OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 215 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, May 15, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 15, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 215 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 215 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 215 (Version officielle) 147 215 15 05 2015 2015/05/15 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1000) [ English ] Economic Action Plan 2015 Act No. 1 The House resumed from May 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment. Bill C-59. Second reading Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation act, such an important piece of legislation for veterans. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs , I am pleased to say that the Minister of Veterans Affairs tabled in this House Bill C-58 , support for veterans and their families.

The provisions contained in the bill are so important for veterans that they are contained within the budget implementation act itself. The budget implementation act is a major step forward in our work for our Armed Forces members, for veterans, and for their families. With the bill, our government would address unintended gaps in the new veterans charter. In addition, the bill would satisfy recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Last June, the committee issued a report with recommendations to improve the new veterans charter.

That report was based on input from over 50 veterans and veterans organizations that appeared at the committee. The report was unanimously accepted by all members of all parties on that committee. Here is the problem for the Liberal and NDP members of Parliament.

The measures in the budget implementation act address recommendations presented by the Veterans Ombudsman, by the veterans affairs committee, and by veterans and veterans organizations, yet for some incomprehensible reason, the opposition is fighting these initiatives, initiatives that would benefit our veterans and their families, instead of helping to pass them into law. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is serving veterans extremely well. He has held a high number of consultations.

He has reached out to veterans and veterans organizations, and over the last number of months, he has announced many significant initiatives for which veterans have been asking. Within the first few weeks, the minister laid out his priorities for Veterans Affairs: having a focus on caring, compassion, and respect; having a veteran-centred service attitude; ensuring a seamless transition from the Armed Forces into Veterans Affairs; and providing service excellence. It is these priorities that have borne tangible fruit.

There have been major announcements to improve government services and benefits for serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, for veterans, and for their families. I would like to briefly highlight some of those significant and important announcements, which are contained in the budget implementation act. The retirement income security benefit would provide moderately and seriously injured veterans with continued assistance in the form of monthly income support payments, beginning at the age of 65. This was a direct response to the Veterans Ombudsman's recommendation.

In fact, when the minister made this announcement, the Ombudsman said, “I encourage all Parliamentarians to pass this new pension benefit without delay”. The minister also announced that the earnings loss benefit would now be calculated the same way for reserve force members as it is for regular force members. With this announcement, reservists would now receive earnings loss benefits equal to those of their regular force counterparts.

Alice Aiken, the director of the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, said: This really speaks loudly and clearly to the reservist veterans that the minister in fact does have their 'six', and is willing to go to bat for them, and take care of them. This is another announcement that was supported by the Veterans Ombudsman. Building on this momentum, the minister then announced that the eligibility criteria for the permanent impairment allowance would be expanded to allow more veterans to benefit. More seriously injured veterans would now be eligible for more financial support.

Another significant and important announcement the minister made that is also contained in the budget implementation act was the new family caregiver relief benefit. Our government recognizes the vital contribution of caregivers, often the spouse or another family member, to the health and well-being of seriously injured veterans. This new benefit would provide an annual tax-free grant of over $7,000 per year to allow caregivers to take a well-deserved break while ensuring that their loved ones continued to receive the support they needed.

So far, I have been speaking of benefits and initiatives that were a direct response to the recommendations made at the veterans affairs committee. In other words, they are benefits and initiatives that the Liberal and NDP members of Parliament should have no hesitation voting in favour of. However, the Minister of Veterans Affairs took the opportunity to offer a new benefit that went beyond what the committee and others had asked for, and of course, I am speaking of the critical injury benefit.

The critical injury benefit would provide $70,000, tax free, to the most severely injured and ill Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans. This benefit is intended to address the immediate impact of severe and traumatic service-related injuries or diseases sustained by our Armed Forces members and veterans. I think Mr. Phil Ralph, the program director of Wounded Warriors Canada, said it best when he said: Any time you have a benefit that is going to add to the suite of benefits for veterans, it's a good thing. And the minister has done a good job at filling a whole bunch of gaps in the last couple of weeks.

(1005) These announcements are about respect for serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, respect for veterans, and respect for their families. Our government recognizes its obligation to our Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans and is determined to enact and implement these measures as soon as possible. The purpose of these measures, which is contained in the budget implementation act is: ...to recognize and fulfill the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs has made a commitment to veterans that these initiatives, benefits recommended in an all-party report from the veterans affairs committee, would pass through the House before the end of this session. To fulfill our obligation, we have included these new benefits in the budget implementation act to ensure that they pass and can be implemented as soon as possible. I certainly look forward to bringing them into force so that serving members and veterans can actually benefit from them.

However, it is most unfortunate that the Liberals and the NDP are playing political games with our armed forces members, veterans, and their families regarding these new benefits. Earlier this week, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore attempted to move a motion to send Bill C-58 to the committee, which would actually have disrupted the passage of the budget implementation act and the bringing into force of these important benefits I am speaking of this morning. Here is the dilemma.

There are real and significant financial benefits contained in this budget implementation act that would improve the lives of serving Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans, and their families. They are benefits that the opposition has asked for and has said it supports, yet when it comes time to vote on them and actually move them into law and make them a reality, the Liberal and NDP members of Parliament say that they will not vote for them. As I said, it is shameful that the NDP and Liberals are playing these political games to the detriment of our veterans and their families.

It is important to highlight to those watching this debate that the NDP and Liberal MPs will not just stand by while we move these benefits into law but will actively vote against them. Think about that for a moment. Opposition MPs are going to actively try to defeat these initiatives for veterans that are contained within the budget implementation act. They would rather that veterans and their families get nothing at all than receive these new benefits. It makes no sense at all, and it would disadvantage our veterans for the opposition's own partisan purposes.

Men and women in uniform and veterans have confidence that our Conservative government would not only propose these key benefits but would also do everything possible to ensure that they are actually brought into effect. They know that they can count on us to bring this through to a successful conclusion. In closing, I would say to my Liberal and NDP colleagues that veterans, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and their families are watching closely.

With this in mind, I would ask my opposition colleagues to reverse their current position and to instead vote in favour of the key new initiatives contained in the budget implementation act. They are initiatives that would benefit our serving members, veterans, and their families. (1010) [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary said, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore made two attempts to send Bill C-58 , which is about veterans, directly to committee after second reading in the House.

Both times, the Conservatives refused to do it. It is clear that this is a political game the Conservatives are playing because Bill C-59 , the budget implementation bill, which we are discussing now, would not be disrupted if we were to agree to the motion moved by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore simply because the provisions in Bill C-59 could be withdrawn in committee if they became redundant. Knowing that, can the parliamentary secretary explain why the Conservatives are against our proposal to send Bill C-58 to committee and pass it quickly? Why are they using these stalling tactics? [ English ] Mr.

Pierre Lemieux : Mr. Speaker, do members see what I mean by political games? The measures contained in Bill C-58 are in the budget implementation act, and the budget implementation act is here in debate and is going to committee right after the break week. My opposition colleagues will have the opportunity to vote in favour of these tangible, credible, and real benefits for veterans, serving Canadian Armed Forces members, and their families, but they choose not to. Instead, they throw up a smokescreen and chaff, saying that it is not being done the way they want it to be done.

I say to put those political games aside and instead focus on the benefits that would be delivered to our veterans, serving members, and their families and vote them into law. They should join the government in serving our veterans and serving Canadian Armed Forces members, our men and women in uniform. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have rarely heard such political spin and damage control in the time I have been in this House of Commons.

Let me suggest to my hon. colleague that what he should do for the veterans is write to them and apologize for the way they have been treated for the past four years, whether it was by closing service centres across the country, decreasing the Veterans Affairs offices by about 1,000 people, pulling back on their budgets, or failing to address the issue of PTSD. The current Conservative government should start, if it really cares about the veterans, with a huge apology for the disastrous Veterans Affairs ministers who have preceded the current one. That is what they should do.

What does my hon. colleague think about that? Mr. Pierre Lemieux : Mr. Speaker, we have brought about tremendous improvements in service at Veterans Affairs. We have announced record levels of funding and new benefits all the way around to serve veterans and their families. My point today is that we have a budget implementation act in front of the House right now that needs to be approved. I am asking this member, who actually served in the Canadian Armed Forces, to support these very real, very tangible benefits that would help veterans, serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and their families.

The opposition should vote in favour. Instead of throwing up these smokescreens, they should vote to implement these measures.

(1015) Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for a comprehensive speech. The interesting thing is that this is what veterans want and need, and everyone on the veterans affairs committee, of which I was a member, agreed unanimously that these are good things. We have added things even beyond those. Given the games that are being played, and there are going to be a lot of accusations in all directions, how important is it, because the time is short, to not give the opposition an opportunity to frustrate getting these measures passed?

That is why we put them in Bill C-59 and that is why we are also debating those elements. The opposition members will have a chance to vote on it at committee. They will have a chance to show that support. How important is it to roll it all into Bill C-59 so that we can make sure that the aim of getting these benefits there for veterans is not frustrated by game playing? Mr. Pierre Lemieux : Mr. Speaker, I thank that member for his service to our country and for that good question. I think the member is touching on a key point.

The recommendations that were made by the veterans affairs committee were unanimously accepted, and here is the fruit of what the veterans affairs committee actually recommended contained in the budget implementation act. Why are these measures in the budget implementation act? It is because the Minister of Veterans Affairs has made a commitment to veterans and their families that these measures will pass through the House before the end of this session. That is why they are in the budget implementation act.

I am calling on members of the opposition parties to vote in favour of these measures to support our veterans, their families, and serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to share my thoughts on the 2015-16 budget despite the fact that it is yet another omnibus bill with closure. I think that the Conservatives have made history, not for their skill with budgets, but for their contempt of democracy.

