13527 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 208 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 6, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 208 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 208 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 208 (Version officielle) 147 208 06 05 2015 2015/05/06 14:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers Statements by Members (1405) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem, led by the hon. member for Langley . [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ Translation ] Claude Dagenais Mr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, FD) : Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate Claude Dagenais, who spent the last 25 years building Auto-Chem in Repentigny despite the many roadblocks that financial institutions set up to thwart him. Mr.

Dagenais was recognized as exporter of the year by Lanaudière's international development association. I would especially like to congratulate him on a number of major achievements. He has passed on his know-how and business sense to his son, Jean, who now runs the company, and to the community through his mentoring work. Despite several offers from competitors, he was committed to keeping that expertise in Repentigny and keeping his jobs in our community.

Among many other things, he helped ensure that all children in the riding whose parents struggle to provide them with breakfast have a full belly before starting their school day. Mr. Dagenais, on behalf of the people of our community, I thank you.

[ English ] Sri Lanka Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this year marks the sixth anniversary of the battle of Mullivaikkal, in the Sri Lankan war, in May 2009. I stand with the thousands of Tamils who lost family members in the final stages of the Sri Lankan genocide. This humanitarian catastrophe saw thousands of civilians shelled by the Sri Lanka government as they escaped the no-fire zone. According to the United Nations, between 40,000 and 70,000 Tamil civilians were killed during the final phase of the war in Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan government has still failed to show progress in ensuring justice for the victims of these terrible human rights crimes. During the month of May, Tamil Canadians from coast to coast to coast will gather to participate in multi-faith memorial services to honour their loved ones. It is also a time to reflect on the principles of peace, democracy, and equality that we are able to enjoy here in Canada. I am proud of the many contributions Tamil Canadians have made in our country. They have embraced our cultural landscape, exemplifying the very best of the Canadian community spirit.

Multiple Sclerosis Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in Canada citizens have a greater risk of developing multiple sclerosis than they do anywhere else in the world. As someone who comes from a family that has been directly impacted by this disease, I know first hand the important role we, as members of Parliament, play in supporting those affected by MS.

We must ensure that the 100,000 Canadians living with MS receive quality life-long care and support and that we continue to advocate for the hard-working caregivers who help their loved ones get through the daily challenges of life with MS. Above all, we must accelerate our research efforts for Canadians living with severe forms of this disease, for which there is no treatment or cure. Today I am wearing a carnation to show my solidarity with the MS community.

I encourage constituents in my riding to join with me by sharing this message on social media and by getting involved in a local MS event, such as an MS walk or bike tour. This statement is dedicated to my sister, Julia Stewart. I urge each of us to join the fight to end MS.

Volunteer Firefighters Mr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, late last night, in the community of Joggins, 10 Cumberland County fire departments responded to a massive fire. Seven buildings were burning, including homes, a church, and the Masonic Hall. The responding fire departments included Joggins, River Hebert, Advocate, Port Greville, Parrsboro, Southampton, Amherst, Springhill, Leicester, and Truemanville. The Oxford department provided coverage in the Springhill area during the fire.

The vast majority of these firefighters were volunteers who left the comfort of their own homes and their families to protect the lives and property of others. Thanks to their efforts, the fire was contained and no lives were lost. It should never be lost on those of us who live in the rural parts of this country the contribution our first responders, including our firefighters, police, emergency service personal, and others make on our behalf. They spend hundreds of volunteer hours training to fight disasters just like what we saw in Joggins last night.

Our hearts and prayers go out to the community members, particularly those who lost their property.

National Police Week Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I want to acknowledge our front-line law-enforcement officers across Canada for the commitment they make each and every day to our safety and to the security of our neighbourhoods and communities. This being National Police Week, it is important that Canadians take this opportunity to reflect on the work the men and women in uniform do, which at times places them in harm's way.

Across the country, police officers and police services are present within our communities and take direct action in response to criminal activities, social unrest, and even mental health issues. As well, they contribute to public confidence in safe communities. Throughout National Police Week, I ask all members to reflect on the contribution made not only by front-line officers but also by the members of their families. It is the families that share most directly the risks and challenges faced by those serving in police services across Canada. We thank them.

(1410) [ Translation ] Donald Savoie Mr. Robert Goguen (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Donald Savoie, one of the laureates of the 2015 Killam Prize. These honours are awarded every year to Canadian researchers who have made outstanding contributions to research over the years. [ English ] I cannot think of a more deserving recipient than Mr. Donald Savoie, a leading expert on public policy and federalism.

Professor Savoie holds the Canada Research Chair in Public Administration and Governance and is the founder of the Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development at I'Université de Moncton. Mr. Savoie is also an Officer of the Order of Canada, a member of the Order of New Brunswick, and a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. His published research can be widely found in bookshops from coast to coast. He is truly an expert in Canadian governance. [ Translation ] Congratulations, Mr. Savoie.

[ English ] Tribute Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Peter Chalykoff from Wawa, who is celebrating 25 years as a deacon. Those who know Peter will attest to his eternally positive attitude and infectious engagement in the communities he serves as deacon in Wawa and Hawk Junction. His friends say he seems to know everyone and is always ready to help. Born into a large family, Peter grew up active in the church, but his path toward becoming a deacon was not a straight line.

In fact, Peter drifted away from the church as a young adult but found his way back, ultimately becoming part of a group of parishioners who wanted to serve in a larger role. Under the guidance of Fathers Randy Thomas, Jim Kessler, and Mark Vaulk, Peter studied diligently and was ordained as a permanent deacon on May 6, 1990. A special mass to celebrate Peter's silver anniversary will be held this Saturday at St. Monica's Catholic Church where friends, family, and the congregation will show their appreciation for Peter Chalykoff and his 25 years of faithful service to the community. Congratulations, Peter.

Multiple Sclerosis Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada has the highest rate of multiple sclerosis in the world. Not only do 100,000 Canadians live with the disease, but their families, friends, and communities do as well. As Canadians, we have a two times greater risk of developing MS than if we lived in France, a 13 times greater risk than if we lived in Argentina, and a 27 times greater risk than if we lived in Pakistan. MS is Canada's disease, and we have to join to fight across the nation.

The unpredictability and sometimes invisible nature of this disease creates a challenge for Canadians living with MS and their caregivers, as it affects their employment and financial security as a result. Canadians with MS need our support to ensure continued employment, while respecting the daily challenges they face. Today and for the month of May, MS Awareness Month, Canadians are wearing carnations to show solidarity with the MS community in the fight against MS. I urge each of us to join this fight to end MS in our lifetime and to affect positive change in the lives of those impacted by the disease today.

Member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, about six weeks from now, this House will rise for the last time in the 41st Parliament, and I will be one of the more than 35 MPs who have decided to leave this place, by choice. I have enjoyed the 11 years I have spent here, but like all hon. members, I can only do my job because of the support I get from my staff. Therefore, I would like to thank my staff both here in Ottawa and back in Lindsay in my constituency office.

Beyond my staff, also like all members, I can only do this job because of the support I get from my family. As we approach Mother's Day, I would like to speak to the two most important women in my life, my mother, June Devolin, and my wife, Ursula Devolin. I thank them for the support they have given me over the years that allowed me to do my job in this place.

[ Translation ] Portneuf Women's Centre Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the first anniversary of the founding of the board of directors of the Centre Femmes de Portneuf. Created on May 8, 2014, this community organization is dedicated to providing women with a place to meet new people and talk to each other, as well as sharing information and taking concrete action to improve the conditions and quality of life of the women in the greater Portneuf area.

The staff at the Centre Femmes de Portneuf has worked very hard to make a difference and become a strong voice for the women of Portneuf. After just one year, this centre has a number of important achievements to its credit, including establishing a women's exhibition, hosting coffee hours, creating community engagement groups, as well as promoting the services available to women in the region. All of the work done by Julie Blackburn, chair of the board, and her entire team is quite impressive.

I want to thank each and every one of those women who invest so much in making the Portneuf RCM a great place to live, where everyone is treated equally and with respect.

(1415) [ English ] Taxation Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government makes no apologies for ensuring middle class Canadians are aware of the measures that put more money back in their pockets. For example, we want Canadians to know about the new family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit, which will benefit 100% of families with children, the vast majority of benefits going to low and middle-income families The Liberal leader's plan will do the exact opposite. Instead of a family tax cut, he will bring in a family tax hike.

Unlike the NDP or the Liberals, Canadians like those in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie can depend upon this government to leave more money in their pockets.

Alberta Election Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, to quote Alberta's premier-elect, “This is what change looks like”. I think we made a bit of history last night. An early spring blizzard hit Alberta, but it did not dampen our spirits because we also experienced an orange chinook. Albertans looked in the mirror and decided it was time for change, a monumental change. Albertans embraced Notley's message that they did not need to repeat history, instead they could make history, and make it they did, electing the first strong majority NDP government for Alberta.

The NDP ran on a platform of hope, putting families first and ensuring a genuinely sustainable resource development for Alberta. I look forward to working with my constituent, Rachel Notley, premier-elect of Alberta. As the media have said about Rachel Notley, “This is what a political phenomena looks like”. Indeed.

Taxation Mrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party has shown his priority for middle class families, high taxes. Instead of a family tax cut, he introduced a family tax hike. The Liberal leader will raise taxes on families earning less than $60,000, who use tax free savings accounts. The Liberal leader admitted that he needs to raise taxes to fill the $2 billion hole in his plan. The Liberal leader will have no choice but to raise taxes, including taking away income-splitting for pensioners and taking away the tax free savings accounts entirely.

