9039 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 136 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, October 31, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 31, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 136 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 136 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 136 (Version officielle) 147 136 31 10 2014 2014/10/31 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1005) [ English ] Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2 The House resumed from October 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures , be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment. Bill C-43. Second reading The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park had eight minutes remaining in her comments. The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park . Ms.

Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise once again on behalf of the riding of Parkdale—High Park and my constituents to speak to Bill C-43 , which is the second budget implementation act introduced for the 2014 budget. I would like to focus my remarks in my remaining time on three areas. First of all, I would like to focus on the nature of this omnibus bill that is before us and some of the problems I see within the bill. There are many, but I will focus on just a couple. Then I would like to look at some of the things that should be in this bill but are, in fact, missing.

That is also extremely problematic. Let us begin with the bill itself, Bill C-43 , which is a rather large tome. Once again, it is 450-some pages. It is called the budget implementation act, but it actually contains a number of things that are not in the budget. It contains a number of items that ought to be separate bills and that have nothing at all to do with the budget. My Conservative colleagues across the way will say that I am talking about process, that no one cares about process, and that I should be talking about substance.

I will talk about the substance of the bill in just a moment, but let me say that what the Conservatives slough off as process is, in fact, the essence of our democracy. It is about the opportunity for parliamentarians, on behalf of the people of Canada, to adequately scrutinize, debate--and horror of horrors--on Halloween, possibly even amend some of the provisions in a bill. The reason the government puts everything in one big omnibus is the following. There are two reasons. The first is that there are some changes the Conservatives would make that even they are embarrassed about.

They do not want to shine the light of day on those changes, so they put them in an omnibus budget bill that faces very little scrutiny and that has time allocation so that the people of Canada will not fully see what is in the bill. At least, the Conservatives think they do not see what is in it. The other thing is that, of course, there are some positive things in this massive tome. Goodness gracious, the dart has to hit the dartboard sometimes, and the Conservatives do actually have a couple of good things in there.

However, they will then take this back to their communities and say that the NDP voted against x , y, or z , which we ourselves advocated. For example, our New Democrat members for Sudbury and Davenport have been campaigning on behalf of consumers specifically to end the practice of pay-to-pay billing, where people have to pay a couple of bucks just to pay their bills if they do not want to do it online. The Conservatives are bringing in a half-measure. They are eliminating it for telecoms and utilities, which we of course support, but they are not going all the way and doing it for the banks.

A member opposite was mistaken about that yesterday. Even he thought that they were, because there is so much in this omnibus bill. Fundamentally, it is anti-democratic to have these omnibus bills brought before the House again and again. On this side, we say that it is wrong and it is undemocratic, and we will not stand for it. We will keep protesting that. Let me move, in the limited time I have, to some of the problems in the bill as it is presented. I would like to spend time on two of them. The first one concerns refugee claimants.

Canada has had a reputation in the past of being a compassionate country and one that cares about its role in the world. With so much conflict and so many natural disasters taking place, sadly, there are a growing number of refugees in the world, the majority of whom are women and children. The majority end up fleeing by foot or over land across the border, so they end up in a neighbouring country. Often these are countries that really do not have adequate resources to care for the number of refugees they have, but they are taking on the burden of the majority of refugees in the world.

Canada has to play a role in accepting refugees. I think even the Conservatives would agree that Canada has to play a role.

(1010) However, through the bill, the Conservatives would further crack down on refugees and their being able to survive here in Canada. In a past budget implementation act, the Conservatives removed the ability of some refugees to get health care, which the Federal Court called cruel and unusual. The medical community, human rights activists, and many others have been protesting against that. Now the government would impose residency requirements for people receiving basic social assistance. I know what the Conservatives are doing.

Someone asked me at a community meeting a week ago why it is that these refugees can come here and get money from the government, social assistance, when Canadians cannot. I told the person that it was because refugees cannot work, and if they do not get this money, they cannot live. The person said, “Oh, I didn't know that.” It is basic human decency and common sense that these people are able to get this help. I also want to criticize and point out the small business job credit the Conservative government would implement, which has been condemned even by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

It would take $550 million out of the EI fund, which is money that workers and employers have put in to get EI benefits, but it would create only 850 jobs. This is rather outrageous for that amount of money. My goodness, I do not think even the Conservative and Liberal senators cost us quite that much. There are many more effective job measures the Conservatives could be bringing in without taking money from the EI fund. What is missing from this? The Conservatives would not create one job, except for their $550-million jobs, which is a ridiculous program. They do not have a manufacturing strategy.

We have lost over 400,000 manufacturing jobs. They do not redress the cuts to EI; the vast majority of people who are unemployed do not get EI. They do not create one single child care space for Canadian parents. They do not address the housing crisis that forces too many people into poverty, especially in my community. There is nothing for the environment. They do not take away the more than $1 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas sector. The budget implementation bill, like the Conservatives' budget, is a failure. It does not address the key issues facing Canadians today.

I am proud to stand here on behalf of my community and denounce the omnibus budget bill, denounce the contents of it, and say very proudly that we will be voting against it. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the comments of my colleague about the fact that the budget implementation bill is an omnibus bill. One of the things in the bill that was not mentioned in the budget is the repeal of the Canadian Polar Commission Act and the incorporation of the Canadian Polar Commission into the Canadian High Arctic Research Station.

The new act would also remove the wording in the act that gave the Canadian Polar Commission the ability to take initiative. The new act does not use the word “initiate” or “on its own initiative” or any of these things. It seems to me that it is another example of the Conservative government taking more control of researchers. I would ask my colleague to comment on the fact that this is another example of an abuse that is occurring in the omnibus bill. Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for that question, and he is quite right.

I did not have enough time to address all the problems in the bill, but certainly the collapsing of these two bodies dealing with the Arctic is problematic. The Conservative government has a history of muzzling scientists and not allowing independent thought and independent action by government scientists. There is real concern, given the rapid environmental and development changes that are taking place in the Arctic. Will there really be independence for scientists? Will we get the information we need to make proper decisions?

Because of the centralization of power in the hands of ministers that the government is well known for, there are real concerns, which I think may well be justified.

(1015) Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's framing of what is in the bill. She mentioned a few items that are supportable, like the DNA database for missing and murdered people and a couple of smaller items, such as cracking down on pay to pay, but not all pay to pay, because the banks are let off the hook yet again. There are a number of things in the bill that are just outright bad ideas, such as the employment insurance scheme, which is going to cost more than half a billion dollars to create so few jobs. It is more than half a million dollars per job.

This is an outrageous offence to those who pay into the employment insurance program, which is every working Canadian and employer. My question for my colleague is on the third phase of things that were not in the budget, the opportunities missed. Manufacturing is of great concern to those living in Toronto and southwestern and southeastern Ontario, who have suffered such great damage over the last number of years. She mentioned 400,000 lost manufacturing jobs, almost 700,000 lost in a decade. This is a failed opportunity to bring forward some kind of comprehensive strategy. People are looking for proposals.

What kind of ideas do we need to see that would help those value-added jobs, good-paying jobs, that have helped Canadian families for so many generations? Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his pertinent question, because we see across the country far too many of what I would call precarious jobs: part-time jobs, temporary jobs, low-wage jobs, and jobs with no benefits. There is no hope associated with those jobs. I think of young people coming into the job market today who are sometimes carrying thousands of dollars of debt.

They cannot afford to get a home or start a family, because they cannot get a decent job. In most developed countries, governments prize their manufacturing sector. They defend it and fight for it. They work hard to make sure they have those jobs, because they are high tech jobs, value-added jobs. It is where they get the great spinoffs. For example, in the auto industry, there are seven jobs for every auto assembly job. Under the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government our country has fallen from one of the top four auto-producing countries to number 10.

Australia lost its auto industry altogether. We do not see any plan. There is no auto strategy. There is no manufacturing strategy. We do not see anything except giving more money back to companies and hoping they have a nice day. Mr. John Barlow (Macleod, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in support of the budget implementation act and to talk about our economic action plan 2014.

I am eager to support the budget implementation act today because it is an example of the commitment and focus we have had on the budget benchmarks and priorities that our government set earlier this year. Those priorities include returning to a balanced budget in 2015, creating jobs, economic growth, supporting small and medium-sized businesses, and ensuring that hard-working Canadian families have more of their own dollars in their pockets. In fact, the government's commitment to tax relief meant savings of about $3,400 for a typical Canadian family of four in 2014. We reduced the GST from 7% to 5%.

We introduced income splitting for seniors, tax-free savings accounts, and expanded on successful programs, such as the child fitness tax credit and the universal child care benefit. However, what is most exciting about our government's economic action plan is that we are able to offer these critical programs that Canadians have said they want and support, but at the same time pay down our debt, balance our budget, and make unprecedented investment into infrastructure and small business.

We have been blessed as a result of the decisions that our government has made, and as a result Canada is the envy of the world. We have one of the strongest job growth rates of any G7 country, with nearly 1.2 million net new jobs since the end of the recession in 2009. In fact, Bloomberg ranked Canada as one of the best places to do business in the world, and both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are projecting that Canada will have among the most dynamic growth of any country in the G7 over the years to come. This success does not just happen.

It takes hard work, leadership, sound financial planning, and, perhaps most importantly, decisive and timely decision-making. We have shown good financial planning and we have shown good leadership. We reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, and we lowered the general business tax rate from 21% to 15%. We have expanded our global markets by reaching crucial free trade agreements with the European Union, as well as the Canada free trade agreement with Korea, which was just given third reading on Wednesday.

The budget implementation act will continue to build on the successes that our government has achieved through our economic action plan, and that is important. The global economy remains fragile. We are not immune to the economic challenges around the globe and outside of our borders. Therefore, it is imperative that we continue to focus on building a strong, vibrant, and robust economy here in Canada. A healthy economy starts at home. I am proud to stand in support of the bill today because I know it would benefit the families, the small businesses, and the communities in my southern Alberta riding of Macleod.

