OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 008 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, October 25, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 25, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 008 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 008 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 008 (Version officielle) 147 008 25 10 2013 2013/10/25 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1005) [ English ] Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures , be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment. Bill C-4. Second reading Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on our economy and the second budget implementation act of our government's economic action plan 2013.

The implementation of these remaining provisions would have a tremendously positive impact on the lives of all Canadians. While many of the changes in Bill C-4 are technical in nature, many provide clear benefits for all Canadians. Our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: growing the economy, helping to create jobs, balancing the budget and reducing the cost of government. We are achieving this with the longest-serving Minister of Finance in the G7 at the helm, who is providing Canada with strong fiscal leadership, management and responsibility. Our actions have not gone unnoticed.

Both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest-growing economies in the G7 over this year and next. The World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banking system as the world's most sound for the fifth year in a row. Three credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, have all reaffirmed their top rating for Canada and expect it will maintain its AAA status in the year ahead. Canada's fiscal fundamentals are solid, and they are sustainable. Canada is on a strong economic footing.

Since the depth of the recession, over one million net new jobs have been created, mostly in high-wage industries. There are now 605,000 more jobs than at the pre-recession peak. This is the strongest job growth in the G7 over the course of the recovery. Almost 90% of all jobs created since July 2009 have been full-time positions, with close to 85% of those in the private sector. Also, the growth levels are above pre-recession levels, as I stated.

Jayson Myers, president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, had this to say: We have a strong Canadian dollar because investors around the world want to put their money into Canada. They see a better fiscal environment, a strong financial sector, and the strength of the resource sector. A recent study by KPMG concluded that Canada's total business tax cost, which includes corporate income tax, capital taxes, sales tax, property taxes and wage-based taxes, is more than 40% lower than in the United States.

In short, our government has created an environment that encourages new investment, growth and job creation, and ensures that Canada has the strongest fiscal position and lowest business tax costs in the G7. Earlier this week, the media were reporting that last year's federal deficit came in at nearly $7 billion lower than projected. This is an undeniable sign that our government is on track to balance the budget in 2015-16, a promise we made to Canadians back in 2011. As many Canadians are now aware, our government recently reached an agreement in principle on a free trade agreement with the European Union.

This historic agreement will create thousands of jobs for Canadians and give Canadian business access to half a billion new customers. This is the biggest deal so far in Canadian history, and may be remembered as the biggest trade agreement that Canada has ever signed. The Canada–European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement will open new markets to Canadian exporters throughout Europe and generate significant opportunities for all Canadians.The benefits of this agreement are equivalent to creating 80,000 net new jobs, or increasing the average Canadian household's annual income by $1,000.

On the first day that the agreement comes into force, 98% of all European Union tariffs will be eliminated, directly translating into increased profit and opportunity for Canadian businesses of all size and in every part of our country. Whether a fisherman in Atlantic Canada, a forestry worker in Quebec, an auto worker in Ontario, or an engineer in the west, each will benefit from this agreement. Jayson Myers went on to say that, “This is the Wayne Gretzky of trade deals”. Canada's automobile industry, to name but one, stands to benefit tremendously from this deal.

Currently, Canada exports approximately 13,000 vehicles a year to the European Union. This agreement will increase that number up to 100,000 units annually. It goes without saying that this increase in annual exports will have a direct correlation to the number of jobs in the Canadian automobile industry, undoubtedly adding hundreds, if not thousands, of employees to Canada's vehicle, equipment and parts manufacturing companies.

Kevin Williams, president of General Motors of Canada, had this to say: We applaud Canada and the European Union for completing a modern, high-standard comprehensive economic and trade agreement that will provide enhanced opportunities for growth in both regions. We appreciate the hard work to find creative solutions that improve market access for Canadian-produced automobiles, while ensuring Canada continues to benefit from the integrated manufacturing sector that has developed in North America over the past 50 years.