Multiple Sclerosis Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, May is MS Awareness Month. In what has become a tradition in this place, the MS Society is here to pin carnations on MPs to bring attention to this challenging disease. Canada is famous for hockey in the world, but we are infamous because we have the largest number of MS sufferers globally. While there is no defined cause for multiple sclerosis, new research tells us that there are many factors: lifestyle, environmental, genetic and biological. We must do more research. There is no cure for MS.

New treatments continue to evolve, allowing people to be able to work and live better lives, although there is still workplace discrimination. Those with MS and their families face financial challenges, the stress of caregiving and the need for home retrofits. I encourage all members to reach out to local MS chapters in their regions, learn about MS and the needs of these Canadians, and commit to funding research into causes and finding a cure.

Taxation Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government designed our family tax cut and the universal child care benefit to ensure that every Canadian family with children will have more money in their pockets to help make ends meet. That is because we know that Canadian families know how best to spend their hard-earned money. The Liberal leader does not want a family tax cut, he plans to bring in a family tax hike. Liberals do not like our Conservative plan to give money back to Canadian families because they think Canadians will spend it on beer and popcorn. In fact, I think the member for Toronto Centre spoke for all Liberals when she said, “Amen to raising taxes”.

(1420) Alberta Election Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, history was made in Alberta last night. The Prime Minister and most of his Alberta cabinet colleagues and MPS woke up today to an NDP MLA and an NDP premier. Indeed, the good folks of Alberta voted for change, and a fresh start. They voted to end 44 years of Conservative rule and reject the ways of the old-style parties. They voted to elect Rachel Notley and the Alberta NDP to be their strong, stable majority government. Albertans proved that you can vote for the change they want and actually get it.

Albertans voted to build a more diversified and resilient economy. They voted for better health care and a good education for their children. They voted for good jobs and a new sustainable approach. We want to extend our hearty congratulations to premier-elect Rachel Notley. Her campaign was optimistic, forward thinking, and respectful. As we approach October 19, 2015 we are again reminded of what the late Jack Layton said so often, “Don't let them tell you it can't be done”. Congratulations Alberta NDP.

Taxation Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party admitted that his plan for higher taxes has a $2 billion hole in it. The Liberal leader admitted that he will have to raise taxes on people earning less than $60,000 a year by cancelling their expanded tax free savings accounts. He admitted that he would replace the Conservative family tax cut with a Liberal family tax hike. He admitted that he would get rid of the universal child care benefit, yet he also admitted that after all those tax hikes, he would still have a $2 billion hole.

We know how the Liberal leader will fill this $2 billion hole. He will have to raise taxes. With the Liberal leader's opposition to income-splitting for families, we can be sure he will also cancel income-splitting for seniors. Middle class Canadian families know they can trust the Prime Minister and our Conservative government to keep their taxes low and to protect the benefits they already receive.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] National Defence Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Deschamps report describes an alarming number of cases of harassment and sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces. The report also shows that military and civilian leaders have failed miserably when it comes to finding a solution to these problems. Despite these appalling revelations, the Minister of National Defence has said that he is going to ignore eight of the 10 recommendations made in the report.

Does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable to ignore eight out of 10 recommendations? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what the hon. Leader of the Opposition just said is completely and 100% false. The Chief of the Defence Staff was clear last week: the Canadian Armed Forces accept the 10 recommendations set out in the report and are taking this matter very seriously. Sexual misconduct of any kind has no place in the Canadian Armed Forces. The military has already begun to implement two of the recommendations.

It accepts the other eight and has appointed Major-General Whitecross to implement them. [ English ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Deschamps report says very clearly that military leadership turned a blind eye to rampant harassment and sexual assault. Another brave soldier has just come forward to report sexual assault, Corporal Esther Wolki. Corporal Wolki had to go to the media because commanders refused to take her reports seriously. These soldiers have fought for us. It is time we fight for them. This is the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Will he stand up and tell his minister that two out ten is not a passing grade when it comes to ensuring that women in our military are not subject to sexual harassment? His mark is 20%. Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the government and Canadian Armed Forces agree with the leader of the opposition. I believe all Canadians believe that any form of sexual aggression is totally inappropriate in the Canadian Armed Forces and must be dealt with in the severest way possible.

It is why the Chief of the Defence Staff appointed Madam Justice Deschamps to lead this inquiry. It is why he has accepted all 10 recommendations. It is why he has appointed General Whitecross to implement those recommendations, and not 2 of the 10, but 10 of the 10.

(1425) Ethics Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on April 22, the Prime Minister claimed that, as head of government, he knew that Mike Duffy was a resident of P.E.I. because Duffy signed a declaration stating that he was a resident of P.E.I. before he was sworn in. Those are the Prime Minister's nominations. Will the Prime Minister provide that declaration, which he said existed prior to the nomination, to Canadians? He said that Duffy signed it before being named. Canadians have a right to see it. Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the constitutional principle on this has been clear for almost 150 years. As members know, the case is before the courts. It would be inappropriate to comment on evidence before the court. At the same time, we know that the leader of the opposition is just one of 68 members of the NDP caucus who owe $2.7 million. The leader of the opposition himself owes taxpayers $400,000. I would encourage him to actually pay that $400,000 and encourage the rest of the members to do the same. Hon.

Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the problem is that this evidence is not before the courts, contrary to what the member just said. The problem is that evidence does not exist. What the Prime Minister said here in the House was that he had a document signed by Duffy prior to the nomination. In the same way, he said that he accepted, with regret, the resignation of Nigel Wright and then boasted on radio in Atlantic Canada that he had fired the sorry son of a gun. That is the difference. One cannot say one thing and its opposite day after day and expect Canadians to believe it.

Where is the document? Where is the declaration that the Prime Minister of Canada told Canadians existed, which was signed by Duffy prior to his being named to the Senate? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, it would be, obviously, inappropriate to comment on evidence that is before the court. However, when the member talks about a sorry son of a gun, it is actually NDP members who owe Canadian taxpayers, 68 of them, $2.7 million. Another 23 of them owe over $1.1 million.

We know that the leader of the opposition has, within his own office, a union member doing partisan work against the rules of this House. The NDP accepted $350,000 in illegal union donations, robocalls, and it goes on and on. Pay it back. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, here is the problem: in the beginning, the Prime Minister said that he had never given instructions to Nigel Wright. Then, we learned from a signed email that Nigel Wright said that he had the good to go from the Prime Minister.

Next, the Prime Minister said that he had regretfully accepted Nigel Wright's resignation. Finally, he boasted that he was the one who sent Mr. Wright packing. Both versions cannot be true. Here in the House, on April 22, the Prime Minister told Canadians that before appointing Mike Duffy to the Senate, he had obtained a signed declaration from Mr. Duffy indicating that he was a resident of Prince Edward Island, as required under the Constitution. Canadians have the right to see that document, otherwise, they will not believe that it exists. Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I already said, this matter is before the court and so it would be inappropriate to comment. However, there are other questions. For example, why did the member for Québec funnel nearly $30,000 that was intended for her riding to an illegal office in Montreal? I hope that the member for Québec will do the right thing and pay the people of Quebec City back that $30,000.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Prime Minister started giving thousands of dollars in benefits to wealthy families like his and mine. Now, 10 years later, he is giving them a $2,000 tax break and thousands more each year. When will he understand that those families do not need the help? Fairness means asking those who have done well to help those who need it the most. Why not cancel those tax breaks and benefits for the wealthy?

(1430) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Prime Minister brought in the universal child care benefit for every family in Canada. He brought it in for families with incomes of $20,000. He brought it in for families with incomes of $30,000. He brought it in for families of $40,000. However, the Liberal leader thinks that all of those people are too rich and, as a result, he would raise their taxes. His plan has a $2 billion hole, which he admits.

Economists say that his tax increases do not raise enough money to fund his spending. The only way he can fill his hole is through more high taxes on the middle class. Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, a $2 billion tax break that favours the wealthy, a higher tax-free savings limit for the wealthy and thousands more in child benefits for those who need the help the least, that is the Prime Minister 's plan. Our plan offers thousands more every year, tax free to those who need it most. Why did he not instead use every nickel to help the middle class and those working to join it? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader should know that budgets do not balance themselves, and neither does his platform. He admits there is a $2 billion hole in his platform. On top of that, economists say that his proposed tax increases will not raise the money necessary to fund his expensive promises. He has a massive financial hole. The only way to fill that hole will be higher taxes on the middle class. He already wants to take away income splitting from families.

We know he would take it away from seniors too. [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, every year for almost 10 years now, the Prime Minister has been giving billions of dollars in tax relief to families like his and mine. The Prime Minister has misplaced priorities. Our plan shows that we can give more to families who need it most by asking for a little more from those who have the means. Why did the Prime Minister not choose to help the middle class and those who are working hard to join it? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader already admitted that there is a giant $2 billion hole in his plan. What is more, economists say that these tax increases will not be enough to fill the hole he created with his election promises. What do the Liberals do when they do not have enough money? They increase taxes for families. The hon. member already said that he wants to scrap income splitting for families. He will do exactly the same thing for seniors. [ English ] Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, Canadian families are looking for help in the face of risings costs like child care and housing. Instead the Conservatives plan to waste billions on an income-splitting scheme that will not benefit 85% of Canadians. That is just slightly worse than the Liberal tax scheme that would also spend billions and would leave the bottom two-thirds of Canadians behind. Last night, voters clearly showed they were tired of the same old choices when it came to economic policy. What will it take for those Conservatives to get the message? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the message from Albertans and from all Canadians is they do not want higher taxes. That is why we have cut taxes. The family tax cut and benefits put more money in the pockets of 100% of families with kids. The income splitting for families saves up to $2,000 for couples with kids. Our increased universal child care benefit will pay almost $2,000 per child under 6 and $720 for kids 6 through 17. The Liberals and NDP have billions of dollars in promises.