So successful have they been that the expression “Conservative tactics”—meaning the undue use of time allocation, lack of transparency and contempt for democracy—has become part of our everyday vocabulary. A sure sign of that is their use of an omnibus bill to pass measures that are outright illegal, such as those related to the RCMP and access to information. We all know that the Conservatives are trying to protect themselves from prosecution by passing a bill that retroactively legalizes the illegal things they did. That is in clause 230, if I am not mistaken.

When people in any Canadian province say that a government is using Conservative tactics, they are referring to this government. If the members take a good look at themselves in the mirror, perhaps they will one day understand that what they have done here is completely undemocratic. It is really unfortunate, because more and more young people are becoming cynical about politics. The tactics that the Conservatives have been using over the past four years will only reinforce that cynicism among young people regarding politics. It is unfortunate.

Let us talk about the budget, but let us also talk about what is not in the budget. We talk a lot about what is in the budget, but we do not talk about what is not there. We are in the middle of an unprecedented housing crisis in Canada and Quebec. We know that 1.5 million households do not have access to housing. The federal government continues to disengage year after year. In its 2012-13 budget, the government cut investments in housing by $21.7 million.

By 2030—and 2030 is closer than you think; it is only 15 years away—if the federal government maintains its current level of disengagement, $1.7 billion will have been cut from social housing. This amounts to 85% of the total federal housing budget. For example, with the end of social housing agreements, 26,000 housing units have been affected since 2011. By 2016, over 100,000 units will have been affected.

We are talking about families, women and children, who could wind up homeless, who will be forced to turn to food banks, who will no longer be able to afford groceries because they will have to pay too much for housing. Is that acceptable? No. La Pointe-de-l'Île is no exception. In the borough of Rivière-des-Prairies—Pointe-aux-Trembles, 6,500 people spend more than 30% of their income on housing. The director of Infologis de l'Est de Montréal calls these numbers alarming. I would like to commend him on the excellent work he and his organization do for La Pointe-de-l'Île and Montreal East.

When families spend more than 30% of their income on housing, they do not have much left to spend on other essentials, such as food. Almost 20% of the households in Pointe-aux-Trembles spend more than 50% of their income on housing; that is one in five households. It makes no sense. In 2009, the current Prime Minister went to the UN and made a promise to the Human Rights Council to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that every Canadian and Quebecker had access to suitable and affordable housing. The provinces are stretched to the limit and are at a loss as to what to do.

The government's lack of leadership is only adding to the burden on the provinces. The lack of social housing and the deterioration of existing social housing have become critical. We are going to hit a wall.

(1020) The government needs to understand the importance of investing in affordable housing programs in order to put an end to homelessness and ensure not only that all families, all Canadians and all Quebeckers have a roof over their heads, but that they do not have to choose between food, health care and housing, because that is unacceptable. We are the only G7 country that does not have a social housing strategy. It is high time that the government adopted the NDP plan for a national housing strategy so that everyone can have decent, affordable housing.

Unfortunately, we cannot support a budget that reduces funding for social housing. Let us now turn to rail safety because La Pointe-de-l'Île is a railway hub. Since the Lac-Mégantic disaster, we have come to realize that our system has privatized Canadians' safety. Rail safety and our system are inadequate. In the early 2000s, the system was privatized. Self-regulation prevailed, even with respect to inspection. At a time when the transportation of crude oil is increasing exponentially, our safety system must be reviewed.

In a report published on October 22, 2013, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives criticized the shortage of inspectors. In 2009 there was one inspector for every 14 tank cars. Now, in 2015, there is one inspector for every 4,000 tank cars. Since the tragic accident in Lac-Mégantic, the Government of Canada has hired just one additional inspector. We went from 116 inspectors to 117. That is unacceptable, and it is putting the lives of the people of La Pointe-de-l'Île in danger. It is high time for the government to invest in rail safety.

Everyone agrees on this: the unions, the Auditor General and the Railway Association of Canada. We have a big problem with inspections, and now is the time to take action. There is not a single mention of rail safety in the 2015-16 budget. We cannot support a budget that puts the lives of Canadians and Quebeckers in danger. For example, the DOT-111 cars, which were declared dangerous by the Transportation Safety Board and the Auditor General, will be phased out, but it will be done over 10 years.

For another 10 years those DOT-111 cars will continue to operate in communities across Canada and Quebec, including in my riding, La Pointe-de-l'Île. Rail safety is clearly a problem. I am calling on the government to make appropriate investments in rail safety in order to keep everyone safe. For example, with regard to the most recent oil spill in Gogama, in northern Ontario, the Transportation Safety Board said that the problem was with the tracks. That means it is an inspection issue because the companies are responsible for the tracks. The government has been complacent about this.

Given the large number of accidents that have occurred since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, I hope that the Conservatives will realize that it is high time something was done about this. There is also the issue of health, since we have an aging population. Seniors need proper and accessible health care. The government did away with the Health Council of Canada, which told it that the provincial transfers would have to be increased by 6% to address the issue of the aging population. The Conservatives silenced the Health Council of Canada and said that they were going to cap the transfers at 3%.

The provinces are left with a $36 billion shortfall when it comes to health investments for everyone, including seniors. Does this government really think we are going to vote for a bill that directly affects health care for Quebec and Canadian seniors? I am sorry, but we cannot support this budget. (1025) [ English ] Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have heard reference to an NDP plan for housing and I welcome a look at it, but so far I have not seen details much beyond a plan to have a plan.

It is important that we know how the money would flow, both to provinces and to municipalities, which sections of the housing community it would support, and how it would arrive and create construction. I also have a question about the state of the repair budget. It is not just a question of the waiting lists; state of good repair is a significant issue in many cities. How is that issue going to be addressed? Finally, there is the issue of the subsidies. Are the subsidies and the commitment to co-ops and affordable housing going to continue? The agreements are expiring. It is a three-part question.

I would like to know what the plan is from the NDP, beyond just having a plan to have a plan. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member may not be familiar with our many initiatives, because he had not yet been elected at the time, but the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot introduced Bill C-400 , which is precisely our proposal for a national social housing strategy. I invite the member to look it up online to see the details of our plan.

My colleague from Hochelaga introduced a bill before Parliament calling on the government to continue to invest in rent subsidies, thereby maintaining the agreements. I invite the member to also look that up online for more details, and to consult the NDP website to learn more about our plans. We have concrete plans. We have brought them before the House, and the government refused to support them. [ English ] Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously very passionate about housing and housing needs in Canada.

That is a worthy goal. She raised the NDP's plan, which was a private member's bill. Inside the bill was a requirement that all housing built under it, which would be paid in part by the federal government, would require the highest green standards; I believe it is LEED. When I spoke to people in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, many groups like Habitat for Humanity, and others that may from time to time do housing projects for seniors, voiced that as a considerable concern because it would increase the building costs.

It would actually exclude many small not-for-profits from being able to contribute and bring reasonable housing to meet the needs of people. I would like to hear what she has to say about that. Will she revise that particular notion of the NDP's plan? If so, let us hear the alternative plan. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member consulted with organizations in his riding, and I did the same thing. What I can say is that organizations all across Canada supported our plan. Even the Federation of Canadian Municipalities supported our plan to invest in social housing.

We are in the middle of a crisis. We are about to hit a wall, and the government continues to disengage. In 15 years, the government will have cut $1.7 billion from social housing, and I have no doubt that if the government continues on this path, over 100,000 families will wind up homeless or will no longer be able to afford groceries, unfortunately, because they will have to pay too much for housing. If the member wants to play politics on the backs of our families, our women, men and children, he can continue to do so.

What we on this side want to do is invest in social housing so that everyone can have a roof over their heads.

(1030) Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île on a very good speech. My colleague serves the people of La Pointe-de-l'Île very well. In her speech, she mentioned the Gogama derailment, which could have been very dangerous had it occurred two kilometres farther west. That would have put it right in downtown Gogama. It could have been another Lac-Mégantic. There was another derailment 40 kilometres from Gogama three weeks earlier. Can the member tell us what the Minister of Transport is doing about rail transport's poor performance? Ms.

Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, as I said, the government did not mention rail safety one single time in the new 2015-16 budget. Between 2010 and 2015, the office responsible for rail safety lost 20% of its resources to cuts. In 2009, there was one inspector per 14 cars. In 2015, it is one inspector per 4,000 cars. That accident could have been prevented if the government had enforced the rules and made appropriate investments in rail safety. [ English ] Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on our government's budget implementation bill. Our Conservative government is focused on what matters most to Canadians: helping families to make ends meet by lowering taxes; protecting, and, of course, creating jobs. That was abundantly clear in economic action plan 2015. Under this Prime Minister , this government recognizes that our country's greatest asset in the global economy is our people. With that in mind, we have worked hard to cut taxes for all Canadians to ensure that more of their hard-earned dollars stay in their wallets.

The tax relief measures introduced by our government are benefiting all Canadians. Economic action plan 2015 builds on our government's record of support for Canadian families by keeping taxes low and helping them to save. We will also introduce tax relief for seniors and persons with disabilities to make their homes more accessible, as well as to help students to pay for their education. We are seeking to increase the contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts.

We are seeking to adjust the registered retirement income fund, or as they are better known, RRIFs, and their minimum withdrawal factors that apply in respect of ages 71 to 94, to better reflect long-term, historical, real rates of return, and expected inflation. As a result, the new RRIF factors will be substantially lower than the existing factors. We are also seeking to implement a new home accessibility tax credit for seniors and persons with disabilities. As the member of Parliament for Okanagan—Coquihalla, I know that many retirees in my riding want to be able to stay in their homes longer.

I think this, in addition to helping people with disabilities, will help to do exactly that. All of these measures work toward this government's goal of helping families make ends meet by lowering taxes, and, again, protecting and creating jobs. Now, I would like to speak about some budget measures that fall directly under my purview as the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. Economic action plan 2015 reaffirmed the government's commitment to pursuing a new disability and sick leave management system for Canada's public service.

