OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 051 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, February 25, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 25, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 051 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 051 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 051 (Version officielle) 147 051 25 02 2014 2014/02/25 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act Hon. Rob Moore (for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) Bill C-25. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-25,

An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Petitions Gatineau Park Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many of my constituents and people who live in the national capital region. The petitioners are calling on the government to pass legislation to fully protect Gatineau Park, which we love so much and whose facilities we have enjoyed over this very snowy winter. I hope to have the government's support for my bill, which will protect the park's boundaries and allow our children and grandchildren to use it with confidence for years to come.

[ English ] Canada Post Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, petitions keep flooding in from residents on Hamilton Mountain who are vehemently opposed to the cuts to Canada Post. I am tabling a huge stack of petitions today. They are signed by people of all ages, all faiths, and all socio-economic backgrounds. Despite their differences, the petitioners are all united in their belief that Canada Post has not done its due diligence. It should have investigated ways to modernize postal operations before raising the price of stamps and unilaterally taking an axe to postal services.

The petitioners call on the government to continue door-to-door delivery of mail, to protect the 6,000 to 8,000 workers who are set to lose their jobs, and to stop the drastic increase in postage rates. While I know the rules of the House do not allow members to endorse a petition, let me say that I am delighted to present these documents today on behalf of the thousands of Hamiltonians who have signed them.

Agriculture Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition on behalf of constituents who are calling on Parliament to refrain from making changes to the Seeds Act or the Plant Breeders' Rights Act through Bill C-18 .

Poverty Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my constituents bring me many different petitions, and I am happy to present them all in the House. Today, I have two petitions. The first one draws the attention of the House of Commons to poverty in Canada and calls on the House of Commons to pass Bill C-233,

an act to eliminate poverty in Canada .

Proportional Representation Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from voters in my constituency who are calling on the Government of Canada to consult Canadians about a new electoral system and who would like to support the introduction of a suitable form of proportional representation following these public consultations.

[ Translation ] Gatineau Park Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague from Hull—Aylmer , I wish to present a petition concerning protecting Gatineau Park. This park is one of the most frequently visited parks in Canada. It is home to about 90 plant and 50 animal species at risk, so it is important that the government protect its borders. I therefore present this petition, which is signed by many people.

[ English ] Impaired Driving Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition today that is signed by hundreds of citizens from my riding of Burnaby—Douglas. The petition concerns the death of Helen Sonja Francis, a registered nurse who was tragically killed by an impaired driver in 2005. The petitioners note that the perpetrator of this crime was never brought to justice because of an administrative error.

All of the evidence in the case, including blood samples, was deemed inadmissible because the required warrant was not approved and signed within the four-hour time limit. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to change the current four-hour time limit by permitting warrants to be approved within a six-hour time limit. I have had many constituents come into my office to discuss their concerns with what happened in this case, and I would urge the government to take this seriously.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House today to present two petitions. The first is primarily from residents of Vancouver and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia calling on the government to recognize that, since 1972, there has been an acknowledged federal and provincial moratorium against supertankers carrying crude along the west coast of British Columbia. They call on the House to ensure that there be a legislated permanent ban against supertankers bearing bitumen or other crude products.

Lyme Disease Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with my private member's bill, Bill C-442 . I have been heartened by support from many members of Parliament in different parties in this place. The bill will come for second reading on Monday, March 3. These petitioners call for the passage of Bill C-442, to provide hope for many thousands of Canadians who are dealing with Lyme disease and who know that working together we can share best practices and improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of this disease.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in Hearst, Cochrane and Hallebourg. The petition concerns Canada Post. Between 6,000 and 8,000 jobs will be lost because the Conservative government has decided to slash postal services. The petitioners are saying that no consultation took place, which prevents those who will be most affected from having their voices heard. They are calling on the government to cancel the service cuts announced by Canada Post and explore new ways of generating income, such as providing banking services.

(1010) [ English ] Endangered Species Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the first of many petitions, containing signatures from hundreds of Canadians in my riding and across the country, in support of Motion No. 460, which urges the government to provide protection for the southern resident killer whales. It has been 10 years since they have been designated as an endangered species, and we still have no recovery plan in place.

[ Translation ] Gatineau Park Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House to present a petition in support of protection for Gatineau Park, as it is home to approximately 90 endangered plant and 50 endangered animal species. My colleague from Hull—Aylmer and I are speaking out, calling on the government to pass legislation to protect and preserve this park for future generations.

Public Transit Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition calling for a national public transit strategy. It is very important for the people in my riding of Terrebonne—Blainville and in Saint-Anne-des-Plaines to have efficient public transit. They are calling on the federal government to get involved and act on this issue. I am proud to present this petition today.

[ English ] Rail Transportation Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many residents, mainly in northern New Brunswick, regarding the fact that rail services are planned to be cut in northern New Brunswick. These residents are concerned about the fact that rail service is an important form of transportation, both environmentally as well as economically. They are also concerned, as Atlantic Canadians, that this will lead to a further reduction in service from Montreal to Halifax. It is something that concerns us all. I am quite happy to support this petition, and there are others that will be coming in ensuing days.

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

Request for Emergency Debate Situation in Venezuela S. O. 52 The Speaker : The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt . Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am asking that you allow an emergency debate on the situation in Venezuela. Since I rose yesterday with a similar request, there has been a growing number of protests in the cities across Venezuela against the government crackdown against peaceful protestors.

This started on Tuesday, February 11, when a peaceful student protest became violent when government entities began shooting and hitting peaceful protesters. This resulted in six dead, including two Catholic priests, and many others being hurt. Hundreds have been arrested and imprisoned without due process; many have just gone missing. These protests are the largest since the death of long-time leader Hugo Chavez nearly a year ago. These protests are sweeping Venezuela, rapidly expanding from the original student protests that began earlier this month into protests made up of a broader array of Venezuelans.

Reports are now coming out which support what the protesters have been saying, and they are requesting international help. One report stated the following: As dawn broke, the residents of a quiet neighbourhood here readied for battle. Some piled rocks to be used as projectiles. Others built barricades. A pair of teenagers made fire bombs as the adults looked on. These were not your ordinary urban guerrillas. They included a manicurist, a medical supplies saleswoman, a schoolteacher, a businessman and a hardware store worker.

As the National Guard roared around the corner on motorcycles and in an armoured riot vehicle, the people in this tightly knit middle-class neighbourhood, who on any other Monday morning would have been heading to work or taking their children to school, rushed into the street, hurling rocks and shouting obscenities. The guardsmen responded with tear gas and shotgun fire, leaving a man bleeding in a doorway.

On Monday, residents in Caracas, the capital, and other Venezuelan cities, piled furniture, tree limbs, chain-link fences, sewer grates, and washing machines to block roads in a coordinated action against the government. The president, Mr. Maduro, is struggling to contend with a deeply troubled economy and has taken a hard line on expressions of discontent, squeezing the news media, arresting a prominent opposition politician, and sending the National Guard into residential areas to quash the protests. News channels, which are owned and managed by the government, have not been reporting the situation.

The Colombian news channel NTN24, the only international broadcasting that is used, has been taken off the air in Venezuela by the government regulatory body, suppressing national laws and human rights. Venezuelans are completely isolated and are relying on social media, which has been disrupted by slowing down the Internet, blocking images on Twitter, and even suspending the service. The Venezuelan government has limited the access of international and non-governmental organizations to the country, obstructing their ability to record and denounce the constant violation of human rights.

Canadians of Venezuelan heritage are asking that we in this House stand in solidarity with the Venezuelans fighting for democracy. Mr. Speaker, I am asking, on behalf of these Canadians, that you allow an emergency debate on this matter.

(1015) Speaker's Ruling

Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker : I thank the hon. member, again, for bringing this subject to the House's attention, but I am not prepared to grant an emergency debate at this time. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am seeking unanimous consent that we in this House condemn what is going on in Venezuela, and that we ask the government to send a strong message to President Maduro that he should cease and desist and that all the people who have been doing this be brought to justice.

The Speaker : The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt has asked if there is unanimous consent for the House to condemn the actions that he brought up. Is there unanimous— An hon. member: I did not hear a motion. The Speaker: I did not hear a motion either. Perhaps the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt would consult with the other House leaders and come up with some wording that could then be put to the House in a more formal manner. I did see the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley rising. This is on a question of privilege.

Privilege Statements by Member for Mississauga—Streetsville Privilege Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I do rise on a question of privilege. I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 48(1). It has been demonstrated that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has deliberately misled the House. Given the seriousness of the matter, it is my duty as a member of Parliament and House leader for the New Democrats to bring the matter to the attention of the Chair and to the House.

Members of the House are well aware of the rights and immunities afforded to parliamentarians, so that they may carry out their duties as members of Parliament. However, for the sake of clarity, let me remind my colleagues that on page 65 in Erskine May' s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament , “parliamentary privilege” is defined as: ...the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively...and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions....

What I believe we are looking at here is a contempt of Parliament, one that is an offence against the authority and dignity of this House, one that chips away at the foundation of our parliamentary democracy and the requisite for healthy and honest debate. This is a serious charge. We take it seriously. We would insist that the government also do so. Let me take a moment to provide the House with an account of what has taken place. In hearing my remarks, Mr.

Speaker, I will ask you to find that the grounds exist that this is a prima facie contempt of Parliament, at which point I will be prepared to move a motion to have the matter referred to the appropriate committee for further study. Yesterday morning, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville rose in the House and said the following: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to debate that took place on February 6 in this House regarding the fair elections act. I made a statement in the House during the debate that is not accurate.

I just want to reflect the fact that I have not personally witnessed individuals retrieving voter notification cards from the garbage cans or from the mailbox areas of apartment buildings. I have not personally witnessed that activity and want the record to properly show that. Let us take a look at what it was that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said in the debate on February 6 while the House was debating the government's unfair elections act at second reading, under time allocation imposed by the current government.

It seems clear-cut to me and to others that the member was providing misleading statements in the House, given what he told the House just yesterday. In a question for the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification , the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about this vouching system again.... On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, many of them are discarded in the garbage can or the blue box.