The only way they could pay the price of those promises is by raising taxes on the middle class. That is why middle-class Canadians will elect this government. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the middle class is losing ground. However, it is the same old story with the other parties. The Conservatives are going to waste billions of dollars on income splitting, which will only benefit 15% of Canadians. The Liberal tax plan will also cost billions of dollars and will give nothing to two-thirds of Canadians.

Will the government abandon its budget, which only benefits the wealthiest, and introduce a real plan for the middle class?

(1435) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing by reducing taxes for families and increasing the child care benefit. Income splitting and the family tax cut will give nearly $2 billion to families with children. Our increase in the universal child care benefit, the UCCB, will provide almost $2,000 for every child under 6 years of age and $720 for every child between 6 and 17. The Liberals and the NDP are making election promises worth billions of dollars, which they will finance with tax increases. That is why the middle class will choose the Conservative Party.

Alberta Election Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that Canadians are ready for change and for a leadership based on principles. Yesterday Albertans voted for a government that will promote economic growth and prosperity for all Albertans. They voted in favour of a diversified economy that will create good jobs. Albertans also voted to put an end to the roller coaster boom and bust cycle. Will the Conservatives now work with the provinces to take a responsible and, especially, sustainable approach to economic growth? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing by lowering taxes for the middle class. We increased the limit for tax-free savings accounts, and 60% of TFSA users earn less than $60,000 a year. The New Democrats and the Liberals want to eliminate this benefit by increasing taxes for people who earn less than $60,000 a year. We are putting money directly into the pockets of parents and taxpayers. The New Democrats and the Liberals would increase taxes. That is why Canadians will reject them.

[ English ] Natural Resources Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Albertans made their voices heard loud and clear. They are tired of the Conservatives' unbalanced boom and bust approach. Instead, they voted for a diversified and more resilient economy. They voted for optimism and principles. They voted for a government that would build bridges and open markets, and be a good partner in creating value-added, sustainable jobs for all Albertans in all sectors.

Will the Conservatives here finally get the message from Albertans and work with the provinces on a new, more progressive approach to resource development? Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, responsible resource development creates jobs and economic growth, while protecting the health and safety of communities and the environment. We look forward to the opportunity to work with the new premier. There is no question that market diversification is an imperative.

Countries around the world are looking for that kind of partnership with Canada. We offer fiscal stability and political stability. Moving forward with Alberta, we look forward to the opportunity to serve those new markets and continue to develop our resources responsibly.

Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, responsible economic development requires a more constructive relationship, not just with the provinces but with indigenous peoples. The government has refused to engage respectfully. It has refused to build partnerships and respect indigenous rights. However, as Alberta premier-elect Rachel Notley noted yesterday, we can be better partners and we can learn from our mistakes. Will the Conservative government take Alberta's lead, implement Bill C-641 , and respect indigenous rights in Canada? Hon.

Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the highest form of aboriginal and treaty rights acknowledgement and protection is constitutional protection.

Section 35 of the Constitution of Canada does that. Furthermore, the human rights of all Canadians, including aboriginals, are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other constitutional guarantees. We do not need any legislation that is lesser than the Constitution of Canada. Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I suggest the minister across listens to premier-elect Rachel Notley's speech yesterday, when she said that her government had been entrusted to be better neighbours and better partners with indigenous peoples in Alberta.

She looks forward to consultations and to learn from indigenous peoples in her province. The federal government has disrespected indigenous peoples time and time again. Will it take Alberta's lead? Will it stand up and respect the rights of indigenous peoples as it goes forward? Will things turn out the way they turned out yesterday?

(1440) Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to learn from the member that Alberta will follow the lead of the federal government. Whenever we tried to give human rights, basic rights, to first nations in our country, that party and the member voted against it. I am talking about marital property rights. Why would they vote against them? Furthermore, anytime— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order, please. Unfortunately, the minister has run out of time. I would ask members to come to order. There is quite a lot of chatter back and forth. The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan .

[ Translation ] Public Safety Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is not too late for the Conservatives and the Liberals to change course and listen to the millions of Canadians who oppose Bill C-51 . Experts, jurists, business people and even former prime ministers agree: Bill C-51 is ineffective and dangerous and will undermine our security and our rights. Will all of the parties join us today in rejecting Bill C-51 and protecting Canadians' rights and freedoms once and for all? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it is not too late for the New Democrats to wake up and take steps to protect the more than 30 million Canadians who were attacked by terrorists here in Ottawa and in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. We increased police resources seven times, and the New Democrats were against that. We implemented measures to fight terrorism and strategies to prevent it. They were against that too. Recently, we announced measures enabling our agents to exchange information with our partners. Once again, the NDP was against that. Again this evening, they are going to vote against this bill.

However, Canadians can count on a Conservative government to protect the Canadian people. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not have to choose between their safety and their rights, despite what the other parties would have them believe. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have stood in this House and made all kinds of pronouncements that prey on people's fears. We in the NDP will not allow fear to triumph over our principles. We will stand up today to defend our rights and our freedoms, and we will oppose Bill C-51 . Will the Liberals and the Conservatives follow our lead?

Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I invite the NDP members to be guided by the Supreme Court, which has said that the Security Intelligence Review Committee is a model that strikes a balance between the protection of information and the procedural rights of individuals. When will the New Democrats join us in taking measured, effective action? Will the NDP support our budget, which doubles resources? What I really want to say is, “Wake up, NDP!” [ English ] Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, today New Democrats are joining over 100,000 Canadians who are calling on Liberals and Conservatives to do the right thing and stop Bill C-51 . Tonight this House will take a final vote on this dangerous bill. It is the last chance for Liberal and Conservative members to stand up for our rights and freedoms and vote against a bill that we all know is fatally flawed. Will the government take this last opportunity to change course? Will it listen to so many experts and so many Canadians and scrap this dangerous bill? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it is the last time for the NDP to join the Muslims Facing Tomorrow, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, to join the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, because they say we need strong tools that also protect the rights of Canadians. We need to make sure that the jihadi international terrorists who are threatening us are prevented from acting by filling the gap of our information sharing. We will stand up for Canadians. Let us vote tonight to have a safer country.

(1445) [ Translation ] Taxation Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party is proposing to lower the tax rate for the middle class. It is a simple and fair plan that applies to everyone. Today, I am giving the Conservative government another chance to answer this question, because Canadians deserve a straight answer. Are the Conservatives, like the NDP, against having a new tax bracket for people who earn $200,000 or more in order to give back to the middle class, yes or no? [ English ] Yes or no? [ Translation ] Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader should know that budgets do not balance themselves. His election platform is not balancing itself either. The fact remains that there is at least a $2 billion shortfall. What is more, economists say that these tax hikes will not collect enough money to fill the other holes in his plan. He will have to increase taxes for the middle class in order to fill the financial holes in his plan. This includes eliminating income splitting for seniors. [ English ] Hon.

Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, if we focus on the middle class and all those working so hard just to get there; if we focus on fairness and growth and giving everyone a decent chance to succeed; if that is our objective, then Canada should have a bigger and better child benefit, one that is clean and simple, fair and tax free across the board, one that provides more help to nine out of ten Canadian families, middle and lower income families, the ones that need that help. It is basic common sense. Why is the government against it? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, a multibillion dollar financial hole is not common sense. It is the opposite, in fact. The Liberal leader admits he has a $2-billion hole, but on top of that, economists say that his tax increases will not be sufficient to fund his billions in additional promises. This is a massive hole that the Liberals would fill by raising taxes on the middle class. The Liberals admit they would cancel income splitting for families.

They would also have to do it for seniors, among other tax increases necessary to fill that massive hole. Will the Liberal member stand up now and explain how he will fill that financial hole? Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am the one member of this House who actually balanced a budget. These guys inherited 10 Liberal balanced budgets and created $150 billion in new Conservative debt. This government is a fiscal fraud.

Now the Conservatives are punishing single moms and dads, who can never qualify for income splitting, but they are gifting a $2,000 tax break every year to those earning a quarter of a million dollars. Why are Conservatives against a tax cut for the middle class, across the board, and why are they against a better child benefit, more generous and fair? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there is nothing generous or fair about raising taxes on the middle class, which is exactly what the Liberal Party would have to do.

The Liberals admit that they have a $2-billion hole in their plan. On top of that $2-billion hole, economists say proposed Liberal tax increases will not be sufficient to cover the costs of Liberal spending promises. We know what Liberals do when they have multibillion-dollar financial holes. They raise taxes on middle-class Canadians. They already admit that they are going to raise taxes by cancelling income splitting for families. They will do that to seniors, too.

[ Translation ] National Defence Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, after being forced to remove images endangering our special forces soldiers from the Web, the Prime Minister's Office had to admit that it made a serious mistake. However, again yesterday, a senior official said that these images did not violate security protocols. That is ridiculous. Our soldiers were obviously put at risk by this propaganda campaign. How could the Prime Minister have let this happen? Was there no one in his office who thought to say that it might not be a good idea?

(1450) Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, when concerns were raised about certain images, the government immediately took them down to verify whether protocols had been properly followed. After another review, the government decided that two of the videos should not have been posted. We regret the error, and we are reviewing the protocols for the publication of such images. [ English ] Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this so-called error is shocking.

