OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 097 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, June 5, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 097 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 097 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 097 (Version officielle) 147 097 05 06 2014 2014/06/05 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 ] Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada The Speaker : I have the honour, pursuant to

section 38 of the Access to Information Act, to lay upon the table the report of the information commissioner for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014. Pursuant to Standing Order 108 (3)( h ), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

[ Translation ] Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner The Speaker : Pursuant to paragraph 90(1)(

b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is my duty to present to the House the annual report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in relation to the Conflict of Interest Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014. [ English ] Pursuant to Standing Order 108 (3)( h ), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Pursuant to paragraph 90(1)(

a) of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is my duty to present to the House the Annual Report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in relation to the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014. [ Translation ] Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)( a ), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[ English ] Interparliamentary Delegations The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation concerning its visit to Turkey on March 10-14, 2014.

Certificates of Nomination Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 81(3) of the Parliament of Canada Act,

chapter P-1 of the revised statutes of Canada 1985, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a certificate of nomination and biographical notes for Mary Elizabeth Dawson, who the government is proposing to be reappointed to the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(1), this matter is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in a joint meeting of the defence and security, economics and security, and political committees and officers of the committee on the civil dimension of security and the science and technology committee, held in Brussels, Belgium, February 16-18, 2014.

Committees of the House Foreign Affairs and International Development Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Motion Mr.

Speaker, there have been the usual discussions among parties, and I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the remainder of the debate, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), on the motion to concur in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Monday, December 9, 2013, be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed adopted on division.

The Speaker : Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Privacy Commissioner Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Motion Mr. Speaker, I move: That, in accordance with subsection 53(1) of the Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21, and pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, the House approve the appointment of Daniel Therrien as Privacy Commissioner, for a term of seven years. The Speaker : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. And five or more members having risen: The Speaker: Call in the members.

(1045) [ Translation ] (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 167) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Ambler Ambrose Anderson Andrews Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Bateman Bélanger Bennett Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Block Braid Brison Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Casey Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Cuzner Daniel Davidson Dechert Dreeshen Dubourg Dykstra Easter Falk Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Fletcher Foote Freeland Galipeau Gallant Garneau Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder Hsu James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kerr Komarnicki Lake Lamoureux Lauzon Lebel Leef Lemieux Leung Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacAulay MacKay (Central Nova) Maguire May Mayes McColeman McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Murray Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz Pacetti Paradis Payne Preston Raitt Rajotte Regan Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Scarpaleggia Schellenberger Seeback Sgro Shea Shipley Shory Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton St-Denis Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Valeriote Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) -- 153 NAYS Members Ashton Aubin Benskin Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brosseau Chicoine Choquette Christopherson Cleary Côté Crowder Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dusseault Fortin Freeman Garrison Genest-Jourdain Giguère Gravelle Groguhé Hassainia Hughes Jacob Julian Kellway Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Liu Mai Marston Martin Mathyssen Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Pilon Plamondon Quach Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Saganash Scott Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Stewart Sullivan Thibeault Tremblay Turmel -- 75 PAIRED Nil The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : I declare the motion carried. Ms. Nycole Turmel : Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure that the Minister of Justice 's vote is not counted because, in my opinion, he arrived after you began to call the vote. [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, it is of course to your discretion, but I heard the question being put, as I was here. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : This is the second day that this issue has arisen. Perhaps it is time to review what the Standing Orders actually say and what the expectations of members are. When the bells for the vote started ringing, there were 30 minutes.

It is an obligation of the members to be in the chamber when the 30-minute bell has expired. I think it is obvious to all members that over the past months, or possibly years, members have slipped into the habit of starting to enter the House or getting ready to enter the House when the clock hits zero. In fact, it is the responsibility of members who want to participate in the vote to actually be in the chamber and to be ready for the vote when the clock hits zero.

As members also know, it is standard practice that the whips for both the government and the official opposition will be out in the lobby and will come down into the chamber together and take their seats. In almost all cases, members know they need to be in their seats at that point, so the vote can proceed. What we had happen both yesterday and today is that one of the two whips, the government whip yesterday and the opposition whip today, waited until the bells expired and very quickly thereafter entered the chamber by themselves, addressed the Chair, and then took their seat.

It is, in fact, not necessary for either of the whips to enter the House. The Speaker can rise and call the vote as soon as the bells have expired. It has become standard practice, in the co-operation that makes this place work better for all of us, that those two whips do that together. However, it is important to point out to all hon. members on both sides of the House that this is a practice; it is not a rule. In terms of who is or is not eligible to vote, the issue is that the member needs to be in the chamber in order to hear the question. That is the test for whether they can vote or not.

I know that in the past, as I said, it has become common practice that members have been in their seats, sitting, when the two whips take their seats, at which point the chair occupant rises to put the question. However, it is important to point out that this is not, in fact, absolutely necessary. It is impossible for the Speaker to keep track of where all 300 members are as the question is being put.

To a certain extent, there is an onus on the members not only to be on time but, if they are not here on time, to own up to that and to either not participate in the vote or, if it is pointed out, to subsequently say that their vote ought not to be counted. As is the practice and as members will know, there are times when members rise on a point of order immediately following a vote and point out that another member arrived late, was not here on time, and in their view, did not hear the question being put.

On that basis, being in one's seat, while always a very good idea, is not an actual requirement for being able to participate in the vote. Hearing the question is the requirement. I have a suggestion for all hon. members. We can avoid this unfortunate circumstance in the future if members pay closer attention to the clock and actually arrive in the House, ready for the vote to be taken, when the clock hits zero, rather than be standing in the lobby. The Chair is pleased to hear so many members applauding that, knowing that they will all be doing that in the future.

This month is, for many of us, our 10th anniversary of being elected to this place. We all know that there are rules and that there are Standing Orders. However, to a certain extent, this place only works with the good will and co-operation of all members. After 10 years, the Chair is also aware that toward the end of session, particularly in June when the days get longer, the weather gets warmer, and thoughts of returning to our constituents grow fonder in our hearts, it gets a little crazy around here. I would say that we have had ample evidence of that in the past two days. I will close with this.

If the Minister of Justice says he was in the chamber and he heard the question being put, the Chair will accept that on the word of the minister. I will point out to all hon. members that in the future, the way to avoid this is to actually be in their seats, where they can hear the question being put clearly.

(1050) The chief government whip is rising on a point of order. Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for that explanation, but I would like to explain my actions yesterday when I walked in by myself. We had an agreement with the official opposition that we would have the vote right after question period, with no bells. When that was changed, right after question period, I was waiting down at the other end to enter the chamber for the vote. Then we had to go through a 15-minute unnecessary wait when we were all here. That is why, when 15 minutes expired, I walked up the aisle.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : While the Chair appreciates the comments made by the chief government whip, nothing that he said in any way detracts from or contradicts anything I just said, which is that all hon. members should be here on time in the future. We will continue with routine proceedings.

Petitions Agriculture Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of farmers in my riding who save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds, and they are concerned with the current newly proposed restriction on farmers' traditional practices. The petitioners ask that the government refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or the Plant Breeders' Rights Act though Bill C-18 , which is

an act to amend certain acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, that would further restrict farmers' rights or add to farmers' costs.

(1055) [ Translation ] Canada Post Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions asking the government to put a stop to Canada Post service cuts, particularly the ones that will affect seniors and persons with disabilities. The petitioners are also wondering who will pay the bill when people fall going to get their mail in the winter. Will it be the municipality, the province or the federal government? I am presenting two petitions.

[ English ] Impaired Driving Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of constituents in my community, I would like to present this petition in which they call for mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of impaired driving causing death and the redefinition in the Criminal Code of an offence of impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter.

The Environment Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of several constituents from and around the Bonavista north area as well as Change Islands, Fogo Island, and Twillingate Island. The petitioners are deeply concerned about a freighter that sank off their coast back in 1985. About a year ago, or a little more, the freighter started to leak oil at the bottom of the ocean, which is now affecting seabirds and could eventually be a major disaster to the entire ecosystem. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to take immediate action to help clean up this potential disaster.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from thousands of Canadians who want the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure responsible conservation and management of sharks. The petitioners call upon the government to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fin to Canada.

Sex Selection Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today from citizens mostly of the Vancouver area. The petitioners call upon members of the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

Health Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians from Guelph and across Canada are calling upon the Government of Canada to require all producers and manufacturers of prepackaged foods to include potassium on the nutritional facts table on all food labels. The petitioners are seriously concerned that many prepackaged foods are not required to list potassium additives in the best interest of those who must keep an eye on intake, such as people suffering from heart and kidney disease, hypertension, and many other similar conditions.

The petitioners call upon the government for assistance and to take a proper, more active role in the promotion of health by requiring potassium to be included on the list of all nutritional facts.

Blood and Organ Donation Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today, which I will do quickly. The first petition is signed by residents who ask that the sexual preferences of people not be an instant refusal of the right to donate blood, bone marrow, and organs. The petitioners request the Government of Canada to return the rights of any healthy Canadian to give the gift of blood, bone marrow, and organs to those in need.

Health Care Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by residents who want to draw to our attention that Canadians support their public health care system and want to ensure every Canadian has the same access to high-quality health care services wherever they live.

Animal Welfare Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have many petitions here respecting the banning of cat and dog fur. I have introduced thousands of these petitions over the last couple of years. The petitioners point out that we should join the U.S.A., Australia, and the EU in banning the importation of cat and dog fur and that we are the only country without such a ban. The petitioners call on the House of Commons to support legislation to bring this into effect.

