it does not go nearly far enough to protect Canadian innovation and our companies going into a global marketplace. Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are talking about the length of this bill.

Again, I have to say that if we talk to those in the profession or the field, they will know that these changes are a long time coming. We have consulted on these to death. It is awesome that these changes are in these bills. However, I have to ask my colleagues why they do not take the time to look through the feedback in those long consultation processes. They stand here and slow vote or spend time on inane things when we could be talking about the good policy that is in here today. It is incumbent upon us as legislators to make the debate in this place relevant.

There is a lot of good stuff in this bill that is long overdue, including this section. It is a little rich to say that we cannot accept policy that has been consulted on for over the course of a decade because it is included in a budget bill. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the budget implementation bill, Bill C-31 , having just been part of a debate about major policy changes that were put into the bill.

One of the first points I want to make is that it is an abuse of parliamentary process to take complex areas of public policy and to propose policy change to them by slipping them into a budget bill like this. It is an abuse because the members on this side of the House are not able to find out the details of that

section of the bill, and because there are so many new and different policy changes that are not related. This is not an omnibus bill with housekeeping changes, but includes major policy changes, making it impossible in the short amount of time allocated for debate to cover all of the facets of the bill adequately. It is one more anti-democratic omnibus bill that really undermines Parliament's role to properly discuss and give input, and then have a proper opportunity at committee to look at a substantive and complex public policy issue.

This is because there are literally 500 separate clauses, more than 40 different pieces of legislation involved, and 359 pages in the bill. Omnibus bills are a hallmark of the Conservative government's disdain for Parliament and its function and the hallmark of its disdain for the Canadian public and its stakeholders, who deserve better. There are some implications of the bill overall that I would like to touch on and then some specific measures that I will be discussing. First, the bill overall misses the mark for Canadians.

It is essentially designed to provide some speaking points in the next election that would be advantageous to one party, the Conservative Party. It fails to address the major concerns of Canadians. It fails to address the fact that our economy is just limping along, and the measures that the government has taken have been so driven toward partisan advantage and not to the benefit of Canadians that it has failed really to put our economy back on track.

I am from the riding of Vancouver Quadra , and in Vancouver the business community is surprised and disappointed by the dismal level of capital investment for B.C. projected for the coming year. This budget is not helping British Columbia. I will quote the Business Council of B.C. executive vice-president, Jock Finlayson, in his March blog post: We were surprised at the weak overall investment outlook for British Columbia. Total capital spending in the province...is set to come in essentially flat this year, compared to 2013.... His remarks were based on a Statistics Canada report in February.

This budget fails to address the high unemployment rate for young people, far higher than it was when the government took office. It fails to address the fact that middle-class Canadians are staggering under record high debt loads compared with their incomes, which creates a great deal of concern about their ability to put their kids through school and just manage their day-to-day finances, and of course it creates concerns about retirement security, which is not being addressed in any substantive way by the government, contrary to what the provinces have been asking it to do.

Last, one aspect of the budget that we Liberals are extremely concerned about is that it is essentially cutting almost 90% of the new infrastructure spending over the next two years. This is very important funding for the communities, for jobs, and for the economy.

(1235) Vancouver Quadra has the Broadway Corridor, the second largest economic zone in greater Vancouver. According to a KPMG report, the development of that economy and investment in high tech, health sciences, and all of the businesses and activities along the Broadway Corridor are being impeded by poor connectivity, including poor transportation. We need rapid transit along that corridor. It would benefit our economy, but is the kind of project that would be pushed far into the future by this budget because of its cuts to the government's current infrastructure spending.

The Conservatives' new building Canada fund had $1.63 billion for this year, which has just passed, but goes down to $210 million for the year we are now in. That is a massive reduction. However, it will be only $200 million in the following year, and it will be years before it is back at the level it was at last year. This undermines for years to come the plans and economic prospects that depend on infrastructure. This is an aspect of the bill that is taking partisan advantage over the economic realities and investments required by Canadians today.

Second, I would like to talk about the part of the bill where the Department of National Defence loses $3.1 billion. This is a claw-back of funding that had been announced before, and it is on top of a lot of other claw-backs. There will be over $7 billion clawed back from DND's budget. The Department of National Defence is a very important to the economy of Canada. Not only does Canada need an effective, prepared, and respected military, but it also needs a military that is ready to serve the sovereignty and defence requirements of our country, as may be outlined by the leadership of the country.

The National Defence budget is a huge economic driver of jobs, contracts, exports, equipment, and technological innovation. The Conservative government raised expectation with its Canada first defence strategy funding promises, which I now call the Conservatives' failed defence strategy because of how those promises have been broken. In fact, to date approximately $30 billion has been clawed back or cut from the level of funding promised by the Conservatives' failed defence strategy, according to defence analyst Dave Perry.