I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID. Does the minister not believe this kind of thing will get cleaned up properly with this bill? Later in the day, the member rose again to mislead the House during the questions and comments portion of his own speech. He said: Earlier this afternoon I asked the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification a question.

I think my friend from York South—Weston will appreciate this because, just like the riding I represent, there are a lot of apartment buildings in his riding. I will relate to him something I have actually seen. On the mail delivery day when voter cards are put in mailboxes, residents come home, pick them out of their boxes, and throw them in the garbage can. I have seen campaign workers follow, pick up a dozen of them afterward, and walk out. Why are they doing that? They are doing it so they can hand those cards to other people, who will then be vouched for at a voting booth and vote illegally.

That is going to stop. The context of this, and why this is equally important to the fact that the member misled the House, is that he misled the House to justify the reason his government has brought in its unfair elections act. He has brought evidence forward as a member of Parliament, whom we take on faith as telling the truth when he does it, saying this is the reason the government has brought in this bill, to end the vouching system that some tens of thousands of Canadians use properly, by claiming there is evidence of voter fraud that he has seen and witnessed and brought forth as evidence to this House.

That is a serious charge. It is a serious charge and may sway members of this House to, in fact, support the government's legislation, when they ought not to if it were not the truth. (1020) [ Translation ] Members must know that they have the information needed to do their job well, which is to represent their constituents. The government wasted no time in passing Bill C-23 in the House at second reading by using a time allocation motion.

Now, it is fast-tracking it through the committee stage without having heard from interested Canadians and members of civil society from across the country. [ English ] To think that it is somehow acceptable for members of the government to come into the House and make up stories as justification for the supposed merits of this terrible bill is totally ludicrous and should not be allowed to simply pass, by having the member rise more than two weeks after the fact, during a private member's business hour, and reveal to the House that this was all, in fact, untrue.

In his ruling on February 1, 2002, on a similar matter, Speaker Milliken stated: The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring include, but are not limited to, the following: House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, which states, on page 115: Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.

Page 63 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May states: ...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Erskine May is even more precise when a member later admits that the statements he or she made were not true. On page 111 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice , 22nd edition, it states: The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of grave contempt. Mr.

Speaker, on May 7, 2012, and in a handful of rulings since, you have stated the following regarding the conditions that have emerged surrounding misleading statements in the House, which I will cite: It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.

That is a clear and high bar to prove all of those three conditions in order to find a contempt of Parliament: that the statement has to be untrue, that it has to be established that the member knew it at the time to be untrue, and that when making this untruthful statement to the House, the member was intending to mislead the House. This seems to me a very straightforward case, and I am sure all members of the House would agree.

The first of these conditions has been met, since the proof that the statement was misleading comes directly from the member himself when he admitted that what he said on February 6 was false. The second condition has been met since the statements in question have to do with what the member of Mississauga—Streetsville did or did not personally witness. On February 6, he told the House that he was relating something to the House that he had actually seen and then yesterday told us he had in fact not seen these things at all. What we are talking about is voter fraud, something very serious and not casual.

The third of these conditions has been met since there can be no other explanation as to why the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made the misleading statements that he did over two weeks ago, other than to deliberately and intentionally mislead the House on an important piece of legislation that affects all Canadians.

He clearly intended to mislead the House by fabricating a story and then tried to use it to justify why members should be voting in favour of the Conservatives' unfair elections act. (1025) [ Translation ] Members of the House will remember a case in 2001-02 in which my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst , among others, argued that Senator Eggleton—who was defence minister at the time—had deliberately misled the House.

It happened during question period, when he was responding to questions regarding how much he knew about when exactly prisoners captured by Canadian troops in Afghanistan were transferred to the Americans. Speaker Milliken ruled that there was a prima facie case of privilege and referred the issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study.

After hearing a former clerk of the House, Bill Corbett, testify about the issue, the committee indicated the following in its 50th report to the House: [ English ] ...it is not uncommon for inaccurate statements to be made in the course of debate or Question Period in the House. The issue is whether the statements were made deliberately, with the intent of misleading the House or its Members. In the case where a Member later admits to having knowingly provided false information...the issue of intent is clear. Mr.

Speaker, let me repeat that last sentence because it is important in satisfying the conditions you have set out. In the case where a Member later admits to having knowingly provided false information...the issue of intent is clear. We are at the point in the life cycle of the current Conservative government where it seems to be out of gas and spinning its wheels. Bill C-23 , the unfair elections act, is creating solutions to problems in our voting system that do not exist, when the real problems of our electoral system have often been the ones the Conservatives have perpetrated on the Canadian public.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville went so far as to make up a story to try to persuade members to vote a certain way on this flawed bill. Time and again, the Conservatives' lack of judgment and these types of dirty tricks are exposed. However, despite all of this, instead of changing their behaviour to fit the rules of the game, they are changing the rules of the game in order to fit their bad behaviour.

In a ruling on October 19, 2000, regarding misleading statements made in the House, Speaker Parent stated: Only on the strongest and clearest evidence can the House or the Speaker take steps to deal with cases of attempts to mislead members. Mr. Speaker, with the strongest and clearest evidence at out disposal, I would urge you to find that a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament has occurred, at which point I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion to have this case referred to the standing committee. This bill is a contempt on the voting public.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville has performed a contempt in this House. It is a sad and perhaps tragic irony, but it is a fact. The conditions that this House has laid out—you yourself included, in your statements and rulings to guide all members in the way we conduct ourselves—are the conditions we have applied to this case. It is clear in all three of those very precise indications and tests that the member has misled the House knowingly, which is a prima facie case of contempt.

The fact that he did it in a bill that is meant to disrupt and perhaps further erode the confidence of Canadians about our electoral system is tragic. The Speaker : The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on the same question. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I was in the chamber when the original comments were made a few weeks ago and then yesterday when the member stood in his place to provide clarification. It is important to recognize that members often stand up and make accusations that someone has misrepresented the facts.

Over the years of being a parliamentarian, I could safely say that on at least a dozen or so occasions a member has said one thing, with the intent to leave an impression, but then had those comments thrown back at the member and raised in a matter of privilege to say that the member originally misled the house. I want to go back to the specific statement on February 6 that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made, and I will quote directly from the document, which states: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about this vouching system again. I know the minister represents an urban city.

I am from a semi-urban area of Mississauga, where there are many high-rise apartment buildings. On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, many of them are discarded in the garbage can or the blue box.

However, the following is the important part, which I think we have to take note of, and I am quoting the member directly: I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID. This is not just an off-the-cuff comment. This is a very serious allegation. We know that there is a great deal of debate on Bill C-23 , the fair elections act. I suspect, Mr.

Speaker, that you will likely find that Elections Canada, among others, is following the debate. Therefore, as the NDP House leader has already articulated, and which I will reinforce, one could question why a couple of weeks later, yesterday, the member stood up inside the chamber and stated: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to debate that took place on February 6 in this House regarding the fair elections act. I made a statement in the House during the debate that is not accurate.

I just want to reflect the fact that I have not personally witnessed individuals retrieving voter notification cards from the garbage cans or from the mailbox areas of apartment buildings. I have not personally witnessed that activity and want the record to properly show that. I would like to highlight two things. One is that, having commented on many matters of privilege related to misrepresentation, I have heard numerous Speaker rulings, which say that all members are hon. members and one has to be able to clearly demonstrate that the misrepresentation was intentional.

It is very difficult to narrow down what would be a privileged issue on this particular point of misrepresentation. A member of Parliament would have to intentionally mislead or lie and then admit to intentionally misleading and lying, and to say both, inside the chamber, in order to qualify as a violation of our rule of misrepresentation, which is in fact what we have here. It is unique in terms of the privileges that I have seen raised over the many years I have been a parliamentarian.

(1030) Let there be no doubt that it was not an offline comment. This was seriously articulated by the member. He stated that he saw individuals with take-out voter ID cards who then used them in an illegal fashion. It is very clear. I understand that he implied that on more than one occasion. We should be looking seriously at that. Let me add a second aspect to this. Earlier I made reference to Elections Canada. We should get more clarification from the member on why he waited so long to apologize. Is it because Elections Canada approached the member after reviewing what he said? It is a very serious allegation.

Did the member share his concerns with Elections Canada prior to raising them here in the House? It seems to me that the reason the member stood yesterday is he felt that his statement in the House was going to be looked at seriously by Elections Canada and other stakeholders because the accusation that he made during second reading was serious. There was illegal behaviour within that election which the member would have been aware of, if we believe what he said actually took place. I am very curious, and I am sure many members are curious, about what the member actually saw.

He tried to correct the record, but he did not provide very much detail. Did he see some of the voter cards in the blue bins and just left them there? Did he see anyone approach the blue bins? Did he see some people pull out the cards and throw them in the garbage? Did he follow to a campaign office the individuals who pulled out those voter cards? A lot of questions need to be answered. I would suggest that this issue is a matter of privilege. I would also suggest that the member come forward and articulate more details or appear before PROC to answer a series of questions on whether he violated our rules.

(1035) Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for giving me the time to speak to this question of privilege. One good thing about this is that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville did stand up in the House and say that he did not tell the truth. Whatever you do, Mr. Speaker, I hope you make sure you do not create a moral hazard. I hope you encourage people to correct the record when they do not tell the truth in the House. That would be a good thing.

I remember in the last session of this Parliament when I spoke on a related point, some research results were corrected but the ministers did not make it clear that the results had been corrected and kept using the old results. There was no way to go back and correct Hansard . There was no way to make it clear that something that had been said in the House was not true. I hope that whatever remedy is found for this would allow for Hansard to be corrected so that we would not have to check Hansard all the time to make sure that every single statement in it is actually true.

When the member stood up and said his statement was not true, he did not acknowledge that he has hurt the reputation of the House, and that is something that we need to be able to do our work. It is something that Canada needs in order to attract good Canadians to serve in the House. We have to be able to honestly call each other “honourable”, and I do not know if we can do that. It is embarrassing when I talk to friends and they ask me what I am doing this for, what am I doing with these politicians. There is a bit of cynicism out there.