Supporting small business is something our government takes very seriously. Small businesses make up to 98% of businesses in Canada, all of which are in the midst of celebrating Small Business Week. It makes me tremendously proud to speak about how this bill would provide support for Canada's job creators. This bill includes in it a number of key measures to support business, including extending and expanding the temporary hiring credit for small business for one year. Approximately 560,000 small businesses will benefit as a direct result of this measure.

We are also increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption from $750,000 to $800,000 and indexing it going forward. The lifetime capital gains exemption will increase the reward for investing in small business. In response to the global recession, the government froze the EI premium rate in 2010 at the lowest level since 1982. We are again freezing EI premium rates, this time at 2013 levels, for the next three years. With this freeze in 2014 alone, we are leaving $660 million in the pockets of job creators and Canadian workers.

This tax relief will help provide employers, especially small businesses, with the certainty and flexibility that they need to keep growing. Since forming government in 2006, our low-tax plan for Canada has allowed for small business to see their tax bills drop by 34%. Corporate income taxes have been lowered as well. In fact, Canada currently has the lowest corporate income tax rate in the OECD, as I referred to with regard to the KPMG report. That is a carrot that is more powerful and effective than any marketing campaign in attracting foreign investment to Canada.

In recognition of the ongoing uncertainty in the global economy, the bill also announces extending the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sectors for an additional two years. This will provide the sector with support of $1.4 billion over four years for retooling, and will enhance competitiveness and economic growth and enable manufacturing and processing companies to plan and invest over the coming years.

We are delivering a new $53 billion building Canada plan to invest in Canada's public infrastructure over the next 10 years. This will create jobs, promote economic growth and provide a higher quality of life for families in every city and community across this great country. One of the new building Canada plan's three key funds, the community improvement fund, has had a direct investment in my riding of Don Valley West, by providing just under $1 million to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

The funds are being used to renovate, and eventually reopen, the CNIB's pedestrian bridge, which has been closed since 2011. This bridge is essential for patients, visitors and employees to safely cross one of Toronto's busiest streets. I will wrap up by saying that this bill puts forth a number of measures that are meant to respect taxpayers' dollars. While the opposition is busy focusing on issues that do not matter to Canadians, our government remains focused on the task at hand.

We continue to look for ways to increase the efficiency of the inner workings of government and making sure that job creation and economic prosperity are at the forefront of any new legislation. With that in mind, this bill would make significant improvements that would benefit all Canadians.

(1010) Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I note that the member who just spoke on Bill C-4 is wearing the poppy, like I am, and as all of us should be in these weeks before Remembrance Day. I know the member, and I know he is sincere in wanting to honour the men and women who served our country with such courage and made such tremendous sacrifices on behalf of the Government of Canada and, more importantly, on behalf of all the people of Canada. However, in Bill C-4 , we have changes that adversely impact those very veterans we are honouring by wearing the poppy.

Bill C-4 reduces the number of permanent members of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, from 28 to 25. If we are going to be serious, we need to address the fundamental issues with respect to the board. On this side of the House, my NDP colleagues and I, and in particular the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore , have been advocating for a very long time that we replace the politically appointed board with a medical, evidence-based, peer-reviewed process for making decisions on veterans' disability applications. I want to ask the member a question. He, like us, is wearing the poppy in this House today.

Will he not do the right thing, honour veterans and vote against this bill that takes away services from Canada's men and women in the armed forces?

(1015) Mr. John Carmichael : Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of Don Valley West being home to the largest veterans home and hospital in the country. That is Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, which has a veterans wing with 450 residents who fought in World War II and the Korean War. I do support and applaud our veterans. I had the privilege this past week of hosting seven veterans from Sunnybrook Hospital for lunch on the Hill. It was the first time that they had taken a tour of this great facility. Our government believes in our veterans.

These are the people who have provided us with freedom and democracy in this great country. I applaud them, and I support them. I also encourage the member to recognize that we have increased access to service for our veterans, whether at home or through offices across this country. I will vote for this bill. I support our veterans and will continue to do so. Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my caucus mate for explaining to Canadians the benefits of this particular part of Canada's economic action plan.