DND obviously knew that any images that could identify our special forces were a security risk. That is why it requires journalists to sign an undertaking that they would not publish such images. Why, then, did no one in the PMO stop to think that its video violated these very simple rules promulgated by DND? Why did it later claim that DND had actually approved the video when that was not true? Why did the Prime Minister allow our troops to be put at risk to have a photo op for himself? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, contrary to the member's inaccurate assertions, as the Chief of the Defence Staff has said in a statement issued last night, there was no risk to personnel, which is why there is no requirement for any Canadian Armed Forces personnel to be withdrawn from Operation Impact. The government regrets the error and will take every possible measure to ensure that it is not repeated in the future. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Why did he tell the journalists, Mr. Speaker?

It has been six days since Madam Justice Deschamps tabled her devastating report into the systemic problem of sexual harassment and assault in our military: a fundamental disregard for the rights of women. We need confidence that the report's recommendations be fully implemented, not just studied or deemed interesting ideas, and that there be a review of the military justice system that so utterly failed these women and men. Will the minister act swiftly to personally ensure that all recommendations are fully implemented and will he commit to a review of how the military justice system handles these cases? Hon.

Jason Kenney (Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, of course, sexual assault of any kind, in any aspect of Canadian society, is completely deplorable and unacceptable. That is particularly true in the Canadian Armed Forces, which is why General Lawson commissioned this report by former Madam Justice Deschamps and it is why he and the military leadership have committed to implementing all 10 of its recommendations. Progress has already been made on two.

I think, realistically, we cannot expect all 10 recommendations to be implemented in six days; however, General Whitecross has been charged with this mandate and is making progress. We will ensure that the job is completed to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces is a safe environment for women and all people to work in. [ Translation ] Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, does the minister understand how urgent this situation really is?

According to the report by Justice Deschamps, harassment and sexual assault are not taken seriously by senior staff and leaders in the Canadian Armed Forces. The report clearly accuses the Canadian Armed Forces of maintaining a culture that is hostile toward women. That is a disgrace to Canada. It is degrading and insulting to all of the women who protect and defend our country. Does the minister realize how serious this situation is and is he prepared to personally commit to changing it? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, obviously all Canadians, all parliamentarians and all military personnel agree that sexual assault is completely unacceptable. That is why the Chief of the Defence Staff asked Justice Deschamps to conduct a review, that is why the Canadian Armed Forces accepted all 10 recommendations and that is why Major-General Whitecross was appointed by the Chief of the Defence Staff to implement the recommendations. Obviously, as minister, I will be keeping a close eye on the military's progress in implementing these recommendations.

[ English ] Public Safety Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of all the crimes in the Criminal Code, child porn is one of the worst of the worst. The idea that criminals are exchanging materials that exploit our most vulnerable in our society is a deeply troubling one. Canadians want to know that the individuals who partake in this kind of trade will face justice and have to answer for their actions. We have heard today of an important operation aimed at countering child porn. Could the Minister of Public Safety update the House regarding the details?

(1455) Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will, but let me thank the great member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her outstanding commitment against human trafficking and child exploitation. I would like to inform the House that more than three dozen people have been arrested in connection with a child pornography ring operating in 17 countries, one of whom is an individual who may have had more 2,000 victims. [ Translation ] We will continue to target these people who are going after our treasured young people, and we will continue to protect our children.

We will put these criminals behind bars. We will put legislation in place, such as our sexual predator registry.

[ English ] Employment Insurance Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when it comes to giving benefits to the wealthy while ignoring the rest of us, Conservatives are consistent. Less than 40% of unemployed Canadians receive unemployment insurance benefits, but instead of improving access and making sure that the unemployed can put food on their table, the Conservatives chose instead to use the EI account to give benefits to the wealthy Canadians who do not need them. This money belongs to workers. Why are the Conservatives raiding the EI fund to pay for their bad policies? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member's question is false. In fact, the budget put out a policy wherein the EI account balances over time and EI premiums pay for EI benefits. What the NDP wants is a 45-day work year, where people would work for 45 days and then they would collect EI for the rest of the year. This would cost billions of dollars. Of course, workers and small businesses who employ them would pay for it through higher payroll taxes. We believe the opposite.

There will be a surplus in the 2017 year and we will use it to cut premiums by 21%. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, if you are among the 1.3 million Canadians without work, you are certainly not a priority for the Conservatives. In their latest budget, instead of using the EI surplus to help the far too many unemployed workers, they instead chose to offer programs that will almost exclusively help the wealthiest.

Less than 40% of unemployed workers qualify for EI, so when will the Conservatives stop using the premiums paid by workers and employers to finance their election goodies instead of supporting workers when they are going through difficult times? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the question is false. There was a deficit in the EI fund during the recession. The fund is now paying back that deficit. In 2017 we will lower premiums for workers and employers by 21%. The New Democrats want to bring in a 45-day work year.

People would work for just 45 days to be eligible for one year of EI. That is ridiculous.

Quebec Bridge Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday my leader and I announced that the NDP has a realistic and practical solution to resolve the Quebec Bridge painting problem, a problem that the Conservatives have allowed to fester for 10 years. I will introduce a bill requiring owners of heritage rail infrastructure, such as the Quebec Bridge, to maintain the historic state of that infrastructure at the owners' expense. Does the minister agree with our solution? Hon.

Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is the only one to have come up with a proposal that would enable us to move forward with our partners— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : The hon. minister has the floor. I would ask the members to let him answer the question. Hon. Denis Lebel : Mr. Speaker, the NDP's proposal is nothing but a political mirage. Given the House of Commons'

schedule from now until the end of the summer and the upcoming election, they know perfectly well that they will never vote on it. This is one more indication that they are not taking their work seriously. We will continue to do our work by putting meaningful proposals on the table, not mirages like this one.

(1500) Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, to get elected 10 years ago, the Conservatives made fun of the Liberals, saying that they could not even get a bridge painted. The trick is to pretend to have the money, provided that CN puts in $100 million, even though it is not obligated to do so, since the courts ruled in its favour. Here is the trick: a Conservative government that said, “Our regions in power", when what it really means is, “Our regions left to rust”. If they wanted, they could pass that bill. One, two, three. Why all the usual dithering? Hon.

Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we know that the member ran a photo contest for the Quebec Bridge. He probably did not have a picture of his leader in front of the bridge. We worked hard to invest the $100 million— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! [ English ] The Speaker : Order. The minister has been asked a question and he is in the process of answering it. Members need to come to order to allow him to do so. The hon.

Minister of Infrastructure. [ Translation ] Hon. Denis Lebel : Mr. Speaker, the NDP just got out of its own commitments with CN regarding what they want to do. CN must immediately respect its commitment to the people of Quebec City. With our partners, we have invested $100 million. CN has to do its part. A bill is not going to change that.

[ English ] National Defence Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, DND forbids the media from taking pictures of Canadian Forces members in Iraq and Kuwait, saying it would put them and their families in direct danger, but the Prime Minister 's taxpayer-funded propaganda site clearly showed the troops' faces. The government first claimed it did nothing wrong, then blamed the department, and then backtracked and admitted its mistake. This is a mistake, by the way, that the minister has also made.

Who will the Prime Minister fire, or will no one be held to account for putting our troops and their families in danger? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have made no such mistake. We have only ever posted images released by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces for public consumption. With respect to the matter this week, obviously an error was made, and that is regrettable. The images were removed as soon as this was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister's Office.

The protocols are being reviewed to ensure that such an error does not occur in the future. The Chief of the Defence Staff has issued a statement indicating that this has not placed members of the Canadian Armed Forces in harm's way and that therefore none will be removed from the theatre. I think it would be more responsible for the member to engage in issues like this factually, rather than with over-the-top exaggeration.

International Trade Ms. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, speaking of shameless photo ops, despite hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on ceremonies and announcements, the CETA deal has stalled. Conservative rhetoric on trade just does not match the results. There was a $3 billion trade deficit in March, a historic record. Our share of western export to Asia has been cut in half, and we are at risk of being kicked out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The government prefers talking points over market access, photo ops over real export opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. When will the Conservatives take some real action on trade? Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is this Conservative government that has taken action on trade. In fact, over the last nine years we have concluded trade agreements with 38 different countries and there are many more to come. Compare that to the awful Liberal record on trade. Over 13 long years, there were three small trade agreements.

The Liberals got absolutely nothing done. This government understands how important trade and investment are in driving future economic growth in our country. The Liberal Party has proven time and again that it has absolutely no credibility on trade.

Seniors Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today many parliamentarians are fasting to raise awareness about hunger in Canada as part of Food Banks Canada's Every Plate Full campaign. Seven per cent of seniors in Canada depend on food banks. Even though they receive pension benefits, they just do not have enough to make ends meet. No one, and certainly no senior, should ever go hungry. Why are the Conservatives refusing to implement a national seniors strategy that would allow our seniors to retire in dignity? Hon. Alice Wong (Minister of State (Seniors), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, when it comes to seniors poverty, our government has a record we can be proud of. Canada has one of the lowest seniors poverty rates in the world, thanks in part to our actions, which include removing hundreds of thousands of seniors from the tax rolls completely, making significant investments in affordable housing for low-income seniors, and introducing the largest GIS increase in a quarter century. Canadians know that they can count on our government to deliver for seniors. (1505) [ Translation ] Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, seniors deserve better than that.

A recent report by a trustee in bankruptcy in Ontario clearly shows that seniors and pre-retirees are making up a growing proportion of people declaring bankruptcy and that they are deeper in debt than young people are. By increasing the eligibility age for the guaranteed income supplement and old age security to 67, the Conservatives are only making life more difficult for our seniors. Why is the government turning its back on seniors and, worse yet, why is it hindering their financial well-being? [ English ] Hon. Alice Wong (Minister of State (Seniors), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, again, when it comes to seniors poverty, our government has a record we can be proud of. Canada has one of the lowest seniors poverty rates in the world, thanks in part to our actions, which include removing hundreds of thousands of seniors from the tax rolls completely, making significant investments in affordable housing for low-income seniors, and introducing the largest GIS increase in a quarter century. Canadians know that they can count on our government to deliver for seniors. Those members voted against each and every one of them.