Being able to honestly call each other “honourable members” is important to the country and to the functioning of the House, and it gives Canadians confidence in what we do. That is important for good government. I would call on you, Mr. Speaker, to take these things into account. I do not know how you will rule on this question of privilege, but there is an important idea here, which is that we have to rely on what each of us says in the House. We need to have confidence that we are trying our best to tell each other the truth, to tell each other the facts and the evidence.

We should not make up stuff to sound good and to make a good video to send out to our voters.

(1040) Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to this question of privilege. As everyone is, I am sure, aware, the presumption in this House is that we are all taken at our word, that the statements we make are truthful and correct. That we are given the benefit of that doubt brings with it a strong obligation on us, in the cases where a member misspeaks, to correct the record so that nobody is left with inaccurate perceptions. In this particular instance, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville , has done exactly that.

Having misspoken in this House and having realized his comments were in error, he has come to this House and corrected the record. That is the obligation that exists upon members. That is an obligation to ensure that nobody is left under false impressions. That is an obligation he has discharged. That is the obligation upon all members here, and for that reason I think that alone is sufficient to rebut any concern that there has been a contempt. In fact, I would adopt the sentiments of the member for Kingston and the Islands .

The fact that we are even discussing this question of privilege, the fact that it has been raised, is only because the hon. member has taken that duty and obligation seriously, has come to this House and corrected the record. Had he not corrected the record, one would presume that what had been said was correct, and this is the moral hazard that the member for Kingston and the Islands speaks to. We want to, in addition to giving everybody the benefit of the doubt, also provide an environment where we encourage all members to carry out that duty and obligation on an occasion when we misspeak.

It is quite common for us to misspeak in the nature of conversation, and I can understand the error made by the hon. member on the question of voting cards, because I think there are probably very few members in this House who have not, at second- or third-hand, heard anecdotes exactly to that effect. I personally have heard anecdotes from others, not having witnessed it myself. It is different from having heard an anecdote, but having heard it quite regularly, it becomes part of the normal discourse that “this is what happens out there”. This is what everybody “knows” happens out there.

It is a risk and a concern that has to be addressed, and one of the reasons why I think it is being addressed in this legislation. However, I do not think we want to create an environment where, when members take seriously their obligation to correct the record—take seriously their obligation to be truthful to this House and come to this House and do exactly that—we then make that an occasion to create a finding of contempt against them.

We want to create an environment where, as we do with unparliamentary language when we ask members to apologize and they do, that is an appropriate remedy, and is almost always accepted by the Speaker as appropriate for the circumstances. In this same circumstance, this House should encourage and accept the occasions when a member takes seriously their obligation to come to this House and correct the record, as the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has done in this particular case. I do not want to leave the argument at that point.

I do think it is important that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville also be given an opportunity to speak to this himself, so I would ask that you give him that opportunity. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, I too would look forward to that. We had actually assumed, since the member for Mississauga—Streetsville had a speaking spot yesterday afternoon, that he would do that. Three important things have happened here that leave me more certain in my belief that this is in contempt of Parliament, based on what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has said.

Allow me first to say that there is some urgency to this matter. I would encourage the member in question to seek a space to speak as soon as possible, because the bill is before us in Parliament right now. It seems that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is now offering praise to the member for having fabricated a story entirely and is saying that we should give the member great thanks for having returned and having admitted to misleading the House.

That is not the environment that we look to create, an environment in which members can take what he called “anecdotes” and things that they have heard and turn them into what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said. What he said was, “I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards...”. He did not say that someone had told him a story, that he had heard about it, or that there was some conspiracy theory out there. He later went on to say, after some time and reflection, “I will relate to him something I have actually seen. ...

I have seen campaign workers follow, pick up a dozen of them afterward...” and then went on to say that they committed voter fraud in the last election. This is coming from the Conservative Party, which is in court right now defending itself against serious accusations of actual voter fraud. My point is that this is not misspeaking. To say “I misspoke” means that an event occurred on a Tuesday, when upon reflection it was actually Wednesday. That is an honest mistake. This was no honest mistake. The member fabricated a story to justify voting for a flawed government bill. He totally invented it.

When he came in, it was neither to apologize nor to explain why he invented this story from nothing. He did not apologize and he did not explain; he said that he had misspoken and that he wished to correct the record.

If that is what is considered tolerable and acceptable, and if it in fact should be encouraged, as the House leader says, it means that members of the House are allowed to go around completely fabricating and inventing stories to justify their voting for or against a piece of legislation, and then come back during debate on a private member's bill and say in a quiet and hushed way, “Yesterday I may have misspoken, or two weeks ago I may have misspoken. I do not know; the facts are a bit blurry.” The facts were not blurry. I have read the citations clearly to the House.

The member has satisfied all three of your conditions, Mr. Speaker, which the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons did not address at all. These conditions are specific and they are difficult to achieve. A person has to work hard to be found in contempt of Parliament. It is not easy and it does not happen very often, and the reason a person has to work hard is that the three conditions are difficult to achieve. We must prove that the statement was misleading. We must also have it established that the member making the statement knew at the time that it was incorrect.

Finally, we must establish that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House. On all three conditions, the member in question satisfied the conditions for contempt of Parliament. It is a prima facie case. He did not apologize. He did not explain. He did not rationalize or justify. He just said, “I misspoke.” Of course, we have latitude when people misspeak in the House. They may refer to the wrong bill, misquote a statement, or attribute it to the wrong person unintentionally. We understand that. We are all human and we all make those mistakes.

This was not a mistake; well, it may have been a mistake now that it has come to light. The fact is that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wants us to somehow offer our praise for somebody knowingly misleading the House, knowing something to be untrue, and then using that untruth, that lie, to justify the government's bill about changing our election laws. Is not allowing Canadians their right to vote freely and fairly something we should be encouraging? What has the government come to when it thinks that this is acceptable behaviour? The member did not misspeak.

The member did not make a casual, glancing error or inaccuracy in his statement. He chose deliberately to take something that he knew not to be true and present it as evidence to justify voting for a government bill that would disenfranchise Canadians from their right to vote in a free and fair democratic country such as Canada. That is what is before you, Mr. Speaker. Those are the conditions that you and previous Speakers have laid out to guide us. We seek your guidance on this. Again, I am prepared to move the motion if you find a prima facie case of contempt.

(1045) The Speaker : I thank all hon. members for their contributions. Perhaps we will hear more from the member in question. Then I will come back to the House with a decision in due course.

Government Orders The Budget [ Translation ] The Budget Financial Statement of Minister of Finance The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, and of the amendment. Motion Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer . [ English ] I want to begin my speech by sharing an excerpt from a piece of correspondence I recently received from a woman on Manitoulin Island. She wrote: I am a senior receiving OAS and supplement.

My employment income for 2012 was $5,735.64 which is $2,235.64 above the allowable $3,500. As a result $50.00 is deducted from my supplement each month. Yes, I have a problem providing myself with food, rent, especially paying bills for a dentist and new eye glasses. I wish I could say that hers is an isolated case, but I have a small mountain of messages on that exact issue. Clearly these are people looking for a little relief, and given that they took the time to write their MP, they may also have been paying attention when the finance minister delivered his budget.

If so, they would have been disappointed by what many are calling a do-nothing budget. However, I am not happy just calling it a do-nothing budget. I think we are doing the finance minister a big favour with that description, because this budget does an awful lot when we consider how much in the way of clear, identifiable needs it does nothing to address.

For so many Canadians, the basic message of the budget amounts to “Your concerns are of no importance to your government, which is more interested in focusing on a single, self-serving goal.” Therefore, instead of thinking of it as a do-nothing budget, let us consider what the budget actually does. It signals the government's acceptance of an ongoing economic recovery that cannot replace the full-time jobs we lost in the recession.

As I mentioned, the budget tells our seniors living in poverty that the government has no plan to either address the problem or to reduce the pinch felt by those who are able to work to supplement their income only to be subjected to a mean-hearted clawback. The budget tells our disabled community that the smaller agencies who help them so much will not be receiving support, which in turn translates into less support for the disabled across the country. The budget tells our first nations that they will have to wait, again, for money to improve underfunded schools.

It has nothing to improve first nations access to post-secondary education or to ensure adequate resources for the post-secondary student support program. The budget also tells families waiting for a national dementia strategy that they will have to continue to wait. The budget tells the communities, individuals, and businesses that rely on tourism in northern Ontario that creating a pre-election surplus is more important than the region's economic prosperity.

The budget goes on to tell small businesses that the government is not interested in continuing with a focused tax credit to assist with the hiring of new employees. The budget also tells the forestry sector that the forestry industry transformation program will remain underfunded. The budget tells communities with important federal infrastructure that the government is not interested in assisting with their local economy anymore. The budget does nothing to make post-secondary education more affordable or accessible.

I am sure we could do this all day, but the point is that we should not be slapping the Minister of Finance on the back when all that he really has done is dismiss so much need in the pursuit of a single goal designed to benefit the Conservative Party of Canada alone. (1050) [ Translation ] Northern Ontario's economy is facing many problems, particularly those related to the boom and bust cycle, which typically affects resource-based jobs. The region has a large number of small businesses, many of which are involved in tourism.

After the budget came down, people in the region wondered whether the Conservatives cared about them at all. They have reason to wonder since the budget made no mention of northern Ontario or its economic development agency, FedNor. Small businesses in the region work just as hard as anyone, and they would like to know that the government appreciates their efforts and that the billions of dollars they help generate in economic activity are important to the Canadian economy.

Recently, however, the owners of these small businesses have felt as though they are being attacked, and the communities where they run their businesses feel as though they have been abandoned by the government, which continues to deprive the region of its support. [ English ] In the few years I have been in this place, we have seen the government walk away from heritage lighthouses that were tourist attractions on the Great Lakes. It is walking away from a modest investment in passenger rail on the Algoma Central Railway, which supports good jobs all along the line from Sault Ste. Marie to Hearst.