As I said earlier in this place, the government's continued overarching goal in these negotiations is to reach agreement on total public service compensation that is fair and reasonable to both the employees and the taxpayer. The legislative changes proposed in the budget implementation act allow the government to take necessary steps for a modernized disability and sick leave management system to give employees the safety net they need. The minister has been clear in his negotiations with the unions. He is working towards a settlement that includes a revamped sick leave system.

The President of the Treasury Board has been clear that mental health issues are important to our government. That is why we have worked with the public service unions to establish the joint mental health task force. This task force is a first step in improving how the federal public service can manage mental health challenges in the workplace. Additionally, economic action plan 2015 announced our government's intention to renew the mandate of the Mental Health Commission of Canada for an additional 10 years.

This will allow the commission to continue its important work to promote mental health in Canada and foster change in the delivery of mental health services. The Mental Health Commission of Canada has said: This is wonderful news for the mental health community. [...] Together, we have advocated for change. And together, we are succeeding. It is clear that this government is putting the health of federal employees at the top of its priorities during the ongoing negotiations.

We will make every effort to reach an agreement with bargaining agents within a reasonable timeframe on these necessary reforms to disability and sick leave management. We know that the 40-year-old sick leave accumulation system currently in place is antiquated and not responsive to the needs of the majority of our employees. Almost two-thirds of employees, 6 in 10 people, in the core public administration, do not have enough banked sick leave to cover a full period of short-term disability of 13 weeks.

Worse still, a quarter of employees have fewer than 10 banked sick days, and many new and younger public servants have no banked sick days at all.

(1035) That is why this government, with the President of the Treasury Board leading the negotiations, is proposing a short-term disability plan that would help public servants get healthy and back to work. The proposed short-term disability plan would give public servants the comprehensive safety net that they need while protecting the taxpayers who are paying the bill. To date, the government's bargaining representatives have had over 200 meetings with the unions. There are nearly 50 additional meetings planned in the future, which is more than enough time for both sides to come to a reasonable agreement.

The minister and his team will continue to negotiate with unions, but our objective is clear: we will not pay sick leave to people who are not sick. In the event that an agreement between the government and bargaining agents cannot be reached, this legislation would allow the government to take the necessary steps to implement a modernized disability and sick leave management system within a reasonable timeframe. I think it is important for me to address some of the misconceptions about the savings that are booked in economic action plan 2015.

The $900 million booked in 2014-15 is a subset of the contingent liability associated with banked sick days that have accumulated over decades under the existing regime. This savings target is a commitment to taxpayers that the government takes this very seriously. As always, our government will be mindful of the purse strings, and, of course, accountable to the taxpayers. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government really understands or gets the picture of the importance of Canada's middle class.

We need to recognize that it is the middle class that generates the economic growth that Canada needs, and at the end of the day the government has not been able to generate the types of jobs that are important to our middle class. We have seen literally tens of thousands of good valuable jobs lost in the last few years, particularly in industries such as our manufacturing industry. We have had very recent examples of that.

I wonder if the member would explain to the viewers why the government has not been successful in generating the type of economic growth in which Canadians expect their government to demonstrate leadership. The 1.2 million new jobs that the government always makes reference to is hogwash. In the last year and a half, it is a very small percentage of jobs that have actually been generated compared with the amount of growth in population and so forth. Could the member explain why the government has failed Canadians in dealing with the important issue of job creation to support Canada's middle class?

(1040) Mr. Dan Albas : Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's views and appreciate that he has a certain view. Of course, this government has our view. I would say that ultimately it comes down to leadership. One of the most important things that leaders can do is to be abundantly clear. His leader has said to southwest Ontario that they should transition away from manufacturing. On this side, we say that southwest Ontario, by putting improvements into Internet connections and working with the provinces on valuable infrastructure, will help to raise the tide that will float all boats, particularly in manufacturing.

We have also seen reductions in tariffs that are unseen in any other developed nations. Now manufacturers can bring in new equipment with no tariffs to become more productive and get ahead of the innovation curve. We have been abundantly clear. I also want to reference that we need to bring in new opportunities for manufacturing. Through the 13 long years of the previous Liberal government, the Liberals put about $1.5 billion in infrastructure into British Columbia.

Within the first seven years of this Conservative government, we saw three times that, $4.5 billion, and much of it to the Asia-Pacific gateway, which we know will open up new opportunities. They voted against all of those investments. They continue to say that they are great on trade, but if we look at their actual record, there were five free trade agreements. We are opening up opportunities in Korea, in Europe. Honda has said it is going to be sending out its new CR-Vs directly to Europe. That is because it sees the opportunities right here in Canada in manufacturing.

It sees that Canadian workers, Canadian companies, can compete and succeed. That is why on this side of the house, we have clarity on manufacturing; we have clarity on the economy. I wish that the members opposite would get clear on what really is a pro-Canada agenda. [ Translation ] Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the parliamentary secretary's speech. I must admit, he is rather consistent. However, we obviously do not agree, especially when it comes to sick leave.

I think it is despicable that this government is attacking its own employees for political reasons, to achieve a budget surplus. I would like to him to clarify what he is thinking. On one hand, he is threatening employees with cuts through this bill, on the other hand, he is talking about negotiating when the employees have a gun to their heads. In his speech, is the parliamentary secretary saying that he is prepared to suspend the sick leave measures in the bill in order to leave room for negotiations? [ English ] Mr. Dan Albas : Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member saying that I am consistent.

My wife would agree with the hon. member that consistency is one of my traits that is positive, I hope. However, I also have to compliment the members. The NDP are consistently against Canadian jobs and opportunities such as trade. However, getting back to the point of sick leave, I said in my speech very clearly that we want to help make sure that our employees, particularly those who are new to the public service and young, have access to a safety net that will help them return to work.

I would suggest that the member opposite read the actual budget implementation act under division 20, clauses 270 and 271, which may bring him some comfort. As I said, the government is taking the position that we want to make sure we have a safety net for our employees, but also to make sure that we are accountable to taxpayers, and that we provide sick leave to those who are sick and not to those who are not. Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to what is called the 2015 budget.

However, to my perspective, it is actually the 2017 budget because none of the money for cities will arrive for two years. We will hear in conversations from the other side about how the Conservatives have put all kinds of money into cities through the gas tax. I would remind everybody here that this was a Paul Martin Liberal Party initiative. To take credit for it is to give us credit for forward thinking. However, the budget has been described by the minister on the other side continually in question period as having three Ts, and I agree with him. There are three Ts.

This budget is totally useless, totally unnecessary and totally unfair. For cities, nothing highlights this more than the housing promises. There is a provision in the budget bill to forgive mortgages held by CMHC taken out by public housing providers and to put a fund in place to pay off the penalties for discharging mortgages and refinancing, and that is taking up a second mortgage with a second, private sector lender.

What is not detailed, but has now come out through questioning, is that when public housing providers take advantage of this so-called opportunity, they lose their subsidies for the rent-geared-to-income units in those buildings. In other words, they would give up a mortgage, take on a new mortgage and somehow, magically, would be expected to finance subsidies for low-income seniors, people with disabilities and other individuals who need assistance. They would actually end up spending more money, relieving the federal government's obligation to people who need housing.

That is the most cynical bait and switch I have ever seen on the housing file. What it ends up situating is one of two opportunities. Either low-income Canadians are subsidizing the government so it can provide tax cuts for affluent Canadians, literally Robin Hood in reverse; or else, the housing providers are given an opportunity to refinance the housing, but in doing so they send the poorest in the housing sector out onto the streets. Out west in Manitoba, where the minister resides, most of those people, close to 5,000 of them, are seniors on fixed incomes. Putting those people at risk is unfair.

The fund is totally useless and the response to the needs of the housing sector is totally unreal. However, it is not just that. There is a promise of $1.7 billion being spent every year as a result of provincial and federal agreements. The Conservatives said that would be continued, that there would be no cuts to this program. They know damn well that those funds actually shrink year after year as subsidies disappear and as mortgages expire. The suggestion is that because they would have no mortgage, they could somehow have a poor neighbour subsidize a less affluent, even poorer neighbour. That is just not fair.

What is really cruel about this is that the assumption is that because housing providers have retired their mortgage they can finally find sums to pay for the subsidy. The truth of the matter is that the funds that are needed when these mortgages retire are there for state of good repair. Because there is no federal capital funding to repair old and aging housing stock, the money that suddenly becomes available to housing providers is dedicated for that, not for subsidies for other poor people. It is the most regressive way of running a housing program we have ever seen.

We have a housing policy, and that policy is more than a plan to have a plan. It involves partnering with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and funding directly, through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to create supportive housing programs with an endowment. The second part of that is to renew the co-op and housing agreements and to step back into the housing market, but then also to take those savings as they accrue to the department and reinvest them once again in sustaining and building more co-op and affordable housing across the country.

The final piece of this is that with a shrinking CMHC and pulling CMHC out of the housing market, we also need to ensure we do not just focus on affordable housing but housing affordability. That housing affordability is critical in places like Calgary, Saskatoon and Edmonton where, because of the drop in commodity prices, the housing market has suddenly become very fragile. We need a federal government that protects middle-class homeowners, access to rental housing and access to the market for first-time buyers. Instead, what we get is some sort of laissez-faire attitude that says “do what you will”.

We have not indexed, for example, the tax breaks for first-time homebuyers, so it is still stuck in the 1980s model as opposed to being updated annually and making housing accessible to everyone who wants to gain that opportunity. These programs need to arrive. The government on the other side has no program other than to pull money out fo the public housing sector and use it to subsidize tax breaks to the affluent. The NDP, to its credit, has a plan but it is only a plan to have a plan. If we read Bill C-400 , we see it is to have a big meeting.