Alberta is built on dynamic entrepreneurs, farmers, ranchers, and business owners, who are willing to take risks to find success. We understand that we must support the economic engine that is driving our country right now. To do this, we must continue to support small business, the economic backbone of our country. Our government is supporting small businesses through programs such as the recently introduced small business tax credit, which I believe is a vital piece of the legislation we are talking about today. The credit would lower small business payroll taxes by 15% over the next two years.

That would be a savings of approximately $550 million for small businesses over the span of that two years. This initiative has been called a big win for small business by groups across the country, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The introduction of this tax credit will build upon our government's strong support of small businesses since 2006. For example, we froze EI premiums to provide certainty and flexibility for small businesses. We have cut red tape by eliminating 800,000 payroll deduction remittances to the CRA each year for more than 50,000 small businesses.

The results are clear: a typical small business in Canada is seeing savings of about $28,000 a year. In total, since 2006, small businesses have seen their taxes reduced by 34%. That is substantial Fittingly we celebrated small business week earlier this month, and, in speaking with business owners in my riding, their message was clear: we must continue to reduce their tax load and the red tape and bureaucracy that they face. It is important to do so because it shows our support for small business. The better off that our small businesses are, the better off the Canadian economy is as well.

A healthy economy is vital, but so too are healthy communities. Time and time again, studies have shown that being active improves focus in the classroom, reduces crime, and aids in the development of vital social skills for the children in our communities. Sports contribute to healthy communities, and I believe being active should be a habit that is encouraged for all of us here today, but particularly children.

(1020) Knowing this, our government introduced the children's fitness tax credit in budget 2006, which provided a non-refundable tax credit of up to $500 for children under 16 years of age to register in sports and activities. I distinctly remember when this program was introduced and how important it was to my family. As a father of three, I know how expensive it is to pay for registration fees in hockey, volleyball, and dance, and to purchase equipment. I know how difficult it is on families to afford to keep their kids healthy and active.

This tax credit provided a financial means to ensure that all of my children could participate in the activities they love. I want to ensure that other Canadian families share the same benefit that my wife and I enjoyed when our children were younger. Therefore, I was pleased when the Prime Minister not only committed to continue this program, but announced that our government is doubling the children's fitness tax credit from $500 to $1,000 and making it refundable. That means it will increase the benefits for low-income families who want to access this tax credit.

This will help children across Canada to lead healthy and active lifestyles, and teach them the life skills that will not only benefit them and their families, but will also be of long-term benefit to the communities in which they live. My colleagues in the House today understand the devastation that my riding in southern Alberta went through in June 2013. Albertans are resilient. We will come back stronger than ever. However, it is critical that we protect these communities long term, to ensure that we never have to go through a disaster of that magnitude again.

Therefore, I was extremely pleased to see that the economic action plan included $200 million over the next five years to establish a national disaster mitigation program, as well as $40 million over that five years for disaster mitigation in first nations communities. This was one of the worst disasters in Canadian history. There were hundreds of people who lost their homes, and key infrastructure was destroyed when the waters overwhelmed our communities in southern Alberta.

The $200-million natural disaster mitigation program will provide vital funding to help these communities prepare for national disasters, prepare emergency readiness plans, and invest in innovative technology and infrastructure to protect these communities. It will give the residents of southern Alberta a renewed confidence, and will certainly play a key role in the recovery process. This program will not only help Albertans, as these dollars will also be available across the country. I know my colleagues from Manitoba and Quebec have faced similar flooding issues over the years and need our support as well.

The mitigation funding is a critical investment from our federal government and will protect communities and infrastructure across Canada. Macleod has a rich agricultural history, and the family farm continues to be a backbone in my riding as well as many others across Canada. The economic action plan includes a number of measures to support Canada's farmers, including an extension of the tax deferral program for livestock producers when they undergo drought or overland flooding. We have always offered farmers a tax deferral for up to 12 months if they have to liquidate their herds.

However, rather than having to pay it off as income tax, they will have the cash on hand so they can purchase replacement stock, which is vital to the health of family farms. In rural Alberta, access to high-speed Internet can be a challenge. If we want our small business owners, farmers, ranchers, and rural communities to succeed, they must be able to market their goods and services worldwide and online. Therefore, the connecting Canadians program, which commits more than $300 million to expanding broadband Internet services in rural communities across Canada, is a vital infrastructure initiative.

This will provide residents in southwest Alberta with the keys to the global marketplace and will re-energize these economies and innovative communities, which are eager to expand their horizons. The initiatives that this government has implemented in this budget will ensure Canada's economy remains vibrant and robust at a time of global uncertainty. I encourage all members of this House to support the budget implementation act. (1025) [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in some ways, I appreciated my Conservative colleague's speech.

I would like to ask him a very simple question, since he brought up the children's fitness tax credit. I encourage the idea of children participating in sports. I have children, and I am very happy that they can play sports. However, it needs to be made clear that this is a non-refundable tax credit. It will help only the families who already have the means to sign their children up for sports. I would like to know what his party or the member himself is proposing for people who do not earn enough money to pay taxes and therefore do not have access to this non-refundable tax credit.

It is available only to some Canadians. However, for all the other families that would like to see their children do sports— Mr. Pierre Poilievre: It is refundable now. Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: Why, hello, sir. Mr. Speaker, since it is a non-refundable tax credit, how will it help families? I would like to hear his thoughts. [ English ] Mr. John Barlow : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, but obviously he has not read the economic action plan or the budget implementation act that we are talking about today. The new children's fitness tax credit is refundable.

It is $1,000, and low-income families are able to access that tax credit. It is refundable, and that is why I support this so passionately. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, because we are debating an omnibus bill in which there are things that are not related to the budget, I have to ask the following question. Budget 2014 says there would be some legislation to implement certain treaties, and in particular there is a piece that amends the Industrial Design Act.

There is a part of this legislation we are debating today that says with respect to the Industrial Design Act,“A design is registerable if ... the design is not contrary to public morality or order.” My question for the member is, are we implementing a treaty here, or is the government trying to say something about public morality and order?

(1030) Mr. John Barlow : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague. I think he understands that this budget implementation act will focus on the economy, promote jobs, and be there to help young families and families across the country. If he reads that, he will see that in there. [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this week we learned the sad fact that 20% of children in Canada live below the poverty line. I looked closely, but I did not see anything in this budget that will change that.

The government supposedly has billions of dollars to give and is handing it to the rich, so why did it not simply raise the tax-exempt threshold for low-income individuals? It is a very simple solution. That is all the government had to do to drastically reduce the number of poor children. Why did it not do that? [ English ] Mr. John Barlow : Mr.

Speaker, if the hon. member has an opportunity to look through the budget implementation act that we are talking about today, and the economic action plan, there are a number of programs and initiatives in there to help low-income families, to ensure they have the means and capabilities to pay their bills, and to ensure their children have the necessities of life, whether we are talking about increasing flexibility and access to employment insurance, providing more health care products and services, or expanding tax relief under the municipal expense tax credit.

There are a lot of opportunities and options in this budget, and I think it is worthwhile for my neighbour to stand up and support this bill. It will support Canadian families, and that is what we are here to do today. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to share a few thoughts and express some concerns I have with regard to the general direction the Conservative government is taking Canada. I have a number of concerns.

First, when I listen to many Conservatives speak about the budget, I cannot help but notice that they talk a lot about the economic action plan. Whenever I hear the economic action plan being referred to, the first thing I think of are the hundred of millions of tax dollars being used to advertise the so-called action plan. If we look at the baseline numbers of the government's economic track record, nothing could be further from the truth of an economic action plan.

One thought I would like to share with members is the fact that the government spends a great deal of tax dollars trying to convince Canadians that it is doing a good job. I suggest that money could be far better utilized in supporting a wide spectrum of programs that are of critical importance. I want to talk about the government's resistance to good ideas. Back in September, the Conservatives came up with the small business job credit idea to try to get small businesses to hire more people. The government talked about the potential of how it might be able to generate 10,000-plus jobs at a significant cost.

The leader of the Liberal Party made an announcement about the EI premium exemptions for new hires. This program would create tenfold the types of jobs the government's initiative hoped to create. In fact, the government initiative, in a bizarre way, would be a disincentive for small businesses to hire and might ultimately lead to some small businesses having to let employees go. The Conservative plan was questionable at best, but that is not the case with regard to what the leader of Liberal Party was espousing, a plan that would have the potential to generate tens of thousands of jobs all across our land.

It would take advantage of the greatest potential for growth in Canada, and that is small business. We have emphasized how important it is that government policy start focusing more on the middle class. The middle class has not done well under the Conservative government over the last half dozen years. We are trying to get the government to recognize that fact, to start making policy decisions that are going to allow the middle class to do better, to prosper and have more hope going into the future. The Liberal Party is committed to acting on this.

We believe in the middle class and if we want the Canadian economy to do well, we have to start to focus more attention on that. That is one of the reasons we shared ideas with the government and encouraged it to adopt the EI premium exemption for all new hires that small businesses and others would engage in. Ultimately, it would lead to a great deal more jobs being created. The Liberal Party has talked a great deal about the importance of infrastructure. The government says that it is investing record amounts in infrastructure.

When it says that, what it is really saying to Canadians is that it has a plan where it will spend billions of dollars in infrastructure, but what it does not to Canadians is that plan does not kick in until two or three years from now. The infrastructure is needed today, but that does not necessarily fit the political agenda.

(1035) Come springtime, the Prime Minister wants to say that the Conservatives will spend $100 million here, $50 million there on infrastructure. He want to make these commitments in the 2015-16 budget, as opposed to doing it when it is really necessary. It should have been brought into this budget. We have municipal elections. Toronto has talked about the importance of infrastructure dollars and how badly it is needed. The successful mayoral candidate in Winnipeg, Mr. Bowman, has said that infrastructure is the number one issue. We need infrastructure dollars.