In the budget, we see the government will continue to walk away from its responsibilities for federal ports as well. People on Manitoulin Island have just been through the wringer with the government's refusal to accept its clear responsibility to maintain the port in South Baymouth. Now they are bracing themselves as the government prepares to transfer the costs of federal ports onto small communities, communities that have grown local economies to serve tourists who arrive by boat. However, the problems that flow from this budget are not limited to small tourist-focused businesses.

The budget is going to affect all manner of small businesses by eliminating the small business hiring credit. This amounts to the Conservatives turning their backs on job creation opportunities in about 560,000 businesses across the country. The credit was generally used by companies with 20 to 35 employees or less and cost $225 million annually. However, job creation that bolsters small business is not as important for the government as getting re-elected in 2015.

First nations are getting mixed messages in this budget as well, which is in keeping with the relationship the Conservatives have forged with these communities. Despite changing its tune on first nations education, the government has taken a page from the Liberal playbook, which amounts to strong language and distant commitments, but precious few dollars. There is no reason to delay increased funds for education in these communities.

The chronic underfunding is well documented, and every day the government waits to address this need is another day lost in the struggle to bring better results for the young people in Canada's first nations. When it comes to first nations, the budget makes blue-sky commitments for 2015 and beyond.

What money it does allocate to continue the first nations water and waste water action plan and to continue the aboriginal justice strategy still falls short of what is needed, so we see that the well-being of first nations and our aboriginal population remains a low priority for the government, which is preoccupied with its own needs. (1055) [ Translation ] I mentioned just how important the resource-based economy is to northern Ontario. The forestry sector in particular has been dealing with significant problems on a number of fronts.

Since the current government came to power, 30,000 jobs have been lost in this sector in Ontario alone. We know that the Forest Products Association of Canada asked the government for $500 million in assistance over six years under the forestry industry transformation program but received only $90.4 million over four years, which represents a shortfall of $410 million.

This once again shows that the government is not prepared to stand up for northern Ontario's or Canada's forestry sector. [ English ] Many of us have met over the last few years with delegations from the Alzheimer Society of Canada, which has been advocating for a national dementia strategy. As our population ages, Alzheimer's will only become more of a challenge, and from my own experience, I can say that families already living with the difficult reality of this disease are hearing that their struggles are of no concern to the government.

I say that because that is the message sent by refusing to commit to the $3 million requested by the Alzheimer Society of Canada that would let it lay the foundation for the national dementia strategy. The list of snubs can add up quickly, and while the government sets itself up to hoard cash, household budgets are stretched to the limit. There is little beyond signals of intent in this budget. In northern Ontario, high gas prices are a constant problem, and New Democrats have long advocated for an ombudsman to ensure that consumers are not being gouged at the tank.

While there is some recognition of gas price disparity in the budget, the focus is on cross-border disparity, and even that is nothing more than big language with no details or timelines. Finally, changes to the way the government administers funding for national disability is a point that I will get to later. I just want to indicate that these are just some of the things that this budget does. I am certain that my colleagues will continue to inform the government of the widespread effects of its budget, which is anything but a do-nothing budget. I have so much more. I hope to get it done during questions. Mr.

Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to have my colleague elaborate on some of the other aspects of the budget. One point I was glad to hear from her was on the effect this is going to have on seniors, which will affect many of my constituents. I agree with her completely that this was a missed opportunity, particularly for those seniors living in poverty right now. We could have lifted them out of poverty; the government decided not to. I would like to hear from her some of the other points she had on the budget. Mrs. Carol Hughes : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, because one of the issues I had not touched on enough was the seniors issue. As I mentioned at the outset, there is nothing to address the financial challenges of our seniors, especially those who live in poverty. There is nothing for seniors who are forced to work to top up their meagre OAS so that they can live in dignity. The government could have increased the base amount seniors are allowed to earn before the clawback sets in, which is currently $3,500, but it chose not to.

It is also really important to talk about the disability organizations, because the impact the budget will have on their ability to provide services is crucial.

(1100) Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have discovered that many of my colleagues on the opposite side live in a deep, dark fantasy world, and they would like to present an image of Canada that is a deep, dark fantasy. It often amazes me to hear them speak. I was intrigued by my colleague's comments regarding the Alzheimer Society. I am going to quote from a few sources to, as it were, drop a drop of detergent onto the oily pool of deep, dark fantasy the opposition tends to weave and watch the oil recede in the light of the truth.

Perhaps I will confine myself to one quote in particular from the Alzheimer Society of Canada on this budget: On behalf of the 747,000 Canadians living with dementia, we are grateful to the federal government for providing the resources needed to carry out important research to better understand how to tackle various forms of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. This is a drop of truth in the middle of the oily slick that is laid by the opposition. I would like my colleague who just spoke to tell me if she agrees with the Alzheimer Society, or does she want to take it to task for praising the budget? Mrs.

Carol Hughes : Mr. Speaker, having a sister with Alzheimer's, I certainly want to comment on this. Of course, organizations that did get some meagre dollars in the budget are certainly grateful for what they got, because they know that other organizations did not get as much or did not get anything. Let us see what the Conservatives are doing with taxpayer dollars. Let us not forget the $50 million for building things like gazebos and fake lakes. This is where their priorities are. If we want to look at the disability issue, the Alzheimer Society certainly speaks to the impact of disabilities.

Changes to the way the government administers funding for national disability organizations has created real pressures for smaller organizations, and that will have direct impacts on the services and supports available to these persons. For some organizations, this would mean a loss of up to one-third of their existing network and will translate into the loss of jobs for persons with disabilities, the loss of disability-related services and supports for individuals, and less support for some of the most vulnerable and underserved within the disability community.

How can the government say that it is doing all it can to help people, when in fact all it is doing is creating big barriers? [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I really liked what the Conservative member had to say about living in a fantasy world. I think the Conservatives are the ones who are completely out of touch with reality. That is unfortunate because, since they took office, our beloved country has been heading downhill. The Conservatives say that they are champions of jobs and the economy. However, as I mentioned, what we hear from the public is completely different.

The people in my riding are telling me that, over the past few years, the economic situation in the Outaouais region has deteriorated. By cutting thousands of public service jobs in the national capital region, the Conservatives have destroyed our economy. It is not just federal public servants who are being affected. All public services and programs are affected by these decisions. Many families affected by these cuts now have less purchasing power and are clearly spending less. In addition to the public service jobs that have been lost, the entire middle class has seen its income drop under this government.

Yesterday, an internal study conducted by the federal Department of Employment and Social Development showed that middle-class families now have to mortgage their future to stay afloat. Government representatives are the ones who released this report. Are they living in a fantasy world? I do not think so. Whether I am out at a restaurant or doing errands, I am hearing the same thing: it is becoming more and more difficult for merchants in the Outaouais region to make ends meet.

Unfortunately, it is not unusual for me to have visits in my riding office from parents who have unexpectedly lost their jobs as a result of recent budget cuts. What am I supposed to tell them when they ask me how they are going to meet their family's needs now? Here are some statistics. In my riding, right now, 9,000 people visit a food bank every month. Most of them—56%—are women. The sad

part is that one-third of food bank users are children, and that number is growing daily. An increasing number of these organizations are running out of food because of the growing demand. However, the problem is even bigger than that. In March 2012, just over 882,000 people made use of a food bank in Canada. That represents an increase of 31% as compared to 2008. The Conservatives were in power at that time. They could have done something. Speaking of children and growing needs, the Minister of Industry said that it was not his job to worry about how these couples were going to feed their children.

However, a number of my constituents, my NDP colleagues and I disagree. It is our job to build an economy that provides opportunities for meaningful employment and leaves no one behind. It is first and foremost the government's job to ensure that its budgetary choices guarantee a decent quality of life for all Canadians. However, the budget that the Minister of Finance presented to us is not the budget of a government that is doing its job. It is the budget of a political party that is laying the groundwork for the next election and is not thinking of Canadians in need.

In this budget, the government could have taken real measures to make life more affordable for Canadians. Once again, the government is not listening to what Canadians are asking for. Last Saturday, I toured my riding with a number of volunteers to talk about the NDP's plan for reducing the financial burden on families. We met with hundreds of people who want this Parliament to do something tangible to reduce the cost of living. However, I am pleased to see that the government incorporated some of the NDP's proposals in this budget, including putting an end to the infamous “pay to pay” fees.

However, one of the major concerns in my riding and across Canada was not addressed: lowering the price of gas. One woman I met told me that it now costs her $50 a week to get to work and do her shopping, and she does not have to drive very far. Less than 10 years ago, that same $50 would have allowed her to drive around for a month.

(1105) The government needs to do two things here: it needs to put an end to collusion in the setting of gas prices and it needs to invest in a real strategy to free us from our dependence on oil. The government is also refusing to take responsibility for affordable housing. I cannot believe that in 2014, more than 1.5 million households cannot afford adequate housing, according to the Canadian Housing & Renewal Association. This is completely unacceptable in Canada, a country we are proud to live in. The problem is very serious in the Outaouais, as it is elsewhere. This is not just rhetoric.

François Roy, the coordinator for Logemen'occupe, regularly raises this issue, and I congratulate him for that. As he has so often pointed out, there are 900 families waiting for affordable housing in Gatineau alone. Even though this is a serious situation, the government has not proposed any new investments in housing this year, all so that it can potentially create a surplus in 2015, an election year. Does this mean that these 900 families will have to wait for an election year to get a little assistance from the government, as my colleague mentioned earlier?

Often, it is just a matter of a little bit of money, but this government has not made this a priority. That is the reality. Will the City of Gatineau and community organizations in Hull—Aylmer have to wait until 2015 to get the financial support they are asking for to meet the public's increasing needs? In conclusion, I want to talk about this government's attacks on public service retirees. On November 15, 2013, I met with several dozen retirees at a public forum organized by the NDP members in the Outaouais and the Federal Superannuates National Association.

These retirees shared their concerns that their health care plan could potentially be cut. A number of them were also outraged at being treated in such a terrible way after they had dedicated their working lives to serving their country. Unfortunately, their fears have proven to be founded because this budget will cut $7.4 billion from the public service health care plan. This will almost double pensioners' annual health insurance premiums. Naturally, the government would like us to believe that it absolutely has to dig into retirees' pockets in order to eliminate the deficit.