This has led to equipment delays, making equipment far more costly down the line when it does arrive, and it has meant that our men and women in uniform are using obsolete equipment that poses safety risks. It has also meant that there has not been proper funding for the kind of support that wounded soldiers desperately need. I was shocked to find through an access to information request that the director of mental health for the Canadian Forces, Colonel Scott McLeod, a year ago begged to be able to hire uniformed registered psychologists in the armed forces because they were so desperately needed.

He said that “...there is strong indication that the addition of a uniformed clinical psychology capability would greatly enhance the mental health care of CAF members...”. He said these positions were crucial to the effectiveness of care for ill and injured soldiers. However, the minister ignored that request. To date, not a single uniformed clinical psychologist has been hired by the Canadian Armed Forces. We know that the care is not adequate. It has been reported by the ombudsman and soldiers themselves for a number of years, and it is having tragic consequences.

So why are there these cuts and the government making these kinds of uncompassionate decisions that are landing on soldiers who have risked their lives for our country? It is completely unacceptable. In part of 1 of the bill there is a tax credit for search and rescue. We support the tax credit, but we wonder why it is not refundable so that those who are doing search and rescue—which is a very important service to their community—and who are not in a position to pay taxes will get no benefit from this tax credit.

(1240) Veterans put their lives on the line. In

part 6, division 1, there is nothing in the budget to suggest that the government will withdraw its opposition to the Equitas court case. A number of wounded solders are having to go to court to get the support they need, such as increased lump sum payments for injuries, and a proper pension, which veterans have always been provided with in the past in Canada. They deserve better, and they deserve to be cared for. That is part of the sacred compact that the current government is fighting to undermine through its lawyer in the Equitas lawsuit. I would like to talk about other elements, FATCA.

Vancouver Quadra residents are very concerned about the impact of this— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development . Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague give her comments on the budget, and I would like her to reflect upon some of the history.

She talked about business, so she would know that business rises and falls through a business cycle, and she would know that employment and unemployment happen along with that business cycle. I wonder if she would tell this House why it was that when it was so desperately needed for keeping the money in the unemployment fund, the Liberals raided that fund and took $52 billion and never put that money back. Would she tell the House what her employers say about that? Ms. Joyce Murray : Mr.

Speaker, it is a little disappointing that members from the Conservative Party continue to go back decades rather than actually defending their actions over the last eight years. This government has been in power for eight years. It has been raising taxes on small business by increasing EI premiums year after year, at a time when businesses simply could not afford that due to a recession. I would also remind the member that in eight years this government has brought in seven consecutive deficit budgets.

The only reason it was not eight is because the government cruised in on a $13-billion surplus that was left to it by the previous Liberal government which had ten consecutive surplus budgets.

(1245) Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on the rationale that was used by the minister of state just now. I think that in a sort of free of context way, it makes sense to say that all of the consultations that went in to the intellectual property

section help to validate why they should move forward as legislation, although not necessarily in the middle of a huge omnibus bill. The question for my colleague is that if we use that standard, how much of the rest of this omnibus bill would be on solid ground? I am thinking of the FATCA provisions. It seems very clear there has been absolutely no consultation with Canadians who are both American and Canadian citizens.

I also wonder whether or not the minister of state might want to talk to her colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform , to suggest that standard of consultation might well have prevented him from getting into trouble, as he is now on Bill C-23 . Ms. Joyce Murray : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. The bill's response to FATCA raises obvious concerns about privacy and sovereignty. There was not the kind of consultations that could have avoided those concerns. This is an element in Bill C-31 that attempts to shield Canadian banks from U.S. financial penalties.

It protects Canadian banking information at the expense of those citizens of Canada who find themselves being targeted by FATCA and who are outraged that they would be required to have their banking information shared with the United States. I think the overall point that my colleague was making is that this government is very well known for its absence of consultation. I am very happy to hear that the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification has consulted widely on a complex issue. That is exactly why it should be in its own bill and not wrapped up in this anti-democratic omnibus budget bill. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague would comment with regard to infrastructure dollars. This year there is a substantial decrease. I would ask her to comment on that, and the impact. Ms. Joyce Murray : Mr. Speaker, indeed, it has been an absolute knockout punch to the municipalities and provinces that were counting on the federal partnership in their infrastructure investments, a partnership that has existed for decades. It is nothing new for the federal government to invest in infrastructure.

In fact, the federal government used to partner with the municipalities and provinces, on the basis of one-third each. The Conservative government has decided to whack off that infrastructure funding by 87%, bringing it down to a total for the next two years of $210 million a year. To put it into perspective, on one project alone, the Canada Line in Vancouver, the previous Liberal government offered $500 million for that one project. That shows the scale of the tiny infrastructure funding that the Conservative government will put forward over the coming years. It will take years to ramp up to where it should be.

Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be speaking today in support of the Conservative government's budget 2014, also known as economic action plan 2014. When some people think of budgets, they think of numbers and figures and their eyes glaze over. They think that they might have little impact on people's lives. However, I would like to point out today why this particular budget is extremely important for all Canadians, and that it has special significance for people from my constituency of Calgary Centre.