There are no actual specifics as to how to solve the housing crisis in the country.

(1045) When we speak about it and folks criticize an earlier government, they are fine to go off and build a time machine, and go back and prosecute that election. It is time to start building housing in the country and the Liberal plan would do that. This budget does not address one iota of that. On transit, it is even sillier. There is no money for two years and then it comes in dribs and drabs. The program the government has proposed is too big for small cities and too small for big cities, and it will not get transit built in a timely way. Cities need that money now, and not just for new projects.

The state of good repair in places like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver is a critical issue facing urban centres. Without additional dollars, not earmarked for ribbon-cutting exercises but earmarked for the development and sustaining of existing transit systems, those transit systems will fail. Stepping in and providing that revenue is critically important today, not in two or three years' time. If it arrives in two or three years' time, the new transit does not arrive for five to ten years, and that is not a response to gridlock.

In fact, what the Conservative government is saying with this budget is, “Wait at the side of the road. Wait for the bus for two or three more years. Wait, wait, wait, we'll get to you at some point”, because right now it is more important not to provide the assistance to cities for which they have asked. Finally on infrastructure, two years ago there was a 90% cut. Last year, there were zero dollars in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, and small communities and small towns right across the country.

The odd dollar arrived, but the bulk of the program, once again, is back-end loaded for 10 years. For critical infrastructure, to build strong cities, in which close to 82% of Canadians live, there is no new money in this budget. There is not a new timetable. It is absolutely unacceptable, and the cities know this. This budget has to change, and it has to change to support those very programs I just mentioned.

If it does not change, cities will not grow, our country will stagnate, and 82% of all Canadians will see their cities fail as the government promises tax cuts that, quite frankly, do not even address the socio-economic needs of the people who live in those cities. This is a huge problem and it needs to change and it needs to change with a go-forward argument, not a debate about what happened 25 years ago.

(1050) Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to pull the member back to the budget bill itself and read some of the measures in it. The budget bill would allow seniors to keep more in their RRIFs for a longer period of time. It proposes moving the small business tax rate down to 9%. It proposes increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million.

It introduces the home accessibility tax credit, extends the mineral exploration tax credit, allows foreign charitable foundations to be registered as qualified donees and provides an accelerated capital cost allowance for the manufacturing sector for a 10-year period. Which of those measures does he support, which of those measures does he oppose, and if he opposes them, why does he oppose them? Mr. Adam Vaughan : Mr. Speaker, for the last week, we have been hearing how the government treats all Canadians the same.

Yet every measure he just identified singles out specific groups of Canadians and treats them differently. That is a contradiction the government has to answer, not me. There are several provisions in the budget that, of course, we support. There is the capital gains tax that allows people who sell their homes not to have to lose so much of their assets and allows them to protect their retirement. We understand that there are elements of this bill which all of us, in fact, I think all three parties, if we split the bill apart, would give unanimous support for.

However, there are provisions in this bill, which, quite frankly, do not measure up. When one loads into the approach to housing being all aimed at affluent, well-housed Canadians and punitive measures are taken against those people living in rental and affordable housing, one has, effectively, not treated all Canadians the same, and that is not fair. [ Translation ] Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.

I think he talked up the Liberal party far too much in his speech because every time the Liberals formed a government, they did not balance the budgets like they say they did. Instead, they dipped into the EI fund and drained it completely in order to fund their promises. The hon. member says that the other parties are making promises to make other promises. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party does not seem to be very good at math. Let me just say that the Liberal Party's own leader said that budgets balance themselves. I think his party is having a hard time doing the math.

Recently, the Liberals announced that they would bring in a program to help children, but that the program would run a deficit of $1 billion to $2 billion Can the hon. member tell me whether the Liberal Party is going to drain the EI fund again to pay for its promises, or is this another empty promise the Liberal Party is going to cast aside as usual? (1055) [ English ] Mr. Adam Vaughan : Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the hon. member to wait for the full platform before he criticizes it.

The platform is coming, and it will be balanced, as were the last seven budgets presented by a Liberal government in the House, the last of which was a balanced budget that had $2.7 billion for housing, which his party voted against. The $2.7 billion that was not spent on housing in the last decade is a large part of why the crisis has deepened. The NDP needs to take responsibility for that as a party. However, there will be other measures. I just outlined what our housing platform would look like, and it is a real housing platform.

It is not a plan to have a plan, it is actually a detailed agenda to deal with a series of housing crises that have emerged across the country. The Conservative government has not only deepened the affordable housing crisis, it has now started to create a crisis in housing affordability, and we need to address the full spectrum. The Liberal Party will do that in a way which is fiscally responsible. I remind you that we balanced the budget, and the last budget that was balanced had $2.7 billion plus a daycare plan, and your party voted against it, rolled the dice and gave us that government over there.

I am not prepared to sit here and take that again. It is time for a change and for a vision for the future. If you want to go back and prosecute— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member must remember to address his remarks to the Chair lest anyone would think he was speaking about the Speaker. The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs has a question, and there is only about 30 seconds left for him to do so. Hon. Erin O'Toole (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, there are provisions in the budget implementation act that will have a profound impact for veterans and their families, which have really been the result of several years of consultation with the ombudsman, with the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and with outreach to veterans and stakeholder groups. I wonder if that member would comment on why his party, which seemed to support most of these measures as part of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs last June, appears now not to support the measures as part of the budget. Mr. Adam Vaughan : Mr.

Speaker, it is a common practice for the government to put some things in an omnibus bill together with a lot of really awful, terribly bad things. As I said, totally useless, totally unfair and totally unnecessary, which are the three Ts the Conservative Party has come to like. If you were to split those provisions out, I am sure you would get pretty good support across the House, but when you couple them with pathetic programs on urban affairs— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker : I know the member is relatively new to the House, but by now he should know that he really cannot address his comments directly to other members. It is now the second time I have heard him do so. We will move on to statements by members.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] London Run for Ovarian Cancer Mrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, ovarian cancer is a serious disease with no early detection test. Most women are, unfortunately, diagnosed in the later stages of the disease, and 60% of them will not survive past four years. Every year 2,500 Canadian women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 1,500 women will die from this horrible disease. This past Mother's Day, Londoners came together to participate in the 13th annual Run for Ovarian Cancer to raise funds for research.

I was proud to be a part of it. The run was born of the idea of the shock of realizing how little most women know about the signs and symptoms of this disease. I am proud of the London Run for Ovarian Cancer team. They are on pace to raise $2 million by 2017. On behalf of all members of the House, I would like to salute Jim Olson and the more than 125 volunteers who are committed to this cause and raise funds each and every year.

[ Translation ] Summer Events in Alfred-Pellan Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, with summer just around the corner, the City of Laval and its organizations are offering a multitude of activities so that the people of Laval can have a fantastic summer. One of my favourite activities, the Festival de la pêche, will be held at the Centre de la nature de Laval from May 16 to 17. For this festival, the lake has been stocked with thousands of trout that young and old alike can fish for without a licence. This is a wonderful opportunity to introduce our children to fishing.

The 2015 Grande fête des pompiers de Laval will be held from May 29 to 31. It promises to be a great event with a fire truck parade, performances, entertainment, and even a half marathon among the many activities scheduled this year. The residents of Auteuil can join the first Fête des voisins on June 6. The purpose of this heartwarming community event is to help families get to know one another and to develop a friendly neighbourhood spirit. I can hardly wait to attend because that is the neighbourhood where I grew up. Laval is a great place to live and to enjoy the summer.

I am truly honoured to have supported the organizations in Alfred-Pellan and all of Laval, as well as their innovative projects, for the past four years. They have inspired me and made me want to advocate for them every day. I would like to thank them for that.

(1100) [ English ] Osoyoos Indian Band Mr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was excited to learn that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has signed off on a request from the Osoyoos Indian Band to designate close to 280 acres for leasing purposes. This change opens the door to another exciting new business partnership for Chief Clarence Louie, who has become well known for championing such business ventures. Imagine a new race track designed by Canadian Formula One legend Jacques Villeneuve.

The proposed five-kilometre FIA level 2 track would be a $12 million investment that would build on the Osoyoos Indian Band's thriving business community, which includes agriculture, ecotourism, and commercial, industrial, and residential development. To quote Chief Louie directly: I want to see First Nations programs based around jobs. I believe that all members of the House will join me in recognizing the leadership of the Osoyoos Indian Band in supporting new and innovative opportunities that create jobs and support our regional and local economies.

P.E.I. Annual Roadside Cleanup Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Women's Institute of Prince Edward Island on what has come to be known as the annual roadside cleanup. In 1973, the Women's Institute started this great island tradition whereby on a date in May, under its leadership, everyone is encouraged to clean up litter from ditches and pack it in bags for pickup. This effort enhances the image of an island that is proud and keeps itself clean.

This year, after a record snowfall, the Women's Institute is challenging all islanders to get outside on Saturday, May 23, and enjoy the fresh air while joining neighbours and friends in the roadside cleanup to keep PEI beautiful. Families, schools, community organizations, and businesses are encouraged to pledge their involvement at www.peiwi.ca. Beyond all of its other good work, the Women's Institute in this way provides inspiration to enhance our environment. On behalf of all islanders, I thank the Women's Institute for its hard work and dedication.

Van Tuyl and Fairbank Hardware Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize a company in my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, Van Tuyl and Fairbank Hardware of Petrolia, Ontario, for passing the milestone of 150 years in business. Founded in 1865, the same year that Petrolia was being organized as a town, Van Tuyl and Fairbank today, as their website puts it: ...has one foot in the 1800s and another in the current millennium. Now owned by the fourth generation of the Fairbank family, it sells solar thermal panels for outbuildings and nails by the pound.