However, instead of trying to deal with the issue that Canadians need addressed, not only in this budget but even in the previous budgets, the Prime Minister 's objective is to put a hold on projects, not spend money and wait until the election year before committing to spend this money. If we can learn anything by previous expenditure promises by the government, all we need is to reflect upon the current budget. We have passed budgets that have allowed the government to deliver on projects, but it does not spend the money, so the money lapses.

On the one hand, the government gets to say that it will spend millions of dollars on this or that, but when it comes down to the actual reporting, we find out that it has not spent that money. Infrastructure is important because it generates opportunities, such as opportunities for businesses to look at and expand upon exportation, which generates literally thousands of jobs. It contributes to valuable GDP increases, such as dealing with the real issues of potholes in the streets.

These are the types of things which we believe are important, and the government has missed the mark by not investing in Canada today. I talk a lot about health care. I know my constituents of Winnipeg North. I often canvas their opinions through petitions and questionnaires. They have emphasized how important health care is to our country. They want strong federal leadership. We saw that when Jean Chrétien got rid of the tax point shift in the favour of direct cash, which saved indefinite financial contributions going from Ottawa to the provinces.

The provinces need the cash to sustain their health care systems, but they want us to do more than that. They want to see a stronger leadership role coming from Ottawa. Paul Martin brought in the health accord 10 years ago. That accord expired this year. Every time the Minister of Health and the government talk about record dollars going into health care, it has absolutely nothing to do with them. It is 100% because of Paul Martin and the health care accord that was signed 10 years ago. The Minister of Health has done nothing to protect health care going forward. Canadians are concerned about that.

I challenge the Minister of Health. Where is the new health care accord? Where is the federal commitment going toward health care? The government has been found wanting on the important issues, whether it is the infrastructure, or health care or the unemployed. We challenge the government to step up to the plate and start to address the needs of Canadians.

(1040) Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that was interesting at the least. It is important to understand that infrastructure generates economic activity and that is exactly why, since forming government in 2006, this government has invested more money in infrastructure spending than any other government in the history of our country. We are proud of that, and we understand the value of investing in infrastructure. That is why we are committed to investing even more. However, we will not invest this money on the Liberal schedule, because they have shown very clearly in the past that they do not have a

schedule that makes sense. We will be investing it on our

schedule because it does make sense and it is going to go directly to infrastructure that is badly needed in our country. We understand that, and we are going to do it. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, the member says the Conservatives are not going to invest it on the Liberal schedule. The Liberal

schedule is the Canadian schedule, and that is when the need is there. The need is there today. That is not the Liberal schedule, that is the reality. The government should have been investing in infrastructure today. The Conservatives actually cut back 90% in terms of expenditures going into infrastructure for this year. That is, as the member has pointed out, because they want to base their expenditures on the Conservative schedule. The Conservative

schedule deals strictly with political re-election in 2015. That is their schedule. We are suggesting they have missed the mark. When he talks about the economic activity, we talk about the freer trade agreements signed with Korea, the European Union and so forth. If we had a better, healthier infrastructure, we would even be able to do that much more in terms of exportation. Why do we have to wait for the election year for that to take place? Cities are demanding and need the infrastructure dollars today. They do not have to wait until the next federal election. The Conservative Party has the wrong agenda.

The Liberal Party is challenging the Conservatives to do what Canadians want, and they want the money now. (1045) [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in a way, I did appreciate the speech by my colleague from Manitoba, but I have to say that he was stepping a little out of line with his party. He talked about the Liberal Party, its values and the importance of taking care of people and giving power and money to the provinces so that we can have effective health care services in this country. He also said a lot about former prime minister Paul Martin.

I would just like to remind him that it was the Liberal government that slashed provincial health transfers. The Liberals saved money at the expense of the people of this country by downloading their deficit onto the provinces. That is exactly what the Liberal Party did when it was in power. I think that the member is in no position to talk because his own party did not do what he is talking about today. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, that is not necessarily true. I was in the Manitoba legislature when the issue came to the provinces. The issue in the 1990s, in good part, was that if Mr.

Chrétien did not change the funding formula on health care, there would be zero contributions coming from Ottawa to the provinces by the time we reached to 2015. That is the reality. Mr. Chrétien changed the formula that enabled guaranteed cash flow for health care transfers indefinitely from Ottawa to the provinces. If we have health care transfers today, it is because Jean Chrétien and the Liberals during the 1990s are the ones who put it into place, and guaranteed it. The member might not like that, but that is the reality. Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak this morning in favour of Bill C-43, economic action plan 2014 act no. 2, and specifically division 3, which includes the proposed Canadian High Arctic Research Station act.

The establishment of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, more commonly referred to as CHARS, is yet another example of our government's record investments and our ongoing commitment to promoting the Canadian Arctic as a vital part of our national identity, our sovereignty, and our economic security, as outlined in our 2007 northern strategy. I am thrilled for the people of Cambridge Bay, who will benefit from our government's investments for years to come.

As the member of Parliament for Nunavut, as someone who was born and raised in Canada's north, and as someone who still calls the north home, I know first-hand how this vision for a strong and sovereign Canada has benefited northerners in our day-to-day lives and continues to do so. As the minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, I am particularly excited about the leadership role that this new world-class research facility located in the Arctic will play in the development and dissemination of Arctic research, both at home and abroad.

The Canadian High Arctic Research Station will serve as a year-round hub for scientists and scientific research and will anchor an existing network of smaller northern research facilities. This network, with CHARS at its centre, will allow Canada to exercise stewardship and sovereignty over our northern lands while strengthening Canada's role as a global leader on Arctic issues. It will also seek to establish partnerships and bring together industry, academics, aboriginal and northern governments, and international stakeholders to leverage their expertise, experience, and resources.

CHARS will not only promote Canadian sovereignty and stewardship of Canada's Arctic lands, waters, and resources but will also support the local economy by generating employment and service contracts in the region. It is estimated that the construction phase will introduce 150 jobs across the north and in various other specialized sectors throughout Canada. Of the 15 construction subcontracts tendered to date, over $18 million has been awarded to Inuit-owned companies or Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated registered firms.

Once CHARS is in operation, the research, capacity-building, and outreach activities will provide northerners with the skills and experience to better participate in the labour force, from mining and energy through natural resources and wildlife management to health and life sciences. CHARS will also develop highly qualified personnel and leadership in the north and across Canada. CHARS will also build upon the work of the existing Canadian Polar Commission.

The commission works to promote the development and dissemination of knowledge in respect of the polar regions, which strongly complements the research and infrastructure aspects of the CHARS mandate and aligns with the goal of mobilizing Arctic science and technology. The proposed act will combine the Canadian High Arctic Research Station with the existing Canadian Polar Commission under the name of CHARS to create one larger, stronger champion for polar knowledge and Arctic science and technology in Canada. CHARS will function as a departmental corporation, just like the CPC.

This is also in line with other organizations that perform world-renowned research in Canada, such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. This model will provide CHARS with the necessary flexibility to compete on a global scale with other science organizations, but also with the resource development sector operating in Canada's North.

In addition to allowing CHARS to become a viable destination for world-class scientists, our government will ensure CHARS is positioned to address any Inuit employment and training requirements, including those arising from the Nunavut land claims agreement. I would like to briefly review the steps that our government has made and is making to move this project from its initial inception to the establishment of this world-class research centre.

(1050) In the 2007 Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister committed to build a world-class high Arctic research station that would strengthen Canada's sovereignty over the north and raise the profile of Canadian Arctic research both at home and abroad. Since that time we have moved quickly. In 2008, consultations were held with partners and stakeholders, leading to a needs assessment. This brought together northerners, aboriginal organizations, research organizations, and territorial governments to share their ideas, their values, and their vision for this institution.

It was at this stage, arising from discussions with stakeholders, aboriginal people, and northerners, that the vision for CHARS began to come to light. In 2009, Canada's economic action plan provided $2 million for a CHARS feasibility study and $85 million for the Arctic research infrastructure fund. This infrastructure fund was a significant investment toward maintaining and upgrading key existing Arctic research facilities in order to improve the network of science and technology facilities that deliver benefits to northerners and all Canadians.

Following consultations and assessments in 2010, the Prime Minister announced that the CHARS facility would be built in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. I was pleased to be in Cambridge Bay, joined by the Hon. John Duncan, Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs Development at that time, to make the announcement in the community— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order. I would remind the minister that she cannot refer to her colleagues by their given names. Hon. Leona Aglukkaq : I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister made the same announcement from Churchill, Manitoba, due to unforeseen weather conditions.

Cambridge Bay is an ideal place for the construction of this new world-class facility. It is centrally located and provides easy access to all parts of the north. It is also located right on the Northwest Passage, an invaluable location for the purpose of demonstrating our Arctic sovereignty. The community itself is also very excited about the station. They see CHARS as creating economic opportunities, strengthening community infrastructure, sharing knowledge, and opening the community of Cambridge Bay to the world.

I would like to quote a friend, Fiona Buchan-Corey, a Cambridge Bay resident, who works at the Nunavut Arctic College. She said: This multimillion dollar project is going to have a huge economic impact on Cambridge Bay, and we have been very proactive as a community in terms of trying to maximize the benefits to it.... And we're excited about the employment opportunities, not only during the construction stage, but also afterwards....

During the construction of the CHARS facility, it is anticipated that 150 people will be employed locally across the north and in more specialized sectors across Canada, and there will be permanent jobs when the station begins operating. More recently, on the Prime Minister 's ninth annual northern tour this past August, I was privileged to be back in Cambridge Bay with the Prime Minister to witness the launch of the construction of CHARS with a groundbreaking ceremony. Once built, the station, which incorporates Inuit-inspired design principles, will be one of the largest buildings in the territory.