Taxation Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I travel through my riding speaking to parents about how they plan to save enough money for their kids to attend school, play hockey and partake in extracurriculars, which defines what it means to be a kid here in Canada, their answer has been the same, that this government's family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit, which benefits 100% of families with children, is the answer.

Could the Minister of Employment and Social Development please give the House an update about the benefits of our government's plan to support Canada's middle class? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the family tax cuts and benefits put money in the pockets of 100% of families with kids. The increase in the universal child care benefit to $2,000 per child under six and $720 for kids six through seventeen will help many families, in fact, all of them.

The income splitting or family tax cut will help families where one spouse earns more than the other. The Liberals said that they want to take that away, raising taxes on millions of families, but if they are going to take away income splitting for families, we can count on them to take it away from seniors. We will not let them do that.

Infrastructure Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I see the members on that side cannot get the Minister of Finance to answer a question either. Twenty-seven mayors from Ontario's largest cities were in Ottawa this week. They are feeling a little ignored. They are tired of being treated unfairly by the Conservative government. There is no new money for infrastructure this year, after no money last year. Roads, bridges, transit, they just do not build themselves. Cities need some help.

I have been asking the Minister of Finance to explain, but he is as tough to find these days as a Tory in Alberta; tough to find. Why do these mayors have to wait? Why can these mayors not get help this year from the government? Why can they not get help now? Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is the longest and largest infrastructure plan in Canadian history. We already transferred $2 billion last year out of the gas tax fund.

We will do the same this year. We will continue to do that all across the country, in support and in respect of jurisdictions with the provinces and municipalities.

Marine Safety Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in yet another devastating blow to marine safety in Canada, the St. Anthony Coast Guard communications and traffic centre in Newfoundland will close later this year. Distress calls for the Great Northern Peninsula will now be answered outside the area, even outside the province. The mayor and residents of St. Anthony are waving red flags. The Conservatives are sacrificing the safety of our mariners. Lives are on the line. When will the government make the safety of our mariners the number one priority? Mr.

Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the member's question, he seems not to understand the changes that are being made. Through investments made by our government, we are replacing decades-old equipment with modern state-of-the-art technology in strategically located centres. This new technology will improve workload so that our highly trained Coast Guard employees will have an even greater ability to focus on the services that they provide.

The member will find detailed information on the Coast Guard website and I encourage him to review it.

(1510) Telecommunications Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that our government is providing more choice, lower prices and better services for their cellphone plans. Unlike the opposition parties who want higher taxes and thus higher prices, we will continue to support policies that lead to more competition, lower prices and lower taxes. Could the Minister of Industry please give the House an update on our government's reaction to yesterday's decision by the CRTC? Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the CRTC decision from yesterday is an important contribution to ensuring that we have more competition in Canada's wireless sector. By putting a cap on roaming rates and ensuring that access to roaming is going to be accessible to new players, it is going to create more competition all across this country. We have put more spectrum into the hands of the private sector, and therefore Canadians, than any government before in Canada's history. It is essential that we keep having policies that will keep us competitive so consumers have more choice, lower prices and more competition in all regions of Canada.

[ Translation ] Foreign Affairs Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a number of Canadians are currently stuck in Nepal. Many of them are looking for alternative ways to get out of that country because our government does not have enough resources on the ground. However, other foreign nationals are not running into the same problems getting services from their government. How does the minister explain the fact that Canadians stuck in Nepal are still having a hard time getting consular services from their own country? [ English ] Hon.

Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we thank the Canadian Forces for their hard work in evacuating Canadians out of Nepal. On three separate occasions, a C-17 has been available to evacuate Canadian citizens that require assistance. We deployed additional consular staff to help deal with the crisis. We have a dedicated staff that worked around the clock for the emergency watch and response centre. We sent hundreds of emergency travel documents to assist travel. Consular operations are being run out of the Canadian consulate in Kathmandu and New Delhi.

I urge Canadians and their families, if they have more concerns, to contact the emergency watch and response centre.

[ Translation ] Sports Mr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, FD) : Mr. Speaker, in April, during Autism Month, I informed the Minister of State for Sport about the situation of a young gymnast from Repentigny, in Lanaudière, whose dream is to participate in the Special Olympics. Even though he has the talent and his family is offering to pay his way and even though it is extremely important for people with autism to have a role model, his dream is being shattered by Special Olympics Canada, which does not recognize gymnastics as an official sport.

The Minister of State for Sport told me that he would look into this. Can he tell me when he will make his decision? [ English ] Hon. Bal Gosal (Minister of State (Sport), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate this young man for his accomplishments. My office is working with Special Olympics Canada to make sure that this matter is dealt with. We are proud of supporting our athletes, especially Special Olympics Canada. We had $10 million in last year's budget and $20 million for Olympians and Paralympians this year. We are proud of our investment in sports.

Points of Order Points of Order [ English ] Decorum Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have such enormous respect for the House. It has been 11 years of great service. If I said anything that was untoward in any heckles yesterday, I would withdraw those remarks because I want to show my respect for this institution that we are all called to serve. The Speaker : I thank the hon. member for that.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Interparliamentary Delegations The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of a Canadian parliamentary delegation concerning its visit to the United Kingdom, January 19 and 20.

Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 18 petitions.

[ Translation ] Canadian Security Intelligence Service Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service 2013-14 public report.

(1515) [ English ] Interparliamentary Delegations Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, respecting its participation at the 59th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, held in New York on March 11. Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, four reports of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group. The first report concerns the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Western Governors' Association, held in Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States, June 9 to 11, 2014. The second report concerns the 54th Annual Meeting and Regional Policy Forum of the Council of State Governments' Eastern Regional Conference, held in Baltimore, Maryland, August 3 to 6, 2014.

The third report concerns the Annual National Conference of the Council of State Governments and the Annual Meeting of the Council of State Governments-WEST, held in Anchorage, Alaska, United States, August 9 to 13, 2014. The fourth, and last, report concerns the 2014 winter meeting of the Western Governors' Association, held in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States, December 6 and 7, 2014.

Committees of the House

Public Accounts Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, is the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on

Chapter 3, Mental Health Services for Veterans, of the Fall 2014 Report of the Auditor General of Canada. Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chair of the committee. I want to tell the House about the hard work the the committee has done. On this side of the House, we appended an additional report to that main report, which talked about how we needed to ensure that our veterans would get the mental health services they deserved. The Auditor General was clear that it was not happening under the Conservative watch.

It needs to change and will have to continue to change, and that is not happening. Clearly, the Surgeon General said that it was untimely, as did the deputy minister. Veterans do not get the services they need and we need to ensure that happens. Mr. David Christopherson : Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on

Chapter 6, Nutrition North Canada—Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, of the Fall 2014 Report of the Auditor General of Canada. Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response for the 15th and 16th reports.

Public Safety and National Security Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, on Bill C-42,

An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts . The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.

Natural Resources Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in relation to the main estimates for 2015-16.

(1520) [ Translation ] Navigation Protection Act (Montmorency River and other rivers and lakes) Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) Bill C-673. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-673,

An Act to amend the Navigation Protection Act (Montmorency River and other rivers and lakes) . He said: Mr. Speaker, water is one of the most important natural resources for future generations, and it is crucial that we conserve and protect it for everyone. I am introducing this bill because the government has failed to meet this objective. I want to thank the watershed organizations that lent their expertise and contributed greatly to the drafting of this bill. These organizations, like watersheds themselves, are real watchdogs for our waterways.

They do very important work and carry out substantial projects with few resources. In collaboration with my colleagues from the Quebec City region, I conducted some extensive public consultations to hear from the people we proudly represent here in the House of Commons. The results speak for themselves. Our lakes, rivers and waterways must be protected for future generations and for the preservation of our ecosystem. In a riding like Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, which stretches along the majestic St.

Lawrence River and is full of salmon rivers and drinking water basins, it is especially true that water is central to our identity and our economy. That is why restoring federal environmental protection measures will play an important role in the long-term health of our watersheds, which are essential sources of drinking water in our regions, and will also play an important role in salmon enhancement and habitat restoration. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[ English ] Petitions Impaired Driving Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition that sadly informs the House that Bradley Arsenault, age 18, Kole Novak, age 18, and Thaddeus Lake, age 22 were tragically killed by a drunk driver that chose to drive while impaired. The Arsenault, Novak and Lake families have been left devastated. Families For Justice is a group of Canadians who have had a loved one killed by an impaired driver. These Canadians believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient.

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

[ Translation ] International Aid Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, during the last constituency week, I had the pleasure of meeting with a delegation from Development and Peace, which is very active in my community. It discussed with me the issue of respect for the rights of small family farms to store, trade and use seed.

This organization has collected hundreds and hundreds of signatures in the riding from people who are calling on the government to adopt international aid policies that support small farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty, to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small farmers, and to ensure that they protect the rights of small farmers in the global south to save, use and freely trade their seed.

[ English ] Canada Post Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from hundreds of Canadians who ask Parliament to reverse the plan to axe our long-treasured postal services because it will kill jobs, eliminate door-to-door delivery, close post offices and has drastically increased postal rates. There are 6,000 to 8,000 workers who will lose their jobs and 5 million households will lose door-to-door delivery over the next five years, which will hurt seniors and disabled Canadians in particular.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts to service announced by Canada Post and to look to things like postal banking to augment our postal service.