Budget 2014 responds to the number one ask of the people from Calgary Centre, and that is to balance the budget. Economic action plan 2014 not only provides a firm foundation for us to balance the books next year, but it will enable Canada to show a $6.4 billion surplus in 2015-16. This will be a promise delivered. It is a phenomenal accomplishment, when we consider that it has just been eight years since Canada and the rest of the world was in a global recession, the worst recession to hit in 75 years. People in Calgary Centre and across Canada applaud that leadership, the leadership of our Prime Minister .

They know that it did not happen by accident. In fact, the flippant quip by the Liberal leader that the budget will balance itself is a tragic example of his misunderstanding of economics. Unfortunately, it is in keeping with the naive and laughable statements that he is becoming well known for. However, this is not Canada's funniest home videos, and this is not leadership. The Liberal leader 's response to this budget is concrete evidence that the Liberal leader actually is in well over his head. Canadians need to know that.

I am sure that all Conservatives, as well as the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc members, know it, because we see it in this House every single day. This is not just political opponents saying it. Aaron Wherry, of Maclean's , even wrote about the Liberal leader , in a moment of understatement, I think, that “he is not the steadiest performer when in scrums or in the House”.

Warren Kinsella, a Liberal outsider, said of the member for Papineau , that he has a number of other problems, including lack of policy positions, a background that is weak, a very poor speaking delivery, and an impression that he is younger and less prepared than he should be. Why do I bring this up? It is because this document that we are discussing today is where the rubber meets the road. In the budget, this is where Canadians need top-notch performance, and this is where we have received it from our Conservative Prime Minister .

Canadians know that we are not sitting with one of the best economies in the world by accident. They know it was the leadership of this Prime Minister that brought us through the 2008 recession, the worst recession since the 1930s. Being from the Prairies, all of us know about the dirty thirties. After the dirty thirties, the rest of Canada helped the Prairies to recover, and now we owe it to them to help them achieve the same kind of prosperity that Alberta and Saskatchewan have today.

The west and Newfoundland are doing that now, with sustainable energy plays, with our government's strong oversight, support, and encouragement in helping Canada to recover from this recession. Last week, at the parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources, we heard Dr. Jayson Myers, president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. He said, “The oil sands probably saved about 100,000 jobs between 2008 and going into 2009, 2010 in the recession”. Our government is committed to the success of Canada as a nation, as well as to the economic growth of individual provinces.

Energy is Canada's natural competitive advantage: make no mistake about that. Every province and territory in Canada is benefiting from energy development. We all want the provinces to be able to share in that even more, by using their natural competitive advantages to ensure Canadian success from coast to coast to coast. The members from the Liberal Party and the NDP were there when Mel Norton, who is the mayor of Saint John, New Brunswick, testified at the same committee meeting. He said: We want to be a “have” place.

We see what it has done in Saskatchewan, what it has done in Alberta, in Newfoundland, in British Columbia. We see so many provinces that are “have” places. I am going to repeat that New Brunswick wants to be a “have” place.

(1250) As the many new monitoring measures our government has put in place in the budget show, we are striving every day to develop our resources more sustainably, while taking care of our environment. Canadians know that the Prime Minister is an excellent fiscal manager. They are coming to understand that under the Conservatives, energy and the environment can be nurtured and developed together.

However, what will not work are the ideas of the no-development party, the NDP, or the Greens, or the mushy, mercurial, half-pregnant Liberals, who say that they might want oil sands development but are against pipelines and west coast tanker traffic. We will need all of these avenues if we want to compete with the U.S. Make no mistake, in the U.S., it is full steam ahead in oil and gas development. With our economic leadership, hand in hand with the environmental improvements in the budget, we are moving Canada forward. That should be no surprise.

I would like to use my remaining time to talk about the things people may not have heard about, the softer side of the budget, the human side of this enterprise. While the energy sector is helping Canada pay its bills and fund important programs, such as education, pensions, and health care, last summer, the tables were turned. Alberta was hit with the worst natural disaster in Canadian history when two rivers that meet in downtown Calgary both had 100-year-record flows at the same time. The flooding last June shut down the downtown for 10 days. It caused $5 billion in damages.

It destroyed thousands of homes and lives. Calgary is still dealing with the aftermath of the flood. To this day, there are people without homes. Many do not have the resources to rebuild their lives. In recent weeks, we advanced $500 million to the Alberta government for this purpose. We want to help these people in their efforts to restore their lives. We still have neighbourhoods that have a third or half the houses abandoned. People are living in hollowed out basements and do not have the funds to rebuild. We have not stood by silently.

The federal government announced, a record eight days after the flood, that it would cover 90% of Alberta's flood damage. It has already committed $2.8 billion to help. We urge the Alberta government to see these payments to Albertans expedited so that people can rebuild their basements and their lives. In the last year, I have heard some people say that the federal government takes their city for granted, that it takes Calgary and Alberta for granted. Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts support this.