Emergency Protection Order Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first petition is with regard to the emergency order for protection of the greater sage grouse in Canada. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to rescind the emergency protection order. This petition is from citizens of my riding of Medicine Hat.

Endangered Species Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from residents of Medicine Hat. The petitioners are asking that the House of Commons rescind the Species at Risk Act and replace it with

an act that would encourage voluntary implementation.

Firearms Reclassification Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition is also from citizens of Medicine Hat. The petitioners point out that law-abiding Canadian citizens should be free to use firearms for recreational use. They call upon the House of Commons to fix legislation so that unelected bureaucrats no longer have control over weapons classifications.

Canada Post Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents who live in the west coast part of my riding, in the Stephenville area, who are opposed to the cuts announced by Canada Post. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to have Canada Post reinstate door-to-door delivery, because a lot of the individuals who live in this part of my riding are seniors or are disabled. The petitioners are asking the government to work with Canada Post to reinstate these services.

(1100) Housing Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first petition calls for a national housing strategy. The petition recognizes that one and a half million households, almost 13% of the Canadian population, is in core housing need. Canada is the only industrialized country that does not have a national housing strategy. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to develop a housing strategy that would ensure secure, accessible, and affordable housing for all Canadians.

Canada Post Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for an end to the cuts at Canada Post. In my community, people rely on door-to-door delivery, whether it is individual homes or small businesses. They believe that cuts to home delivery will have a tremendously negative effect on our communities. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop these devastating cuts to our postal service.

Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition today signed by thousands of Canadians. The petitioners say that current impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They are asking that there be mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death. The petitioners also want the Criminal Code of Canada to be changed to redefine an offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to present two petitions. Appropriately enough, today is World Environment Day. The first petition is from more than 1,200 petitioners from British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to put forward a meaningful climate plan that would reduce greenhouse gases to those levels that will avoid a 2° Celsius average global temperature increase. Those levels were once adopted by the 40th Parliament of Canada, 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, 80% reductions by 2050.

41st General Election Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents primarily in the Victoria area of my riding and that of the member for Victoria . The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada for a full investigation of what occurred in the 2011 election, generally referred to as robocalls, although some of them were live calls. All of the calls appear to have been motivated by a desire to confuse electors and deny them their right to vote. The petitioners believe there should be an inquiry.

[ Translation ] Zamudio Family Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of urgency that I am presenting this petition, which is calling on the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to allow the Zamudio family to stay in Canada on humanitarian grounds. One thousand people in my riding have signed this petition. It is with some concern that I am presenting it. The Zamudio family is to be deported on June 25, and we are hoping that the minister will listen to what the community is saying.

[ English ] Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is on gender selection abortion. It was determined that ultrasounds are being used in Canada to determine the gender of an unborn child, and if the child is a girl, the girl is often aborted. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to condemn this practice of discrimination against girls through gender selection abortion.

Agriculture Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from petitioners who recognize that farmers have the right to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seed. The petitioners are encouraging Parliament to do nothing to restrict that practice.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions, signed mainly by people in the riding of Hamilton Mountain . The petitions are about cuts to Canada Post and are calling on the government to reverse its decision regarding these cuts. I am pleased to present these petitions on behalf of my colleague from Hamilton Mountain.

[ English ] Mining Industry Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition calling on the government to establish an ombudsman for responsible mining. The petition was submitted by Development and Peace, a very worthwhile organization that promotes alternatives to unfair social, political, and economic structures, educates the Canadian population about the causes of poverty, and mobilizes Canadians toward action for change. I am very pleased to table this petition. I look forward to the government's response.

(1105) Rail Transportation Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a couple of petitions today. Two of them are with respect to funding for the Algoma Central Railway. Most of the petitioners are from the riding of Sault Ste. Marie, who want to ensure that their voices are heard here in the House of Commons. They are from Sault Ste. Marie, Bruce Mines, Searchmont, and Prince Township, and some are from Hawk Junction, Wawa, and Burk's Falls, in my riding, and some are from Toronto as well. Some of the petitioners are actually from the United States.

This shows how critical this is. It is with respect to funding for the Algoma Central Railway. The government has actually put in some additional funding for at least one more year while a working group works on this. However, the petitioners remain concerned with respect to the lack of consultation by the government and about the impact this will have on their economy and their businesses.

Consumer Protection Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the next petition is with respect to unfair extra fees and consumer rip-offs. The petitioners are from Spanish, Webbwood, Walford, Massey, Kapuskasing, Moonbeam, Cochrane, and Harty. The petitioners are calling on the government to take significant and concrete steps to make life more affordable. They are concerned about payday loans, pay-to-pay fees, ATM fees, access to low-interest credit cards, and price gouging. I am pleased to table these petitions.

Canada Post Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present two petitions, both with respect to Canada Post. The petitioners would like to draw the attention of this House to the fact that in 2014, the federal government will perform a review of the Canadian postal service charter. The petitioners have put forward that because Canada Post is a publicly owned post office, Canadians have every right to have input on matters involving the post office.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to ensure that the Canadian postal service charter review this year is open to the public. In the second petition, the petitioners would like to draw the attention of this House to the fact that by supporting Canada Post's plan to cut home delivery and to hike postage prices, the government has broken its promise to better protect consumers and that the elimination of door-to-door service delivery will be a particular hardship for seniors and the disabled.

The petitioners are calling on the government to reject Canada Post's plan to cut mail service and increase prices. Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions. One is from the town of Postville and one from the town of Black Tickle. They are both related to the downgrading of services by Canada Post Corporation. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to instruct Canada Post to maintain, expand, and improve postal services and to cease any proposals to reduce hours and diminish service to the residents in those areas.

I support the petitioners in their request to the government. We would certainly encourage the government to intervene here to ensure that postal services to all rural Canadians are maintained, and maintained at levels that are acceptable in a country of our stature.

Mining Industry Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, parishioners of St. Thomas à Becket in Pierrefonds are presenting this petition, which asks for the creation of a legislated ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining. This petition calls for the creation of a legislated extractive sector ombudsman mechanism in Canada that would have the capacity to receive and investigate complaints and assess compliance with corporate accountability standards that are based on international labour, environmental, and human rights norms; make public its findings; recommend remedial actions; and recommend sanctions to the Government of Canada.

Egypt Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my second petition is signed by a lot of people. They are calling upon the Canadian government to condemn the abuse of human rights in Egypt. The people who signed this petition are concerned about the freedom of the press and freedom of expression in Egypt.

Questions on the Order Paper Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Question No. 471 will be answered today. [ Text ]

Question No. 471--

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice :

With regard to Canada Post equipment renewal for community mailboxes and the new call for expressions of interest for specialized companies that responded to the first call for interest launched on July 24, 2013: (

a) what company was awarded this contract; (

b) what was the cost of the purchase; (

c) what companies were invited to submit bids for this contract; and (

d) why did Canada Post officials have information about the awarding of this contract removed from the MERX tendering website?

Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Florence Manufacturing, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gibraltar Industries Inc., has been awarded a contract for the short-term supply of community mailbox equipment to Canada Post.

With regard to (b), the requested information is financial and commercial in nature and has always been treated as confidential.

With regard to (c), on July 26, 2013, Canada Post issued a request for information, or RFI, to identify existing and available community mailbox equipment that would meet Canada Post’s short-term requirements. The RFI was issued in accordance with NAFTA obligations and was made publicly available to all potential suppliers through MERX. The names of the unsuccessful suppliers are considered confidential.

Following the finalization of the new equipment design for the long-term requirement due later this year, Canada Post will issue a request for proposal, an RFP, on MERX under NAFTA for the manufacture of the new equipment design.

With regard to (d), Canada Post did not remove information about the awarding of the contract from the MERX tendering website.

(1110) [ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if a supplementary response to Question No. 425, originally tabled on May 14, 2014, as well as Question No. 472 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 425--

Ms. Chrystia Freeland :

With regard to full-time equivalent (FTE) federal civil service and Crown corporation positions eliminated since January 1, 2012: what is the number of positions eliminated, broken down by the location of the former position, namely (

i) the National Capital Region, (ii) each province or territory, including figures for Quebec and Ontario outside of the National Capital Region, (iii) outside of Canada?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 475--

Mr. Peter Stoffer :

With regard to homeless veterans: (

a) what programs from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) are in place to assist homeless veterans; (

b) what programs are in place by other government departments, if applicable, to assist homeless veterans; (

c) what organizations are working in partnership with VAC to provide support to homeless veterans, broken down by province; (

d) what is the annual breakdown of contributions issued to organizations working in partnership with VAC on veterans homelessness from 2009 to 2013 inclusively, broken down by province; (

e) how much did VAC spend on veterans homelessness annually from 2009 to 2013 inclusively; (

f) what are the details of VAC's evaluation of the effectiveness of their financial contribution and program delivery for the partnership defined in ( c ); (

g) is VAC considering a plan for a national coordinated effort to support homeless veterans and, if so, what are the details; (

h) how many homeless veterans have been identified annually by VAC, from 2009 to 2013 inclusively; (

i) how many homeless veterans have been identified by organizations working in partnership with VAC annually from 2009 to 2013 inclusively, broken down by province; (

j) how many homeless veterans identified in (

h) and (

i) are now in receipt of departmental benefits or services; (

k) what is the breakdown of the type of departmental benefits or services the homeless veterans received from 2009 to 2013; (

l) what are the planned expenditures by VAC for homeless veterans for the next five years; and (

m) what are the planned expenditures by VAC for organizations working in partnership with VAC to provide support to homeless veterans?