The store is one of a kind. In the early years, it carried hardware used by oilmen, as well as groceries, liquor, and wine. As Petrolia blossomed and grew with the drilling of the first commercial oil well in Canada, it expanded and flourished. Van Tuyl and Fairbank has outlasted six monarchies and has been a pillar in the community throughout technological advancements and cultural shifts. Congratulations to Van Tuyl and Fairbank for this outstanding achievement.

[ Translation ] Aboriginal Awareness Week Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : [ Member spoke in Cree and provided the following translation: ] Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the upcoming Aboriginal Awareness Week, which takes place from May 19 to 22. This week was first introduced 23 years ago with the purpose of increasing awareness of aboriginal peoples within the federal public service. Canada is built on treaties agreeing to share this land and live together for the benefit of all.

Aboriginal Awareness Week is an opportunity for civil servants and all Canadians to renew the nation-to-nation relationships between indigenous and settler nations. Therefore, in the spirit of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which urges everyone to build good relationships with aboriginal peoples and respect our inherent rights, I invite you to celebrate and respect the diverse cultures and traditions of the Métis, Inuit and first nation peoples of this land, during Aboriginal Awareness Week and every week.

(1105) [ English ] 2014 Leduc Citizens of Distinction Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the 2014 Citizens of Distinction Award winners, who were honoured recently at the Leduc volunteer appreciation banquet. These outstanding citizens range in age from their teens to their golden years, and all have made tremendous contributions to their community. This year's recipients are Brianna Raymond, for athletic achievement; Charlene Schatz, for community spirit; and Art Birkholz, for culture and heritage.

The youth award of merit went to Caline Strach and the mayor's special award went to Clarence Shields, son of former MP Jack Shields. We can all think of a community member who has made a difference in our lives. They are mentors, teachers, parents, volunteers, and role models. They deserve our gratitude and recognition for the valuable contributions they have made and continue to make to our families, workplaces, and communities. On behalf of the people of Edmonton—Leduc, I congratulate the recipients and thank them for their dedication to making our community a better place.

National Health and Fitness Day Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the fourth National Health and Fitness Day is just around the corner on June 6. Each year the day will be celebrated on the first Saturday in June, according to the newly passed Bill S-211 , which made this important event a formal part of our laws and traditions. A big thanks to those MPs who have modelled healthy behaviour by participating in the parliamentary fitness initiative runs on Tuesdays and swims on Thursday mornings.

Congratulations to the many members who have approached their mayors and councillors, including most recently the Minister of Veterans Affairs . One hundred and ninety-five cities have proclaimed the day, and we are aiming for 300 by June 6. Canadians can help their cities proclaim and plan the day by visiting my website for access to a tool kit for MPs, towns, and cities. I am working to make health and fitness core to Canada's 150th anniversary celebrations, in partnership with the Trans Canada Trail, YMCA, Participaction, and others.

On May 25, we will kick off Bike Day in Canada, which leads up to National Health and Fitness Day. We should grab a family member or friend and get out to enjoy Canada's natural beauty in our communities. Let us make Canada the fittest nation on earth.

Families in Ottawa Centre Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of Families. Families are the foundation of our society and come in many forms. From our first day until our last, our families give us support, love, and a sense of belonging. Families in Ottawa Centre could use some help making ends meet these days. Ottawa has some of the highest child care costs in Canada, at over $12,000 per child, averaging more than 25% of a woman's income. Meanwhile, housing prices continue to rise, and too many Canadian seniors are struggling to retire in dignity and security.

The NDP has a plan to make life easier for families in Ottawa Centre and across the country by creating a million child care spots priced at no more than $15 a day, ensuring access to housing for all Canadians, expanding the Canada pension plan, and restoring old age security. Families in Ottawa Centre deserve quality, affordable child care; quality, affordable housing; and a quality, affordable retirement. This October they can vote for it.

Firearms Registry Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is committed to safe and sensible firearms policies. That is why we were pleased to fulfill our commitment to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all. However, owing to a bureaucratic loophole, it was still possible to access outdated copies of the long gun registry through access to information legislation. The will of Parliament is clear: all copies of the registry must be destroyed.

Not surprisingly, the NDP has come out swinging to oppose any measure that would make it harder for them to bring back the long gun registry, which the NDP leader has promised to do. I call on the members from Timmins—James Bay and Thunder Bay—Rainy River to do the right thing, to do what northern Ontarians want, and support our measures. Canadians know that only our Conservative government stands up for the rights of gun owners. If those members vote to keep gun registry data, their constituents will know what to do in October.

[ Translation ] Alberta's Francophone Community Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to acknowledge the incredible vitality of the Franco-Albertan community, including the Cité francophone, the Conseil de développement économique de l'Alberta, the newspaper Le Franco and the French quarter. I have had the great pleasure of participating in a number of their activities, including the raising of the Franco-Albertan flag, a number of events at Campus Saint-Jean and the Cité francophone, the sugar shack and an evening of legends of the Flying Canoë Volant.

The Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Alberta recently opened a clinic. This is a unique place that provides access to justice in French or English, free of charge. This exceptional initiative shows, once again, how Franco-Albertans in Edmonton—Strathcona are helping our community flourish.

(1110) [ English ] Canadian National Anthem Mr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this week I was disappointed to hear that Richmond Hill 's town council rejected a bid to start its meetings with Canada's national anthem over unfounded fears that doing so could be unconstitutional. O Canada is a source of national pride from coast to coast to coast, and my constituents in Richmond Hill overwhelmingly support this sentiment. Our anthem illustrates Canada's traditions, history, and heritage. Ours is a society that is open, transparent, and equal to all people who share our common vaIues.

It is a privilege to sing Canada's national anthem, and I am proud to call Canada home, the best country in the world. I am concerned with the town council's decision and I urge the council to reconsider. Governments at all levels should encourage citizens to participate in singing our national anthem, a symbol of pride, and not discourage them.

Taxation Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr Speaker, Conservatives are mad because the Toronto Star called the Liberal plan for fairness “a credible, more progressive alternative, one that puts fairness first without driving the federal books deep into the red” and because the National Post said, “The Liberals' revamped child benefit appears broader, simpler and better targeted than the Tory plan”.

Economist Mike Moffat asked “What's not to love?” about our plan, and Kevin Milligan at the UBC School of Economics said, “The tax system under a [Liberal] government would be more progressive” and that “...the new benefit simplifies our tax system and focuses attention on the children.” The Liberal plan cuts middle-class taxes by 7%; gives a bigger, all-inclusive tax-free child benefit to all families; will not end pension income splitting for seniors; will reverse the age of eligibility for OAS back to 65; and restores the TFSA's $5,500 annual limit so that even the middle class can completely benefit.

No wonder the Conservatives are spitting mad and making up absolutely anything to try to talk down our plan.

Taxation Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, earlier this week we learned that the Liberals do not believe that helping every single family in Canada is fair. We also heard that New Democrats think that only families that use licensed day care centres are real families. This is actually what they believe. They believe that only a few select families deserve support in Canada. On this side of the house, we delivered the universal child care benefit to all families. We are committed to enhancing it and increasing it.

In my riding of Don Valley West , all families will keep more money in their own pockets. We will always give money back to Canadian families, because it is their money.

[ Translation ] Employment Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that more than 1,500 Canadian families would lose their jobs at Bombardier, including 1,000 in Montreal alone, but the Minister of Employment and Social Development does not seem to see a problem. He even brags about the Conservatives' dismal record. The minister should try to get in touch with the reality of our constituents before he feeds us the same old empty partisan lines.

Since the Conservatives came to power, over 400,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector, including 100,000 in Quebec alone. Canadian families deserve better than an employment minister who serves them the party line instead of caring about their problems. Come October, these families will be able to count on the only party that truly has their interests at heart: the NDP.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party has one plan for our economy: raise taxes on middle-class families, raise taxes on small businesses and raise taxes on seniors. The Liberal leader talks about being fair, but the other day he said, “Benefiting every single family is not what is fair”. What is not fair is hiking taxes on millions of middle-class Canadians, small businesses and seniors. Canadians are smart enough not to be fooled by that and to stick with the benefits that they are actually now receiving in their pockets that were introduced by our government to help the middle class.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions (1115) [ Translation ] Child Care Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, we are celebrating the International Day of Families. Unfortunately, Canadian families are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Across the country, child care costs are becoming families' largest expense. They are paying more for child care than they are for food, clothing and even their mortgage. Why are the Conservatives helping the richest members of our society but refusing to help parents by investing in affordable child care services? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats and the Liberals have only one plan for families, and that is to take away the universal child care benefit and raise their taxes. We are doing the opposite. We have given families an enhanced benefit that puts nearly $2,000 in their pockets for every child under the age of 6 and $720 for every child between the ages of 6 and 17. We are cutting taxes for families and putting money directly into their pockets. [ English ] Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, Canadian families are looking for help with the rising costs of child care, yet the Conservatives offer nothing but talking points. In 2005, the Conservatives pledged to create 125,000 child care spaces but 10 years later, they have not created a single one. The Liberals seem to have given up on child care as well, leaving families squeezed by rising costs that eat up more and more of the household budget. Today, on the international day of the family, will the Conservatives reverse course and agree to bring in affordable child care for all families? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this week, celebrating the international day of the family, the NDP members decided to insult families. They said that those who do not have regulated government daycare are not real families. The NDP plan would give absolutely nothing to over 90% of families, those families who have a stay-at-home parent, use a grandparent or use a local neighbourhood child care centre would get absolutely nothing from the NDP plan.

Our plan puts money in the pockets of 100% of families with kids, regardless of their income or the choice in child care they make.