We will say it over and over again: the reality is that the average pension for a public servant is $24,000 a year, or approximately $21,000 for women and $25,000 for men. We must accept the reality that these retirees are not rolling in money. According to Gérald Denis, national director of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, with such low income: ...no matter the amount, whether it is $10, $15 or $20 a month, any automatic deduction from a pension cheque has a clearly direct impact.

I find it deplorable and ridiculous that the government is trying to save money at the expense of retirees while, oddly enough, it can still give $20 billion in tax breaks to big business. After studying this economic action plan, I can only conclude that the government is not working for the people. Once again, it is working solely for the Conservative Party. What is scandalous about this budget, is not what is in it, but what is missing. They have failed to seize an extraordinary opportunity to help families, workers, seniors and small business.

This is a lost opportunity to prove that politics transcends partisan interests. It is a lost opportunity to build a better future for all Canadians.

(1110) Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question about the what the budget did not do for affordable housing, which is an important issue in my riding, Kingston and the Islands. Mortgage subsidies and operating agreements will expire in the coming years, yet the budget offers nothing to replace them. Obviously, the City of Kingston does not want to reduce the number of affordable housing units. By doing nothing, the Conservatives are essentially making cuts. In fact, it is the Conservatives who are calling for a property tax hike in the City of Kingston. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that.

(1115) Ms. Nycole Turmel : Mr. Speaker, we also know that when the Liberal Party was in power, it slashed funding for affordable housing. That is unfortunate. Getting back to the topic at hand, I appreciate the question because it has been raised many times in my riding. I sat on a board of directors for affordable housing and I heard the complaints and concerns about the housing authority's withdrawal. The housing authority withdrew from the program, which left the boards and co-operatives in a government legal vacuum. That is very unfortunate.

The government had a responsibility, and still does, to speak with the municipalities to ensure continuity. The volunteers who work on these boards of directors are expending all of their energy to try and fix a problem they did not create. It is up to the various levels of government to deal with this situation. These volunteers should be able to do their work of ensuring that housing is properly managed and assigned to those who need it. Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question about eliminating the deficit.

Canadians obviously want the government to eliminate the deficit—it is one of their top priorities—without raising taxes. The NDP plan involves raising taxes and spending more. [ English ] They want to spend more money, which is exactly contrary to what Canadians want. Canadians want limited government spending and to eliminate the deficit. So how would my colleague respond to Canadians who want the deficit eliminated without raising taxes? [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel : Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am very pleased to hear this question.

When we talk about managing a deficit, this means creating jobs, good jobs that will allow the government to work in an economic environment that generates revenues. Our projects are about making life more affordable: reducing interest rates on credit cards, for example; and legislating the price of gas and banking fees. This would put a little extra cash in the pockets of average and lower-income families, allowing them to feed their kids, buy clothing and keep the economy going.

That is what we are proposing, as opposed to what the Conservatives are proposing—namely, funding cuts across the board, which does not generate revenues. Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague from Hull—Aylmer because she really painted a clear picture of the Gatineau region, which she represents so well. The same picture could be painted almost right across Canada. Indeed, the austerity budgets presented by the Canadian government are stifling our economy rather than boosting it. The government is not considering long-term investments to ensure prosperity.

I wonder if she could elaborate on how the loss of high-quality jobs in her region will have a direct impact on Gatineau's economy. Ms. Nycole Turmel : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments and question about the situation in the Gatineau and Hull—Aylmer region, but really, the national capital region as well. As I mentioned in my speech, I am hearing more and more complaints and concerns about insecurity regarding the economic situation in my region from business people, small businesses living day to day and people who work and spend their money, normally.

Since they are living with daily insecurity, they are not doing repairs or buying new cars, for example. People outside the national capital region may think that we are privileged here, and we are, in a way. However, there is a glaring need for affordable housing, and the situation is only getting worse. Furthermore, food banks are struggling, and demand for their services keeps increasing.

(1120) Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kitchener Centre . [ English ] It is a privilege for me to rise in the House today to focus on two of the many important elements of our budget 2014, those being job creation and strengthening of economies both in Canada generally and in rural areas, such as my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. [ Translation ] Our government has focused on and will continue to focus on creating jobs for Canadians who live in every region of the country, including the local regions.

Thanks to our economic management skills and our management of previous budgets, more than one million net jobs have been created by the Canadian economy since summer 2009. Some 85% of those jobs are full-time, and more than 80% of those jobs are in the private sector. We continue to build on our record, and under the leadership of our government, our job creation rates are the highest of all the G7 countries. We should be very proud of that accomplishment.

Compared to the other G7 countries, our country and our economy remained strong and stable during the recession and the economic recovery. [ English ] Our country continues to be a financial and economic leader. Bloomberg ranks Canada as one of the top countries in the world with which to do business. This is a tremendous achievement. It has come as a result of budgets like budget 2014. In this fragile global economic recovery, our government will continue to focus on jobs and growth in economic action plan 2014.

It is our government's goal to help unemployed Canadians get back to work, ensuring that Canadians are given first chance at available jobs. The job-matching service would provide Canadian job-seekers with modern and reliable tools to find jobs that match their skills. Of course, this would also help employers who seek to employ qualified Canadians. In order to sustain and create more jobs in Canada, we have identified initiatives to attain this goal. To better align training with labour market needs, we have allotted important funding to the Canada job grant program.

This grant would encourage greater employer participation in skills training decisions and, most importantly, it would directly link skills training to jobs. Our government knows that employers are the best judges of determining what exactly they are looking for and what skills they require to make their businesses grow. That is why we have thoroughly consulted with these business leaders, employer associations, educational institutions, and labour organizations to obtain their essential input on the design of the Canada job grant program.

The strength of the Canada job grant is that it would encourage employees, businesses, and training institutions to partner and work together to create jobs and to strengthen our economy. Knowing that both urban and rural businesses help our economy to prosper and grow, budget 2014 focuses on the needs of small businesses. We want to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. We must ensure that families that move into rural areas have access to both existing jobs and new jobs. One of my goals, as the MP for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell , is to strengthen the local economies within my riding.

I want to see local businesses in my riding succeed. When they succeed, they grow, and when they grow, they create new jobs and hire people. A compelling example of how budget 2014 helps local business is microbreweries. There are two well-known microbreweries in my riding: Beau's All Natural Brewing Company in Vankleek Hill and Cassel Brewery in Casselman. These two microbreweries have contributed significantly to tourism and to an increased interest in craft brewing and the buying of local products. Creativity and innovation in the development of products are critical to success.

That is why microbreweries in my riding have been doing so well. Who would not be intrigued by Beau's brewery No. 11 brew, Smokin' Banana Peels, or Cassel Brewery's Sleeper Car-Double Chocolate Porter? The current labelling standards for beer need to be updated, as they are an impediment to microbreweries marketing new and innovative beers. The current regulations cause delay and stunt economic growth.

For example, a microbrewing company experienced delays in launching its new Blueberry Ale when it was determined that existing labelling standards for beer and ale would not permit both of the names “blueberry” and “ale” on the same label.

(1125) Under the beer standard, the addition of a spice, perhaps nutmeg, means there would be a question as to whether the product could still be considered beer. This leads to many frustrating delays and additional costs. Our government is modernizing the standards to encourage the development of unique products. We have removed red tape for the beer industry and will rewrite the compositional standards for beer to better allow for innovation in the beer industry under the Food and Drug Regulations.

Another important program that I would like to highlight is the creation and launch of the Canada apprentice loan, an initiative identified by employers and various organizations that we consulted with. The reality is that jobs in the trades are some of the most difficult to fill. For an apprentice to train in his or her respective trade, he or she must undergo years of on-the-job employment and technical training that can last six to eight months at a time, which, of course, is at the cost of the apprentice.

The Canada apprentice loan we are introducing would provide apprentices and Red Seal trades with access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year. This is important in communities like my riding. I would like to point out a Red Seal trade that would be especially relevant and essential to rural farming communities. Agricultural equipment technicians are responsible for the initial set up and maintenance of agricultural equipment, such as tractors, combines, highly technical harvesting machinery, and much more.

As the parliamentary secretary to agriculture, I have had the opportunity to meet with farmers from across Canada, including those in my riding, and I can tell members that this particular Red Seal trade has a direct impact on rural farming and our rural economies. Our government wants to ensure that these positions are filled by qualified men and women receiving the required certification. The Canada apprentice loan would help those seeking apprenticeship and certification to do just that. It is essential to recognize the importance of training and education, and educating the workforce of tomorrow.

As a father of five children, four of them being either students or in the workforce, the reality of this definitely hits home. This is why I am especially encouraged by our government's recent initiative to assist young people during their studies, by eliminating vehicles from Canada student loan assessments. Many young constituents from my riding commute to academic institutions in downtown Ottawa on a daily or weekly basis using their own vehicles. The value of their vehicle, which is essential to their education, will no longer be included in their loan assessment calculations.

More than 19,000 students who own vehicles would benefit from higher loan disbursements each year as a result of this initiative, at a projected net cost of almost $15 million over two years, and then $8 million per year after that. [ Translation ] Lastly, I would like to say that the federal deficit will be eliminated in 2015, thanks to budget 2014. What is more, all this will be done without any tax increases. That is a remarkable success, especially when we consider that no one other than the Conservative government could achieve that.

No one other than the Conservative government managed to eliminate 160 different types of tax. As a result, Canadians families will save on average a total of $3,400 in federal tax. Our government has always come up with ways to reduce taxes. Unfortunately, the NDP and the Liberals have always voted against these important initiatives. No one other than the Conservative government could have reduced government spending in order to lower taxes, something the NDP and the Liberals have always resisted.