These buildings will showcase green building technologies and serve as a test bed for future research and technology testing for infrastructure and renewable energy approaches from the north. The day when the CHARS facility will be completed is coming more quickly than many people believe. Already the steel structure for one of the first buildings of the CHARS campus has been erected. I was very excited to see this in person while attending the Kitikmeot Inuit Association annual general meeting just a few weeks ago.

Establishing the governance for this facility is the last key piece that needs to be put in place in creating this important new institution in order to have it fully operational by 2017. I urge all members in the House to take another important step by passing this important legislation and supporting Canada's vision for a strong and sovereign Canada.

(1055) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member was in a very interesting position when she was the former minister of health. Given the importance of health care to all Canadians, Paul Martin, back in 2004, signed a health agreement with the provinces that ultimately led to what we have today. Those were the highest health care transfers in the history of Canada, all because of Paul Martin working with the provinces and getting that agreement.

When the member was the minister of health, she had the responsibility of coming up with the next agreement, or an agreement that would provide assurances to the provinces that Canada would continue to support health care. Within this particular budget, there is no indication of it whatsoever, even though many Canadians, my constituents included, as shown through petitions and surveys, all want to see a higher priority. Why does she believe, as the previous health minister, that the government just does not seem to understand the importance of health care? Hon. Leona Aglukkaq : Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased to receive that question from the member and to clarify the record. During the discussions related to the cuts made by the Liberal government to health care, education, and infrastructure, I do not know if the member is aware that I was the finance minister for Nunavut and dealt with the issues resulting from the cuts Liberals made to health, education, and transfers. I am very pleased to report that our government took the opposite position and did not cut transfers to the territorial and provincial governments.

Since our government has been in place, for my riding alone the transfer payments have increased by over $500 million. Second, the infrastructure investments, guaranteed for ten years, have increased from $50 million to $419 million. Under the Liberals, we experienced cuts to transfers and education and no increase in infrastructure budgets. I was the finance minister for Nunavut. I was also the health minister for Nunavut who was dealing with the Liberal cuts.

We have restored that funding so that the territorial governments and provinces can make the investments according to their own priorities within their respective jurisdictions.

(1100) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. minister for her speech relating to division 3 of

part 4 of an omnibus bill. I would like to ask her if the act for the creation of the Canadian high Arctic research station is important. I believe it is important. It winds up, and it is confusing in relation to the role of what used to be the Canadian Polar Commission, so there appears to be some transition. There is no reference in it to research on the climate crisis or the loss of ice in our Arctic region.

This bill is sufficiently important to have been a stand-alone piece of legislation, not buried in an omnibus bill along with measures to get rid of paper bills and extra billing and dealing as well with revolving funds, the banning of jammers, money laundering, and extractive sector transparency. In other words, this omnibus bill is a dog's breakfast of over 450 pages. I ask the hon. minister why she would not have preferred to have this Canadian high Arctic research station bill dealt with separately so that it could be properly studied. Hon. Leona Aglukkaq : Mr.

Speaker, I can say that people in Cambridge Bay are very excited about the creation of the Canadian high Arctic research station. I can also say that the people of the Arctic are very excited about having a stand-alone institution in the Arctic to conduct Arctic research, as opposed to research done down south, far from the people. This new institution will bring researchers to the north to conduct research in the Arctic with people in the Arctic.

In terms of why the two organizations have merged, as defined by the proposed legislation, the purpose of the new organization, CHARS, would be to advance knowledge of the Canadian Arctic in order to improve economic opportunities, environmental stewardship, and the quality of life of northerners and all other Canadians, and promote the development and dissemination of knowledge of the polar regions in the Arctic.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Airline Services in Penticton Mr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday for the very first time I flew from Penticton in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla to Ottawa with WestJet. This is not the first time I have flown to Ottawa via WestJet, but it was from Penticton. Why? Because on Sunday, for the first time in WestJet's history, a new daily service between Calgary and Penticton began using the made-in-Canada Bombardier Q400 aircraft.

This was an extremely exciting day for Penticton and for the Penticton Indian Band, who have been working toward this daily service for years. I mention this because now there is yet another way to come and visit Okanagan—Coquihalla. I would like to invite all members of this place to come by for a visit. This new service is a reminder of the importance of tourism and also increases opportunities for interprovincial trade, labour mobility, and investment. I would like to thank the many community leaders past and present who worked tirelessly to make this WestJet Encore service possible.

1984 Anti-Sikh Attacks Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the tragic massacres of 1984 that targeted Sikh men, women, and children in New Delhi and many other parts of India. The NDP stands in solidarity with Sikh communities across our country in seeking justice. At times when innocent lives are lost with no accountability or explanation, we have an obligation to ask why and to seek honest answers for our friends and fellow citizens.

The victims and the survivors of 1984, and in particular the many widows, require support and recognition. The actions of the police and allegations regarding the role of Congress Party members must be examined. The truth must be brought to light and, most importantly, the guilty must be brought to justice. Today, as we mark the events of 1984, beyond seeking justice, remembrance is the tie that not only binds us to our past; it also guides us through the challenges of our future.

Taxation Mr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's announcement of yet even more tax relief and increased benefits for families is great news for parents in my riding of Richmond Hill. This historic plan will put over $1,100 each year back into the pockets of every hard-working family with children. According to the 2011 census, 35,000 families with children in Richmond Hill will benefit from these new measures to help make life more affordable. That means nearly $40 million will go back to Richmond Hill families alone.

My constituents are thrilled, including those who were in attendance at yesterday's announcement. Parents like Mehrdad Sabouhi and Ellie Moaveni commend the government for helping families with the costs of raising children, and Ernie Henderson of the Richmond Hill Soccer Club will see its 6,000 or so families with children and youth directly benefit. Richmond Hill and all of Canada is benefiting from our government's continued focus on helping hard-working Canadians make ends meet.

(1105) Ronald “Rannie” MacDonald Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Ronald MacDonald, also known as Rannie, who recently passed away on October 13. Rannie was a World War II veteran with the West Nova Scotia infantry division. Upon his return from Europe he continued onward and volunteered in the battle of Japan. He retired with full honours and achieved the rank of captain. He was also a stationary engineer and was always helping others. Rannie became a proud member of Legion Branch 126 in Westmount.

He also became an active member of the Coxheath Volunteer Fire Department in 1967, dutifully contributing up until his illness in 2012. Rannie will be humbly remembered by his wife of 67 years, Norma, and their remaining seven children, along with 21 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. He lived a full life in Cape Breton surrounded by his loving family and friends and was often regarded as a gentleman's gentleman. As we approach Remembrance Day, Mr. MacDonald will remain close to our hearts as we commemorate all veterans, including Rannie, for their great service to our country.

Acts of Bravery Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on October 27, 2011, Chilliwack resident Shawn Nagurny, along with five others, saved six people from a burning aircraft that had crash-landed on a highway in Richmond, B.C. Ignoring the intense heat and dense smoke enveloping the aircraft, the rescuers entered the plane several times to help pull the injured passengers out. For their heroics they were presented with the Medal of Bravery by His Excellency Governor General David Johnston.

I had the honour of witnessing the poignant ceremony at Rideau Hall, where the Governor General spoke of these wrong-way guys and wrong-way gals, heroic men and women who in the face of danger ran toward it rather than away from it. The very next day, Canadians witnessed the same sort of bravery from first responders, including our House of Commons security team and our own Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, as they responded to a terrorist attack.

Whether they be brave civilians or brave men and women in uniform or ceremonial robes, we salute those among us who run toward danger, rather than away from it, to keep us safe.

[ Translation ] Moisson Outaouais Regional Food Bank Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the holiday season approaches, we are going to hear more and more appeals to people's generosity. In the Outaouais, however, much like across the country, the needs are urgent all year round, not only in December. Any time, then, is a good time to provide support to families in need. With today being Halloween, I invite everyone, young and old, to join me in collecting non-perishable food items, which will be given to Moisson Outaouais, a wonderful organization.

Our tour will begin at my constituency office at 5 p.m. We will have a team there all evening to accept food donations. Last year we collected 300 pounds of food. I am putting this challenge out there to all the witches, goblins and monsters in Hull—Aylmer. This year, let us do even more to help families in our own community.

[ English ] Expression of Thanks Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is not very often we get an opportunity to thank people who work extremely hard to support us in our roles as members of Parliament and help serve our constituents, under extremely stressful situations at times. First I want to thank my staff here in Ottawa, Patrick, Graham, and Phil, and also in the Brampton office, led by Ninder Thind, Jasleen, Jessica, Mandeep, Evan, Sarah, and Tanya.

I also want to thank my family: my wife, of course, Amarpal; my daughter Parmeet; my two sons, Damanjit and Ramanjit; my brothers, Manjeet and Ranjit, and sisters-in-law Rasbinder and Dolly; my sister Karamjit; and brother-in-law Kamaljit, and all of my nephews and nieces. I have an amazing family. Most importantly, I want to thank my mother. Her love and the tremendous sacrifices she has made over the years allowed me the opportunity to serve my amazing constituents. It is truly an honour.

(1110) Natural Disasters in South Asia Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, On October 17, I visited Jammu and Kashmir in India. On my visit, I announced Canadian support to communities affected by devastating floods through providing clean water sanitation units for approximately 20,000 families for a year through GlobalMedic, a Canadian NGO. I was saddened to witness the crushing devastation caused by the disaster. I visited a gurdwara in Srinagar and was impressed at how the community had converted their temple into a large and effective relief centre to assist those displaced by the floods.

Recently another natural disaster struck South Asia. On Wednesday, a devastating landslide in Sri Lanka destroyed over 63 homes, damaging over 140, with 192 people missing and at least 15 confirmed dead. On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to convey my heartfelt condolences to all of those affected by this terrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this time.