I listened when he was speaking, particularly with regard to small business people, who are the principal generators of Canada's gross domestic product. I wonder if the member could expand on what this bill means to people in small business, who are hiring anywhere from 2 to 55 people in order to keep this country going, and expand our ability to trade, not only in Canada but with the rest of the world. What are some of the benefits to small business in this bill? I wonder if the member could expand on that for the benefit of people who are watching and listening today. Mr. John Carmichael : Mr.

Speaker, small business is the lifeblood of this country. I come from a small business background, as does my colleague. As we celebrate Small Business Week in this country, we applaud those who take risk in small business through personal hard work and hard-earned investment. To the member's question with regard to the opportunities in front of us, we will be opening up a market of 500 million new consumers. Small business from coast to coast to coast will have access.

EI tax credits specifically give small business the opportunity to invest in their employees and create an environment of stability and sustainability. However, do not take my word for it.

Let me read what Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, had to say: Overall, this is a good budget for small business. [The finance minister] has done a solid job by remaining on course to eliminate the deficit while announcing some important measures for Canada's entrepreneurs. [...] We're particularly pleased the government publicly acknowledged taking some of these measures—such as the expansion of the EI Hiring Credit—at the recommendation of CFIB's...members. [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, for the fourth time in this Parliament, the Conservative government is introducing a massive bill to implement certain provisions of its last budget. Bill C-4 is an example of why we have been criticizing this government since it came to power; it is an example of the government's lack of respect for parliamentary processes, as it imposes unrelated measures in a single piece of legislation and limits the work of members of Parliament.

It is the epitome of a tired old government that has no vision for Canadians, a government whose pathological partisanship is affecting our parliamentary institutions and the interests of Canadians. This bill amends close to 70 laws and includes a number of provisions that have nothing to do with the budget, strictly speaking. Bill C-4 contains dozens of measures that could have been introduced in separate bills. In one bill, the government is amending taxation, employment insurance rules, economic immigration parameters, arbitration in the public sector, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, and so on.

Instead of making room for real parliamentary debate, the government has crammed dozens of measures into one single piece of legislation. Instead of allowing members of Parliament to do their jobs, the government has chosen to impose an anti-democratic approach and a dogmatic vision of politics. Not only does Bill C-4 violate the whole parliamentary process, but the Conservatives also waited until the very last minute to present the content of the bill. The bill was finally introduced 48 hours ago. We have had 48 hours to review almost 300 pages and to assess the impact of dozens of measures.

This is preventing us from doing the job we were elected to do. The Prime Minister shut down Parliament for five weeks, which is simply outrageous and unacceptable for a democratic country like Canada. Clearly, the negative consequences of this approach cannot be denied. This single vote on a huge number of measures is certainly going to limit debate, and it will increase the potential for errors. As a result, the content will be less representative. Furthermore, a clear example of the potential danger is the mistake that caused credit unions to face a tax hike of 28% rather than 15%.

An in-depth study of the measure in committee and the testimony of many witnesses would have made it possible to avoid that blunder. If parliamentary committees have one meeting only to consider such wide-ranging measures, of course, members of Parliament do not have all the tools they need for a proper review. In the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we had only 40 minutes to study measures in Bill C-60 that had major consequences. We had 40 minutes to study a piece of legislation that easily would have required more committee meetings.

That is the anti-democratic approach the Conservatives are taking with Bill C-4 . As if the general structure of Bill C-4 was not enough of a violation of democracy, the government moved a time allocation motion yesterday to further limit debate. If that is not mocking democracy, I do not know what it is. The situation is all the more worrisome and deplorable considering that some parts of Bill C-4 have serious and troubling implications.

First of all, the budget implementation bill eliminates the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, thereby allowing the Minister of Finance to manipulate the rates for the employment insurance fund. Clearly, the Conservative promises to make the management of employment insurance parameters more independent and transparent are now no more than a distant memory. Once again, the government is going back on its commitments and, in some cases, its own actions.