I can assure the House that budget 2014 will eliminate the deficit, create jobs for Canadians, and strengthen our economy while keeping taxes low. [ English ] I can assure Canadians that no other party could achieve this except the Conservative Party. For those who doubt this, I say take note of how the NDP and the Liberals will vote on budget 2014 in the coming days. They will undoubtedly vote against everything that Canadians wanted in a budget and that we are delivering in a budget. Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague spoke about job growth, encouraging entrepreneurship, and strengthening local economies in his speech. How does the member feel about the choices that are being made in the name of creating a surplus when compared to some of the ways the Conservative government has wasted money in the past? A good example is the $2 million spent on a lavish pavilion that featured a fake lake for the G20 meetings. Ironically, the idea was to promote tourism in Ontario's northern wilderness. However, just a few years later, tourism in the region is of no consequence.

The Conservatives are effectively killing passenger rail service on the Algoma Central Railway, which threatens good jobs, small businesses that are mostly family run, and communities all along the line, so they can hoard away about the same amount of money that they wasted on the pavilion and fake lake. I can tell the member that every dollar invested in a passenger service on the ACR has a $9.00 multiplier effect that ripples through the local economy. Can the member tell me the multiplier effect of money spent on a fake lake and an empty commitment to tourism?

(1130) Mr. Pierre Lemieux : Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to see the positive side of all that has been accomplished by our government in Canada's economy. For example, I mentioned the creation of over one million net new jobs since 2009, 85% of which are full time and 80% in the private sector. There is more. The IMF and the OECD both predict that Canada will have among the strongest growth in the G7 in the years ahead, and for the sixth straight year, the World Economic Forum has rated our banking system as the world's best.

It is clear that our budgets are having a positive impact on Canada's economy. Canada has a strong standing in the world because of our budgets. I would encourage my colleagues on the other side of the House to vote in favour of this budget. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservatives always quote job statistics from the bottom of the recession instead of when they took power in 2006. It makes the numbers look better. I am encouraged by my hon. colleague mentioning one of the Red Seal trades: agricultural equipment technician.

It is very important to have people who can fill the jobs that involve needed skills. However, I would remind the member that it was his government, when it closed the prison farms, that said there were no jobs on farms. That was the justification that the Conservatives gave for not having inmates work hard and regularly, work on time, and work up to standards on farms while they were in minimum security institutions.

At that time the Conservatives said there were not any jobs on farms, and now my hon. colleague talks, correctly, I would say, about the importance of agricultural equipment technicians when he talks about the new apprentice loan program. I wonder if he might like to correct the government's statement from previous years. Mr. Pierre Lemieux : Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight this member's support for the Red Seal program and for the trades within our budget. No government has done more for the development of skills within trades programs than this government, and this budget has even more initiatives.

I would ask this member whether he will therefore vote in favour of the budget. He has identified that the trades and the apprenticeship programs are vital and essential, as I mentioned in my speech. I am asking him, will he therefore vote in favour of the budget? It is essential that he does. Hon. Alice Wong (Minister of State (Seniors), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I understand that the budget is great for seniors and also for those people with disabilities. For example, we have already increased accessibility funding by renewing it for another $15 million annually. I attended two events last week.

It was a breakthrough that we put $16,000 through for a low-income society in Downtown Eastside to help those with disabilities, and another $41,000 to the University Women's Club of Vancouver to help them with accessibility. At the same time, we have the lowest poverty rate for seniors, thanks to our GIS, which has seen the largest increase in over a quarter of a century. There are other good things that are happening. Can I ask the parliamentary secretary to highlight some of the things we will do for seniors?

(1135) Mr. Pierre Lemieux : Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this government has tremendous respect for our seniors and for the meaningful contributions they have made to Canada. The minister is absolutely right. This budget contains many very important initiatives to support our seniors. I will list just a few of them. This budget will enhance, by $5 million a year, the new horizons program for seniors. It will expand the targeted initiatives for older workers by investing $75 million to help unemployed older workers put their talents and experience to work.

The budget also launches the Canadian employers for caregivers action plan. This would work with employers so that caregivers can maximize their participation in the workforce while being able to provide care for their loved ones. It is clear this budget supports our seniors, and I thank the minister for the question. Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support economic action plan 2014, which is a focused and admirable budget. Economic action plan 2014, a road to balance, is focused on Canada's future.

With 2015 in our sights, the Minister of Finance has crafted a budget to deliver job creation, economic growth, and low taxes, leading to a balanced budget in 2015. The last five years have certainly not been easy on Canadians. The global economic recession has drastically affected the Canadian economy. Our government worked hard to fight the worst global economic turmoil in almost 80 years by delivering a stimulus package which created Canadian jobs, built infrastructure, and kept us internationally competitive. This government has succeeded spectacularly.

I am proud to say that Canada is now one of only a handful of countries in the world that continues to receive a triple-A credit rating with a stable outlook, from all rating agencies. Canada has the best job creation record of all G7 countries, with over one million net new jobs created since 2009. The OECD has forecast that Canada will outpace the rest of the G7 in growth over the next 50 years. Our financial sector is flourishing.

The head of the International Monetary Fund noted that Canada is “a country with one of the strongest financial sectors in the world [...] Canada can teach the rest of the world about how to build a stronger, safer financial system”. Our Prime Minister gets it. Our finance minister also gets it and has delivered a strong, stable, and fiscally responsible budget for all Canadians. I will highlight several aspects of the budget that would affect Ontario, and in particular my constituents in Kitchener Centre. These are strong reasons to support the budget.

The government continues to support innovation in Canada, year after year, and budget 2014 is no exception. Since 2006, the government has delivered almost $11 billion in new resources to support scientific research. In 2013 alone, the government's support for innovation exceeded $3 billion for research and post-secondary education. Economic action plan 2014 would create a Canada first research excellence fund, with $1.5 billion in funding over the next decade. This would help Canadian post-secondary institutions excel globally in research, which provides long-term economic benefits.

Our post-secondary institutions in Waterloo region will continue to excel as leaders in innovation and research. Canadians have long been leaders in quantum research. The University of Waterloo's quantum research department will receive $15 million in funding over three years, beginning in 2014. Most exciting is that the budget seizes the opportunities of the open data world. Over three years, $3 million will be provided to the Canadian Digital Media Network for the creation of the open data institute, through FedDev Ontario.

With advancing technology, it is possible to sort and filter data to identify opportunities for new products and services. This initiative would be spearheaded by the network, but it will be a collaborative effort with partners, which include Waterloo region's own Desire2Learn, OpenText Corporation, Communitech, and the University of Waterloo. My constituents are concerned about finding jobs. They also want to make sure they find the right jobs for their skills.

That is why the budget would create the Canada apprentice loan, which would deliver access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year to apprentices in Red Seal trades. The government will also launch a job matching service, which will automatically match Canadians looking for work with employers who are looking to hire them. This enhanced job matching service will provide job seekers with modern tools to find jobs that match their skills and provide employers with better tools to look for qualified Canadians.

The budget starts with $11 million over two years for this, and adds an ongoing $3.3 million per year to launch this enhanced service.

(1140) I am proud of the efforts of women in my community: the entrepreneurs, the executives, and the professionals. Budget 2014 is going to deliver $150,000 across the country to increase mentoring among women entrepreneurs. Kitchener has its fair share of dynamic young women entrepreneurs in companies such as Pebble, Thalmic Labs, Charity Republic, and MappedIn, but despite these success stories, women are significantly underrepresented as a proportion of small business owners. This budget meets that challenge.

I meet too many talented young individuals graduating from university who are not able to find good employment quickly, so budget 2014 is going to reallocate $15 million annually toward up to 1,000 internships for recent post-secondary graduates in small and medium-sized enterprises through the youth employment strategy. I want to mention The Working Centre in downtown Kitchener, which I am very proud of. It helps many people find work. Earlier this year, I attended an older workers forum there and spoke with people whose skills need to be updated so they can find employment in a changing workplace.

The targeted initiative for older workers, which is run out of The Working Centre as well as other Kitchener institutions, such as Lutherwood and Conestoga College, helps older workers update their skills. Budget 2014, I am very pleased to say, renews the TIOW program for another three-year period, representing a federal investment of $75 million. It is very good news for my community. As the longest-serving member of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I am proud of this government's investments in Canada's natural heritage.

I am happy to say that economic action plan 2014 allocates another $391 million over five years to Parks Canada for improvements to bridges and dams in our national parks and along our historic canals. My constituents enjoy recreational fishing. With the Grand River winding majestically through the city and the wonderful Great Lakes within driving distance, we all benefit from healthy natural waterways. This budget is going to double the annual funding to the recreational fisheries conservation partnership program. It will provide an additional $15 million over the next two years.

This is great news for the Grand River Conservation Authority and great news for those who enjoy fishing. Finally, we need to talk about families. For an ordinary family of four, the tax burden, since 2006, has been cut by close to $3,400 each year. This gives individuals and families greater flexibility to make the choices that are right for them. Further help for families is going to come in this budget through the investment of $44.9 million over five years to expand the focus of the national anti-drug strategy.

Also, the budget is going to deliver an increase in the maximum amount of the adoption expense credit by allowing $15,000 for further tax relief in recognition of the costs unique to adopting a child. The budget will also permit Canadians leaving a defined benefit registered pension plan to receive a payout equal to the lump sum value of their pension benefits, and there are other beneficial changes. Canadians need to know that this country is succeeding economically. The OECD thinks so. Fortune 500 companies think so. Our friends in the G7 think so. The world's lenders think so.

In fact, the only people who do not want to admit that Canada is doing well are the members opposite, who would prefer to see the government spending more of Canadians' hard-earned money. However, the government is not going to do that today. I stand proud of the Government of Canada and its plan. I stand proud of economic action plan 2014 and our current path to balancing the budget. I urge all members of the House to put aside their partisan interests and to support the best interests of all Canadians. Support this budget.

(1145) [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his lyrical speech. However, I am going to have to bring him back down to earth. At some point, we have to face reality. It is rather appalling to listen to announcements about correcting mistakes made by this government with its indiscriminate cuts. Let us talk about real matters. I had the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on Finance for one year.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the government's measures in recent years had very little to do with the one million jobs created. We should also not overlook the fact that the massive tax cuts for big business have artificially created the largest debt ever incurred by a Canadian federal government and that this was a real waste of money. Billions of dollars were truly wasted. The finance minister clearly showed that every dollar of tax cuts did not generate even 40¢ in potential spinoffs. That money was not very well spent.