We have invested $3.3 billion in Alberta infrastructure, up from only $675 million under the Liberals. Our average infrastructure investment in Alberta is $412 million per year. That compares to $52 million per year under the Liberals. This is an average 700% annual increase for infrastructure funding to Alberta to help deal with its growing population. We have invested in projects including improving Calgary Transit, finishing the Calgary ring road, and building the Telus World of Science.

Since I have been an MP, I have had the opportunity to announce funding for 27 summer festivals, such as Sled Island, GlobalFest, and Latino fest, and $500,000 in funding for the EPCOR Centre for the Performing Arts. There are funds for a myriad of theatre groups, such as One Yellow Rabbit and the edgy women's Calgary Spoken Word Festival, which I attended last weekend. We provided $250,000 for the spectacular new Bella Concert Hall at Mount Royal University, $25 million for the National Music Centre in the East Village, and much more.

We have righted an old historic wrong perpetuated by the Liberals under Prime Minister Chrétien when he signed a deal with Alberta in 2004 giving our province less money per capita for health care than all other provinces in the country. The Conservatives have fixed that in the budget with a one-time, 38% increase in health care, $1 billion, from Ottawa to Alberta.

As the western regional minister stated in a speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce last week, this money provides Alberta only with fair and equal treatment, fairness the province is getting from our government, fairness that was sadly lacking from the former Liberal government.

(1255) The Alberta government was able to balance the budget this year, in large part thanks to those transfers. Strengthening and supporting our provinces is happening not only in Alberta. I focused on Alberta because it is my province, but these are stories that are not often told in the media. It is similar across the country. Across the country, people's lives are better and richer because of this budget. Albertans' lives are better, New Brunswickers lives are better, and British Columbians' lives are better, and we will balance the budget in 2015.

That is what leadership looks like. (1300) [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I agree with what my colleague from Calgary Centre said in the introduction to her speech about the importance of stopping and studying the budget numbers, which may sometimes seem boring, because the budget has an impact on everyone's day-to-day life. First, if we must take the time to undertake a study as important as the study of the budget, can my colleague tell us why the government is imposing a time allocation motion?

Second, why has the government included in this budget bill dozens of amendments to laws that having nothing to do with the budget itself and that will gobble up the time we have to do an in-depth study of this budget? [ English ] Ms. Joan Crockatt : Mr. Speaker, I am always amused when I hear questions like this from New Democrats. The New Democratic Party, essentially, is a protest party. Its job is to protest everything. It is the no-development party, the NDP. We know this. What Canadians want is action. This is economic action plan 2014.

We have had ample time to discuss this, but we want to get money into Canadians' hands and get this budget working. For example, there is $100 million in interest-free loans that would go to apprentices so that they could take advantage of the job opportunities in Canada. That is what action looks like, and the NDP should be on board. Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech, she praised Alberta's transfers and its ability to balance the budget. How come the government has not done that yet? Ms. Joan Crockatt : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the Liberal member for that interesting question, because one of the long-standing problems I talked about was the fact that the Liberal government in 2004 showed an extreme example of discrimination against Alberta in the health agreement it signed with Alberta, giving Alberta less money per capita than every other province in Canada. It was 20% less than for any other province in Canada for health care. I am not in charge of the Alberta government, obviously, but we here in Ottawa are working very hard to make sure that Alberta is treated fairly, and that is what this budget would do. Ms.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I was dismayed that the hon. member for Calgary Centre used so much of her speech on Bill C-31 to attack opposition parties politically instead of talking about the substance of an omnibus bill that actually has very little to do with what she also discussed, which was the budget. She says that budgets make people's eyes glaze over because of all the numbers, figures, and columns. I would like her to answer, if she can, why it is that under this administration the document referred to as a budget actually no longer includes a budget.

There is no statement of total assets. There is no statement of revenue. There is no statement of expenses, and there is no bottom line. There is no separate breakout, department by department, as in all previous budgets, under all previous governments, that I have read over the last 30 years. I wonder why the budget is no longer a budget but rather is a very thick brochure. Ms. Joan Crockatt : Mr. Speaker, as a journalist, I have covered probably 15 budgets, at least. Budgets come in many shapes and sizes. We all know that. This very much is an economic action plan that lays out the budget for the next year.

I am going to bring out a few numbers that I think the member opposite might want to focus on when she talks about this budget so that people understand what is being done for the environment, because we seem to always hear what is not being done. Since 2006, this government has added more than 160,000 square kilometres to our national parks and marine conservation system. That is more than the size of Greece. That has been added since the Conservatives came to office. An amount of $391 million over five years has been provided on a cash basis to Parks Canada.

There is $15 million over two years to extend the recreational fisheries and conservation partnership programs and $10 million over two years to improve and expand recreational trails across the country. These are some of the numbers. I invite the member opposite to look through the budget, because she will find them there.