The Conservatives criticized the Liberals—and so did we for that matter—for helping themselves to and squandering the surplus in the employment insurance fund. In total, $57 billion was taken by those governments. In the past, the Conservatives rose up against that, but now, with Bill C-4 , they are changing their tune once again.

(1020) With Bill C-4 , the Conservatives are once more setting up the same mechanisms that allowed finance ministers, both Conservative and Liberal, to dip into the premiums paid by workers. With access to benefits constantly decreasing, Canadians find this decision unacceptable. After all, the money involved belongs to the workers and the Conservatives are acting as if it were theirs. We in the NDP maintain that the employment insurance fund must be managed independently and transparently.

The Minister of Finance has decided otherwise by granting himself discretionary powers that will tarnish the very management of the fund. In addition, Bill C-4 will amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act by redefining the process by which disputes are resolved in the government. Not only is the government reserving the right to define essential services, but it is also imposing a process of binding arbitration in disputes where less than 80% of the members of a bargaining unit are performing essential services.

As a result, the Conservatives are reserving the right to define the rules on resolving disputes in the public service of Canada and to impose working conditions on its employees through arbitration. Clearly, the government wants to give itself some elbow room so that it can attack the unions that stand up for the rights of workers. Amendments of this kind require discussions in depth, with other voices to be heard on the matter, not just Conservative voices. To roll out measures of this kind without real debate is to lay oneself open to regrettable errors.

That applies to the amendments to employment insurance and the dispute resolution processes in the public service. It also applies to the omnibus bill in its entirety. In closing, never has a government shown so much contempt for our parliamentary institutions and for Canadians. Here we are with a single bill with 300 pages of measures amending about 70 acts. It is impossible for members of Parliament to do their jobs properly. Then we get a time allocation motion that restricts debate even more. Clearly, our democracy is suffering.

All the work by members of the House of Commons is also being placed in jeopardy. (1025) [ English ] Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the EI issue, which the member spent quite a bit of time discussing. An EI freeze for the next couple of years would create an incentive for business and workers. It would reduce costs in business. It would put money back in the pockets of our workers. I wonder if the member would be good enough to explain why she is against job creation and sustainability in small business. [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Clearly, what we are also seeing is a major move on the part of the Conservatives to control workers and unions. In Bill C-4 , we see that the Minister of Finance is given the power to manipulate the setting of rates. The Conservatives, in fact, have now completely broken their promise to have an independent and accountable body oversee employment insurance funding. The government talks about and champions transparency, and forges ahead saying that it is the government that stands for greater accountability and much more transparency.

Unfortunately, that is not at all what we are seeing here and these are not at all the principles that this government claims to have guaranteed. Clearly, this amendment in Bill C-4 will simply prevent workers from having meaningful access to their unions and, at some point, will clearly and specifically prevent them from having any access to their premiums. Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Lambert for her excellent speech. She is always ready to stand up for her constituents and for workers in general.

On a number of occasions, she emphasized how completely absurd, irresponsible and anti-democratic it is to table such a lengthy bill and to allow parliamentarians so little time to study the repercussions of all the amendments to the 70 acts, not to mention the two new acts, contained in Bill C-4 . The Conservatives say loud and clear that they are standing up for workers. However, as we read the bill, we see clearly that they are continuing their attack on employment insurance. Could the hon. member provide more details of the attack on the public service?

She discussed it briefly, but we must understand the dangers and the concerns that lie in store for workers in terms of their right to present cases and in terms of the unions.

(1030) Mrs. Sadia Groguhé : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. First, I would like to go back to Bill C-4 , another omnibus bill that deals with technical changes. Clearly, this is another smokescreen, but we have not been taken in. It does not hide the fact that Bill C-4 really is trying to slip in major changes with no real prior consultation. Once more, we are seeing a complete lack of democracy and of debate. Debates in this House have become impossible, and all workers, all Canadians, are having a hard time with that. We are talking about major changes to the public service.