A few years ago, the Minister of Finance supported our proposal to regulate bank fees. Unfortunately, that measure did not materialize. He went with a voluntary code. I am asking my colleague how he can continue boasting when we have black and white proof that this government has made mistakes for years and is not solving the real problems that are very costly for Canadian taxpayers. [ English ] Mr. Stephen Woodworth : Mr. Speaker, the reality is that our colleagues on the opposite side paint a very bleak, kind of walking dead picture of Canada and its economic prospects.

It really is a kind of dark fantasy world that is necessary for us to dispel so that Canadians at home know that actually, the government is doing fantastic work, and the country is really quite healthy. I would like to just add a drop of truth, which, like a drop of detergent, will dispel the oily slick the opposition tries to put out to Canadians. I will provide a couple of interesting comments about the budget for my colleague's consideration. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has said, “The government has acted.... The result will be a stronger economy and more jobs”.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said, “Small business owners know that today's deficits are tomorrow's taxes, so they are pleased [with] the government's commitment to a balanced budget in 2015”. Let me close with one more, in particular. Engineers Without Borders said: EWB welcomes the government's decision to protect vital foreign aid spending in Budget 2014.... ...we are proud that Prime Minister Stephen Harper chose to maintain current levels of foreign aid spending. Canada's recent commitment— The Deputy Speaker : Order.

The member has been in the House long enough to know that he cannot use the personal name, whether it is of the Prime Minister or any other member of the House. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, first, as this is a chamber of debate, I would like to respond to a request made by the last two speakers from the Conservative Party, who asked opposition members to vote for the budget.

The reason the Liberals are not voting for the budget is that we know that we could produce a much better budget, and we would be betraying what we believe in if we did that. My question is about the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope. The member from the Kitchener-Waterloo area may know about this telescope. It is a telescope Canadians have worked on for many years. It is a world-class instrument. Canada has put millions of dollars into the telescope. It needs roughly only $700,000 a year to continue its operation until about 2019, when a new telescope will take over.

Given that the government has announced the Canada first research excellence fund, which, by the way, this telescope is not eligible for, would my hon. colleague from the Kitchener area join me in asking the government to find a way to fund Canadian astronomers using this telescope for the next few years?

(1150) Mr. Stephen Woodworth : Mr. Speaker, that probably only gives me time to comment on my colleague's remark that the Liberals would present a better budget. As I understand it, the Liberal leader 's idea of a better budget is simply to say that it will balance itself. This is a re-emergence of voodoo economics in the 21st century in Canada. I think my friend should be blushing to hear his leader say that. Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to add my comments on this pretty dismal budget we see here in the House of Commons.

Regardless of who stands and tries to say how wonderful it is, on the opposition side we know that this is not the way it is. I will be sharing my time with the great member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Louis who has delved into the budget in depth and will have some additional comments to make. As I said, I am pleased to be on my feet today to address this year's so-called budget, particularly because it is my hope that Canada will soon set aside the years of Conservative fiscal mismanagement in favour of something better.

The day before the budget was released, the Liberal caucus released what we hoped the budget would contain. We said things like, “the federal budget must focus on generating the kind of economic growth that will finally help struggling middle class families”. I am sad to report that, clearly, it failed on all counts. The reality is that our economic growth rate has not been this poor since the days of R. B. Bennett. The government should have used the budget to invest in infrastructure, education, and other areas that would help get Canada on track. This is history. We can go back in the books.

It is not something we are inventing when we say that we have not had such slow economic growth since R. B. Bennett. Members can look at the books and see clearly that what we are saying is 100% accurate. Instead, this budget provides little more than smoke and mirrors, typical of previous budgets. It provides even less for the average middle-class household in this country. Budget 2014 speaks directly to the government's priorities. There is nothing for seniors, nothing for students, and nothing to address the fact that the only thing keeping pace with GDP growth over the past years is household debt.

There is nothing to help veterans make ends meet and nothing to deal with the fact that the Canadian middle class has not had a decent raise in over 30 years. Indeed, government priorities come shining through, not the needs of real Canadians. Government priorities are not in touch with the priorities of most Canadian families. That is enough generalities. Let us take a look at the budget in a more specific way. The government would have us believe that it has set aside money to help veterans, but in reality, veterans have been left out in the cold.

The $6 million for veterans' funerals and $2 million to improve the Veterans Affairs website will not help veterans who are struggling with PTSD, with physical injuries, or with resettlement issues. It is not just veterans who have been left out of the Conservative brand of so-called economic prosperity. Rural Canadians have been ignored as well. Budget 2014 allocates what amounts to about $6.75 per rural individual man, woman, or child for rural broadband. That is right.

After slashing the Liberal program to connect every rural and remote community in Canada to the Internet, the Conservatives are hoping that a paltry $6.75 will now be sufficient. Just to be clear, we are glad to see that the government has finally put some money into connecting rural and remote Canada to the Internet. However, we were disappointed that it slashed these very good Liberal programs, so it stands to reason that we are happy to see the Conservatives reverse their own reckless and shortsighted cuts.

They have now seen the error of their ways and after four years are putting the money back into the budget. Imagine how much further ahead rural Canada would be if they had left it in there originally. This budget is another example of financial planning on the fly, typical of the government. Phony ad campaigns and one-off cash injections did not bring prosperity when the minister was selling Ontario down the river in the 1990s, and it is not going to work here. In 2012, the government made ill-advised changes to environmental regulations and immigration laws. Then in 2013, it reversed those changes.

Am I shocked that the 2014 budget made more reversals? No, that is just how the Conservatives roll. They take one step forward, see the error of their ways, then take two steps backwards to reinstate programs that were already there under the Liberals but will now have the Conservative banner on them. Worst of all, let us keep in mind that this is all just in time for an election. It is interesting timing.

(1155) This begs the question: Is the government minding the best interests of Canadians or the best interests of the Conservative Party? I would ask all Canadians to ask themselves those questions. They can come to a conclusion that I believe would show a significant change after the next election. That is up to Canadians to decide. It is not up to me or other members. Canadians will have a chance to make that choice. Of course, seniors are happy that they have been left out of the budget, because recent history tells us that when they are included in a Conservative budget, it usually means pain.

There is the example of moving the old age security retirement age up to 67. Again, the seniors who called me said that sometimes it is better to not be noticed than to have more pain passed on to them. Do members remember the Conservative budget that increased the age of eligibility that I just referred to? Do they remember when the Conservatives began taxing income trusts and increased the income tax rate for low income Canadians? The good thing is that seniors were ignored this time, but they cannot take much more of the Prime Minister 's kind of prosperity.

This does not take into account the fact that the government appears to be reversing itself on previous commitments to seniors, rural Canadians, and middle class Canadians. Do members remember that income splitting promise? Do they remember the promise to cut the excise tax on diesel in half? It was going to save money for everything that moved, because it was going to cut the diesel tax in half. Do they remember when the Prime Minister said taxing income trusts was raiding the retirement nest eggs of our seniors? I remember those things.

I suspect many in the House remember them, and I suspect many Canadians will continue to remember them. Budget 2014 has again verified a full reversal on all of those promises. All of those commitments have been broken. All of this comes as a leaked government report shows that middle class Canadians, students, seniors, farmers, truckers, and nearly all other people who work for a living are falling behind. Household bills are growing, but incomes are stagnant. Middle class Canadians are putting groceries, rent, and tuition on their credit cards, and they need help.

Middle class Canadians are mortgaging their future to fund their basic living today. That is a crisis in the making. Budget 2014 is an abdication of the trust Canadians place in their government, and the Liberals will be voting against this short-sighted, dangerous, and uninspired plan. The budget is just another example of a government adrift without a plan. Saying it has a plan is not the same as having a plan. Saying it cares is not the same as caring. We must remember these things. The Prime Minister has the worst economic record of any prime minister since R.B. Bennett in the 1930s—

(1200) Hon. Alice Wong : Oh, come on. That is not true. Hon. Tim Uppal : Look at the numbers. Hon. Judy Sgro : Mr. Speaker, they can get out the history books. I would not say it if it were not true. It is easily proven. In fact, maybe I will go and run it off and deliver it, so they know that everything I am saying is true. The prosperity that the Conservatives celebrate is not being felt around the kitchen tables of the nation. Economic success must be felt by everyone to be effective, and there is nothing in the budget that would make a serious difference for middle class Canadians.

The Conservative government stumbles from crisis to crisis, and these crises are often of the government's own making. Conservatives have dropped the fiscal management ball, and they are sticking our grandchildren with the bill for their fiscal incompetence. In 2013, the Conservatives lowered taxes on yachts and summer homes, but hit working class families with new taxes on essentials such as household heaters, baby carriages, and school supplies. Even blankets were hit with an extra 5% tax. Now, just in time for an election, the Conservatives have seen the light.

They have reversed their taxes on families and expect us all to stand here and applaud. I cannot help but wonder if the government is again minding the interests of Canadians and our country, or just its own. Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may make us feel like we are flying high at first, but it will not take long before we feel the impact. Middle class Canadians are feeling the impact, and I for one will not be voting for that. Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I have a question on middle income families for my colleague. Statistics Canada just released the figures on middle income families, noting that our government has actually reduced the taxes by $3,400 for a family of four. Those families of four are what I would call “average families” in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, families like mine. I have three children. We have nine grandchildren and they are the pride of our life.

Statistics Canada has just stated that the net worth of Canadian families has gone up 45% since 2005, and almost 80% since 1999, but with the largest increase between 2005 and 2012 in the middle income bracket. I wonder if my colleague has a comment about our work with the middle class. Hon. Judy Sgro : Mr. Speaker, I am sure when we have had a chance to delve into those numbers, we will find they are like the $3,400 of tax cuts that benefit thousands of Canadians, but 70% of Canadians do not benefit from those $3,400 in tax cuts. Only 30% of Canadians benefited.