(1525) Genetically Modified Organisms Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions signed by over 150 people from in and around Guelph to bring to the attention of the government the possible negative health effects of GMOs, the negative impact GMOs have on organic and non-GMOs crops, the inability of farmers to save their own seeds, and the concern about the absence of labelling GMO food. The petitioners ask the government to put a moratorium on the licensing and release of further GMOs, including, and especially, the release of GMO alfalfa.

[ Translation ] Latin-American Heritage Day Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition concerning Latin-American heritage day. Several dozen people of Latin American origin want their communities to be recognized for the work they are doing across Canada. They support Bill C-635 to designate October 5 as Latin-American heritage day throughout Canada.

Consumer Protection Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I also want to present a petition signed by many Canadians about making life more affordable: We the undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of [the Government of Canada] to the following: ...practical proposals to cap ATM fees at 50 cents per transaction, widen access to low-interest credit cards...

[ English ] Veterans Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today to ensure the dignity of all of Canada's veterans. The signatories to the petition want to point the House to the fact that although veterans and their families deserve our deepest gratitude and respect and deserve to be taken care of, many veterans and their families cannot access adequate health care, pensions and other vital services, and now struggle with the closure of front-line Veterans Affairs offices.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to implement improved services, such as quality home care, long-term care and mental health care for our veterans and their families.

Violence Against Women Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, violence against women is an abomination, yet in communities across Canada, women and girls of all ages face violence every day. Violence drives over 100,000 women and children out of their homes and into shelters each year. The petitioners call upon the government to work in partnership with the provinces, territories and stakeholders to develop a national strategy and action plan to end violence against women and to hold a national public inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada.

[ Translation ] Employment Insurance Mr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition for a fair employment insurance system. We call upon the Government of Canada to reverse the devastating changes it has made to EI and restore fair access to decent EI benefits for jobless workers.

Agriculture Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 382 residents of the wonderful riding of Sherbrooke who joined together to tell the Government of Canada and the House of Commons that they are committed to protecting small farmers and, most importantly, to protecting the right to use and freely exchange seeds. I want to thank them for submitting this petition, and I am proud to present it on their behalf.

[ English ] Palliative Care Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting this petition regarding the inclusion of palliative care in the Untied nations' sustainable development goals, specifically recognizing that hospice and palliative care is an essential component of national health systems. The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to call for the inclusion of hospice and palliative care in the United Nations' sustainable development goals.

Public Safety Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am being bombarded in my office in Toronto by my constituents from Parkdale—High Park with messages of opposition to Bill C-51 . I am pleased to once again present petitions on behalf of about 150 people in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. They are very concerned that our rights and freedoms would be threatened by giving sweeping new powers to CSIS without adequate oversight. They are calling on every member in the House of Commons to join together and defeat Bill C-51.

(1530) Centres of Innovation Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first is from citizens of Denman Island, the west coast of Canada, and Vancouver Island, all the way to Leamington, Ontario, in support of Motion No. 501. The petitioners note that this motion calls for the establishment of regional centres for innovation that bring together integrative medicine with allied professions to collaborate, research, and document low-cost, low-risk health care options.

The second petition, also in favour of Motion No. 501, comes from constituents in the London, Ontario area. They note that the strategy of Motion No. 501 will be open to new models of care: delivery and discovery, be holistic in character, patient-centred, emphasize the importance of wellness promotion and disease prevention, and empower the patient with information and choice.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, I want to present a petition signed by about 200 people from the Châteauguay region. They are clearly indicating that they are opposed to the cuts to Canada Post's services. With this petition, they are saying that they very much want to continue receiving home mail delivery.

[ English ] The Environment Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition coming out of the St. Paul's riding in Toronto. The residents of the Christie Gardens retirement home ask that the government adopt a carbon policy that applies a fee to greenhouse gas emissions at their source of production in Canada or port of entry into Canada, increase the fee over time, and distribute 100% of the money raised from the fee equally among all Canadians.

I would like to note that the lead signatories include: Bruna Nota, the former international president of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom; Ursula Franklin, the world renowned scholar; and Lois Wilson, the former moderator of the United Church of Canada.

Electoral Representation Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table two petitions. The first is a petition on fair electoral representation, which has been signed by literally dozens of ordinary Canadians in my riding and the neighbouring riding of Victoria. It calls to abandon our winner take all first past the post system, and put in a fair system that would allow representation regardless of political belief or place of residence in a fairly elected Parliament, where the share of seats held by each political party more closely reflects the popular vote.

Southern Resident Killer Whales Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the Government of Canada to bring in an action plan to protect the southern resident killer whales, in support of my Motion No. 460. This has been signed by dozens of ordinary Canadians who are drawing attention to the fact that more than 13 years ago, southern resident killer whales were designated as endangered, and no action plan has been put in place by either Liberal or Conservative governments.

Komagata Maru Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many constituents of Winnipeg North. They are asking that we recognize that the Punjab assembly in India unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Canadian Parliament to apologize for the Komagata Maru incident. This incident was a dark moment in Canada's past. In 1914, 352 passengers aboard a steamship were denied entry into Canada based on discriminatory immigration policy. The petitioners are asking for a formal apology in Parliament with respect to the Komagata Maru incident.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Question Nos. 1113, 1114 and 1119 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ] Question No. 1113-- Ms. Charmaine Borg : With regard to government funding for internet services, broken down by department and individual project, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006: (

a) what amount was spent on the deployment of wired broadband internet services and infrastructure (

i) in total, (ii) broken down by region; and (

b) what amount was spent on the deployment of wireless broadband internet services and infrastructure (

i) in total, (ii) broken down by region? (Return tabled) Question No. 1114-- Hon. John McKay : With regard to government libraries, in each fiscal year since 2006-2007 inclusive: for each departmental or agency library, including former libraries which are now closed, what are the (

i) budgeted, (ii) actual expenditures for (

a) the acquisition of books, monographs, serials, or other publications in print form; (

b) subscriptions to academic, scholarly, professional, or specialized journals in print form; (

c) subscriptions to newspapers, magazines, or other serial publications, other than those enumerated in ( b ), in print form; (

d) subscriptions to academic, scholarly, professional, or specialized journals in electronic form; (

e) subscriptions to newspapers, magazines, or other serial publications, other than those enumerated in ( d ), in electronic form; and (

f) subscriptions to electronic databases? (Return tabled) Question No. 1119-- Mr. Jack Harris : With regard to Canadian support being provided to Ukraine, the Declaration of Intent between the Department of National Defence of Canada and the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine of December 8, 2014, in Kiev, the subsequent deployment of Canadian military personnel to Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces, and Canada’s commitment to helping Ukraine in the strengthening of its security forces and its social and democratic institutions: (

a) what activities are being carried out with the Ukrainian forces, the Ukrainian government, or civilians, with respect to (

i) strengthening the capacity of Ukrainian security forces, (ii) promoting institutions that serve the wellbeing of Ukrainian society, (iii) training Ukrainian personnel in areas of policing, medical and personal protective measures, (iv) enhancing Ukrainian democratic institutions; (

b) how many Canadian personnel are involved, in total and in each of the categories of activities mentioned in ( a ), further broken down by whether they are civilian or military; (

c) are the deployed personnel members of the RCMP, the Canadian Armed Forces, or other institutions, agencies or organizations and, if so, what are these other institutions, agencies or organizations; (

d) what are the measures of success used in evaluating progress on the objectives mentioned in ( a ); (

e) what progress has been made on the objectives mentioned in (

a) since the signing of the Declaration of Intent referenced above; (

f) who is directly responsible for the leadership and oversight of the deployment to Ukraine; and (

g) what form does the government expect future Canadian cooperation with and support to Ukraine to take? (Return tabled) [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Motions for Papers Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1535) [ English ] Pipeline Safety Act The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-46,

An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-46. Third reading Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have another chance to speak on the slightly amended version of Bill C-46, the pipeline safety act and of course, this is legislation that would amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, with the idea of strengthening the safety and security of federally regulated pipelines in Canada. In fact, this legislation is long overdue and represents some progress.

The Liberal Party recognizes that pipelines are a critical part of our energy infrastructure. We know that Canada must always strive to have the safest pipelines in the world. In fact, we have many thousands of kilometres of pipelines within Canada transporting both oil and gas and sometimes other products, but mainly those two, and they form an important part of our economy. People use those products every day in a variety of ways, so those pipelines play an important role and it is vitally important that they be safe.

However, we do not believe that we have to make a choice between protecting our environment and growing our economy. We have to do both. That is an important responsibility. Across this country, Liberals support projects that offer responsible and sustainable ways of getting our resources to market, while at the same time respecting indigenous rights, protecting our natural environment and earning the trust of local communities. In fact, approximately 1.4 billion barrels of oil cross provincial and international borders every year.

It is important that legislation like Bill C-46 clarifies the audit and inspection powers of the National Energy Board which regulates federal pipelines. I should point out that many of the pipelines in Canada are not federally regulated because they are within the boundaries of a province, but they do not cross boundaries of a province or international boundaries between Canada and the U.S. As we heard recently at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Bill C-46 implements a number of measures under the headings of prevention, preparedness and response, and also liability and compensation.

Prevention, of course, is critical as we must make every effort to ensure that a spill does not occur in the first place, obviously. The bill includes some sentencing provisions for environmental damages as well as additional audit and inspection powers for the National Energy Board. Of course, this raises the question of whether the NEB will do the job it is supposed to do. That would be a concern for members going forward as we watch whether the powers it is given in the bill are utilized properly.

Hopefully, the government will ensure the the NEB has the necessary resources to carry out these audits and inspections because a number of stakeholders said they were concerned about it. I am concerned about it after the recent budget. There is a question whether it has enough funding. In fact, the NEB indicated that funding for several programs related to pipeline safety will be sunsetting in the next few years. It is up to the government to bring forward sufficient funds for the NEB to do the job of protecting Canadians and ensuring that these pipelines are operated in a safe manner.