[ Translation ] Remembrance Day Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last week Parliament, the most important place in Canadian democracy, was attacked. This attack left us in mourning. Soon we will be celebrating Remembrance Day. Unfortunately, we will have to add two more soldiers to this commemoration. We will remember not only their valour in uniform, but also their everyday lives. The members of our military are fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, who spend Halloween with their children and watch a hockey game with friends.

They are true Canadians who care about us and share our desire to defend our rights and freedoms. In their memory, I invite everyone in my riding to show their support on November 8 by taking

part in the Remembrance Day parade in Sainte-Thérèse, organized by the Canadian Legion. Last week's events serve as a reminder of what is essential: together, we will continue to protect democracy and we will prevail against those who spread fear.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister announced tax relief that puts money back in the pockets of Canadian families. For example, Paul, a single parent with two children, earns $30,000 a year. Thanks to the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday, Paul will receive $1,218 back in his pocket. That is real money making a real difference for his family. This is what Canadian families can continue to count on from our Conservative government.

Vandalism of Mosque Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I rise not to pay tribute to the good people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley but to salute a group of remarkable Albertans. After the tragic and violent events of last week, two fatal attacks on Canadian soldiers, and an assault here in Parliament itself, there was a callow and racist attack on a mosque in Cold Lake, Alberta. When the mosque windows were shattered, the proud people of this community came together to repair them.

Citizens, military personnel, and civic officials brought paint, brushes, and ladders to cover up the hateful graffiti that had screamed, “Go home.” A member of the local mosque, Mahmoud Elkadri, said, “When I came this morning...I felt the support of Cold Lake.... I am in my country, in my home.” In such times we are all laid bare and our true selves are shown. The people of Cold Lake met hate with kindness; ignorance they faced with love. We say thanks to these people in Cold Lake who showed us the very best of this country.

Taxation Mr. John Barlow (Macleod, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister announced fantastic new measures to help make life more affordable for families with children. Our government unveiled an opportunity that is wonderful for all Canadian families, especially low- and middle-income families who will see significant tax savings in 2015. For example, a Macleod resident, Mary, has a two-income household with her husband Bob. She earns $96,000 a year. Bob makes $24,000 a year. Because of the Prime Minister 's announcement, through the family tax credit, they will earn an additional $3,000 in tax relief.

Under this plan, every family in Canada with children would have more money in their pockets. We balanced our budget and now we are helping Canadian families balance theirs.

[ Translation ] Alphonse Vautour Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising to pay tribute to Alphonse Vautour, originally from Petit-Cap, who joined the Canadian Armed Forces before turning 19 and fought in France on D-Day. To honour his courage and contribution to the liberation of France, Mr. Vautour was made a member of the National Order of the Legion of Honour on October 23. Mr. Vautour is 95 and was accompanied by a large number of his children, grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren, who watched as a member of their family was thanked by the Republic of France.

As the consul for France said, France will never forget his efforts on its behalf. Canada will also not forget Mr. Vautour's sacrifices. That is why I am congratulating him and asking the other MPs of this House to congratulate Mr. Vautour for this well-deserved honour.

(1115) [ English ] Poppy Campaign Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of the Royal Canadian Legion poppy campaign. Indeed Canada's remembrance ceremony began earlier this year and will be anything but routine. That's because Canadians are united today, united in our rejection of aggression here at home and abroad, united in our common support of Canadian values and our appreciation of veterans for protecting those values here at home and around the world. Dare I say that this year's campaign will mean something more.

I encourage all Canadians to wear a poppy in the name of our veterans who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I call on all Canadians to attend a remembrance ceremony in their community. Join your neighbours, friends, and family as we as a country stand together, united in remembrance. Lest we forget.

[ Translation ] Alain Gervais Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when Alain Gervais used his body to block the door to our caucus room during the gunfire last week, he showed incredible courage and composure. When we met with him this week to thank him, our caucus chair, the hon. member for Sudbury , aptly described how we all felt. [ English ] He said that we just need to constantly make sure that person never has to pay for a beer at any pub in the country for the rest of his life. [ Translation ] This wish did not fall on deaf ears.

People began talking and laughing about it on Twitter, and Mr. Gervais's wife, Kerry, tweeted that her husband really likes Rickard's White. That is all it took for Molson Coors to decide to send dozens of cases of beer to Mr. Gervais's home. Although the NDP's wish was to ensure that Mr. Gervais would never again have to pay for a beer, there is no real way to express our gratitude to this hero and all the heroes that dark day on the Hill. Thank you once again, Alain, and thank you to the entire House of Commons security team. I raise my glass to all of you.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on helping hard-working Canadian families make ends meet by making important priorities like child care and after-school sports more affordable. Ben and Sally are a young, two-income family with two kids, Joy and Alex. Sally earns $48,000 a year managing a small local business. Ben earns a second family income of $12,000 working a part-time job while devoting most of his energy to raising their young, active children, who also benefit from the children's fitness tax credit.

Through the government's new tax relief measures, which were announced yesterday in Vaughan, Ontario, Ben and Sally's family will receive a benefit of just under $1,200. This represents 36% of their federal tax bill and a huge, deserved tax break for a young, hard-working family. All families with children will benefit from the new measures introduced by our government.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Taxation Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, contrary to what we just heard, the Conservatives have presented a plan that will do nothing for the vast majority of Canadians. They were warned by their own finance minister that it was bad policy that would increase inequality, but yesterday they announced that they plan to do it anyway. Why are the Conservatives deciding to spend billions on a plan that will do nothing for 80% of Canadians? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, under the strong and dependable leadership of our Prime Minister , our government is focused on helping hard-working Canadian families make ends meet by making important priorities, like child care and after-school sports, more affordable. Under this plan, every family with children will have more money in their pockets to spend on their priorities as a family. Our government is fulfilling its promise to balance the federal budget. We are now in a position to fulfill our promise to help Canadian families balance theirs.

(1120) Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has to be kidding. This multibillion-dollar scheme will leave the majority of Canadians falling further behind. Who will not get any benefit at all? It will be single mothers, couples with no kids, parents who are divorced, couples making less than $44,000, and the list goes on. Who will benefit? Well, it will be many of the finance minister's former colleagues on Bay Street. Will the Conservatives back down from their wasteful and ineffective scheme? Mr.

Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, under our plan, every Canadian family with children will have more money in their pockets to help make ends meet. Over four million Canadian families will see an average benefit of $1,140 due to these measures. Two-thirds of the benefits will go to low- and middle-income families. Our plan will help families pay for priorities like groceries, after-school activities for their kids, and saving for post-secondary education.

Only our Conservative government knows that Canadian families know how to best spend their hard-earned money. Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' plan will not just increase income inequality, it will also push us backwards on gender equality. Countless economists have shown that this type of policy will push women out of the workforce, erasing the gains in workplace participation that women have fought hard to achieve over many generations. Why are the Conservatives so intent on pushing forward with such a backward plan? Mr.

Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we understand the rising cost of raising a family today. That is why we are putting money in the pockets of parents to make it easier for them and to allow them to spend on their priorities as a family. All families with children will benefit from the new measures introduced by our government. The average tax relief and benefits for these families will be $1,140 in 2015. Two-thirds of the benefits will go to low- and middle-income families. The Liberals and the NDP will reverse these measures.

Only our Conservative government is standing up for Canadian families. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, income splitting is a regressive model that encourages women to stay at home. That is the last thing we want to do when our country is in desperate need of workers and the labour force is aging. Furthermore, the wealthy are the ones who will benefit from this. Why are the Conservatives proposing a model that is so unfair and paternalistic and puts additional barriers in a woman's career path? [ English ] Mr.

Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member could not be further from the truth. If the New Democrats had their way, they would spend $5 billion creating a massive new bureaucratic one-size-must-fit-all child care program. We are providing cash back directly into the pockets of Canadians so they can make their own child care choices. Our government is expanding the universal child care benefit to provide $720 for every child from six to seventeen years old. This will be a huge relief in the daily pressures ordinary Canadian families face. [ Translation ] Ms.

Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' proposed income-splitting plan is costly and ineffective. It will benefit few families, and only well-off families will be able to take advantage of it. This plan is based on a paternalistic and regressive ideology that does not consider the realities facing women and the labour market in the 21st century. Even the former finance minister said that this plan was unfair and too costly. Why do the Conservatives insist on continuing down this reckless path? [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our government has committed to bringing in income splitting of $50,000 for families. This is precisely what we are doing. It is good policy for seniors, and it will be good policy for families to help make life more affordable. The measures we have introduced will benefit low- and middle-income families the most. A promise made, a promise kept. [ Translation ] Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a fundraising email, the member for Durham bragged about how great this tax cut would be for him. He forgot to mention that as a parliamentary secretary, he earns $180,000.

That is twice as high as the median family income. Why is the government proposing to help the wealthy instead of addressing the real problems facing the middle class? [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, he could not be further from the truth. Our government is fulfilling its promise to balance the federal budget. We are now in a position to fulfill our promise to help Canadian families balance theirs. All families with children will benefit from the new measures introduced by our government yesterday.

The average tax relief and benefits for these families will be $1,140 in 2015 alone. Two-thirds of the benefits will go to low- and middle-income families. The Liberals and the New Democrats will reverse these measures. Only our Conservative government believes that Canadian families know how best to spend their hard-earned money.