(Return tabled)

[ English ] Hon. Mike Lake : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 Bill C-31—Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I move: That, in relation to Bill C-31,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the bill and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stages of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has an idea of how many members wish to participate. Questions and comments, the hon. opposition House leader. [ Translation ] Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, words fail me. Let us not forget that in the 35th and 36th Parliaments the Conservatives were criticizing the corrupt Liberals at the time. The Conservatives said that the Liberals moved 67 time allocation motions.

The Conservatives were clear. They said they would be different from the Liberals: they would be a transparent government, with a fresh new approach and they would not be corrupt. However, the Conservatives have a rather sorry record these days, with the number of time allocation motions and closure motions they have used. The Liberals moved 67 such motions at the time. The Conservatives are currently at 70. This is the 70th time they are limiting members' speaking time and muzzling Parliament. It is not as though the Conservatives were introducing good bills.

They have introduced bills that the Supreme Court has rejected. Others were so botched that the Conservatives ended up having to waste taxpayers' money to introduce new bills to fix the ones that were botched. They introduce bad bills and then they want to muzzle MPs. Last night, 49 Conservative MPs refused to show up when it was their turn to speak. This is unacceptable. [ English ] The worst part of this closure motion, this time allocation motion, is the provisions of the bill. We are talking about FATCA, whereby a million Canadians of American origin would simply be flushed away by the current government.

They would have no constitutional protections, no privacy protections. Even though we pushed for them at committee, the government refused to adopt them. We have also seen, in this particular bill, that railway safety and transparency would be blown away, because in secret, the government could reduce the railway safety provisions that are already inadequate. After the tragedy last year of Lac-Mégantic, one would think the government would be a little wiser and just a little more attuned to public opinion. My question is very simple.

Why is the government trying to hide from the public these horrible provisions in the bill by ramming the bill through without proper debate in the House of Commons?

(1115) Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, it is a pleasure to appear in the House to speak back on the scope of the bill and to talk a bit about the budget, budget implementation, the economic action plan, and the reasons we have moved into time allocation. The member from across the way started by saying that he was almost speechless. I can tell members one thing. I am not a doctor, but I would never diagnose that member, ever, since I have been here, as being almost speechless. It seems that he always has something to say. I appreciate the questions he asked today.

I appreciate the fact that he did stand and question it. Even though the opposition likes to suggest otherwise, it has been common practice in this place to include various measures in budgets. He seemed concerned that there were a number of different measures, or a lot of different measures, put into an overwhelming budget. He talked about the scope of the budget. Certainly it is nothing new. This is nothing new. This is nothing groundbreaking. I think Canadians expect a budget to deal with all departments of government.

They expect a budget to lay out the direction a government intends to go over the next number of years. Our budget is full of very good measures that would continue to move our government on its low-tax plan, a plan that would put Canadians in a very good position to find a job in this country, a plan that would enhance skill development, a plan that would take someone who says, “I want to move to a next level of employment” and would provide the opportunities to do that through many different measures that would be brought forward in this budget toward skill development.

What the opposition is not talking about is the fact that Canada is in one of the best positions of all countries around the world. We see growth. We see a low level of debt comparative with other G7 countries. We are well-positioned in Canada. We are well-positioned because of bills like this. That is why we look forward to continuing to debate and to continuing to look at the various measures the member brought forward. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question on

Part 5 of Bill C-31 , specifically on the issue of FATCA and its application to registered savings plans, RRSPs, registered education savings plans, and registered disability savings plans. Those plans have matching grants provided by the Government of Canada, funded by the taxpayers of Canada, that are intended to go to people with disabilities or to young people to save for their educations. Under FATCA, earnings from those deposits made by the Canadian government would be taxable by the IRS.

Does the Minister of State for Finance believe that this would be consistent with the intentions of those programs and that it would be appropriate for the Canadian taxpayer to be funnelling money to the IRS and the U.S. treasury? Second, has the government calculated how much money would be going to the IRS from the Canadian treasury as a result of FATCA and the provisions of this bill? Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, during question period and at other times FATCA has come up a number of times.

I feel, though, that the member's question was somewhat misleading, because as Canadians listened to that question, they believed that all Canadian taxpayers would now be forced to reveal their savings and their income to the IRS or to the United States. That is untrue. The member should know, and he does know, that the FATCA legislation was created and imposed in the U.S.A. It was enacted unilaterally to target American citizens living abroad in other countries, many of whom were Canadian citizens as well, many of whom have dual citizenship.

As long as they continue to be American citizens, the United States legislation dictates that Canada must comply. Let me say this. Our former finance minister, Mr. Flaherty, was troubled by the original legislation brought forward by the Americans, and I know a lot of Canadians had concerns with it as well. That is why this government negotiated a better deal through an IGA, an intergovernmental agreement, that would prevent certain things from being revealed to the Americans. Those would be things like RRSPs, tax-free savings accounts, or disability savings plans.

All those were not included because of Canada's strong intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. on FATCA.

(1120) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Before we continue, when I asked initially, only two or three members expressed an interest in asking a question. The first couple of questions and answers have been quite long, so I would urge all hon. members to make their questions and answers a little shorter. In that way, more members will have the opportunity to participate. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I was listening to the parliamentary secretary and I feel like telling him that the government needs to stop shoving things down Canadians' throats. Again, we are talking not only about the 70th time allocation motion, but also, and most importantly, about an omnibus bill that the government is shamefully trying to put a lid on. Yesterday, I talked about how the government must earn the respect of all members of the House.

I also discussed a problem that concerns me directly in Beauport—Limoilou, namely rail safety, for which the government is imposing measures that will keep cabinet decisions shrouded in secrecy. How can the parliamentary secretary boast about these so-called accomplishments when he is imposing the will of the government without really knowing whether the public approves of the multitude of amendments? Somewhere around 60 to 70 laws will be amended by this one single bill. This is outrageous. [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, I know a number of things that Canadians expect.

Certainly in the last election we saw that Canadians gave our government a very strong mandate to focus on creating jobs and economic growth. We were in the greatest recession since the Great Depression, and Canadians knew that there was one party, one government, that they trusted with their finances and their taxes and revenues. That was the Conservative Party of Canada. Canadians expect that our government will make decisions. Canadians expect that we will table overwhelming budgets that give the complete picture of the direction that this government is going to go.

Then not only would we table the budget and not only would the finance minister stand and speak to the theme of the budget, but we would also make the proper decisions and take action and fulfill the commitments that we put forward in the budget. That is what our government is doing. We are moving forward on that. Our government has faced continued attempts by the opposition to delay and to obstruct these bills. Especially in times of economic uncertainty, Canadians would expect a government to take proper action to put this country on a solid foundation. That is where we are. Mr.

John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, history shows us that the greatest leaders shine when they are faced with adversity. When the global economic crisis hit, the world's greatest finance minister, Jim Flaherty, took immediate and decisive action. In the midst of the worst global recession since the Great Depression, he introduced the economic action plan to protect Canadian businesses and safeguard Canadian jobs. He crafted and delivered one the world's largest stimulus packages at a time when Canada needed it most.

Today, despite an uncertain world, the leadership of minister Flaherty has helped ensure that Canada will have a balanced budget well ahead of others, with low debt and low taxes. Economic action plan 2014 was the last in a series of many successful budgets that he delivered. Could the Minister of State for Finance please tell the House a little about what the former finance minister was specifically focused on when he crafted that budget?

(1125) Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, I had an absolute honour and privilege to have worked with Jim Flaherty, known by all as one of the greatest finance ministers in the world. I had the privilege of working with him on budgets in the finance office. Certainly I have seen him at his finest. One of his great passions was for disabled Canadians, and that is why he created the registered disability savings plan. I like the way he phrased it. We had the privilege of seeing him shine. When it came to working for the disabled, when it came to more finances for the Special Olympics, Minister Flaherty shone.

Jim worked tirelessly on economic action plan 2014. He wanted to put Canadians and the federal government in a position to pay down our federal debt. Minister Flaherty shone. He wanted to lower taxes for families, and again Minister Flaherty shone. That is what this budget does. That is what this economic action plan does. He wanted to bring forward more opportunities for job creators and for those looking for work. He shone. He believed in financial prudence and in its ability to lead to financial prosperity. Again, it was a privilege to work with him and to see his budget implemented.

That is why it is important that we move on this quickly. Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stands and boasts so much about this wonderful budget, this omnibus bill that is filled with so many things. There could have been another 30 different bills, and Conservatives could have stood for hours and talked about how great they were to try to convince people, rather than rolling everything into one great big bill. It will be years before we find out all the impacts of the various things that are in the bill.

To suggest that everything the government has done has brought us to the point where we are talking about surpluses certainly has to go right back to the point where we took over in 1993 from a previous Conservative government that was at the point of bankruptcy. Why do you not make the tax credits that you brag so much about fully refundable, instead of what they are in the current system? It would very much benefit the very people that you keep saying you want to help. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : Before I go to the minister, I would remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues. The hon. Minister of State for Finance. Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, any time the Liberals stand and ask questions, it is a walk down memory lane. It is how they recall history. We know that when they began to move into balanced budgets, they did it by cutting health care to the provinces. They cut transfers in education.