A huge number of our workers will be affected by this tired old government's latest moves to take control of all our institutions at all costs. It really is unacceptable. [ English ] Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today and speak to economic action plan 2013.

I rise in the House to better inform not only members here but more specifically Canadians on the impact that the act would have and the key measures in economic action plan 2013, as well as certain previously announced tax measures to help create jobs, stimulate the economy and secure long-term prosperity across our great nation. I am pleased to first address our government's continued reduction of Canada's deficit. This past Tuesday the Minister of Finance introduced the “Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada” for 2012-13. The report shows the continued downward track of Canada's annual deficit.

In 2012-13 the deficit fell to just under $19 billion. This was down by more than one-quarter, or $7.4 billion, from the deficit just last year, and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009-10. This shows that we are still on track to balance the budget by fiscal year 2015-16. Economic action plan 2013 would provide support for job creators. Since 2006 our government's top priority has been the economy and job creation. We are extending and expanding the hiring credit for small business, which will benefit an estimated 560,000 employers right across this great country of ours.

Currently, there are thousands of jobs available across Canada that are unfulfilled. In fact, CIBC World Markets stated in a report in December 2012 that 30% of businesses in Canada are facing skilled labour shortages. In addition, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business stated in its “Business Barometer” report that 34% of small and medium-size businesses identified a shortage of skilled labour as a constraint to their growth. Difficulty in hiring has increased over the recovery and is becoming a key issue for employers in some sectors and regions of our country.

In particular, persistent pockets of unfilled positions exist for skilled tradespeople and professionals such as electricians, millwrights, carpenters, machinists, heavy equipment operators, engineers and architects, just to name a few. The hiring credit for small business will continue to bridge that gap. In recognition of the importance of small business owners, farmers and fishers, economic action plan 2013 proposes to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 from $750,000. The lifetime capital gains exemption increases the potential rewards of investing in small business, farming and fishing.

The exemption also helps these entrepreneurs better ensure their financial security for retirement and facilitates the intergenerational transfer of their businesses. From speaking with farmers in Northumberland—Quinte West as well as small business owners, whether they be at the corner store, an insurance agency or many other businesses, this is their RRSP in addition to the money they have been able to save, and in some instances it might not be that much. This is their future.

This is their ability to be able to retire after a lifetime in some cases of working from about 5:30 in the morning until about 8:30 to 9:30 at night and sometimes longer. Furthermore, to provide support to job creators, we are freezing employment insurance premiums for the next three years. This will leave $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone. Economic action plan 2013 would ensure that the government will promote education in high demand fields, including the skilled trades, science, technology, engineering and math.

It is critically important for young Canadians to have access to information on a variety of careers in order to make informed choices about their education early in their lives. Making good choices early can help ensure that young Canadians obtain the skills and experiences necessary to find work quickly, avoid unnecessary debt and get a better start to their careers.

(1035) Economic action plan 2013 proposes to reallocate $19 million over two years to help inform young people about the fields of study that are relevant to the existing and forecasted demand for labour in particular occupations. The government would provide more information on job prospects and the benefits of working in various occupations and it would develop new outreach efforts to promote careers in such high demand fields as science, technology, engineering and mathematics, as well as the skilled trades. Economic action plan 2013 would help break down youth employment barriers.

This past June, in my riding of Northumberland—Quinte West, a community training and development centre in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity Northumberland received over $90,000 from the skills link program for one of its projects. The skills link program is part of the Government of Canada's youth employment strategy. With annual funding of approximately $300 million across Canada, the youth employment strategy helps youth, particularly those facing barriers to employment, obtain career information, develop skills, find jobs and stay employed.

If I can go back to the Habitat for Humanity program that I am referring to, the particular Habitat project in question is called the “Faith Build”. For the benefit of those outside of Northumberland, who are unaware of this particular build, Habitat for Humanity wanted to build one housing unit for a worthy family. Of course, we know that Habitat for Humanity depends on a lot of volunteer help. Madelaine Currelly, who works at the community training and development centre, was successful, as I mentioned, in obtaining a $90,000 grant.