(1305) Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want this to be a debate, but I think if the member checks, there is a 10% cut in Parks Canada's budget. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I guess it would be considered in the category of a dispute over the facts that may have been presented in the House but probably would not meet the pure definition of a point of order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nickel Belt . Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, before I start, I just want to tell the House that this is not a protest speech, even though I am a member of the NDP. If the member for Calgary Centre wants to see a protest, she should go outside on the front lawn. That is a protest. [ Translation ] I am happy to rise to speak to the latest federal budget. There are few subjects as important to an MP as a government budget. After all, the budget is the document that best expresses the government's true priorities and ideology. Like all budgets, this one is about choices.

In this budget, the government makes it clear that its one and only priority is getting re-elected next year instead of delivering now on the urgent needs of Canadians. [ English ] Tim Harper of the Toronto Star put it best. With the Olympics still on, he said that the Conservatives would get a gold medal for illusion in this budget. It is a David Copperfield budget, magically making the government appear to care and appear to act on decisive national issues. In 2015, the NDP will make the Conservative government disappear for real. We plan to make the Senate disappear as well.

A New Democratic government will put an end to the many scandals the Conservative government has been caught up in, including Bev Oda, Mike Duffy, Nigel Wright, Patrick Brazeau, Pamela Wallin, and the MP for Peterborough . The list goes on and on. Until that time, we have budget implementation acts like this to talk about. The proof of the gold medal for illusion is in the fine print, when we do the math and realize the fact the Conservative government has punted incredibly important decisions to 2015, the election year.

One would think it would be smart for a government to go to the voters next year with a real record of accomplishment rather than with a list of promises of what it intends to do. One would think that a government would go to the voters with real accounting on balanced books and not with this shell game, with figures on when it will actually balance the books. This is another omnibus budget bill designed to ram through hundreds of changes with little study or oversight.

Worst of all, there is nothing in the budget to get the almost 300,000 more unemployed Canadians than before the recession back to work or to help replace the 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost under the Conservative government. There are some good measures in this bill to recognize. They are the ones the NDP promoted. The bill would reverse the government's move to make Canadians pay taxes on parking at hospitals while visiting their loved ones. Boy, did my office hear from folks on this cash grab.

The bill would adopt our party's call to cap wireless roaming fees. [ Translation ] During my time today, I will refer to my own national caucus's responsibilities in the mining sector and to my campaign for a national dementia strategy to demonstrate what an illusion this budget is. I also want to talk about how this budget fails the people of Nickel Belt. First, though, I would like to say a word about the extreme politics of this budget.

In all my years as an elected official, first on the Rayside-Balfour municipal council and, as of 2008, in Parliament, I have always believed that the work of public elected officials is about one thing and one thing only: serving the public good and constituents. Still, since a budget is about choices, let us look at the choices this government has made.

New Democrats know that there would be money in the federal coffers if we put an end to government's spending scandals, absurd advertising extravaganza and tax breaks for its rich corporate friends. (1310) [ English ] I was happy at first to see recognition for the dementia health care crisis looming in Canada. The budget quotes the Minister of Health 's comments at the U.K. G8 summit last December. By 2031, in just one more generation, the number of Canadians suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia disease will double to 1.4 million.

The bill for Canada then will be at $300 billion, so we might conclude that the government is recognizing the problem and might also act on a solution. The Conservatives try to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes by noting they will now flow the research money that had already been announced last year. [ Translation ] Then, there appears to be a bit of a shell game on brain research money, which begs the question of whether this is new money or money moved from another envelope. I know that the research is important and that funding for it is a good thing.

However, Canada is lagging behind its major economic partners in not having a national dementia strategy. The bill that I introduced in this Parliament would implement a national plan involving research, early diagnosis, training for caregivers, help for beleaguered caregivers, and leadership from Ottawa in partnership with the provinces, territories and municipalities. Dozens of petitions calling for a national plan are being tabled in the House. Some 200 municipalities have passed resolutions in support of Bill C-356 and the development of a national strategy.

Those cities are on the ground, where the crisis is evident. Sadly, this budget could not even find the modest $3 million dollars requested by the Alzheimer Society of Canada to launch a national plan. However, the Conservatives put a nice box in the budget report with a quote from the minister and are playing the reannounce funding game to make it appear as though they are doing something. This government is doing nothing when it comes to the dementia tsunami in Canada. I am the chair of a 20-MP NDP mining caucus, the only such caucus in any party here.

We knew that, in these tough economic times, the junior mining companies would be happy to see the flow-through share credit extended. That is a good move we can applaud from here. Capital and other financing challenges can block important projects in the boom and bust cycle of mining. However, like many of my colleagues from Ontario and northern Canada, I had great hopes that the government would take action on the mega Ring of Fire project in the James Bay lowlands.