They took the very institutions that are most precious to Canadians, health care and education, and they started slashing and cutting transfers to the provinces. Now they stand back and say they did it. Well, they did it on the backs of taxpayers. They did it on the backs of the provinces. That is why they are sitting here today as the third party. Liberals talk about the bill. In 2005, the previous Liberal government's last budget implementation bill amended dozens of different pieces of legislation.

Let us be clear: it is not the size of the budget legislation that the opposition members really care about, because we have had larger bills. It is that they want to stop the necessary and vital economic reforms found in the bill. Those reforms, the hiring credits the special dollars for apprentices and loan guarantees, are the things that Canadians knew about in the platform and the things they have asked to be implemented. The walk down memory lane is history that has been reconstructed by a Liberal Party.

Canadians now are very pleased that they have the solid leadership of our Prime Minister and our current Minister of Finance to lead us through these difficult times. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, an issue that is of great concern to my constituents is rail safety. Our riding is crisscrossed by several railway lines, and we have many residential areas where the houses literally back onto the railway tracks. My residents are concerned about the growing length of commercial trains that have hundreds of tanker cars rolling through these residential neighbourhoods.

In the government's budget implementation act, a budget bill, are transportation measures. They would allow the government to change the rules around railway safety to undermine railway safety and make life potentially more hazardous for people across this country, including in my riding of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto, without ever communicating those changes to the public, without ever having to explain or reveal the changes it is making. My question is this: why is the government making these changes behind closed doors and reducing transparency? Why will it not communicate these changes to the public?

Why is it endangering public safety and rail safety and doing all of it in secret?

(1130) Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of all Canadians is paramount. It is the top priority for our country and our government. Any government's role is first of all the protection of its citizens, both at home and abroad, and we look at many different measures. The member mentioned a number of things in that question, such as the number of cars and the length of the trains as they move products through this great and large country of ours. I invite the member from the New Democratic Party to join us.

Rather than fighting against the Keystone pipeline, she should join us in getting the oil off the rail and into a pipeline where it belongs. Let us move the oil in the most economic way possible. Let us move it back into a pipeline. Instead, what does her party do? It shows up in Washington and at protests all through the United States to argue against Keystone, against pipeline safety, against safety for Canadians.

We want to align our regulations and promote international competitiveness and we want to streamline our regulatory process, but every measure we put forward is in consideration of the security and safety of Canadians. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very carefully to the Minister of State for Finance. I also often listen to him during question period, which is called that because we never get answers, except to be told that our economy is fragile.

With this 70th time allocation motion, it is Canada's democracy that is becoming fragile, just like the economy. I would like to ask the Minister of State for Finance how it is that the Conservatives have adopted the same bad omnibus bill practices as the Liberal Party. Not only do these bad practices weaken our democracy, but they also weaken our economy. In fact, the Conservatives have been in power for some time. How is our economy doing? They keep saying that it is fragile and that the recession was serious. They have been here since 2006 and what have they done?

They have created precarious jobs, part-time jobs and low-paying jobs. The manufacturing industry has gone from 60% to 40%. We have an economic deficit. Therefore, I would like to know how a 475-page budget implementation bill that affects all kinds of different areas can improve our fragile economy. It has been proven pretty much everywhere, particularly in Europe and Great Britain, that austerity budgets do not create economic growth, but stifle the economy. [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member is concerned about the budget, the implementation bill and the measures we have brought forward. Let me quote from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the ones who are executives of businesses across our country. It says: Balancing the federal budget and maintaining discipline to pay down the debt are not only the right things to do, they are essential for Canada’s global competitiveness... The hon. member questioned why I would dare quote from the Chief Executives of Canada. Let me quote from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Maybe she does not like this group either.

It says: Rural businesses, communities and residents need sufficient bandwidth to participate in today's global economy and today's announcement is good news for Canadians in those regions. They are looking at what is inside the budget, not the facts like the New Democrats, who do not analyze what is in the budget, but only look at the size of the budget and are overwhelmed. Those who looked at this budget say it is a good one. I could go on. There is the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Small business owners know that today's deficits are tomorrow's taxes, so they are pleased with the government's commitment to balance the budget in 2015, and that it remains solid. All around her there are those who are overwhelming singing the praises of this budget, and the New Democrats are again trying to stifle the implementation of this.

(1135) Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, with all the talk we have had this morning, there has been no talk about jobs. It is a fact that Canada has had the strongest job record of the G7. In fact, a million jobs have been created. People in my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex are concerned about well-paying jobs in the private sector. Could parliamentary, I mean the Minister of State for Finance please inform the House how Bill C-31 would affect jobs and create quality jobs for my constituents and other Canadians as well? Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr.

Speaker, the Freudian slip of the hon. member is all right. There is nothing wrong. The parliamentary secretaries are solid people with whom I would love to be recognized at any time. When the opposition tries to throw that out, I take it as a compliment. Economic action plan 2014 would implement a number of measures that would be very positive in helping create jobs and opportunities for Canadians. Let me just go through a number of them. It includes things like creating the Canada apprenticeship loan.

It provides apprentices who have registered in the Red Seal trades the same opportunity that those who have accessed student loans for university or college education have been able to get. That is $100 million in interest-free loans each year to those young men and young women who believe that the future in Canada is in the trades. Never before have they been able to have an interest-free loan through a student loan. The NDP and the opposition parties will vote against that. They will vote for the status quo. What else does it do?

It would cut the red tape burden by eliminating over 800,000 payroll deduction remittances to Canada Revenue Agency by over 50,000 businesses. When we made this announcement, I was at a business table in Edmonton, and the small business owners there applauded it. They appreciated the fact that this measure would cut red tape in over 800,000 remittances back to Ottawa. It implements trademark treaties to reduce red tape. It is a good budget. It would help create those jobs about which the hon. member talked. Again, we will stay the course, keep our taxes low and help create jobs. Hon. Scott Brison : Mr.

Speaker, recently the May 3 Economist magazine had an article, Canada's “post-crisis glow is fading”, and, in fact, it was a profile of the Canadian economy. In the

article it says: In the government’s retelling of the crisis, it alone stood between Canadians and doom. Yet luck played a large, unacknowledged part...The government was lucky that steps had been taken [by the previous Liberal government] to strengthen the banking system...lucky that a previous Liberal government had eliminated the deficit [and paid down debt]; and lucky that resource-producing western provinces could take up the slack when the manufacturing heartland slowed dramatically. We know the Conservatives cannot take credit for the strong banking system.

We know they cannot take credit for the strong fiscal situation they inherited. Are the Conservatives telling Canadians that they put the oil and gas and potash under the ground as well?

(1140) Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, no, we are thankful that God put that under the ground. We are pleased for all our resources in our country. We are pleased for the things that we appreciate in our great country. Again, the Liberals have asked a question and have taken us down memory lane. They have taken us down this walk through history of the times, 20 years ago, when they came in and did some things. We have had a global recession. The downturn in Canada was not because of the Liberals. It was not because of our government. The global downturn was worldwide.

It perhaps began in the United States and moved to Europe. The whole world was in recession. Canada was the last to enter it and the first to come out of the recession. Thanks to the economic action plan, Canada has enjoyed the strongest economic performance during both the recession and the recovery. It is the truth that over a million jobs have been created, over 85% full-time jobs, 80% in the private sector, since July 2009. The member talked about the world. The IMF and the OECD both project that Canada will have the strongest growth among the G7. That is because of our government. [ Translation ] Ms.

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister wants to quote Claude Dauphin of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, so let us quote him. In talking about the Building Canada fund, he said, “We are also concerned by rule changes.” [ English ] “We’re still in the dark. None of our members can apply because we don’t know how to apply.” [ Translation ] How does the minister respond to that? He did not provide the full quote from Claude Dauphin. [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, during the global downturn, the government invested in Canada.

We have invested in infrastructure, with an investment that Canada has never seen before from the federal government. We decided it was important to invest in long-term infrastructure that would help build prosperity and create jobs. Indeed, that is what we have seen. We are investing in things like bridges in Montreal. Would the member for Hochelaga be opposed to that? We are seeing a huge investment into her province of Quebec. Is she going to vote against that? [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : It being 11:42 a.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. [ English ] The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Call in the members.

(1220) [ Translation ] (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 168) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Block Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Leef Lemieux Leung Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 137 NAYS Members Andrews Ashton Aubin Bélanger Bennett Benskin Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brison Brosseau Casey Chicoine Choquette Christopherson Cleary Côté Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Dusseault Easter Foote Fortin Freeland Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest-Jourdain Giguère Gravelle Groguhé Hassainia Hsu Hughes Hyer Jacob Jones Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen May McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mourani Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Patry Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Sullivan Thibeault Tremblay Turmel Valeriote -- 105 PAIRED Nil The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to

[ English ] Report Stage The House resumed from June 4 consideration of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 , as reported (with amendment) from committee. Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak to the budget, to be able to speak to the fundamental document that this place produces on a yearly basis. Even though we have other pieces of legislation, it is a

summary of everything else that we are ultimately involved in because almost everything in this place, one way or the other, takes money and it takes finances. I would say that for most Canadians, the issue that most concerns them when it comes to politics is how it would affect them and their financial livelihood. We debate many important issues, involving defence and involving justice, but I would argue that for many Canadians this is the fundamental issue that they want the government to address: How does the government deal with the items that affect their personal financial livelihood?