Government Advertising Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadian families work hard and they want to see their tax dollars used honestly. Instead, the jobs minister has a taxpayer-funded team filming him while he skips around his riding promoting the Conservative platform. Thousands of Canadians were thrown out of work this week. Thousands more families are struggling to make ends meet. Yet, that minister shamelessly uses public resources for vanity videos. Can the minister tell us how much taxpayers have paid to create these partisan self-promotional videos? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the reason why the Liberals and the NDP do not want parents to know about the universal child care benefit is because those parties would take that benefit away. I make no apologies for informing parents of the expanded universal child care benefit that puts almost $2,000 in their pocket for every child under 6 and $720 in their pocket for every child 6 through 17.

I will continue to work hard to make sure parents know about these increased benefits, so that they can receive their lump sum payment, which comes on July 20.

[ Translation ] Employment Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should focus less on photo ops and more on his files, because yesterday, 850 people lost their jobs at Bombardier in Dorval. They do not know whether they will be able to find a good job. Does the Conservative government realize that its economic strategy is not working for these employees in Dorval who lost their jobs yesterday? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, that is an ironic question coming from the New Democrats because they admit to wanting to increase taxes for Bombardier and other companies that hire Quebeckers and Canadians across the country. We cannot create jobs by taxing the businesses that hire workers, yet that is what the New Democrats plan to do. That is not our plan. Our plan will reduce taxes for entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized businesses, reduce taxes for families so that they can invest in the community and reduce taxes for our seniors so that they can save money.

(1120) Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister can keep spouting his lines and his partisan figures, but that will not create jobs or give hope to the people who lost their jobs yesterday. Those 850 people had skills and high-wage skilled work, but all the minister can do is shed crocodile tears. Can the minister stand up and protect jobs in Canada? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am protecting jobs in Canada.

Since the recession our economic action plan has helped create 1.2 million new jobs, 80% of them full-time and two-thirds in high-wage sectors. The New Democrats want to increase taxes on employers. That would kill jobs and destabilize the economy. The Liberals and the New Democrats have just one plan: raise taxes on entrepreneurs, consumers and families. That would kill jobs, and that is why we reject those proposals.

Government Advertising Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, like the Prime Minister , the Minister of Employment and Social Development is abusing public funds to produce vanity advertising. He used the employees in his department and taxpayer money to produce election-style ads on Conservative policies that Parliament has not even passed. The Conservatives think that public money belongs to them. How does the minister explain that spending, when there are so many pressing needs in Canada? Will he finally agree to submit all advertising to a third-party review process? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do not want Canadians to know about the existence of these benefits because they want to take these benefits away from Canadians. Their leader announced that he wants to scrap the universal child care benefit. He wants to cancel our tax cuts for families and income splitting, and he wants to take away the tax-free savings account.

I am proud to work hard to inform Canadians that the universal child care benefit has been increased to $2,000 for every child under the age of six. [ English ] Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Social Development has taken a page from the Prime Minister with his taxpayer-funded vanity videos. He paid public servants time and a half with taxpayer dollars on a Sunday to film him electioneering on Conservative policies that are “subject to Parliamentary approval”.

Will the minister finally agree to pass my bill, the elimination of partisan government advertising act, to guarantee that all advertising is submitted to a third-party review process before it is approved to ensure that it is appropriate, proportional and a prudent expenditure of funds? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader said, “benefiting every single family is not what is fair”. We know the reason why the Liberals do not want me to inform families about these increased benefits.

It is because Liberals would take them away altogether. I am proud to work seven days a week to inform 100% of families that they are entitled to an increased universal child care benefit of $2,000 per year for kids under 6 and $720 for kids 6 through 17. We will continue to deliver these benefits and I will work aggressively to communicate the benefits that families deserve and are entitled to receive. Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, if the Conservatives want to advertise their platform, they can pay for it: $750 million on advertising and counting, while nine veterans' offices are shut down Canada; blue shrink-wrapped commuter trains, while rail safety was cut 20% over the past five years; $20 million on 9,800 billboards, while infrastructure spending was slashed 87% this year. When will the Conservatives stop bilking taxpayers for partisan self-promotion? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the reason the Liberals do not want families to know about the Prime Minister's increased universal child care benefit is because they would take it away. They have announced that they would eliminate the universal child care benefit. They have announced they would scrap income splitting and the family tax cut. They admit that they would gut the tax-free savings accounts. Even after they do all of that, they are still billions of dollars short in funding their promises.

On this side of the House, we are going to deliver increased benefits to Canadian families and, yes, we will work hard, seven days a week, to ensure families know about these increased benefits.

(1125) Public Safety Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last night news broke that the RCMP will be charged for workplace safety violations in the death of three officers in Moncton. Our hearts go out to the families of the fallen officers, but this news raises troubling questions. Why were all RCMP officers not provided with the proper training and proper weapons to handle an active shooter situation? Why did it take a tragedy for the minister to act? Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our government has full confidence in the RCMP to enforce the laws of Canada and to keep all Canadians safe. The RCMP commissioned a report into this incident and is acting on those recommendations. Because this matter is now before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment on this matter further. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it was almost a year ago that three RCMP officers died in a shootout in Moncton. We share the intense sorrow of the families affected by this tragic event.

Yesterday, the RCMP was accused of serious breaches pertaining to the equipment, training and supervision of police officers. The recommendations made following the Mayerthorpe shootings in 2005 addressed the same issues. Why did the minister wait for a tragedy to happen before responding to these recommendations? [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the shootings in Moncton horrified a nation. I know that everyone in this House expressed our great sympathy for the families and for the fallen RCMP officers.

We continue to have those families in our thoughts, as I am sure most Canadians do across this country. But as I indicated, this matter is now before the courts, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment any further.

Manufacturing Industry Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as we heard yesterday, another 1,500 jobs were lost, at Bombardier. Unfortunately, that is part of a much larger trend. On the Conservatives' watch, we have seen more than 400,000 good manufacturing jobs lost while they stood by and did nothing to protect Canadian jobs. Hamilton workers will tell them that they are tired of a Conservative government that ignores their livelihoods. They want to see investments to help our manufacturing sector thrive. They are tired of the Conservative spin in this place.

They want to see real action from the current government to protect their jobs. Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP's only plan for companies like Bombardier is to raise taxes on those very companies. That is what the New Democrats admit. Their approach would be the same as the disastrous Ontario Liberal government policy, which has driven up energy costs and taxes and now proposes yet more and higher energy costs through its proposed carbon tax. We take the opposite approach.

The Conservative government supports tax cuts, trade, and training. That is why we have 1.2 million net new jobs: 80% full-time, two-thirds in high-wage sectors. We will keep cutting taxes and creating jobs. Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, here is the news: If losing 400,000 jobs is the Conservatives' strategy, it ain't working. Conservatives' mismanagement has hit southern Ontario particularly hard. Communities have been rocked by manufacturing-job losses. Under the Conservatives, Windsor lost 20,000 jobs; London, 7,000; Brantford, 3,400; Hamilton, 13,000; and Oshawa, 19,000.

Those were good jobs that supported families and fuelled local economies. Why have the Conservatives ignored an entire region so they can put billions in the pockets of their wealthy friends? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP has only one plan on jobs, and that is to raise taxes on those who create them. The New Democrats would also raise taxes on the consumers who spend in our local economies.

By gutting the tax-free savings account, the New Democrats would raise taxes on those people who set aside money for their future. That is the wrong approach. We support trade, training, and tax cuts. That is why Canada has the best job-creation record in the G7, with 1.2 million net new jobs. Eighty per cent of them are full-time and two-thirds are in high-wage sectors. We are going to continue to promote trade, tax cuts, and training to create jobs for Canadians. (1130) [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Conservatives ignored Canada's manufacturing sector for years. Today, Montrealers are paying the price. Bell Helicopter in Mirabel is cutting 300 jobs, and last August it cut 250 jobs. Quebec has lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs since the Conservatives took power. Will the Conservatives wake up, get going and help kick-start our manufacturing sector instead of giving presents to their wealthiest cronies? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the NDP and the Liberals have only one plan for companies like Bombardier, and that is to raise their taxes. That would kill jobs by taking away the money needed to hire workers. We are taking the opposite approach. We are cutting taxes, expanding international trade and training our workers, especially in skilled trades. We will continue to cut taxes to achieve success, such as the 1.2 million new jobs created.

Regional Economic Development Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a negative trade balance and the loss of high-quality jobs, that is what comes of the Conservatives' bad economic action plans. Workers are being laid off in urban centres and rural areas. The WEC TOURS plant in Matane, RioTinto, Fer et Titane in Havre-Saint-Pierre and the sawmill in Rivière-aux-Rats are just a few examples.

How can the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec justify his decision to cut $21 million from the agency's budget by 2018, when so many workers are losing their jobs in the regions? Quebeckers have had it with the Conservatives' bad economic action plans that just do not work. Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague's question gives me a chance to remind him that the mandate of Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions is to support the economic growth of every region in Quebec and that every effort is made to do that. Let me provide some figures that illustrate what Canada Economic Development does. Since 2006, 5,511 projects have been funded for more than $2.5 billion. In total, nearly $10 billion has been invested. I would also like to point out that my colleague and his party always vote against the money that is allocated to Canada Economic Development.

Government Advertising Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Social Development thinks he can do whatever he wants. He is using federal public servants to promote the Conservatives' budget measures. Public servants are not puppets that the minister can use for partisan purposes. This whole thing is a bit ironic when we know that the latest budget completely undermines public servants' right to collective bargaining. This is a sure sign that the government is worn out and does not respect our public servants.

Does the minister realize that he is using Canadians' money and the neutrality of the public service to produce partisan ads? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats and the Liberals do not want Canadians to know that they are entitled to increased benefits. We are increasing the universal child care benefit for all families, to nearly $2,000 for every child under the age of 6 and $720 for every child between the ages of 6 and 17.

I am working to ensure that mothers and fathers know they are entitled to this. [ English ] Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are using public money to promote partisan interests. The jobs minister is focused on self-flattery when he should be focused on the thousands of Canadians who lost their jobs this week. He once railed against the Liberals' abuse of taxpayer dollars for partisan self-promotion, yet now he is finding ways to be even more unaccountable than the Liberals.