We are talking about all Canadians benefiting, not just the wealthy or not just particular pockets. The issue is that there are challenges out there. The Conservatives continue to break their promises one at a time, and I suspect they will keep doing that in order to beef up their piggy banks so they have more money to throw away next year when trying to buy all the votes of the people who will forget very quickly what the Conservatives did not deliver, and they hope people will be deaf to all the other promises. Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, and obviously those members have come to realize that this is not a good budget. I rise specifically with respect to the Algoma Central Railway line and the fact that the current government has actually cut $2.2 million of the subsidy that CN used to get. Now it is leaving the tourism sector in that area, plus the little town of Oba and the outlying municipalities, at a very big disadvantage with the impact this will have on tourism. This is an email I received from Al and Moe.

It goes on to say: All of the tourist that travel to our cities and towns will no longer have a reason to come. This will create complete loss of revenue to all of the lodge owners and many businesses in these small communities that rely on the ACR Passengers who spend money when they visit. It will impact the city of Sault Ste. Marie and all of the restaurants, hotels and grocery stores who serve these tourists that venture into our precious northern wilderness for weeks at a time. The loss of jobs will be nothing more than staggering and devastating to this economy.

The email goes on to say that people have written to the Minister of Transport but have had no response. My question for my colleague is with respect to tourism. Does she see anything that really would help the people along the Algoma Central Railway line from Sault Ste. Marie to Hearst and tourism as a whole? The Conservatives say they are creating jobs, but meanwhile they are getting rid of jobs in northern Ontario.

(1205) Hon. Judy Sgro : Mr. Speaker, tourism is or was one of the major things we celebrated in Canada, with people coming. I recently had a meeting with the tourism associations, and tourist numbers are way down. Canada has dropped so far down below the line because of that lack of investment both in promoting Canada and, second to that, in closing off beautiful places in northern Ontario and in other parts of Canada because of the lack of investment in the infrastructure that is needed in our transportation.

What is going to happen to all of those people who will lose their jobs because they do not have tourism and because of the change that will be there? Rather than investing in our infrastructure and things as important as our transportation and opening up other parts of our country, as a result of this budget there are going to be more people unemployed. We need to be investing in infrastructure. We need to be investing in post-secondary education, and we need to provide opportunities for our children to grow and be the best they can be, and invest in our country. That will provide jobs. Mr.

Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I know why the budget was introduced during the Olympics. It was so that Canadians might not notice that the Conservatives are not making a real effort on their behalf, on behalf of their future and that of their children. This is certainly not an Olympian budget. It does not strive for excellence. No thought, skill, or creativity went into this budget. There is not much to look at here. One thing is for sure. The minister is no Alex Bilodeau of finance ministers. The budget does not inspire.

It does not give hope to our youth, seniors, those looking at retirement on the horizon, or unemployed middle class Canadians. It is not a budget aimed at shoring up Canada's middle class. It is a furtive budget that seeks to slip by unnoticed, lest Canadians see that the emperor has no clothes, that the government has no ideas. These past few years, members on the other side of the House have engaged in incessant self-promotion, spinning their economic record with a view to gilding the economic reality over which the current Conservative government has presided.

We need only look at the performance of some key economic variables since the Conservatives took power to understand that things are not the way the government describes them. I would first like to bring attention to something known as the natural economic growth rate, which is that portion of the economic growth rate driven by population growth. As weak as the growth of the Canadian economy has been over the past few years, it can be linked in no small measure to an increase in the population of the country that has driven both aggregate demand and employment.

A Statistics Canada report released in the fall of 2012 showed that Canada had the fastest population growth in the G8, owing to immigration. Canada has sustained the highest immigration levels in the world as a percentage of its population. This is important to note. The Conservative government cannot take credit for Canada's population growth. If we look at key economic variables, we see that the situation is not as rosy as the Conservatives say over and over again.

While population growth, and not the Conservative government, has been driving economic growth in Canada, the population has been expanding faster than the rate of job growth. The national unemployment rate in January 2006 was 6.6%. In December 2013, there were 236,200 more unemployed Canadians than in January 2006 and the unemployment rate stood at 7.2%. It is true that there were job gains in January versus December 2013, but these gains included 28,000 people who became self-employed. What is more, these January gains followed job losses in full-time work in December.

Moreover, the youth unemployment rate in January 2006 was 12.2%. In December 2013 it was 14%. All in all, Canada ranked 20th among 34 OECD nations in employment creation for the 2007-2012 period. How the government gets away with saying that it is “first in the OECD” over and over again is beyond me. Although 7.2% may seem like a hopeful rate in the current context, as the rate was as high as 8.7% in mid-2009, we have to take into account the discouraged job seeker who has given up looking because the labour market is so bleak.

This dampens the unemployment rate, which reflects only those actively seeking employment. If one looks at the reduction in the unemployment rate from 2009, the situation looks promising, but that reduction is cold comfort since 80% of it occurred because job prospects were so poor that many Canadians gave up looking for work. Interestingly, Statistics Canada does quantify the discouraged job seeker effect and publishes a supplementary measure of unemployment that includes discouraged workers and those who are working part time while really wanting full-time work.

This unemployment rate, which is referred to as the underutilization rate, sits at over 10%. Another measure of the labour market situation in Canada is the long-term unemployment rate. Before 2008, 12% of Canadians had been looking for work for six months or more, and 4% for more than a year. Today, about 20% of the unemployed have been without work for more than six months, and 7% for more than one year.

As McGill economics professor Christopher Ragan has said: A better indication of the economy’s job creation performance is the path of the employment-to-population ratio--and by this measure, our economic recovery is only mediocre. Just before the crisis, total employment was 63.7% of the population. It fell sharply during the recession...and then struggled to recover even to 62%, where it has flat-lined for more than two years

(1210) If our performance in terms of unemployment is not very encouraging, the debt situation facing Canadians individually and collectively is no more so. In 2005, for every dollar of disposable income Canadians earned, they owed $1.30. In 2013, it was $1.64. On a collective basis, the government has added $160 billion to the national debt. One-fifth of the federal debt has been accumulated since 2006, the year the Conservatives became the government.

Still other economic indicators show that over the course of almost a decade the Conservative government failed to lay the groundwork for robust future prosperity. There was a 1.9% drop in productivity in the Canadian economy from 2006 to September 2013. Productivity, of course, is a function of investment in equipment, and also of the rate of innovation. Are we creating and producing the innovative products the world wants? Another indicator, our chronic merchandise trade deficit, is likely linked at least in part to this poor productivity trend.

We have had two years of trade deficits, which have been widening in the past few months, exceeding forecasters' predictions. Finally, the stock market is often a reflection of generalized optimism or lack thereof about future economic prospects. From 2006 to 2013, the Dow Jones industrial average rose by 55.1%, while the TSX composite index rose by only 16.1%. What is the government doing to generate growth? In this standstill political budget, it is not much.

Moreover, the government's previous strategies and actions have not been enough to produce the growth rates that a country with so many resources, such great human capital, such talent, and such promise should be able to reach. There are many measures the government could have taken to help middle-class Canadians improve their future standard of living. It could have raised RRSP contribution limits, it could have raised the contribution limits for tax-free savings accounts, and it could have also helped seniors by eliminating the minimum withdrawals required from RRIFs, registered retirement income funds.

The markets have not been good, including the TSX composite index I referred to, meaning that the value of these RRIF portfolios has been weak, declining or not rising by very much. Indeed, some seniors have come to me to say that they do not want to withdraw from their RRIFs right now because they want to wait for the value of their RRIF portfolios to rise, but the government is forcing them to withdraw a minimum amount, which is compromising the future value of their assets.

It would have been good if the government had shown some imagination on issues such as this and taken some concrete steps to make the economic situation better for seniors and other Canadians. It did not, however, take the opportunity to do so in the budget, and that is a shame.

(1215) Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues asked a question earlier of a colleague of that member about today's Stats Canada report. Stats Canada today reports that the net worth of Canadian families is 44.5% higher today than it was in 2005. Certainly this has largely been due to the low-tax plan our government has implemented. My colleague's leader has, at different times, commented that the budget will simply balance itself.

I am wondering if my colleague would agree with that in the context of these last numbers I just quoted, showing clearly that the low-tax plan our government has had in place for the last eight years is working. It has been working not only for ordinary citizens but also especially for the group the member mentioned, seniors, many of whom have been removed from our tax rolls altogether. I wonder if the member would comment on those positive moves. Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia : Mr. Speaker, the report that came out, which I read about, did mention that net worth has gone up.

In many cases, and I would think in the majority of cases probably, this is because of rising house prices. The report did mention that this was happening very much in British Columbia, where we know that the housing market is very hot. Now, there is one point I would like to make here. It is one thing to have our net worth go up. However, if we are not cashing out our net worth, we will still have to borrow to buy the groceries and to pay for other current expenditures, and as we do, we are of course accumulating interest, which will eat into our net worth.

Yes, the value of people's homes has been going up, often because of population growth, which as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech is not the result of any government policy. There are many factors at play. I do not think the government can take credit for many of the trends that we are seeing in terms of asset growth. Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well that this budget is actually being balanced on the backs of the most vulnerable. I wonder what his view is of the government delaying implementing new ideas until the next election basically.

I would also like to hear his view on making life more affordable for seniors, young people, and the most vulnerable. We had asked the government to include items that Canadians would like to see it move on, things that would make life more affordable for them, Therefore, I wonder what the Liberals' position is with respect to ATM fees and high interest rates on credit cards. Do they agree that those need to be dealt with? These are not big cash items for the government. These are not in fact cash items at all. It would take a bit of legislation, a bit of willingness, to deal with them.

Payday lenders is another issue. Does the member understand that Canadians are being gouged and are victims of this? What is his party's position on the need for the government to act? Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia : Mr. Speaker, indeed, the government needs to do more to help seniors. I mentioned in my speech one concrete measure the government could have taken, lowering or eliminating or deferring minimum withdrawals from RRIFs.

In terms of youth, if the government used its power and its jurisdictional right to help post-education in this country, that could delay what many see as inevitable increases in tuition fees, as provincial governments are forced to deal with their deficits. The government could have been more creat