I have gotten in the habit in a couple of my last speeches of starting with an inspirational quote, which I hope sets the tone or frames the backdrop for where I am coming from, and provides a benchmark on whether the piece of legislation, the agenda item we are debating, is appropriate. Let me start with what Milton Friedman said: A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it...gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

With that as a backdrop, we need to start on the budget. Does the budget support an increased freedom? Does the budget allow the free market to grow? Does the budget actually allow Canadians to decide what they want for themselves? Or, does the budget guide them to do what a particular interest group thinks they should do? No document is perfect, but let us start to review what we know here, on where the economy is going and the history of what this government has done. If we look at some of the fundamental markers of this budget and where it is going, we should feel fairly pleased.

The deficit is projected to be approximately $5.5 billion, but when we begin to factor in things like the contingency fund and various other possible adjustments, we are effectively at a balanced budget. Whether it technically comes out to that, plus or minus a couple of billion dollars, may not be all that important in the grander scheme, but that is effectively where we are. When we look at where many of the provinces are and other nations that we compare ourselves to around the world are, we can feel proud of ourselves as Canadians.

We have taken the fiscal discipline and the fiscal steps necessary to ensure that our bills are paid. We do not ever want to end up like some of the other countries we have seen in the world, some of the unfortunate European nations, that have essentially had their finances monitored by external bodies to ensure their economy and their finances did not completely collapse the country into complete bankruptcy. Let me give credit to the late minister of finance, and to the current Minister of Finance , for what they have done and how they are projecting us to go forward.

We look at growth in employment, something that many Canadians view as the most important statistic because it very much impacts their life. It is the fundamental economic question: Do I have a job? Is my business succeeding? We look at the period of 2006 to 2012, and we look through the G7. The management of the government is not the only thing that controls employment growth, but we should note that among the G7 countries during that period, Canada's employment growth rose by just under 9%, the best of the G7. Japan unfortunately actually lost jobs during that period, which is sad for Japan.

However, Canada, among the countries we often measure ourselves against, was the best performer in a period of economic crisis around the world. We also look at real per capita GDP. This is not GDP that has been inflated due to some inflationary growth or GDP that has been inflated due purely to population growth, because we know those two things can skew the numbers, but real per capita GDP from 2006 to 2012. Again, among the G7 countries, Canada is up 12%.

That means the real economic value of what Canadians take home and of what Canadians create is growing; not just the total because we have more people, not just the notional amounts because we have changed the numbers due to inflation, but the actual wealth of Canadians has grown in the last six years. That is how it should be.

(1225) As technology advances, as new efficiencies come into the market, as new and better ways are learned to create growth, that is what should happen. However, none of our G7 competitors performed that well. One of our competitors in that same period due to fiscal issues, economic issues, and so on, had an 11% drop in its real per capita GDP. While we think these things are automatic and we think these things should be normative, we see throughout the world that they are not that way. The Great Depression is something we read about in history books.

I was just beginning to really understand the broader world around me when the Trudeau recession of the early eighties hit Canada. Those things are part of our history and they are aspects of our economic history that impact on Canadians' livelihoods that we do not want to repeat. What are some of the best and most positive things that the government has done, particularly in light of the quote I gave about increasing freedom, increasing Canadians' ability to make their own decisions rather than having special interest groups dictate to people how they should live?

Let us look first of all at what this government has done as far as business taxes are concerned. Frequently, people who are not in favour of cutting business taxes criticize them because they view business taxes as a benefit to the rich, a group that they are implicitly criticizing. Business taxes are often just the first step in a tax system that goes forward, because ultimately all taxes are paid by individuals. One of the reasons why governments have pushed to decrease business taxes is because business taxes discourage jobs and job growth.

If we look at the Nordic countries, which opposition members sometimes refer to because of their perceived social democratic history, business taxes are often very low. Personal income taxes may be high in those jurisdictions but these countries have done it, along with their free trade orientation and their history of international trade, to promote business growth and job growth. The marginal effect of rate of taxation is not just the nominal rate, but what we get when we factor in what really gets there, because there are deductions and various other ways to calculate it.

Over the same 2006 to 2012 period, this government has brought that down from 33% to 17%. It is very interesting when we read the budget documents to look at it that way. There is one other area I want to note that really helps to promote freedom and economic growth, because the two are tied together, and that is lessening the regulatory burdens. I am sure all members of Parliament have had many constituents come into their offices, businessmen, individuals, who have had difficulties dealing with the Canada Revenue Agency.

It is one of the interesting things when we start to go through the budget streamlining various aspects of dealing with the GST, HST, and other reporting requirements. These are things that are put together in this budget to help Canadians run their businesses, to have more freedom, and ultimately to have more prosperity. I want to congratulate both the late minister of finance and the current one for taking an agenda forward that increases prosperity and freedom. Ultimately the two are linked.

While no budget document is perfect, just as no member of Parliament or no government is perfect, this budget brings that forward in a positive way. It is the reason why Canada has outperformed other countries. It is the reason why we are in a period of economic growth. It is one of the things we can see that differentiates parts of the country one from another. Areas that have followed similar policies to those of this government are doing, in general, better than those that have not. (1230) [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I heard another Conservative member praise this budget implementation bill. The title is rather narrowly focused as many other laws will be amended by this 475-page bill on which a guillotine has just been brought down. I have a question for the member, who is once again praising this budget as well as previous Conservative budgets. Why has Canadians' debt continued to rise and reached a record 167% since this government came to power? How does he explain that? At the same time, the Conservatives are making ill-considered cuts to many public services to which Canadians are entitled.

In fact, they are offloading the national debt onto Canadians. Canadians have a debt level of 167%. How will this budget tackle Canadians' record debt of 167%? [ English ] Mr. Brad Trost : Mr. Speaker, I think I will just state the obvious. When interest rates are low and the cost to borrow money is low, things that people want to buy tend to increase. With low interest rates, people tend to take on greater debt burdens because the cost of repayment is lower. That answers the member's questions.

What this government has been doing, giving more freedom to people by cutting taxes, by increasing their income, by attempting to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden, has no connection to the fact that Canadians can even get a 1.99% mortgage now. Whether or not it is wise for the individual Canadian to actually take that mortgage is for him or her to decide. However, with those types of rates, I can see why many Canadians are increasing their leverage to try to go out there and to make decisions that would help their own personal financial futures.

(1235) Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I know that Canadians will have listened with interest to the remarks from the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt . However, just to accompany those remarks, I think Canadians also should know that I think the member's view of history is a bit coloured. He referred to the “Trudeau recession” in the early 1980s, but I think he will know that what happened was that in the United States the federal reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, decided to deal with inflation by targeting the total amount of money in the economy instead of targeting interest rates.

That resulted in a sharp rise in interest rates. The prime rate got up to something like 21% in the United States, and in other countries as well, because the currencies are linked, and there was a very sharp contraction in the economy in the United States. That was the cause of the recession. I know the member is trying to pin it on the Liberal Party. The Conservatives might as well pin all of Canada on the Liberal Party because they go back in history so often to do that, instead of looking forward and trying to decide what to do.

I just want Canadians to be aware that the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt , as sincere as he is, is making partisan remarks and his speech should be looked at carefully and analyzed with that in mind. Mr. Brad Trost : Mr. Speaker, as someone who has endorsed policies of the Laurier Liberals, I can hardly be considered purely partisan in my

interpretation of history. I will note, for the hon. member's benefit, that calculations of what the Pierre Trudeau government did in that era include the national energy program, which from some calculations I have seen, cost Alberta $100 billion and my province of Saskatchewan approximately $10 billion. While it is true the interest rates spike in the United States had impacts, there were other things that were done, which devastated the economy in other parts of the country; in particular, western Canada. [ Translation ] Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, this is the second time that I have had the opportunity to speak to another omnibus bill. What most concerned me the first time was the famous Champlain Bridge, an issue on which little progress has been made. Believe it or not, this bill contains some provisions that are very important to the greater Montreal area, especially to the people in my riding of Chambly—Borduas.

Having said that, the last time I spoke to Bill C-31 , we focused on the fact that the bill was eliminating the government's responsibility to comply with the User Fees Act, consult Canadians and ensure that a future toll follows the guidelines in order not to create problems or put further pressure on the economy. At present, this is the problem we see: people living on the south shore and in Montreal are being asked to pay for infrastructure that already exists.

At the end of the day, the major issue with the bridge in this bill and in the changes made is the toll being imposed, as my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie often says. All the elected officials, business people and residents feel that the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs was either unable to consult the public or simply did not want to do so. This still has not been done. Since I last spoke to Bill C-31 , we have been able to mobilize hundreds of volunteers on the south shore and collect thousands of signatures from people who are against this toll.

A day of action was held on May 3. That was really an opportunity for us to see the extent to which people in the region, like many Quebeckers in fact, feel that they are being treated with contempt by the Conservative government. This is a very good example of the government's contempt. The Prime Minister rises in the House to say that it is a local bridge and it is too bad if there are no consultations. In reality, I believe that over 14% of Quebec's GDP is based on the ability to cross the Champlain Bridge. Billions of dollars of economic activity are at stake. This bridge is by no means a local bridge.