(1125) Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there was no answer, so I will try again. Last night the member for Durham bragged in a fundraising email about how great this tax cut would be for him. He neglected to mention that as an MP and parliamentary secretary, he makes $180,000 a year, which is more than twice the median family income. Why do the Conservatives insist on helping well-off Canadians instead of addressing the real needs of the middle class? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I mentioned, two-thirds of the benefits will go to middle- and low-income Canadians. Middle-class Canadians are better off under our Conservative government. The median net worth of Canadian families has increased by 45% since we have taken office. For the first time, middle-income Canadians are actually better off than Americans. The average Canadian family paid nearly $3,400 less in taxes two days ago. Now it is more than $4,500 less in taxes. Canadian families are better off with a Conservative government. Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, even if they include these other measures, the Conservative plan gives middle-class Canadians a small fraction of what it gives to the member for Durham . What do 85% of families get from income splitting? Nothing. Single parents? Nothing. Two teachers in the same tax bracket? Nothing. Seniors with older children? Nothing. Young people? Nothing. The member for Durham ? It is $2,000. Is that fair? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is moving back to a balanced budget while creating jobs and economic growth.

The Liberals have been clear that they will repeal our tax cuts and take money back from Canadian families to pay for their reckless spending schemes. Only our party understands that Canadians want their lives to be more affordable. Our plan would help families pay for priorities like groceries, after-school activities for their kids, and saving for post-secondary education. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Conservatives are pushing an income-splitting scheme that helps the wealthiest families, actually discourages women from working, and fails to help low- and middle-income families. It is a scheme that was panned by conservative thinkers at the C.D. Howe Institute and the late Jim Flaherty. This was an awkward photo-op designed to bury their unfair scheme. Conservatives are keeping their promise to help wealthy families with income splitting but breaking their promise to all Canadians to create 125,000 child care spaces.

When will the Conservatives stop picking winners and losers and withdraw this wasteful and ineffective income-splitting scheme? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, under our plan, every Canadian family with children will have more money in their pockets to spent on what is important to those families. That is over four million families. Canadian families will see an average benefit of over $1,140 due to these measures. Two-thirds of those benefits will be for middle- and low-income Canadians.

Our plan will help families pay for priorities like groceries, after-school activities for their kids, and saving for post-secondary education. I recommend the member opposite get on board and support this plan. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I notice that they really cannot talk about income splitting all that much anymore, because they know what the facts actually tell us, which is that it is an unfair scheme that helps the wealthiest families in Canada. Here is the difference between us and them. The Conservatives broke their promise to create 125,000 child care spaces.

The New Democrats will bring in a plan to create up to one million affordable child care spaces for all Canadians. The New Democrats believe in fairness and universality. The Conservatives push an income-splitting scheme that does absolutely nothing for up to 85% of all Canadians. Rather than a wasteful and ineffective $2.5-billion boondoggle that actually discourages women from working— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. parliamentary secretary. Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, income splitting was good for Canadian seniors, and it will be good for Canadian families. In fact, I have had seniors come up to me in my riding of North Vancouver and say that income splitting was the best thing we have ever done for seniors. Here is what people are saying: the family tax cut “levels the playing field” for Canadian families. That was the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada. The NDP would reverse these measures and take money out of the pockets of hard-working Canadian families. Only our government can be trusted to stand up for Canadian families. (1130) [ Translation ] Mr.

Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, income splitting is a terrible policy. Even the former finance minister disagreed with it. The C.D. Howe Institute has found that this measure is too expensive and unfair and will benefit the wealthiest taxpayers. What is more, it will act as a deterrent to women's participation in the workforce. The parliamentary secretary knows full well that the only group that came to the Standing Committee on Finance to propose income splitting was the very right-wing Institute of Marriage and Family.

Why is the government so dead set on proposing income splitting, an expensive policy that will accentuate the inequalities between rich and poor, men and women? [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have another one as well. Income splitting, as I said, was good for Canadian seniors and it will also be good for Canadian families. Here is what others are saying about it. “[The] strong majority of CFIB members...support income splitting. A good move.” Who said that? It was Dan Kelly of the CFIB.

The NDP will reverse these measures and take money out of the pockets of Canadian families. Our government can be trusted to stand up for Canadian families.

Manufacturing Industry Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives are happy to help the rich get richer, they completely abandon middle-class Canadians. Four hundred thousand good manufacturing jobs have disappeared under the Conservatives, 4,100 in the city of Peterborough alone, yet they cannot seem to stir themselves to action. Last week we lost out on another 1,000 jobs because the government refused the investment needed to get another Ford assembly line in Windsor.

How many good manufacturing jobs do we have to lose before the Conservatives are going to do something about it? Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to give some statistics to our hon. member so that she gets a strong sense of how good manufacturing has become in our country. We have leapt from sixth to second place in ranking as one of the most attractive destinations for business. That is according to Bloomberg.

Our manufacturing sales have bounced back and are 25% higher since the start of the recession, which was the worst recession we have all experienced in our lifetimes. We understand well that manufacturing employs close to two million Canadians, and almost all of those are full-time jobs. That is a record that we are proud of. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us talk jobs. Four hundred thousand lost manufacturing jobs speak for themselves.

Eleven hundred jobs have been lost in Leamington, 600 lost in London, 550 lost in Bradford, 300 lost in Mississauga, 300 lost in Bramalea, and 525 jobs have been lost in Oakville. That is just part of the losses from last year. Communities across southern Ontario are being devastated by these cuts. Families are struggling to pay the bills. Where is the Conservative strategy to create good manufacturing jobs? Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I think there is some confusion on the other side, from this perspective: they believe it is government's responsibility to create the jobs. From our side, we believe that we need to create the conditions for business to create the jobs, the full-time permanent jobs that matter. It is those conditions for success that we are implementing: low taxes, global trade opportunities, investment policies, and a skilled workforce. When we get that, we get those good jobs. [ Translation ] Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Industry can hide behind statistics all he wants, but the sad reality is harder to hide. In 10 years, under the Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada has lost nearly 600,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. Six hundred thousand jobs means that 600,000 families have been affected by unemployment, hundreds of communities are getting poorer, and municipalities are facing budget challenges. What is the government waiting for? Does it want to see the entire manufacturing sector disappear before it takes action? [ English ] Hon.

Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, actually we do not mind relying on statistics from this side of the House. However, there are a couple of things that they need to understand. Since the worst recession in our lifetime, the business community has created more than one million mostly full-time, mostly permanent, jobs in the country. That is since the worst recession. That is a record that Canada can be proud of. I wish the member opposite would accept that as very good news.

[ Translation ] Transport Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on another topic, Thursday, the Minister of Transport reiterated in the House that she was not aware of the Chevrolet Cobalt's ignition switch issue before GM issued the safety recall. A Fifth Estate report clearly showed that Transport Canada was aware of the problem eight months before the recall. GM has admitted that 29 deaths were caused by the faulty switches in its cars.

Will the Minister of Transport do the same and assure us that this type of information will no longer be hidden from Canadians? (1135) [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, she found out about the notice of defect in February 2014 when GM issued the recall. Further, Transport Canada officials confirmed that it only became aware of the notice of defect in the same period, February 2014.

With respect to the accident in June 2103 in which an ignition switch was found to have moved after the collision, officials confirm that the investigation was reviewed in light of that notice of defect from February 2014. The investigation concluded that the ignition switch did not cause the accident. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, we were all able to see just how inadequate self-regulation and self-inspection are.

Again yesterday, George Iny, spokesperson for the Automobile Protection Association, indicated that there is a lack of inspectors to ensure the safety of Canadians. Will the government finally commit to reversing course and ensuring that we have enough inspectors to keep Canadian drivers safe? [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will continue. In June 2013, Transport Canada received a report of a crash in Quebec in which the airbags did not deploy when a vehicle went off the road late at night and struck multiple trees.

Transport Canada commenced an investigation. After receiving the notice of defect from GM in February 2014, Transport Canada looked at the June 2013 fatal collision in a new light. This was when the minister first learned of the accident investigation by Transport Canada. Again, Transport Canada has determined that the loss of control was not caused by the ignition switch. Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the serious defect in the Chevrolet Cobalt put the lives of Canadians at risk, yet the minister would have us believe that even though her department investigated a fatal accident and specifically examined the role that a faulty ignition switch might have played, she was never briefed, even though she might have been able to warn Canadians. Is the minister not aware of what is going on in her own department, or did she mislead this House about what happened? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would remind the member that the investigation in 2013 centred around an airbag that did not deploy. It was determined at the time that the ignition switch in fact was not the cause of the accident. Transport Canada went back subsequently, after the notice of defect was served in February 2014, and looked at that accident in a new light. Again, it determined that the loss of control was not caused by the ignition switch.

[ Translation ] Public Safety Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, every time we ask why the 80 individuals who are currently in Canada and who broke Canadian law by participating in terrorist activities in the the Middle East have not been apprehended, the minister dodges the question. We are not asking him to interfere in the investigations. We are asking him why dangerous terrorists who have broken the law are allowed to go free instead of being taken into custody as required by law. Canadians have the right to a clear answer from the minister.

He must give them one. [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as that member knows, decisions to lay charges are with law enforcement, policing agencies across this country, and they are not made by politicians. Politicians, as legislators, bring forward laws that provide the tools for security agencies and policing agencies across this country to do their job. That is precisely what this Conservative government is doing. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there was certainly no answer there.

We do know that the government has blindly cut resources all across government in order to trigger a budget surplus for election purposes. We now know that both the RCMP and CSIS, as a result of those cuts, have had to reallocate their scarce resources, yet the Public Safety report on the terrorism threat to Canada states that the government is aware of 80 individuals who have returned to Canada after suspected terrorist-related purposes abroad. Are current laws not being acted upon because of the government's cutbacks to security and policing agencies? Is that the real reason? Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I just stated, it is law enforcement agencies, policing agencies, across this country that actually lay those charges. What we as politicians and legislators must do is to bring forward measures to ensure that they have those tools. I want to bring forward the clear fact that since our government took office in 2006, we have actually increased investments in CSIS and the RCMP by almost one-third—

(1140) Hon. Wayne Easter : You have cut back in the last two years. Ms. Roxanne James : Thank you. Mr. Speaker, if the member would like to ask another question, I can actually bring those figures forward.