Why is the minister using public servants and taxpayer dollars to create vanity videos of himself promoting the Conservative Party platform? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP and Liberals do not want Canadian parents to know about the increased universal child care benefit, because the opposition parties would take those benefits away. We will not let them. In fact, I am proud to work hard to communicate the increased universal child care benefit to parents right across this country.

They are entitled to $2,000 for each child under six and $720 for each child aged six through 17. I will continue in my role to visit parents right across this country to inform them of the increased benefits the Prime Minister and this government are delivering to them.

(1135) Ethics Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Let me try something else, Mr. Speaker. According to the RCMP, the Prime Minister 's Office interfered in a confidential Senate report about Mike Duffy. Nigel Wright is quoted in court documents saying, “Mike is pleased with this so it will give us a little bit of time if David can pull it off”, adding, “Marjory is fully on-board.” Yet Conservative Senators David Tkachuk and Marjory LeBreton continue to sit on the Senate's internal economy committee.

Is the PMO planning to yet again interfere while the Senate drafts reports on rule-breaking senators? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as you know, it was the Senate that asked the Auditor General to come in and review their expenses, and I think it is important that we allow the process to continue.

[ Translation ] Government Advertising Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Social Development used taxpayers' dollars to pay for his election advertising, and he has the nerve to say that he is informing people about government programs. Either the government does not think it is accountable, or it thinks we are too stupid or apathetic to care. After nine years in office, the government has attained new heights of arrogance and is showing utter contempt for Canadians. Where is the shame? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are the ones who should be ashamed. They are the ones who want to abolish the universal child care benefit. They have already admitted that. That is why they do not want families to know that they are eligible for our benefit. As minister, I am proud to be working to make sure that families know about this benefit. I want to make sure that all families that are entitled to a cheque sign up to receive one in July. [ English ] Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, let me be blunt. When the employment minister uses taxpayer money for self-promotion videos to get re-elected and then has the gall to say that he is merely informing Canadians about government policy, it is like a slap in the face to all Canadians who expect accountability. Either that, or he thinks we are stupid, or possibly that we do not care. We do care. After nine years in power, the government has achieved a state of supreme arrogance and complete contempt for Canadians. Where is the shame? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and NDP are angry that Canadian parents will find out that they are going to receive an increased universal child care benefit. We know why the two opposition parties do not want Canadian parents to know about these benefits. It is because the Liberals and NDP would take them away.

It is my role to ensure that every single family that is eligible to receive the increased universal child care benefit knows about it and signs up, and I will work hard seven days a week to ensure that parents get their money and that the money goes directly into their pockets.

Public Service of Canada Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians should know that for the vast majority of public servants who take a sick day, their position is not backfilled. That means that the cost of that sick day is already covered in their annual salary. Yet the government, in its phony attempt to show a balanced budget, claims it is saving $900 million by eliminating a sick bank that costs the government squat.

Will the government stop misrepresenting this fake, bogus savings and quit misleading Canadians about the character and integrity of our public servants for its own political gain? Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2015 reaffirms the Government of Canada's commitment to pursuing a new disability and sick leave management system. We continue to negotiate with the public service, and our objectives are clear. We will not pay sick leave to people who are not sick.

The government's continued overarching goal in these negotiations is to reach agreements on total public service compensation that is fair and reasonable to both the employees and the taxpayer. These changes do not impose a legislated regime.

Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, Canadians got to see first-hand how little the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs cared about his file. He was unable to answer very simple questions. Worse, when asked about the suicide rate in first nations communities and Inuit communities, he answered that it was not his responsibility. How could the minister be so heartless in the face of such an epidemic in our communities?

(1140) Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course, the

preamble to that question is absolute nonsense, and our thoughts and prayers are with those who have lost friends and loved ones to suicide. Our government remains committed to working with willing partners to reduce and eliminate suicide on reserves. To that end, we have provided $200 million annually for aboriginal mental health services. We have invested over $32 million since being elected in innovative research specifically related to suicide and its prevention. Action plan 2015 committed to another 10-year mandate for the Canadian Mental Health Association.

I hope the member will get on board and support it. [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister does not even try to answer our questions in the House anymore. Aboriginal communities deserve better than a minister who blames families for their children's performance and who responds that crime is the main cause of 1,200 missing or murdered women. Frankly, instead of being part of the problem, could the minister at least try to be part of the solution? [ English ] Mr.

Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve better than an opposition that votes against every single measure we take to improve the lives of first nations living on reserve. Since taking office, we have given women living on reserve the same matrimonial property rights as other Canadians. We have brought in increased transparency and accountability for first nations communities for those members. We have brought in a more transparent on-reserve election system. We have taken away key impediments to reaching treaties.

Every single time we bring in these measures to improve the lives of first nation Canadians, that member and that party vote for the status quo.

The Economy Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the current government, like the outgoing Alberta Conservative dynasty, remains stubbornly blind to Albertans' frustration with the overreliance on the boom-and-bust oil economy. Albertans are suffering layoffs in the tens of thousands of workers, including in the oil industry. The Conference Board of Canada reports that Alberta's GDP will continue to contract this year. Everything but the kitchen sink was thrown in the government's omnibus budget bills, yet they remain misers in supporting the 21st century energy sector: renewable energy.

Where is the action to end perverse subsidies and, instead, incent a clean energy economy? Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, natural resource development contributes 1.8 million jobs, 52% of our exports, and $30 billion annually in royalties and taxes to governments, but that member and her party just do not get it. They oppose all oil and gas development. They oppose mining projects. They oppose nuclear energy. They even speak out against the forest sector. On this side of the House, we are focused on creating jobs and growing the economy. Ms.

Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Perhaps not in Canada, Mr. Speaker. If ever there was a time for investing in a diversified economy, it is now. One weeps to consider the wasted millions of dollars on ads in U.S. metro stations that could have assisted our technical schools to train and provide jobs for young Canadians deploying cleaner energy. Instead, there is a growing wait list for these programs. Does the current government just not get that Canadians want to share in the economy of the future, created through investments in a clean, renewable energy economy? Mrs.

Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, energy efficiency improvements have saved Canadian industry $5.6 billion, which is the equivalent of 27.5 megatonnes of GHG emissions. Our government has made significant investments to promote clean energy projects that protect the environment, create jobs and grow the economy. We are proud that Canada relies upon non-emitting sources for 79% of our electricity mix, which is one of the cleanest in the world.

National Defence Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, media are reporting on a new audio message allegedly from the leader of the barbaric death cult ISIS, once again mentioning Canada and our allies by name. Canada is not sitting on the sidelines. We are proud of our men and women in uniform. Would the Associate Minister of National Defence update this House on Canada's military mission to degrade ISIS so it is no longer a threat to Canada?

(1145) Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and Canadians are being targeted by this death cult simply because these terrorists hate our society and our values. We are joining our allies in supporting the international coalition in the fight against ISIL. As of May 13, our CF-18 Hornets have struck 80 ISIS fighting positions, 19 vehicles and 10 explosives factories and storage facilities. We are grateful, indeed, to our serving men and women for their valuable efforts in fighting this jihadist death cult.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the frustration with Canada Post's decision to terminate door-to-door delivery continues to grow. The mayors of Montreal, Longueuil, Laval, Westmount and 15 other surrounding municipalities are raising their voices. They are joining forces to take legal action against Canada Post, a first in Canada. In addition, they are calling for a moratorium on the end of home mail delivery. Will the minister ever listen to Canadians and reverse this foolish decision? [ English ] Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that member will know that Canada Post, in 2014, delivered 1.4 billion fewer pieces of letter mail than it did in 2006. That is causing difficulties with its financial balance sheet. It is proceeding with a five-point plan, which includes the extending the community mailboxes to the one-third of Canadians who still have door-to-door. It has a responsibility, under law, to not be a burden to taxpayers. We expect nothing less than that from Canada Post. [ Translation ] Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the government has a choice: it can tell Canada Post to go back to the drawing board. Mayor Coderre is furious. He described this as a unilateral decision by Canada Post and said that the consultation that was promised is nothing but hot air. The mayor of Laval even tried to work together with Canada Post, but to no avail. Over 500 municipalities are denouncing Canada Post's decision. Will the minister ever take responsibility and call for a moratorium? [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I remind the member that Canada Post is an independent, arm's-length, crown corporation that is run by a board of directors and a CEO. They are responsible for their operational decisions and their day-to-day decisions. I remind the member that Canada Post delivered 1.4 billion fewer letters in 2014 than in 2006. It has a responsibility to not be a burden to Canadian taxpayers. This government expects it to follow through on its commitment to be fiscally sustainable.

Canadian Heritage Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government has a real problem listening to communities, not just in Montreal, but here in Ottawa. Here in Ottawa, city council is poised to vote on a motion that will formally request that the federal government relocate the victims of communism memorial. The request is very simple. The council wants the government to respect the long-term plan for this piece of land. Is it not ironic, though, that the Conservatives are willing to ignore democratic voices in order to build a monument honouring those who fought for democratic rights? Mr.

Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this memorial is going to honour more than 100 million lives lost under communist regimes and pay tribute to the Canadian ideals of liberty, democracy and human rights. In this country alone, over eight million people trace their roots to countries that suffered under communism. Our government committed to honouring the victims of communism in our Speech from the Throne. We look forward to fulfilling that and making sure that this monument is built. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, no one disagrees with the idea of the memorial, but what is with the high-handed attitude of the government? Putting the monument in front of the Supreme Court actually violates the national capital plan that the government and this Parliament approved. The minister is ignoring the plan. He is also ignoring the concerns of architects, he is ignoring the Mayor of Ottawa, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and local citizens. How hard is it for the politburo over there to actually listen to people, change its mind and change the location of the monument? Mr.

Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I find it strangely ironic that the member for Ottawa Centre , downtown, does not even know where the monument is going to be located. He continues to perpetuate a falsehood about where the monument is actually going to be located. Let us be clear. I will dispel the falsehood. It will be constructed, not in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, but further west on Wellington Street.

If the member would like a little bit of direction on where it is going to be, I suspect that we will go for a walk down Wellington Street and I will personally show him.

(1150) Public Safety Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, political influence in the management of the RCMP is undermining the force in both its reputation and its ability to do its job. Following an earlier media report yesterday, the RCMP was charged under the Canada Labour Code for the lack of training, equipment and supervision surrounding the Moncton shootings. We know that the RCMP was pressured to kick back money from the treasury to help the government meet its deficit targets strictly for political optics.

Will the minister now come clean and accept responsibility for this disarray in the RCMP? Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, our thoughts continue to be with the families of the RCMP officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. As I said earlier today in question period, we have full confidence in the RCMP to enforce the laws of Canada and to keep all Canadians safe. The RCMP, as I mentioned earlier, had commissioned a report into this incident and is acting on those recommendations.

This matter is now before the courts, so I will not comment on it any further. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the government accepting responsibility for the mess that is within the RCMP. Beyond the charges under the Canada Labour Code, the Information Commissioner yesterday asked for criminal charges to be laid for the destruction of documents. We also know that hidden in the budget bill is a cover-up to try to cover for that destruction of documents. Who within the government ordered this action, and who within the RCMP complied with this illegal act? Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. We firmly reject any claim that the RCMP did anything wrong by following the expressed will of Parliament to destroy the data from the long-gun registry. Our Conservative government fulfilled its commitment to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. We will make no apologies for ensuring the will of Parliament is followed and the long gun registry data is destroyed once and for all.

[ Translation ] Public Works and Government Services Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in early April, Public Works and Government Services Canada apparently found legionnaires' disease bacteria in the water at the Place du Portage III building in Gatineau. However, the minister found out only yesterday. Thousands of public servants have been exposed to the bacteria for more than a month, and no one at Public Works and Government Services Canada saw fit to notify the people working there. Why did Public Works and Government Services Canada keep this under wraps for so long?

Is the minister going to do something now to protect all the public servants at Portage III? Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of people working in those buildings remains our priority. Yesterday, the chief public health officer said that the risk to people working in those buildings was low. According to official statements, the risk to the buildings' occupants is low. They can safely work there.

That said, an information line is available to people with questions or concerns and the necessary measures have been taken to monitor and manage the situation.

Employment Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there are serious administrative problems with the skills link program. Other Quebec organizations have experienced delays, and now it has been more than 15 months since SADC de Rouyn-Noranda filed an application. Despite multiple attempts to reach the department, there has been no response. Because of the delay, the organization has decided not to offer this service to residents because doing business with Service Canada is too complicated.

Is the minister deliberately undermining the skills link program or is he just extremely incompetent? Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are working together to establish this program across Canada. We will submit this question to the minister concerned.

(1155) [ English ] Taxation Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have travelled throughout my riding, speaking to hard-working parents about the opportunities our Conservative government gives them to save more money for their families. Our government wants to help all Canadian families succeed by keeping taxes low and delivering programs like the universal child care benefit and family tax cut. Can the Minister of Employment and Social Development please update the House on what families across Canada are telling him about our efforts? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, families are telling me they are very happy to receive the Prime Minister 's enhanced universal child care benefit. Those who do not know about it are sure happy to learn. That is why I am working seven days a week to inform moms and dads right across the country that because of the Prime Minister 's increases they are now entitled to almost $2,000 for each child under 6 and $720 per year for each child 6 through 17.

The Liberals and the NDP would take away the universal child care benefit altogether, so they do not want parents to know about it. On this side of the House, not only are we delivering it, we are making sure parents know about it so that they get the money in their pockets when the cheques go out in July.

[ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, for 40 years Quebec Native Women has been standing up for abused aboriginal women. Coincidentally or not, after the organization criticized the government's inaction on this issue, its funding was reduced to nil. Can the government honestly say that this is just a coincidence? [ English ] Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our priority is creating conditions for healthier, more self-sufficient first nations communities.

That is why our government is committed to improving the living conditions and economic development of aboriginal communities. We provide funding towards the core operation of aboriginal representative organizations and national women's organizations. The Quebec Native Women association is welcome to apply for this funding. We will continue to work with first nations to advance our shared priorities.

Canadian Heritage Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in 2017, Canada will celebrate its 150th anniversary. It is a key milestone in our history, a history we can be proud of. Today, the Prime Minister announced what our government will do to celebrate this milestone. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister update this House on what infrastructure initiative our government is launching to mark this occasion? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, in addition to supporting the festivities celebrating the 150th anniversary of Canada, we will support the renovation, expansion, and improvement of existing community infrastructure. There are thousands of organizations that will receive significant support to renovate their facilities, which are often essential to local life. Obviously it is good news for communities across this country. These new investments will support the implementation of projects that celebrate our shared heritage, create jobs, and improve the quality of life for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The Environment Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the G7 environment ministers meet regarding climate change in Berlin next week. Canada has the weakest performance of any G7 country in meeting our climate projection targets. When will our Prime Minister announce a real plan to prevent dangerous climate change? How does he intend to meet even our feeble targets? Especially, where is his commitment to controlling all greenhouse gas emissions from all oil sands activities, not just some of them? Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we will submit Canada's targets this month. We are implementing our responsible sector-by-sector approach to reduce emissions in a way that protects our environment and also our economy. Our government is the first government in Canadian history to achieve a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We will continue to take action to reduce emissions without the job-killing carbon taxes and schemes proposed by the NDP and the Liberals. Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr.

Speaker, in 2007, the Prime Minister visited Nipigon in Thunder Bay—Superior North , proudly proclaimed our newest national marine conservation area, and promised $20 million and an interpretive centre. He reaffirmed those promises in 2009. In good faith, Nipigon has invested heavily in waterfront development. Nipigon kept its part of the deal. After eight years, will the Prime Minister finally keep his word and his part of the deal?

(1200) Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting the environment. Since we formed government, we have created two national marine conservation areas, three marine protected areas, three national wildlife areas, four national parks, one urban national park, and national historic sites. The total land that we have protected is equal to an area about twice the size of Vancouver Island.

Post-Secondary Education Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, well-off Conservatives think that student debt is a student's problem, but Roman Jakubowski, president of the Lakehead University Student Union, would disagree. Fifteen billion dollars in student debt is a tax on the future of our young people and a drain on our economy. Meanwhile, Conservatives hand out $34 billion in fossil fuel subsidies each and every year. How will our Minister of Finance reduce high tuition costs? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our government's economic action plan 2015 is helping young Canadians and helping students. The youth employment strategy is helping thousands of students across this country. We have the futurpreneur program, and we have much more to help students get jobs and get trained in Canada.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] 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 pleasure to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to seven petitions.

Petitions Sex Selection Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in response to a CBC documentary showing that ultrasounds are being used to tell the sex of an unborn child, so that expectant parents can terminate the pregnancy if the unborn child is a girl. Knowing that Canadians are against sex selective pregnancy abortion and that there are 200 million missing girls worldwide, they are asking members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls through sex selective pregnancy termination.

Prostitution Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from a number of individuals all across the country, from B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario. Petitioners are drawing the attention of parliamentarians to the high percentage of prostitutes who are forced or coerced into the sex trade and are trafficked. Petitioners are asking the House of Commons to legislate that it would be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man, or child, and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams, and others to profit from proceeds of the sex trade.

Canada Post Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have over 300 names, with three different petitions, on Canada Post. The first one from Nelson, Salmo, and Ymir calls upon the government to reverse the cuts to services announced by Canada Post and to look instead for ways to innovate in areas such as postal banking. The second petition, from folks in Nelson and the Slocan Valley area, calls on the government to ensure that our public post office is not scaring people into accepting community mailboxes and that it continues to provide door-to-door delivery to residents.

The third petition is from residents of Castlegar. It calls upon the government to instruct Canada Post to keep and expand the public post office instead of opening privately run offices or franchises.

The Environment Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition that deals with climate change, with over 60 signatures, calling for Canada to adopt a carbon policy that applies a fee to greenhouse gas emissions at their source of production in Canada, and calling on nations around the world to adopt a similar policy.

Komagata Maru Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Punjab assembly in India unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Canadian Parliament to apologize for the Komagata Maru incident. The Komagata Maru incident was a dark moment in Canada's past. In 1914, 352 passengers aboard a steamship were denied entry into Canada based on discriminatory immigration policies. The ship was forced to return to India, and as a result 19 passengers were killed. The petitioners are asking that the Government of Canada provide a formal apology in Parliament for the Komagata Maru incident of 1914.

(1205) Impaired Driving Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians. It is a petition organized by Families For Justice, which is a group of Canadians who have unfortunately had a loved one killed by an impaired driver. They are people like Sheri Arsenault from my riding, the mother of 18-year-old Bradley Arsenault, who was killed along with his two friends, Kole Novak, also 18, and Thaddeus Lake who was 22. This was a very tragic incident. These families believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient.

They want the crime to be called what it is, vehicular homicide. It is the number one cause of criminal death in Canada. Over 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by a drunk driver. This group is calling for mandatory sentencing for vehicular homicide and for Parliament to support Bill C-652 , Kassandra's law.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to present a petition signed by hundreds of people from my riding and from Pointe-Claire. These people are tired of the cuts being made at Canada Post. They are worried that the community mailboxes that are going to be set up will cause difficulty for seniors, single mothers and people with disabilities.

The petitioners are calling on the government to put whatever pressure is necessary on Canada Post to stop these community mailboxes from being installed, since they are not in the public's best interest. I think we have presented enough petitions in support of this cause that the government should listen to us and give us a constructive answer.

[ English ] H