When we consider the economic issue and the importance of the greater Montreal area, I think it is very important to show respect to the public, the elected officials and the business community. It is no coincidence that the mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, the mayor of Longueuil, Caroline St-Hilaire, and the mayor of Chambly, in my riding, Denis Lavoie, have spoken out against this bill, together with chambers of commerce and the public.

We feel that this problem is symptomatic of the Conservative government's contempt for Quebec, but often also for various jurisdictions, in its discussions with the provinces and its dealings with the municipalities. That being said, the government is demonstrating a clear lack of vision when it comes to the Champlain Bridge. I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

When we heard from witnesses from Transport Canada, namely those responsible for the project, we asked them questions about the terms and conditions set out in Bill C-31 because that was the topic on the agenda that day. They told us that the terms and conditions served to speed up the process. They did not want the Champlain Bridge to be subject to the User Fees Act because they wanted to speed up the process. As we know the minister postponed the deadline, which is somewhat problematic given that the government does not seem to have done much and seems incapable of proposing a real business plan.

I have family friends and constituents who use the bridge every day. Given the safety issues at play here, everyone in the House would agree that a new bridge is needed ASAP, as we say.

(1240) The government is neglecting its obligation to consult in order to speed up the process, but it is unable to say how much time that will buy and what difference it will make. The government claims to be eliminating legal uncertainty in order to make the process faster, but how much faster? Will this buy us days, weeks, months? The government cannot tell us. This shows once again the government's lack of transparency, rigour and consultation in this matter. The government's lack of consultation or failure to do its homework is another problem.

Take for example, the regional impact study that was conducted by the Government of Quebec's department of transport. It is extremely important to determine what impact the new bridge will have on the other bridges, which do not fall under federal jurisdiction, and on traffic in the greater Montreal area, whether it be on the island itself or on the south shore. After all, if there is a toll on one bridge but not on the others, it is safe to assume that this will have an impact on which bridges people use. The report published by the Government of Quebec makes that very clear.

In committee, we asked the witnesses whether the federal government had carried out such a study. The federal government has been talking about this issue and working on it for a long time, since before the 2011 election. After all, this bridge is under federal jurisdiction. However, the federal government does not seem to be as aware as the Government of Quebec about the repercussions of a toll on the region. Once again, that says a lot about the government's failings and sloppiness. We will continue to oppose a toll, and we will do so in an accountable and transparent way by consulting the people, of course.

I would like to touch on another important aspect of Bill C-31 . This is yet another issue that does not really belong in a budget implementation bill, but it is very important to my constituents. I am talking about rail safety. Bill C-31 contains provisions relating to rail safety that give even more discretionary power to the Governor in Council, the cabinet, and the minister. That really worries me. In the wake of tragedies such as the one at Lac-Mégantic, people have been demanding more transparency and more information about the dangerous goods being transported through their regions.

What regulations is the government making, and how will they affect our communities? A railway goes right through the heart of my riding, through residential neighbourhoods, and past several schools, including Otterburn Park, where my mother teaches. We know how important transparency is to reassuring people. People want to feel safe. That should be the government's primary concern. Giving cabinet, the Governor in Council, and the minister more discretionary powers and letting them make decisions without informing the public in a transparent way goes against that principle and does little to reassure people.

There is much more I could say. This budget implementation bill includes two transportation files, and that speaks volumes about the shortcomings in the process. The government has used this bogus process many times since it came to power. There are many other components that will affect the people of Chambly—Borduas, but those are two key concerns for my constituents. We will continue with our demands on these issues. That is why we are opposing omnibus Bill C-31 , which is also known as an “omnibrick” bill. As the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard said, it is 400 pages long.

We are wondering how many hundreds of pages it will be next year and the year after that. We hope that this will be the last time but, unfortunately, the government is not giving us many reasons to trust its approach. We will continue to oppose the way this government does business. (1245) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments on the size of the budget bill.

Since the government has achieved its majority status, it has used budget implementation bills as a mechanism to pass a series of other pieces of legislation that should have been, for all intents and purposes, stand-alone legislation. We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of pages over the years. Literally dozens of different laws have all been passed through a budget implementation bill when they should have been separate pieces of legislation. In its entirety, it is almost a session's worth of legislation that could have been brought forward as stand-alone pieces.

To compound it that much more, in terms of making it worse, the government then invoked time allocation. It is time allocation on a budget implementation bill that has many other pieces of legislation within it. I wonder if the member might provide further comment in regard to time allocation on a budget implementation bill that already factors in numerous pieces of what should be stand-alone pieces of legislation. [ Translation ] Mr. Matthew Dubé : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and his question. True, it is not just the size of the bill that is problematic.

In 2012, the government introduced Bill C-38 and a number of other omnibus bills totalling thousands of pages. The following year, the government was practically boasting about how the omnibus bill was smaller and contained only a few hundred pages. It is not so much the size of the bill that we are concerned about, but rather its content. It is absurd that I should be making a 10-minute speech about transportation in my riding as part of our consideration of a budget implementation bill. There is a major problem here.

The members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities discussed the Champlain Bridge, among other issues. Even though the various elements of the bill are considered by the committees responsible for them, the process will not be as comprehensive as it would be if they were studied as separate bills. This is very unfortunate. Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague from Chambly—Borduas that railway safety has nothing to do with a budget implementation bill.

However, because it is in the bill, I would like to ask his opinion about trains carrying hazardous materials in municipalities. Municipalities will not be able to find out whether a train was carrying hazardous materials until three months after it has passed through the area. Municipalities cannot therefore be prepared for any eventuality. What does my colleague think about this?

(1250) Mr. Matthew Dubé : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. As I mentioned in my speech, this shows the extent to which the lack of transparency is at the heart of the demands of Canadians, municipal officials and the people who live in municipalities like mine where there is a railway. With regard to information provided to the municipalities, the fact that there is such a long delay before they can receive up-to-date information really does nothing to help them properly prepare in terms of their emergency plans and their prevention plans.

Beyond this, however, and at the heart of this issue, we are dealing with the residents’ feeling of security. The primary duty of the government is to ensure the safety of its people. If people do not feel they are safe, the government is not really doing its job. Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He mentioned the Champlain Bridge and railway safety, two very important subjects. He also highlighted the government’s lack of transparency.

It is exactly this kind of budget that illustrates this lack of transparency, especially with issues such as the Champlain Bridge. The government wants to make Canadians pay not only for the cost of using the Champlain Bridge, but also the cost of our airports, by imposing all kinds of taxes and hidden costs. Ultimately, Canadians will be hit twice to use the airports or the bridges to which they are entitled. Mr. Matthew Dubé : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. The government is trying to hide different measures in its omnibus bills in all sorts of ways.

The last time, it tried to change the judicial appointment process, because of the fiasco with the appointment of Justice Nadon. This time, it is trying to change the rules of the game regarding public consultation about tolls on the Champlain Bridge. There is also the issue of railway safety, that we have just been talking about. There are all kinds of other things that are hidden.

This is really a shame, because it could be said that the government is using the bill to hide measures that are not consistent with the pretty picture of the perfect manager that it is trying to build for itself or with the spirit of good governance that it boasts about and that obviously does not exist. This bill is a good example of that. [ English ] Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my absolute pleasure to speak to Bill C-31 , the budget implementation bill. A solid middle class is the foundation of Canada's economy.

Middle-class Canadians are the glue that binds our society together, and we recognize that our country can only be as strong as its middle class. Fortunately, Canada's middle class has seen increases of about 30% in their take-home income since 1976, and the share of Canadians living in lower-income families is now at its lowest level in the past three decades. A recent Statistics Canada study has revealed that since our Conservative government has taken office, the middle class has flourished significantly.

I quote: The median net worth of Canadian family units was $243,800 in 2012, up 44.5% from 2005 and almost 80% more than the 1999 median of $137,000, adjusted for inflation. Another study, this one from The New York Times indicated that Canada's middle class is better off financially than that of the U.S. I quote: After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada—substantially behind in 2000—now appear to be higher than in the United States. Further, since 2006, Canadian families in all major income groups have seen increases of about 10% or more in their take-home incomes.

It may be hard for the opposition to believe, but even the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirms that our government has put $30 billion of tax relief back into Canadian pockets annually, benefiting low-income and middle-income families the most. This is great news for Canada, and it reflects our government's careful navigation through the worst global economic downturn since the start of the Second World War. Since the beginning of the recovery, Canada's economy has posted one of the strongest job creation records in the G7, with more than one million net new jobs created since the depths of July 2009.

At a time when other countries' financial systems were brought to the brink of bankruptcy, Canada's banks remained the soundest in the world. When other countries increased taxes, we kept taxes at record lows, and the federal tax burden is the lowest it has been in over 50 years, thanks to our tax plan. Since 2006, Canadians have benefited from significant broad-based tax cuts introduced by our government.

These tax cuts, which the opposition voted against time and time again, have given individuals and families the flexibility to make the choices that are right for them and have built solid foundations for our future economic growth, more jobs, and a higher living standard for Canadians. Canadians at all income levels are benefiting from tax relief, with the low- and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionately greater relief. In 2014, an average family of four is saving close to $3,400 in taxes, while one million Canadians have been removed from the tax rolls altogether.