However, once again, this government is all illusion and neglect, blaming Ontario or economic conditions for its failed leadership on this issue, after briefly announcing last spring the appointment of the President of the Treasury Board as the minister responsible for the Ring of Fire. That minister promised to reopen talks on the Ring of Fire. He was the new quarterback in town. Well, the quarterback got sacked and the Ring of Fire went nowhere under his leadership.

A few weeks ago, I led an NDP delegation of six MPs to the Ring of Fire, where we visited both the Matawa Tribal Council in Thunder Bay and Eabametoong First Nation, as well as the mining companies exploring at Koper Lake. Despite the disappointing news that Cliffs was suspending operations, there appears to be progress in both Noront and KWG mining camps, continuing evidence of the wealth in the ground, and the support of first nations communities if genuine partnerships are established. Ring of Fire would be much further ahead if the NDP's sustainable development policy had been adopted.

Our policy addresses current and future concerns with regard to the economy, the environment, first nations and social responsibility. The Governments of Ontario and Canada should have been working together and leading the way. In this budget we needed to hear about infrastructure and roads, and measures to help the local communities deal with enormous challenges in health, social services, water, and education. This budget makes it perfectly clear that any concern this government has for the north and our communities is just an illusion. The budget makes no mention of the Ring of Fire.

This government has continued an alarming trend initiated by the previous Liberal government to cut government offices and services in the north.

(1315) [ English ] Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP as well as the Liberal Party who have spoken previously to the bill today have talked about FATCA. FATCA would be unilaterally and automatically imposed on Canadian financial institutions and their clients as of July 1, 2014. Because of the provisions in this bill, Canada has seen significant exemptions and relief, including certain accounts that are exempt from FATCA. Financial institutions in Canada will not report any information directly to the IRS versus the CRA.

There are several exemptions. This is done through international negotiations. My question to my colleague opposite is this. Given that this would be imposed on us by a foreign government as of July 1, what would he do differently that is not in this bill? Mr. Claude Gravelle : Mr. Speaker, we would first like to help pensioners with their CPP. We would certainly like to help first nations by supplying them with fresh water, for one thing. I would have liked to see something done for the seniors under health care, especially for dementia.

As I said in my speech, it is like a tsunami is coming on the health care side of the Canada health accord. It will cost us $300 billion over the next few years, so unless we start to do something now, and this budget would have been a good time to do it, it will be too late. Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Nickel Belt for his wonderful speech. I want to come back a bit to the comments by the member for Calgary Centre .

She talked about the billions of dollars that the government has afforded to Alberta for its storm relief, yet Toronto was told there would be no help for its storm of the century. The government is playing favourites in terms of who it will help. Thousands of residents of my riding had hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage as a result of two significant weather events, both of which we believe are as a result of the climate changes taking place. The government is not paying attention to the climate change issues of this century. Could the member please comment? Mr. Claude Gravelle : Mr.

Speaker, the current government has never really helped all of the provinces equally. It picks spots where it will help certain people, especially if the help will bring Conservative votes. For example, the new undemocratic elections act targets seniors, students, and first nations, the people who do not generally vote for the Conservatives. That is the kind of undemocratic government we have. Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, could my colleague from Nickel Belt comment on some of the statements made today by the government about the $3,400 in tax relief to Canadians under the stewardship of the current government? We hear about it in question period all the time, and I am not convinced. The other fact it neglects to share with Canadians is that every Canadian now shoulders an additional $20,000 in accrued debt. Since the current government has taken power, every Canadian is responsible for another $20,000 in accrued debt, an amount that is added to the national debt.

If there are tax savings, does my colleague see that they are at the expense of our children and our children's children as a result of putting this additional amount of money onto the accrued national debt? I would like his comments on that point.

(1320) Mr. Claude Gravelle : Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and the member is right. It is our kids and our grandchildren who are going to pay later. However, there are some tax cuts in this budget. He is right again. The big banks and the big profitable corporations that do not need any help get tax cuts from these governments, but ordinary hard-working Canadians have to pay more and more every day that the current government is in power. Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and pleased to take

part in this debate on Bill C-31 . Almost three years ago, the people of Mississauga East—Cooksville provided me with the privilege of representing them here in our nation's Parliament. We have heard something very loud and clear. Canadians gave our government a mandate to provide a strong economic environment, keep taxes low, and help make our streets and communities safe. As we are in the second half of our mandate, I am very proud of our Conservative federal government and our commitment to promoting those fundamental values.

Canada has the strongest job creation record among all G7 countries, with more than one million new jobs created since the depth of the global recession. Canada has become an example for other nations and the envy of other nations. This is why our economic action plan 2014 continues to focus on creating more jobs and supporting the local economy in Mississauga and across our great country. Economic action plan 2014 keeps Canada on track to a balanced budget in 2015.

Canadians can be pleased that this budget contains no new taxes on families and businesses while also continuing to ensure that government spending is as efficient and effective as possible. We are continuing to deliver support for small business employers and keeping taxes at a 50-year low for the hard-working families across our great country. Unlike the previous Liberal government, which balanced budgets on the backs of provinces, our Conservative government has continued to grow provincial transfers to record levels.