I think that needs to change. In the event of a spill, Canadians need to have confidence that pipeline companies and the National Energy Board will respond in an appropriate manner. Bill C-46 would require companies operating pipelines to hold sufficient financial resources to cover any potential costs associated with a spill. Companies would also be required to hold a minimum level of accessible financial resources to ensure immediate response to a spill happening and that they have the financial capacity to do that. That is an important measure and I certainly support that.

Also, in exceptional circumstances, where a company is unable or unwilling to act, the NEB would have the authorization to take control of a spill response and it would have the authority to compel reimbursement of costs associated with a spill because if the NEB is incurring costs at the expense of the taxpayer, it should be reimbursed by whoever is responsible for the pipeline in general. It is the company operating it that is going to be liable and that is why under this legislation absolute liability is provided for.

In other words, whether or not negligence was provided, if a company is the owner-operator of that pipeline, it will be responsible for it. That is very important.

(1540) Finally, with respect to liability and compensation, the bill invokes the polluter pays principle with the goal of holding major pipeline companies liable for costs and any actual losses or environmental damages resulting from a spill.

It includes a set of new measures which provide for no-fault or absolute liability set at a minimum of $1 billion for major oil companies, and the legislation contains the number of provisions relating to the abandonment of pipelines. [ Translation ] Bill C-46 seeks guidance from the National Energy Board on the application of the best available technologies for pipeline construction and operations.

It also sets out how government will be required to work with aboriginal communities and industry to develop a strategy to better integrate aboriginal peoples into pipeline safety, including planning, monitoring, incident response and related employment and business opportunities. While I noted earlier that Bill C-46 is a step in the right direction, that does not mean that no concerns were expressed about this particular bill. We have seen concerns raised over the potential impact of leaving many of the proposed changes in Bill C-46 to the discretion of cabinet and the National Energy Board.

The Union des producteurs agricoles raised several points in a written submission, including their concern about the definition of “ground disturbance” in the legislation and how this will impact the cultivation of crops like alfalfa. They also expressed concern about whether the timeframe for claims should be tied to the time when a leak is discovered or the time when it occurred. Obviously, I believe that it should be tied to the time when the leak is discovered. [ English ] Ecojustice lawyer Ian Miron testified regarding the shortcomings in the legislation.

He called for more guidance around the assessment and calculation of damages for the loss of non-use value in relation to public resources. Mr. Miron also suggested that, as drafted, the bill is best described as polluter might pay as opposed to polluter pays, as the government is suggesting. Mr. Martin Olszynski of the law faculty at the University of Calgary offered suggestions to strengthen the wording of the bill with regard to environmental damages. Mr.

Olszynski said that the federal cabinet should be required to make regulations setting out a process for environmental damages assessment within a prescribed timeframe. Unfortunately, the Conservatives failed to put forward any amendments during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-46 and they killed all but two of the amendments tabled by opposition members. One of the amendments, which was adopted, will mean that an aboriginal governing body would be able to be reimbursed for expenses they may incur in responding to a spill. I think that is a good amendment.

Without that amendment, the category of entities that could get reimbursed for reasonably incurring expenses in relation to a spill, in other words for a cleanup, were limited to “Her Majesty in right of Canada, or a province or any other person”. That would not include an aboriginal first nation and in my view it would also not include a municipality either. That is why there was, in fact, another amendment proposed to add the word “municipality” to that list, but I suppose the government side was not authorized.

It did not have the green light, we might say, to say yes to that change, which would have been harmless and a good one. The question of whether or not the province is authorized or the municipality, since municipalities are creations of provinces, is not clear at all. It might have been a very good clarification to have in the bill. Unfortunately, I am afraid the Conservatives did not support that. The second amendment deals with a

section of the bill which said that the NEB may recover funds to compensate those affected by a spill. In this case, the word “may” was changed to “shall”, another good change. At least there was some minimal accommodation and I suspect members opposite on the Conservative side would incorrectly and falsely claim that they were completely flexible on our amendments.

(1545) I know that the Minister of Natural Resources is fond of pointing out that between 2008 and 2013 more than 99.999% of oil transported in federally regulated pipelines was moved safely. That is a great record. Our pipeline companies deserve recognition for this achievement. However, we also need to look to the future. We need to take every step possible to continue to prevent spills, to put in place the proper measures to efficiently and effectively clean up spills, and to assign appropriate liability when spills do occur. Canada must have the safest pipelines in the world.

We need to ensure that this pipeline safety act is designed to achieve that goal. The NEB has been given increased regulatory control over 73,000 kilometres of pipelines that transport more than $100-billion worth of oil, gas, and petroleum products across Canada annually. That is a lot of pipelines and a lot of value to our economy and also a lot of concern about the impact that would have on our environment if it was not dealt with properly. Bill C-46 would build on previous moves, giving the NEB the authority to increase the number of pipeline inspections and doubling the number of yearly safety audits.

The NEB has also been asked to provide guidance on the best available technologies for pipeline construction and operations. Obviously, that is why we are hoping that the NEB will be given the resources to do that job and that it will do it properly. We will have to keep an eye on that. That is, I think, one of the important responsibilities of this chamber. It is to keep an eye on that and watch the statistics as time goes on.

We have seen measures that set out how the government is supposed to work with aboriginal communities and individuals to develop a strategy to better integrate aboriginal peoples and pipeline safety operations, including in planning, monitoring, incident response, and related employment and business opportunities. Clearly, these and other measures in Bill C-46 signify a much-needed overhaul of the liability regime for federally regulated pipelines.

The no-fault liability, the additional authorities given to the NEB, and the measures for abandoned pipelines are welcome, and the Liberal Party will therefore support the legislation. Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his support for the legislation. One of the things he raised is funding for the National Energy Board. I am sure he is aware that in the budget, the National Energy Board would receive many millions of dollars, $80 million, in fact, in increased funding. I wonder if he would talk about that funding and what the money would be used for. Hon.

Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, I spoke in my comments about the nature of the new responsibilities the NEB would have. We will have to wait and see, as time goes on, whether sufficient resources are there. I am not sure about that. We will have to wait and see. Also, it is important to see how, in actuality, the NEB would enforce the rules and the powers it would be given. My hope is that it would exercise those controls in a responsible way, but as I said, it is important for this House to keep an eye on that. Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I worked closely with the member from the Liberal Party on the bill as it was making its way through committee, so we heard many of the same witnesses, obviously, and perhaps drew some of the same conclusions. I completely agree with him that a bill that purports to implement the polluter pay principle actually falls far short of doing that when so many of the provisions in the bill would actually be left up to the discretion of either the National Energy Board or cabinet.

I suspect that the solution to fixing the problem of the discretionary powers of the cabinet and the lack of confidence Canadians have in those powers we will need to resolve in the next election, and I look forward to the NDP forming the government after October 19. However, I want to ask the member questions about the discretionary powers of the NEB. Canadians do not have very much confidence in the National Energy Board right now, either.

I wonder if the member would talk about what amendments he thinks it is necessary to make to the National Energy Board, whether he believes it ought to be a complete overhaul of the NEB, and what specific amendments he would support when it comes to the future of the National Energy Board.

(1550) Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have hon. friends asking questions. They are members I sit with on the committee, and I enjoy working with them there. My colleague talked about the issue of confidence, which I think is so important. In fact, one of the things I think we have seen eroded badly over the past decade under the Conservative government is the confidence Canadians have in environmental regulation generally. The first thing that has to change is the attitude of government. I look forward to the election changing that, and of course, I heard my hon. colleague.

My expectations are a little different from hers. I am looking forward to a Liberal victory in the election in the fall. We can leave that to the electors to decide. We all have faith in democracy and are obviously willing to accept its results. I hope we will see a new government, with the Liberal Party, of course, perhaps with support from other parties on measures like this, the kinds of measures that would create more confidence among Canadians about environmental regulation. That is where it starts.

We can certainly look at the question of what amendments are needed in terms of the power of the NEB and its discretionary powers. I think we should take some of those powers out of cabinet. What we need is a National Energy Board that has the respect of Canadians and the confidence of Canadians, but again, that depends on the kinds of signals that are sent from government. We do not need government signals suggesting that people who are concerned about environmental matters are radicals or renegades, the kind of signals we unfortunately sometimes get from the government. Mr.

Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if I could ask my hon. colleague to perhaps look past several elections rather than to the next election. All too often we have the government passing legislation establishing a penalty for this or that and feeling that it has accomplished something and can forget about the problem for a while.

What kinds of things does my hon. colleague see five, 10, and 20 years down the line in terms of making resources available so that regulations are enforced and there are enough people to conduct inspections, for example, or look out for the unexpected things that may happen in the future? Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, it is not that uncommon that questions I get from my own side are sometimes, in some ways, more challenging. That is a challenging question, because it asks me to go quite a distance ahead and to imagine the unexpected things that may happen in the future. That is challenging.

I think we will see a shift in our energy sector in Canada and in the way we use energy. Certainly we have seen a considerable effort to reduce energy use to be more efficient in the way we do things in our households and workplaces. That will continue. I think we will see an increase in the use of renewable energy in a whole variety of ways. That is going to be an interesting process. We saw the news last week about a new power wall that a major company in the U.S., of course, has introduced. It is a very large lithium battery for the home.

If people have, for instance, photovoltaic solar panels on the roof, they can actually store the power that comes from those when the sun is shining and have it available when it is not. In some locations, power can actually be drawn down at night, for example, when power is cheap, and then used in the day. We are going to see a variety of changes. I do not think most of us are probably all that worried about the safety impact, although it is something that has to be watched. For any new technology we have to examine the safety impact.