Unlike the high-tax NDP and Liberals, our government believes in keeping more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families. That is why we cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. It is why we increased the amount Canadians can earn tax-free. It is why we reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, putting more than $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family of four in 2014. We established the landmark tax-free savings account, the most significant advance in the tax treatment of personal savings since the introduction of RRSPs in 1957.

In addition, we introduced a variety of tax credits that recognize the costs borne by hard-working Canadian families. These credits include the child tax credit, the children's fitness tax credit, the children's arts tax credit, the family caregiver tax credit, and the first-time homebuyers' tax credit.

(1255) As a parent, I believe there is no higher calling than that of raising a child, and no reward is its equal. Canadians who have children deserve the government's full support, particularly when it comes to recognizing some of the additional costs borne by adoptive parents. We heard parents' concerns that the adoption expense tax credit was not sufficient. That is why in economic action plan 2014 our government acted by enhancing the tax credit to support these parents even more.

By better recognizing the costs of adoption through increased tax relief, we are making it easier for middle-class families to grow and to make Canada stronger. At the same time, our government is committed to ensuring that the tax system reflects the evolving nature of the health care system and the health care needs of Canadians. We all use the health care system and we all want it to remain strong and sustainable so that it will be there for Canadians when they need it.

Under our government, health care transfers are at an all time high, going from over $20 billion when we formed government to over $32 billion this year, and growing. Unlike the old Liberal government, we have not cut funding to provinces for health care and education. I find it comical when we hear that the Liberals cut the deficit. Well, we are doing that too, but they did it on the backs of education and health care. We are doing it in a responsible and sustainable manner. Similarly, health care transfers will also grow under our funding formula, and in a sensible and sustainable way.

We will keep growing health care funding to ensure Canadian families can depend on our health care system today and in the future. Moreover, we recognize there are external health care costs that Canadians have been paying for out of pocket, such as service animals. For example, in the case of severe diabetes, alerts can be raised by diabetes alert dogs. That is why Bill C-31 has proposed an expansion of the list of eligible medical expenses.

These important measures are just a handful of examples illustrating how we have responded to the needs of Canadian families and helped Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money. Perhaps one of the most profound ways we are helping middle-class Canadians is by making sure future generations will not be paying for the past obligations of their parents and grandparents. We are doing so by returning to balanced budgets in 2015. In fact, that was one of my key motivations when I decided to run for the Conservative Party of Canada: I do not want our children's futures mortgaged.

Unlike the Liberal leader, who believes that the budget will magically balance itself, our government has made tough decisions to return to balance, and we have never wavered from our objective. In fact, I am reminded of how my husband and I sat down and talked about the importance of paying off our mortgage when we were younger. We needed to make tough choices. In the same way the government is doing now, we made responsible choices. The result is that we have no mortgage. The Government of Canada is doing that for future generations right now, and I am so proud of the work that is being done.

By eliminating the deficit, we will ensure solid, stable prosperity for all Canadians well into the future. Indeed, balancing the budget and reducing debt would ensure taxpayer dollars are used to support important social services, such as health care, rather than to pay to reduce the debt with interest costs. It would preserve Canada's low-tax plan and allow for further tax reductions, fostering growth and the creation of jobs for the benefit of all Canadians.

It would also strengthen the country's ability to respond to longer-term challenges, such as population aging and unexpected global economic shocks of the kind our government so successfully withstood in the recent economic crisis. Our government understands the importance of middle-class Canadians. As our actions have shown, we listened. We have ensured a middle class for our country that will continue to lead the world. I am very proud of Bill C-31 . I am very proud of our government's responsible approach to deficit reduction. It is a measured and responsible approach.

I sincerely hope that we can engage the opposition to support this very important budget implementation bill.

(1300) Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the implementation of FATCA would have serious implications on children in the member's riding. The implementation of FATCA, according to James Jatras, who was a former U.S. diplomat, would have the purpose of nullifying Canadian protections under the Bank Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, otherwise known as PIPEDA, the Canadian human rights code and, especially, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These people are not just resident Americans. At least a million of them are Canadian citizens.

Many of them live in her riding. Claims that the personal data of Canadians would not be forwarded to the NSA and other intelligence agencies are laughable. Some of those persons are children. What would the member opposite like to suggest? The bill somehow does not protect the safety, security and personal information of these people, including children. Ms. Joyce Bateman : Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that the member understands that our budget implementation bill is there to protect all Canadians, including children.

The best way to ensure we have a prosperous tomorrow is to ensure we pay the debt down today. That is the number one priority in this budget implementation bill. As a mother of two children, a 22-year-old and a 16-year-old, I am very grateful that the Conservative government is contributing to ensuring their futures are not mortgaged.

(1305) Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting response to the last comment. It is not always the case that if people need to get a post-secondary education, they should delay it. Sometimes the right thing for people to do is to borrow some money and get that education so they can have that earning potential and quality of life. My colleague from the Conservative Party said that there was no higher calling than raising children. I agree with that, but the problem is that many Canadians are struggling to raise their children because of their income level.

The tax credits that my Conservative colleague mentioned are just that, tax credits. They are not refundable. People have to be making a good amount of taxable income to benefit from those tax credits. If raising children is so important, and even more important for people at the lower end of the income scale who are aspiring to reach the middle class, why can we not make some of those tax credits refundable? Ms. Joyce Bateman : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, as the mother of two children. I will confirm that there is no higher calling than helping the next generation.

I happen to have a son who is in university. He knows that he is investing in his future. He does not expect it to be handed to him on a silver platter with a spoon to match. He expects to work hard every summer. He expects to work and volunteer in the community during the winter. He also expects to have a bit of a debt load when he comes out of university. He also expects that there will not be magic to balance the budget. He expects that he will be working hard to pay his debt load down as he becomes employable and gets good jobs.

It is important for us to impart on our children that they are needed as a part of solving the problems of the future. Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre . I have the honour of serving in the Manitoba caucus with her, and I consider her one of the brightest and most talented MPs in the entire House. I, too, am very proud to be a Conservative member of Parliament. We are the only party that talks about the need to create wealth.

As for the two parties on the other side, the left and the far left, their economic policies can be summed up in three words: spend, spend, spend. We need to have something to spend. Could my hon. colleague please comment on the measures in our budget that would help to grow our Canadian economy? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre , a short response, please. Ms. Joyce Bateman : Mr.

Speaker, a short response? [ Translation ] This is unfortunate, because there are a lot of things in our budget. [ English ] I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments and particularly for his kind remarks. We are kindred spirits. I believe that we want to invest in a future so we will enable people to assist Canada in creating wealth and being the country of the 21st century. That is my hope for my children. That is my hope for all children coming up. The member's comments are so important. It is not about a handout; it is about a hand up.

We are helping the next generation so it can prosper long into the future through jobs and economic growth. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last February, I gave a speech after the tabling of the 2014-15 Conservative budget. I told my colleagues in this House about my concerns with regard to the issues of housing for the homeless and infrastructures. Now I think I am going to be repeating myself. Bill C-31 contains no proposals about community access to the Building Canada fund, and this is a huge flaw in a budget implementation bill.

However, rather than repeating exactly the same thing that I have been saying about all the Conservative budgets, I would like to quote the people who are the most deeply affected by the government’s poor decisions. First I would like to put things in context. In the 2013-14 budget, $14 billion over 10 years was announced for the creation of the new Building Canada fund. When the 2014-15 budget was tabled, one year later, we still did not know how to submit projects for the fund.

It is always the same thing with the Conservatives: they pat themselves on the back when telling us about new programs, but always wait until the last minute before telling us any details about them. Meanwhile, groups, other levels of government and the people who should be using these programs are worried about the possibility of breaks in funding, potential layoffs or construction seasons that are being threatened. That being said, almost a year after the announcement of the new Building Canada fund, on February 13, 2014, the details were finally announced.

However, when you look into what is happening at the municipal level and the positions taken by a number of mayors, it seems that the government failed to consult the municipalities before announcing the details of the new program. I do not understand this. Every time he is asked a question, the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs spends his time giving us the same talking points: the municipalities have been consulted at every step in the design of the new Building Canada fund.

The Canadian Federation of Municipalities has in fact had an opportunity to make submissions on the broad lines of the new infrastructure program, but has the federation really been consulted on the details? The answer is no, and those are the facts. The Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs is always quoting the same statement by the immediate past president of the FCM, Claude Dauphin, to show that the municipalities were pleased with the announcement the government made on February 13, 2014. Clearly, they were pleased. They had been waiting for a year to get more details.

The problem is that the minister did not read to the end of Mayor Dauphin's statement. He went on to say: However, important questions remain about how the rest of the New Building Canada Fund will be used to meet local needs. Municipalities own a significant majority of public infrastructure [about 60%] and, for a fund that will span the next decade, we must be sure that it is used accordingly. This is the only way to ensure that local governments can address infrastructure challenges in their communities.

We are also concerned by rule changes that could force municipalities to carry a larger share of infrastructure costs in the future, the eligibility rules for local roads, the screening process for projects structured as public/private partnerships (P3s). There are 45 days before April 1 when the municipal construction season begins. The federal government needs to work with FCM on details of the New Building Canada Fund...to [ensure that] it delivers the best value for Canadians.