For Ontario, my home province, the federal budget confirms transfers will total $19.2 billion in 2014-15, a 76% increase from the previous Liberal government. These funds were instrumental in building large infrastructure projects, upgrading facilities, and ensuring that regions across the country are receiving the necessary investment in their communities. Locally in Mississauga, we are seeing job growth and infrastructure investment in our community, thanks to our government's focus on reducing red tape while increasing investment in skills and training.

For example, economic action plan 2014 would help our skilled trades apprentices registered in eligible trades, who would be eligible for loans that would be interest free until their training ends. I would like to thank the hard-working people in our community who run small businesses. As we all know, small businesses are the great engine of our economy. Despite the economic challenges, these business owners are committed to providing jobs and spurring our economy.

I am proud of the federal commitment to economic growth through supporting local infrastructure priorities in Mississauga through programs such as the federal gas tax fund. The City of Mississauga has received almost $126 million of federal funding through the gas tax fund since 2006. I will add that the Region of Peel gas tax fund is nearly $213 million since 2006. Just over $3.8 billion, or almost $4 billion, in federal gas tax funding will flow to Ontario municipalities between the years of 2014 to 2019.

This is a long-term, predictable, and environmentally stable source of funding that has helped with major projects, including Mississauga's accessible transit fleet and the transit campus.

(1325) The cost of raising a family adds up quickly, and our Conservative government understands these challenges. It is tax return season, and in the past number of weeks I have hosted income tax clinics in my riding, and there is one coming up next week. This is where people come to have their taxes filed by professionals at no cost to them. Those who participated in our tax clinics know that, thanks to this government, their taxes are lower. The average family of four now saves nearly $3,400 per year in tax savings. We are not stopping there when it comes to helping families.

This budget would expand on the list of expenses eligible for the medical expense tax credit to include the cost of the design of individualized therapy plans and costs associated with service animals for people with severe diabetes. Economic action plan 2014 would expand the GST-HST exemptions for training that are specifically designed to assist individuals with a disorder or disability to include the service of designing such training.

It would also expand on the GST-HST exemption for services rendered to individuals by certain health care practitioners to include professional services rendered by acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors. We would put in place the allowance of the Minister of National Revenue to automatically determine if an individual is eligible to receive a GST-HST tax credit, which would eliminate the need for individuals to apply for it. We will continue to protect Canadian families by supporting victims of crime and punishing criminals.

I am very proud to say that our Prime Minister was in my community of Mississauga just last Thursday when he introduced Canada's first ever victims bill of rights. We are also putting Canada first by providing further support to help meet the needs of our veterans. This is important for those who bravely serve our nation, to provide support not only while they wear a uniform but also in their transition to civilian life.

The consolidated veterans hiring act would build on previous government commitments as well as new ones outlined in the economic action plan 2014 to help veterans find meaningful employment after their time in uniform is complete. In recognition of their service to Canada, Canadian Armed Forces personnel and honourably released veterans would be given more access to federal public service job opportunities. In conclusion, our government's economic action plan 2014 is excellent news for people and families in my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville and throughout our country.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Finance , on his new role. I am confident that he will display excellent leadership by ensuring we stay on track and not waiver from balancing our budget and keep Canada on course for long-term economic prosperity. We will continue to stimulate our local economies by providing support for small businesses and we will assist Canadians to get the training they need to meet the labour market demands. We are helping and supporting families by providing a series of tax incentives.

We will always put Canada first, celebrating and defending our country and working to keep Canadians safe in their communities.

(1330) [ Translation ] Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that the bill contains so many elements that have nothing to do with the budget. There is one element that affects my constituents and me, which is rail safety. There will be even less transparency under this bill, and cabinet will be able to make major regulatory decisions without disclosing any information. In February, the member for Brossard—La Prairie came to my riding and we held a consultation on this subject with more than 100 people.

The train goes through residential neighbourhoods in my riding. People were critical of the lack of transparency, but this bill makes it seem as though the government is trying to make the situation worse. I would like to know how safety issues are relevant in a budget implementation bill. Furthermore, does the member agree that there will be less transparency on such an important issue? [ English ] Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon : Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what the member is referring to when he mentions a lack of transparency. Our government has been working hard ensuring rail safety.

Yes, in recent years, we have had very unfortunate incidents involving rail cars and trains carrying goods from point a to point b . Our government has been working hard, ensuring that the regulations are in place and that people who live along railway lines are safe and that their communities are safe, always. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have looked through Bill C-31 extensively, and a number of things my friend commented on are not in this bill. They are in other bills, such as the victims bill of rights. This bill does not have anything about keeping communities safer.

However it does, I think, have issues of interest to his constituents and anyone with any tangential connection to the United States. I know that some members today have referred to people who are dual citizens. I can assure members there are many Canadians who are not dual citizens, but the ambit of the FATCA would require Canadian banks to turn over private information about people who have no idea that they could be considered to have any connection whatsoever to the United States, for tax purposes. This bill, according to many constitutional law experts, would violate the charter.