When we talk about pipelines, it is hard to project today how important they will be in our lives in 30 or 40 years. I think we are going to see them continue to be used for a few decades yet, but there may be new uses. There may be new infrastructure for which we need to have regulations to make sure that they are built and operated in a way that is safe for Canadians and safe for our environment. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague might expand on the importance of what we call a social contract when we look at the environment.

How important is it that we consult and work with the many different stakeholders to develop a social contract that would allow us to look at pipelines and other important national grids that are on the horizon?

(1555) Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, it is going to be interesting to see how we go forward, because there has been a change in the attitudes of Canadians and communities toward natural resource projects over the past decade or two. It means that the government has to do a much better job today, and so does industry, of reaching out to communities, consulting them, and understanding them and their differences. We know that different communities across the country, whether aboriginal communities or otherwise, have different issues, different challenges, and different capacities.

Each of those things has to be considered in these consultations. However, the fact that there is so much concern out there is an indication of how important it is that the government change its attitude. We have seen the Conservative government's attitude being one of wanting to shove things through in a hurry. We find, in fact, that this diminishes social licence. It actually makes it harder to get projects completed and built, and it increases resistance.

I think people want to see a government that is serious about the environment and that takes its responsibility to review projects and assess them environmentally in a serious manner. People will want to see that before they have confidence in the role of the NEB and the process of environmental assessment generally across this country so that those projects that should go forward will be able to do so. Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time today with my hon. colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt , with whom I have the honour of sitting on the natural resources committee. It is great to stand in the House and talk about this bill today. This bill, the pipeline safety act, is a really important bill for every Canadian who cares about the environment, and I think that is all of us. In fact, the pipeline safety act is really the embodiment of the kinds of things that I talk about with the people I represent in Calgary Centre all the time, which are the environment and energy.

Our government is firmly committed to making sure that as our energy industry is developed, so too are we caring for the environment at every single stage. This bill is really one of the poster children in our platform of how we care for our environment at the same time as we put things in place to continue to develop and enjoy the benefits of our energy industry in Canada. All Canadians can be proud of and confident in this bill. What we have heard from the NDP today is a little hypocritical. They say that Canadians do not have confidence in our pipelines when we know they have a 99.999% safety record.

We have gold standard legislation, like we are putting forward today. All Canadians need to be aware that we have among the best or the best systems in the world for regulating the environment, and this bill is a very key part of that. At every turn, our government has demonstrated that it has a steadfast commitment to ensuring that Canada's national network of pipelines is world class, that our pipelines are the safest that they can possibly be, and that we maintain a very strong commitment, as I have said, to the environment at the same time as we seek to grow our industry.

The pipelines can contribute safely to our economic growth and energy independence. The pipeline safety act that we are bringing forward would do all of these things. It is part of the comprehensive, responsible resource development plan that we have. People in my riding of Calgary Centre know very well that we have a lot to celebrate when it comes to our natural wealth. We have the third largest proven oil reserves in the world, we are the fifth largest producer of natural gas, and we want to get those products to market.

These resources will remain trapped in the ground if we cannot develop what are the safest, most reliable ways to transport them to their markets at home and abroad. The pipeline safety act would give us a kind of gold standard. It sets out very clear parameters that help to ensure the safe operation of pipelines so that they can be some of Canada's national energy infrastructure projects for the 21st century, some of our most important. The importance of this legislation really cannot be overstated.

Bill C-46 is another way our government is strengthening our environmental protection while continuing to protect jobs, so important now, and opportunities for Canadians in all regions of the country. Last year, we did a study on the across-Canada benefits of the oil and gas industry and we heard from people in every single province about how this industry was creating economic well-being for all of them, from coast to coast to coast. Equally important is that this legislation mirrors what we have done with marine, rail and offshore safety.

It is based on some key pillars and one of them, in particular, I think British Columbians should be especially aware of. They had asked for world leading practices around spill prevention and response as one of the five conditions in British Columbia, and this bill would answer that. Number one of the pillars is incident prevention, number two is preparedness and response, and number three is a system for liability and compensation. Therefore, the entire umbrella is covered by this very important bill. We believe it is a really important and responsible approach to pipeline safety.

This bill would modernize our regulatory review of major resource projects by eliminating duplication and providing investors with the kind of predictable beginning-to-end timelines that they need. That is in our responsible resource development plan. We have improved environmental protection and bolstered aboriginal engagement. Bill C-46 also clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the key players in our energy industry, the National Energy Board and different levels of government so that pipeline operators are clear, everyone is clear.

(1600) Finally, the legislation reflects a responsible approach to consensus building. I agree, that is an important component here. It incorporates amendments from our all-party House Standing Committee on Natural Resources. We have heard from some of the members recently. I am privileged to sit on that committee. Let us talk about the amendments, because there was a reference to amendments not being included. Nothing could be further from the truth. We actually made amendments and accepted amendments from the other side of the House.

There were two important changes that were included in the bill for third reading. We agreed with those and have included them. The first amendment is clause 48.12 (1). It adds aboriginal governing bodies to the groups that could recover costs and expenses in responding to a pipeline release. This is so that in the unusual event where there might be a pipeline release, our aboriginal governing bodies could feel free to move in and take action and know that they would be compensated. The second amendment is a little further down in the bill. It is clause 48.17 (1).

It would require the National Energy Board, subject to Treasury Board approval, to recover funds from industry that happened to be advanced by the government. These are really solid recommendations that enhance what was already a very strong piece of legislation and a world-class regime for pipeline safety. I want to talk a little more about committee testimony, because we heard some really interesting and strong support for the legislation in committee. We heard one expert witness describe the legislation as “...much needed and quite frankly, long overdue”. Who was it who said that?

It was Ian Miron from Ecojustice Canada. Another witness praised the legislation for its language on environmental damages. That was Martin Olszynski, from the University of Calgary. He said that the language on environmental damages is “simple and comprehensive”. That is great to know. In most instances we felt comfortable that the existing language had hit the mark, but in two places we agreed as a committee that these amendments were warranted. As we can see, there is co-operation in Ottawa. The result is we now have an even better bill that would significantly improve pipeline safety.

I want all Canadians to be confident and proud of that. That is what committee reviews provide. They provide this kind of oversight where we have expert witnesses we call in to come and provide testimony to legislation. We kind of put the legislation to the test. We poke holes in it. We have an opportunity to ask questions. We make sure it is airtight. If there are any issues, then we fix them. We do that on every single bill. I also personally welcomed the opportunity to discuss a lot of the issues with some key leaders in the pipeline industry.

One was Jim Donihee, acting chief officer for the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. Another was Robert Blakely, the Canadian operating officer with Canada's Building Trades Union. They are passionate, well-informed people who actually do support pipelines and want to make sure we have a world-class safety regime that can give Canadians confidence in their operations. I pressed both witnesses on the nuts and bolts of the bill. Their responses were both impressive and reassuring.

When asked about the quality of the work and the care that was taken by the men and women who are working on these kinds of projects, Mr. Blakely said, “The truth is, we live here”. They want the best possible pipeline because this is their home. I live here too. All Canadians live here, and I think we all share that same goal. Mr. Donihee echoed that kind of commitment on behalf of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.

He said: ... the member companies, which I have the privilege of representing, share in the desire to ensure that we operate the safest possible pipeline transmission system that will benefit our nation. They all live here too. When asked about the additional responsibilities that would be placed on the pipeline industry in the legislation, he said their goal is a zero spill safety record. That is incredibly laudable. He said the industry does not just take what the government regulations are. It seeks to even better them. That is why we have world-class safety regulations here.

However, we also have an industry that is firmly committed to meeting and exceeding those world-class standards. That is very worth remembering. The bill would embody the polluter pay principle in law. It holds companies absolutely liable for any incidents, regardless of who is at fault, or regardless of negligence. It would ensure that companies have the financial resources to respond to incidents. It would give the National Energy Board the authority and resources to clean up spills and recover costs if the board has to step in on what would be exceptional circumstances.

(1605) In conclusion, this kind of inclusive approach, which also gives first nations a place here as very strong partners, is the kind of approach that residents in my riding of Calgary Centre want to see, and I think all Canadians want to see. It is these kinds of things that make Canada so great. With the right policies, the right investments and the right decisions, we can shape our nation's destiny. [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, naturally, the NDP completely agrees with the polluter pays principle and with sustainable development.

That is why we support the notion of liability for the pipelines. This bill could have been even better. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the three NDP MPs who did an excellent job in committee: the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques , the member for Hamilton Mountain , and the excellent member for Edmonton—Strathcona . We proposed some 20 amendments in committee, but unfortunately they were not well received. Committees play a very important role in improving bills. The committee is not a place for partisan politics.

Why did the Conservatives not consider these amendments, which had the support of most stakeholders? [ English ] Ms. Joan Crockatt : Mr. Speaker, I always love when we have an opportunity to hear from committee members who are committed to make our legislation better. We did listen to the amendments that were brought forward, very carefully. As I have suggested, we had witnesses who are being quoted on both sides of the House here today. I do welcome the NDP members and hope that they will support our energy industry going forward now that they know we have this amazing bill.

Last year, I was quite disappointed when we had the cross-Canada benefits of the oil and gas sector. The NDP members on that committee could not bring themselves to put forward one witness to speak on the cross-Canada benefits of the oil and gas sector. I hope that their support for this bill might signal a change of heart. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, whether it is the leader of the Liberal Party or the Liberal Party as a whole, we have recognized the great value of our energy industry. There is always room for improvement, which is why we supported the b