It is rather strange that the minister is telling us that he consulted the FCM, when the very day the details of the new program were announced, the president of the FCM asked the government to work with the organization to review the criteria. Did the minister hear that plea from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities? Once again, the answer is no, and the evidence is mounting. An hon. member: He does not listen. Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: No, Mr. Speaker, he does not listen. Less than two weeks later, on February 26, 2014, the mayors of 22 of the biggest cities in Canada met in Ottawa.

These cities alone represent 65% of the population of Canada. As he left the meeting, Régis Labeaume, the mayor of Quebec City, stated: My colleagues, not just those from Quebec, but everyone around the table, support us in calling on the federal government to make recreational and sports infrastructure once again eligible for the program. [Both the UMQ and the FCM agree.] We are asking the government to listen to us a little bit... The day before, the president of the Union des municipalités du Québec and mayor of Rimouski, Éric Forest, was very direct in his comments about the new Building Canada fund.

He believed, in good faith, that the new fund would continue to provide one-third of the funding for recreational and sports infrastructure, as the previous program did. However, that is not the case.

(1310) I quote: When they got down to work in 2008 [when he says “they”, he means the Conservative government], we delivered infrastructure projects to help with the economic recovery. It is crystal clear that we spent money in anticipation of receiving funding. We went deeper into debt. If we were not there, who was going to do the work? We are currently out of breath, and we need that oxygen. However, they are slamming the door in our faces.

A few hours later, Richard Lehoux, the president of the Fédération québécoise des municipalités, said: The federal government fanned the flames by refusing to allow the municipalities to use the amounts provided for in the building Canada fund for sports facilities. The municipalities need flexibility. We know our needs, and so we are in the best position to know how the investments should be used. I would not dare suggest in the House that the minister was not telling the truth, but perhaps he twisted the facts.

The new Building Canada plan is supposed to be the biggest infrastructure program in Canada's history. When the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the mayors of Canada's 22 largest cities, the Union des municipalités du Québec and the Fédération québécoise des municipalités say that they are unhappy and are surprised by the announced details of the program, which is supposed to address an infrastructure deficit in the country, I think there is something that is not working. The municipalities hold more than 60% of the public infrastructure in Canada. However, did this outcry wake up the minister?

The answer is still no. I just came back from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' annual conference in Niagara Falls, which ended last Monday. Do you know what the delegates wanted to talk to me and my colleagues about? The criteria for the new Building Canada fund. They also came to talk to me at length about the issue of housing, but I will keep that for another discussion and another minister. I would like to bring my colleagues up to speed on municipal news from the past few days.

Just to provide a bit of context, when we asked him when he would unveil the details of the new infrastructure program and about municipalities' fears of losing the construction season if they did not know how to apply, the minister told us that negotiations were proceeding well and that the details would be available by April 1. However, on May 9, more than one month after the start of the construction season and the implementation of the new infrastructure program, the past president of the FCM, Claude Dauphin, said: (1315) [ English ] We’re still in the dark.

None of our members can apply because we don’t know how to apply...To tell the truth, we’re a little bit worried. We cannot afford to lose an entire construction season... [ Translation ] In other words, the money is there, but they still do not know how to access it. It was expected that construction work would be under way already, but that does not seem to be the case. This is the last quote I would like to share, because if I were to quote every elected official who has weighed in with the media in recent weeks, we could miss question period.

This time I will quote someone from this area, the mayor of Gatineau, Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin, who was attending the FCM annual conference. This quote is from the June 2, 2014, issue of Le Droit : He pointed out that the City of Gatineau must make significant investments in many infrastructure projects such as roads, water filtration plants, libraries and arenas. [According to him,] a city cannot manage all this with just property taxes...The Maison du citoyen renovations alone will cost $12 million....Ottawa and Quebec City have to be part of the solution.

Those are the facts, and I have spoken only about infrastructure today. I heard the same story at the FCM convention about the funding for social housing. We will strongly oppose this bill because it fails our communities. Our leader, the member for Outremont , was actually warmly received at this convention with his credible partnership offer for Canadian municipalities. The municipalities are now even more aware of which party they must turn to in 2015 to advance their priorities. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, on the weekends, most of us return to our home constituencies and are often afforded the opportunity to take a little time to drive or walk around our constituencies. Quite often when we do that, we get a good sense of the infrastructure, whether it is the condition of the sidewalks, roads or community centres. There is a list of things that one could easily come up with to improve our social and structural infrastructure.

We have seen infrastructure expenditures to the degree where the federal government does get involved, such as Forks development, North Portage Place, Kenaston underpass and so many other projects. The member made reference to this. For many of these communities to get the infrastructure, or to get some of these larger projects off the ground they need Ottawa to participate. Would the member like to take the opportunity to reaffirm how important it is that Ottawa get involved on this file? Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet : Mr. Speaker, of course Ottawa needs to be involved in this file.

Municipalities cannot afford to raise taxes. Let me give one example. (1320) [ Translation ] The maximum federal contribution has been set at 30% under the Building Canada fund. In the past, municipalities could draw one-third of their infrastructure costs from the Building Canada fund, one-third from the gas tax and one-third from the provincial government. That is no longer the case. Now, the maximum federal contribution for a project will be one-third. As a result, municipalities, which have 60% of the infrastructure in Canada, will have to raise taxes or get the money from somewhere.

I am also very concerned about the fact that much of our infrastructure is crumbling. We have an infrastructure maintenance deficit. Despite that, $6 billion from the previous Building Canada fund has not been spent. Why is that? [ English ] Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that local governments cannot raise taxes. Where is the money going to come from? We have also heard that the NDP supports a carbon tax, which would dramatically increase the cost of heating fuel and fuel to drive cars and whatnot. Is that where this extra money is going to come from?

She said she wants the federal government to participate. For 14 years I was in local government. I remember in the 1990s when the NDP cut billions of dollars in transfers for social programs and education, all the programs. There was no one-third, one-third, one-third. It was zero from the federal government. Under this government, there is the permanent gas tax, which we have never cut in that respect. We are also participating. Where is the money going to come from? Is it going to come from natural resource royalties? Where is the money going to come from?

Other than the carbon tax, which we do not support, where is the money going to come from? [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet : Mr. Speaker, the money is already there. Municipalities used to be able to use the gas tax in addition to the Building Canada fund. Why can they no longer do so now? Since we are talking about a lack of investment, I will talk a bit about housing. The end of the social housing agreements means that the federal government is cutting $1.7 billion at the expense of the people who need it most, the people living in social housing units. How does my colleague explain those cuts? Ms.

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague just spoke to the issue of social housing. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities studied some aspects of this bill during a meeting. However, it was unable to hear from anyone other than people from the department. Could my colleague talk about how beneficial it would have been to hear what people with varying expertise had to say about certain aspects of this bill? Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet : Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately that is what we get with omnibus bills. The government changes 60 laws and gives us only one hour to talk about housing, which is the foundation of so many things, including people's health. Only one witness was called. This is absolutely ridiculous. If the government was asked to vote on a bill that brought back the gun registry, something it opposes, but that also included harsher sentences for criminals, something it supports, would it vote in favour of that bill? That is exactly what the government is asking us to do.

What is more, it is reducing our speaking time and we hardly have any time to speak in committee. This is not democracy. [ English ] Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to represent beautiful Langley, British Columbia, and to have the opportunity to speak briefly to the many strengths of Canada's new economic action plan 2014. I would like to begin my comments by reflecting on what I have heard from the NDP. I was shocked, maybe I should not have been, that it does not want us to balance our budget.

It wants us to continue all the different programs that have reached the end of their lives. They want to continue deficit spending. That is not what Canadians want. We will continue to work hard creating jobs and an environment where the economy can grow and we can balance the priorities of Canadians. I would like to highlight the important contribution that our natural resources, forestry, and agriculture make to the Canadian economy, which is a pillar of our government's economic action plan. These sectors create jobs and prosperity, particularly in rural communities across Canada.

For example, consider Canada's natural resources sector. This sector represents 18% of the economy and over half of our exports. It supports 1.8 million jobs directly and indirectly. That is where a large percentage of the money for programs is coming from. Furthermore, it generates over $30 billion annually in revenues to governments, which is equal to approximately half of all spending in hospitals in Canada in 2013. There are hundreds of natural resources projects under way or planned in Canada over the next 10 years, representing a total potential investment of $650 billion. That is huge.

A significant element of this economic boost is represented by Canada's unique oil sands industry. This sector is an asset that will increasingly contribute to the prosperity of all Canadians, including the programs that the opposition NDP and Liberal parties want but do not want to pay for. The oil sands is among the world's largest technological projects, contributing about 275,000 jobs across Canada and $48 billion in GDP, numbers that could grow to an average of 630,000 jobs and a contribution of $113 billion in GDP per year by 2035. That is huge.

This is due to an increasing global demand for resources, particularly from the emerging economies. Increasing global demand for resources like our oil, particularly from emerging economies, will create new economic and job opportunities from which all Canadians will benefit. However, Canadians will only reap the benefits that come from our natural resources once investments are made by the private sector to bring these much-needed resources to market. Approval processes can be long and unpredictable. Delays and red tape often plague projects that pose few environmental risks.

That is why our government has worked hard since 2006 to streamline and improve the regulatory process while safeguarding and protecting the environment. A modern regulatory system should support progress on economically viable major economic projects and should sustain Canada's reputation as an attractive place to invest. That is why, as part of Canada's e