Health Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in the wake of SARS, the Naylor report made it clear that Canada needed a public health agency headed by a chief public health officer who could speak directly to Canadians. Buried in the latest omnibus bill is the demotion and muzzling of the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada. He has been stripped of his abilities to set priorities, determine appropriate resources, and speak directly to Canadians without political interference. Will the government reverse this latest act to muzzle science? Ms.

Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary, the role of the Chief Public Health Officer is to engage and communicate with Canadians on matters of public health. This change reflects the unique nature of the position to focus exclusively on medical expertise. The role of the administration is to oversee the day-to-day administration. The Chief Public Health Officer is supportive of this change.

National Defence Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Conservatives have a budgeting problem at the Department of National Defence. On average, over the last 7 years the Conservatives have underspent 23% of funds allocated to defence. It is a major part of the surplus, but it is happening while mental health services are chronically understaffed; critical procurement, like the joint support ships and fixed-wing search and rescue, have been delayed for years; and while soldiers are being forced out of service before they qualify for pensions.

Does the minister really think that is good planning? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the end of the Afghanistan mission naturally led to a drawdown in the defence budget. The fact remains that in the last year that the Liberals were in office, DND's budget was around $13 billion, and now the budget is well over $18 billion and is scheduled to increase.

When we first took office we made several purchases, including four C-17 Globemaster strategic lift aircraft, 17 Hercules tactical airlift craft, 15 Chinook helicopters sitting in Petawawa, and we have new Leopard 2 tanks. All of these purchases have greatly increased the capabilities of our forces in Afghanistan, and of course here at home. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 23% a year for 7 years, but it is not just budgeting at DND that is not working. The minister has yet to explain what he is going to do about the over 6,000 combat uniforms that were lost or stolen last year.

This is a serious security concern, given that an individual could use these uniforms to gain access to secure facilities. Even more disturbing, what about the 10,000 weapons and other accessories that are also on the missing list? What does the minister plan to do to address this problem and deal with the serious security issues involved? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in cases where there is serious theft or loss of public property—there is an offence here that is an illegal act—a thorough investigation is conducted.

The total value of the public property lost due to illegal acts this year was $7 million less than the year before, and the majority of losses that can be attributed are due to damaged aircraft and not stolen equipment. The Canadian Armed Forces have instituted force protection measures to ensure the safety and security of our men and women in uniform. [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the theft of 6,000 combat uniforms and thousands of firearms is not just a matter of money.

Of course it is a great financial loss, but it also threatens the safety and security of our soldiers and of Canadians. Clearly, there was negligence, and the minister must be able to explain how this happened. The thieves now have thousands of military uniforms and could very well use them for malicious purposes. What measures will the minister take to ensure that this situation is brought under control? [ English ] Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, improvements to the inventory management process have been made and are reflected in the significant decrease in lost items this year compared to the previous year. With respect to equipment, the thefts of a reported 3,815 stolen items were actually empty magazine cartridges. The remaining items were low-sensitivity items, such as holsters, field packs, cases, and training aids, and not actually weapons. As I have said, all cases of theft or loss result in a thorough investigation by military police. [ Translation ] Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, Quebeckers have been waiting over six years for the government to refurbish the Quebec City Armoury. They have been waiting six years for an answer that would enable them to go ahead with other tourism and cultural projects. Having waited over six years, can they finally believe the minister when she says that the work really will begin in 2015 and will be completed for the 150th anniversary celebration in 2017? When will we see a backhoe on the armoury grounds? (1145) [ English ] Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, these types of infrastructure are very important to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. We will be working with the department to ensure that this is looked at in a very expedited manner.

Taxation Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister announced fantastic new measures to help make life more affordable to Canadian families right across the country. Could the very hard-working Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance update the House on how the government is putting more money in the pockets of Canadian families so they can best raise their families themselves? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton—Leduc for the excellent and hard work that he does on the finance committee. The new tax cuts will help all Canadian families prosper. We are increasing the universal child care benefit for children under age six. We are expanding it to children aged six to 17. We are increasing the child care expense deduction dollar limits by $1,000. Thanks to our government's tax cuts, two-thirds of the benefits flow to low-and middle-income families. The Liberal leader does not understand the basics of our policy. There are just too many tax savings for him to count.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, after months of dragging their feet and making excuses, Conservatives reluctantly agreed to stand up to the rail companies. Despite Conservative promises, though, the rail companies have not hit their targets for three weeks, and no fines have been issued, not a single one. Why is it so complicated? The rail companies clearly have not delivered. Why has the government not followed through on its commitment? Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I think the House knows the history of this file. The rail companies failed to transport grain from western Canadian grain farmers to their clients and to destinations in an expeditious manner. The government moved expeditiously with the support of the House. The grain movement is being reviewed to ensure that the rail companies do meet their targets. I know the Minister of Transport is looking at this very question the member has raised in the House today. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the history of this file is the government has dropped the ball completely.

Grain transport is important. It is important to farmers, it is also important to port communities, and it is important to local economies across the country, like Vancouver. Now the minister clearly promised $100,000-a-day fines, and then mysteriously they were reduced to $100,000 a week, and even that is only in theory, because the government actually has not levied any fines despite the continuing problems. Canadians want a government that will stand up for them. Why are the Conservatives so reluctant, so resistant to stand up for grain farmers and port cities across Canada? Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. In fact, an enforcement process is under way, given CN's failure to meet the minimum grain volume requirements. That company is in fact facing fines, and the enforcement process, as I said, is under way. To clarify this, the maximum fines are $100,000 per violation. We use all means available to our government to defend farmers and all shippers to ensure our economy is well served by Canada's rail logistics system.

[ Translation ] CBC/Radio-Canada Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, CBC executives announced yesterday that 392 jobs will be cut by next March. These cuts will primarily affect regional newsrooms and programming in minority language communities. How can the minister say that the CBC has the resources it needs to carry out its mission when it will be cutting a quarter of its positions by 2020? [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the changes that are being made by the CBC are as a result of declining advertising revenue and declining viewership in key demographics. Our government provides significant taxpayer funds to the CBC, and we believe it can, and should, operate within its existing budget. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today is Halloween, but CBC creators and friends really have nothing to celebrate. The broadcaster shut down its props workshop last year and will be closing its costume warehouse in Montreal next spring.

This is the largest collection of its kind in North America. It includes 90,000 pieces of clothing, some of them from the 19th century. Does the minister realize that this closure will have a significant impact on the entire Quebec television industry? (1150) [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will repeat this again. The CBC runs the operation, it is responsible for it and it is arm's length.

It is up to the CBC to provide programming that Canadians actually want, fulfill its mandate under the Broadcasting Act, and deliver those services to all Canadians across the country.

Infrastructure Mr. Arnold Chan (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, while today my be Halloween, municipalities across Canada know that there are no treats coming from the Conservative government. In fact, the government's infrastructure program is just another trick. The party opposite talks of large numbers over 10 years, but it masks the scary truth that this program will only invest $210 million in our trains and bridges this year. When will the Conservative government stop dressing up the truth and invest in our towns and cities before they turn into pumpkins? [ Translation ] 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, when it comes to infrastructure, the provinces and municipalities have never had a better federal partner than our government. Since coming to power, we have introduced countless initiatives to support them: the 2007 Building Canada plan, the 2008 economic stimulus and the new 2014 Building Canada plan, which is a 10-year plan. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, what the minister stated is just not true. Quite frankly, the Conservative government has put into place a 90% spending cut on infrastructure. Infrastructure matters to our cities. They cannot do it alone. They need co-operation with the federal government. Infrastructure means potholes, streets, sewer lines, and so much more. Why has this cruel Conservative government cut back on spending on infrastructure, when Canadian municipalities across this land need that money spent today? [ Translation ] 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, even though it is Halloween, the Liberals should stop trying to scare Canadians. Since we came to power, we have tripled investments in infrastructure. The new Building Canada plan, with an envelope of $53 billion over 10 years, is operational. A number of projects have already been announced, and we are working with the provinces and territories on their priorities.

[ English ] Rail Transportation Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, be it grain transport or rail safety, the Conservative government continues to drop the ball. [ Translation ] The people of Jeanne-Le Ber are worried. Since 2011, we have had three derailments in our community. Last April the minister promised to remove all DOT-111 tank cars, which played a huge role in the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, from service within three years. The Americans said they would do so within two years.

Can the minister tell us exactly where this file stands and when the process for removing these time bombs will be complete? [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, this government has taken a number of important rail safety measures, both before Lac-Mégantic and after the tragedy there. The member will have heard our response to the interim measures put forward by the TSB in its interim report, which includes removing the least crash-resistant DOT-111s from service, and that has been delivered.

We are taking additional measures such as emergency response action plans for those that are carrying even a single tanker of crude. We are putting in important new science classification— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie . [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Lac-Mégantic is in a good position to attest to the disastrous and catastrophic consequences of self-regulation in rail transportation.

Today she is disappointed by the lack of commitment shown by the minister and this government. The recommendations made by the Transportation Safety Board should have been adopted a long time ago. The people and the mayor of that town want more and deserve more. Will the minister finally commit to seriously inspecting rail companies and putting more inspectors and investigators on the ground, where it counts? [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we continue to hire more inspectors all the time.

In response to the TSB's final report, we have announced additional auditors to enhance our audit capability to ensure that our railways have a safety culture and that they do not just obey the rules. This is what the FCM said, and I will quote it in response to our announcement to the TSB: FCM welcomes today's announcement by Minister...of additional safety measures that respond directly to recommendations made by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada as part of its investigation into the Lac-Mégantic derailment. That is what the head of the mayors is saying in our country.