It is unprecedented, in terms of assuming that a foreign power could have access to information about Canadian citizens. I would ask my hon. friend if he does not think it would be preferable to pull the FATCA sections out of this omnibus bill and subject them to a court review to ensure they are charter compliant? Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon : Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the issue she is raising. As members know, our government reached an agreement with our neighbour, the United States of America, on that very issue. Under the terms of the agreement, there would be no breach of privacy.

There would be no information exchanged between the governments to which she is referring.

(1335) Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the same question. I am not confident that my colleague and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands really got any response to the question she asked. It seems that what the government has done with its omnibus legislation is like what was done with the movie series Police Academy : each movie got worse, and each omnibus budget just gets worse and worse. The bones of the particular piece of legislation are obviously not in sync with the charter. I ask my colleague this.

Why would the legislation not be viewed through the eye of whether or not it aligns with the charter? Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon : Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confused, because in his previous questions, the member also raised the issue of whether the $3,500 per family in tax savings is the correct figure. In the case of the privacy issues and whether or not the legislation is aligned with the charter, we are confident that it is.

With the tax savings, the Liberal government in power previously introduced in several budgets the deepest tax cuts in the history of this country, including the deepest cuts on transfer payments to provinces. In 1993, it had something called the red book. In that red book, the Liberals said that the day they came to power, they would eliminate the GST. Guess what happened? It never happened, did it? [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my role here is to defend the interests of the people of Longueuil and Boucherville.

I am rising to speak to this bill as a resident of Longueuil. Members will understand why I am sensitive to the fact that the Minister of Infrastructure 's philosophy, that irrefutable “no toll, no bridge” dogma, was reflected in this massive bill from the Conservatives. The government's goal is obvious. It wants to shut down debate and pass this bill as quickly as possible, and the bill's 350 pages and 500 clauses hide provisions that include relieving the government of its obligation to consult the public. This is an old tactic that the Conservatives learned from the Liberals.

In this case, the student has surpassed the teacher. I cannot believe that the Conservatives are doing this. If they were in the opposition, if they were in our place, they would be outraged to be faced with this kind of omnibus bill. This is Parliament, not a hot dog eating contest. However, it is not just Parliament that the Conservatives are showing contempt for, but also Canadians. This is about Canadians who want information and who should be kept informed about the laws that will be imposed on them.

It is also about journalists, whose job is to keep an eye on and analyze bills, so that people outside the parliamentary precinct can understand what is at stake in these sometimes complex proposals. The bill's scope is as broad as it is bad. It contains a wide range of amendments and provisions on issues that are way off topic, that clearly have nothing to do with the budget, when, really, it is supposed to be a budget implementation bill. Furthermore, the issues at stake here are extremely important. It is not a question of simply adding a decimal or removing a semicolon.

This is about things like hazardous materials and temporary foreign workers. Basically, the Conservatives are trying to push their agenda through without allowing the public to really scrutinize it. The people of the south shore can draw some very serious conclusions from the huge bill called Bill C-31 . They can see that the Conservatives want to impose tolls, from Ottawa, without any consideration for them, their opinions or those of their elected representatives. They also see, with great consternation, the very troubling changes being made to railway safety regulations.

Putting forward this kind of nonsense when the entire population of Boucherville is worried makes absolutely no sense. My role here is to stand up for the people of Longueuil, the south shore and the greater Montreal area. It is also to be here, with my colleagues, to suggest new solutions for the problems that affect the south shore. A very large gathering of business people, community groups and elected representatives from the south shore got together to do some brainstorming and come up with solutions to challenges related to public transit, particularly regarding how to fund it.

My NDP colleagues from the south shore and I submitted a brief on public transit ahead of the metropolitan land use and development plan, because the federal government has also overlooked the issue of funding for public transit. The government needs to stop neglecting this issue and start doing something substantive about it. It is essential not just for the economic reasons underlying reinvestment in public transit, but also because it is an environmental imperative. Our economy will be of little value if the St.

Lawrence basin is engulfed by the rising oceans, something that scientists are projecting will happen. That is precisely why I got into politics in 2008 with the NDP: for the seriousness of its green agenda. Nonetheless, the environment is not an ideological issue. The state of our planet goes well beyond our jurisdictions and our electoral timetable. This requires consultation, something the government is completely inept at. Never has that been any clearer than with the outrageous abuse that the government has the nerve to call the “new bridge over the St.

Lawrence”, a bridge that will be built on the ruins of the Champlain Bridge that thousands of people continue to use every day to get to work or to transport goods. Imposing a toll in such an underhanded and hasty manner, in a bill like this, is a unilateral and belligerent move. It is an admission of failure, an admission that the federal government is incapable of or simply disinterested in consulting and listening to the public and working with Quebec and the municipalities. The Government of Quebec represents 8 million people, mayors of cities that