(1155) National Defence Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today Reuters reports that at least 220 Iraqis were executed by the terrorist group ISIL near Baghdad. Two mass graves were discovered, and evidence has suggested that men between the ages of 18 and 55 were shot at close range. This is yet further proof that ISIL is a murderous, barbaric terrorist threat, not only to the Middle East but to Canada. It is incumbent on all civilizations to do their part to counter this threat.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence please update the House on Operation Impact, and Canada's ongoing efforts to fight ISIL? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the House that all Royal Canadian Air Force assets are in theatre and that combat operations have begun. Our CF-18s stand ready to engage the enemy. Our CP-140 Auroras are conducting surveillance. Our Polaris refuelling plane is supporting coalition efforts.

Canada will not stand idly by while this terrorist threat runs rampant across the region, spreading its poisonous ideology and inspiring would-be terrorists around the world. As always, we thank and commend the honourable brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces for all the work that they do.

Taxation Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's announcement on income splitting did nothing for single seniors or many families, whether they are in Cape Breton or across the country. For instance, for a couple with two children where one spouse works at Canadian Tire and the other spouse works at Tim Hortons making similar incomes for a combined income of $65,000, there is nothing in this announcement that would help to pay for their mortgage, car payments, or even daycare. Why do the Conservatives leave these Canadians out? Mr.

Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, every Canadian family with children under the age of 18 would benefit from these measures, a total of 4.1 million families. Let me give some examples. The universal child care benefit would provide $720 a year for every child under the age of 18. This monthly cheque would help Canadians make ends meet and pay for priorities like groceries, after-school activities for their kids, and saving for post-secondary education. There is more.

The child care expense deduction has been increased for the first time in decades to help Canadian families.

[ Translation ] Telecommunications Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in 2011 the Conservative government promised to give power to the regions. Instead, it has given them the shaft. In the Pontiac, less than 100 kilometres from Ottawa, many of my constituents still do not have access to a high-speed wireless network. The absence of high-speed Internet access is impeding economic development in the entire region and preventing many businesses from being truly competitive.

What is the Conservative government doing to ensure that regions like the Pontiac will get access to a high-speed wireless network soon? [ English ] Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC) : To share some good news with that member, Mr. Speaker, he knows clearly that we live in a digital world and what connects our digital economy is the opportunity for Canadians right across the country to benefit. We have put in place the Digital Canada 150, intended to take full advantage of that digital economy. Over the next couple of years that will be fully in place across the country.

[ Translation ] Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today, as we prepare to bring Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent to his final resting place, words cannot express our gratitude for and our recognition of his life of service to others. Would the parliamentary secretary kindly say a few words about Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent? 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, as a friendly, kind, and strong Canadian, Patrice Vincent fought fires and saved lives during the majority of his 28-year career. He spent his life helping and inspiring others, so it comes as no surprise that in his death, he inspired and united an entire nation. The sacrifice of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent on behalf of our country is something I will never forget.

(1200) Agriculture and Agri-Food Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, U.S. trade representative Michael Froman is complaining about the supply management system, describing it as an obstacle to concluding the trans-Pacific partnership free trade agreement. The United States is not shy about saying that it just needs Japan to make concessions to try to put pressure on Canada. Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food promise not to give in to U.S. pressure, and protect the 7,200 family farms under supply management in Quebec? Mr.

Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has always defended Canada's supply management system, and we will continue to do so in our relations with our partners. Unlike the NDP, which failed to mention supply management in its election campaign in 2011, the Prime Minister was clear on this issue at election time. Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary can try to reassure farmers, but we have reason not to believe him.

We heard the same soothing speech when the Canada-European Union agreement was being negotiated, but the Conservative government opened up the supply management system. Cheese producers can attest to that, and they are still waiting for confirmation of the compensation they were promised. Will this government, which once again has put supply management on the table in negotiating the trans-Pacific partnership, undertake not to make the same mistake and avoid dismantling the supply management system? Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I just said, our government has always defended Canada's supply management system, and we are continuing to do so with the European Union agreement. The three pillars of our national supply management system remain intact. We will monitor the potential impact of this historic agreement on dairy producers' income. If production levels are adversely affected, we will help the producers financially. We have a strong record of protecting the supply management system.

[ English ] The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of the Environment . There are only about 30 days to go until the Conference of the Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change begins its meetings in Lima, Peru. Would the minister be in a position to let us know today if opposition members of Parliament will once again be included in the government's delegation, as is the case in every other country around the world and was the case under every previous prime minister? Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to reaching a new global climate agreement in Paris next year. We want a fair agreement for Canada that includes all the emitters and all economies. Every country, big or small, has a role to play. That is what we will continue to push for at the meeting of the top 20. We will continue to make progress domestically in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We have taken action in Canada to reduce coal-fired electricity greenhouse gas emissions. I also want to thank the member for her support in our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas-- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order. This concludes question period for today.

[ Translation ] Point of Order Member for Peterborough Point of Order Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order, but I understand very well, given the importance of the point of order I am making, that you are not in a position to respond right away. I hope that you will be able to respond later today or on Monday. This concerns the guilty verdict that was just handed down against the former parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister , the member for Peterborough .

He was convicted this morning of violating the Canada Elections Act. [ English ] The Prime Minister 's former parliamentary secretary has been found guilty on three counts: exceeding spending limits during the federal campaign in 2008, failing to report an illegal personal contribution of $21,000 to his own campaign, and knowingly submitting a falsified document.

As we know, this has been part of a pattern of behaviour we have seen from the current government, tragically, with the in-and-out scheme, the robocall scandal, and former Conservative minister Peter Penashue, who was found by Elections Canada to have broken the rules in the 2011 campaign. The statutory provisions that render a member of Parliament ineligible to sit in the House of Commons are unambiguous, as we know. The Canada Elections Act, subsection 502(3), stipulates that a person who has been found guilty of an illegal or corrupt practice cannot be elected to or sit and vote in the House of Commons.

O'Brien and Bosc makes it clear that the decision to remove a sitting member is one for the House. I will quote from page 244: By virtue of parliamentary privilege, only the House has the inherent right to decide matters affecting its own membership. Indeed, the House decides for itself if a Member should be permitted to sit on committees, receive a salary or even be allowed to keep his or her seat. As I mentioned earlier, Mr.

Speaker, understanding that this is unprecedented and that you will want to perhaps take some time to reflect, I would like to ask you to clarify what next steps should be taken by the House to ensure that we are abiding by these statutory provisions.

(1205) Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is quite right. The question of whether a member can continue to sit is one for this House. I think he is also right in his suggestion that we take some time to reflect, in fact I think we all do, to be able to make that decision. My understanding, if the decision is based entirely on media reports and social media tweets, is that they have already been proven to be contradictory in a number of ways, so there is a lack of clarity.

For example, it is my understanding that two of the guilty findings were stayed. I do not understand what the implication of that is. I do not understand on which charges that was, so it is very difficult for us to make a decision at this point. I think the counsel the hon. member has offered, which is that we have to consider this at one point, is correct, but I also think we need to take some time to actually have the information and reflect on it properly before that is done. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : The Chair thanks both the opposition House leader as well as the government House leader for this point. The Chair was aware that the court ruling had been delivered earlier today relating to the member for Peterborough . As has been stated by the government House leader , at this point, the Chair has only heard second-hand media reports in terms of what happened. However, we will certainly get the primary documentation. We will consider it, as important as it is, and we will get back to this House as quickly as possible as it relates to this matter.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Immigration Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 94(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2014 annual report on immigration.

Committees of the House Agriculture and Agri-Food Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) Motion for concurrence moved that the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food presented on Thursday, March 27, be concurred in. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to participate in the discussion on this particular concurrence motion. Yesterday I had the opportunity to share some thoughts on this. It is always encouraging when we follow parliamentary process.

We have a couple of dozen standing committees that do a lot of wonderful work. They hold government accountable. There is a lot more transparency. Are they perfect in terms of the operations of the discussions? They may not be in all ways. There is a lot of room for improvement.

(1210) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. The opposition House leader is rising on a point of order. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to hear the member for Winnipeg North , but yesterday, he did not actually reference the concurrence report he said he wanted to speak to. He is doing the same thing today. Yesterday we gave him some latitude, but I think today he has to speak to the concurrence report. If he has opinions on it, we would be very pleased to hear them. However, he cannot just wander off onto whatever he wants to talk about today.

We have a concurrence report before us. We would like to ask that the member actually stick to it and speak to the report. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, you will find that there is a great deal of latitude in addressing topics. I was talking about the process of receiving the different reports. It is completely relevant to talk about how reports come to this House. If I want to pre-empt my discussion, nothing prevents me from doing that. The member just needed to be a bit more patient and listen as I continued to provide comment. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : The opposition House leader raised a point of relevance, which is always in force, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North also makes a good point, which is that there is some latitude given. Perhaps this is an opportunity to remind all members of the House that when they rise to speak, they ought to be speaking to whatever matter is before the House. In that context, I give the floor back to the hon. member for Winnipeg North to continue his discussion regarding the motion that is currently before the House. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr.

Speaker, we have an agriculture committee that meets and deals with a report. It is important that Canadians are aware of just how much work goes into all reports, including this particular report. Committees meet twice a week. They go through a litany of different things. The same principle applied for this report. The last time this committee met could have been months ago, depending on the committee. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. We have important legislation before the House that all members want to comment on.

I am always interested in hearing the member for Winnipeg North , but one thing he has just said is incorrect, of course. The agriculture committee is meeting. However, he is not speaking to the report. If he does not have anything to say on the report, he should just allow us to move on to the important business before this House. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Before I go back to the member for Winnipeg North, I just remind all hon. members, as I think all are aware, of the issue of relevance.

I understand that I have ruled, and other Chair occupants have ruled, that there is some latitude and have asked members to respect that process and speak to what is before the House. At the same time, I would also encourage all other hon. members to give their colleagues some latitude as well and to recognize the fact that it may take them a few moments to get to the specifics of what is actually being discus