Ten young people who were experiencing barriers to employment were hired to work on this project, utilizing this $90,000. Today, I am told that the vast majority of those young people are now working in full-time jobs because they obtained the necessary skills and experience on that project. In addition to pre-existing funding, economic action plan 2012 invested an extra $50 million to enhance the youth employment strategy with a new initiative that connects young Canadians with jobs in high demand, and helps them develop tangible skills and gain work experience.

Economic action plan 2013 proposes an additional investment of $70 million over three years to create 5,000 more internships. Furthermore, our government not only assists youth in finding jobs, it also assists young scientists and engineers with the launch their businesses. Northumberland Community Futures Development Corporation launched two initiatives in collaboration with FedDev Ontario, the Spark Centre and the IDEAHUB in Port Hope.

Scientists and engineers in business provide matching performance-based grants to graduates of science, technology, engineering or math, or as we refer to them, the STEM programs. The CFDCs offer free business counselling and financing for small and medium-size enterprises for start-up and expansion, strategic planning support for local projects and community economic development in rural areas right across our great country. Economic action plan 2013 would continue to fund programs such as the Community Futures Development Corporations, which promote the growth of science and technology, as well as other fields.

Manufacturing in Ontario must increasingly seek to become more competitive by investing in innovation and moving up the value chain. That is why, in economic action plan 2013, we propose to provide a new, advanced manufacturing fund to be delivered by FedDev or the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. Firms in manufacturing sectors, including information and communication technologies, life sciences, machinery and equipment, and sophisticated niche sectors are pursuing competitive advantage through the development of transformative products and technologies that open and expand markets.

To support the efforts of advanced manufacturing in Ontario to become more competitive, economic action plan 2013 would provide $200 million over five years for the creation of an advanced manufacturing fund. The new fund would support investments by manufacturing firms and activities that create new and innovative products or production methods, such as prototyping, demonstrating projects and advancing product testing.

(1040) I am confident that economic action plan 2013 will continue to provide for Canadians, and in the face of global economic uncertainty, keep our economy strong. I am prepared now to answer any questions and hear comments from my fellow parliamentarians. [ Translation ] Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. He spoke at length about the importance of creating jobs for young people. However, we know that the youth unemployment rate is double the national average for other age groups. Could the hon. member explain his government's really depressing record?

In addition, could he tell us what he thinks of measures such as the one that the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park and I proposed a few weeks ago? This was a tax credit for small and medium businesses to train and hire young employees. I feel that this is a great way to help businesses, and especially young people, whom this government seems to overlook. Given the importance he attributed to the issue, especially at the end of his speech, I wonder if he might be ready to help us get such an important initiative passed. [ English ] Mr. Rick Norlock : Mr.

Speaker, indeed, during my speech I mentioned specific instances where we have, through different government programs, shown how we can employ young people, especially those with barriers, those who do not possess the skills necessary to get the jobs that are available. I mentioned the Habitat for Humanity project and the fact that we now have young people who are currently fully employed who probably would not be otherwise. The hon. member mentioned that youth unemployment is double the average, and he is correct. There are far too many young people who are not employed.

However, what he leaves out of that statement is the fact that in the western economies, Canada is one of the best when it comes to youth employment. It is still not where it should be. We readily agree with that, but when he mentioned credits for hiring people, I already mentioned in my speech the hiring credit for small business, where the Government of Canada provides credits for people who hire workers, and in particular, workers who have the skills necessary. This government, more than any other government, has concentrated more money in the science and technology fields.

Therefore, while the hon. member mentioned some facts, he left out the fact that Canada is doing, compared to our neighbours, fairly well when it comes to youth employment. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to change the focus slightly from what the hon. member covered in his speech and just ask him about the measures we are seeing brought forward in Bill C-4 about which he is excited. I have to admit, I have less excitement in the sense of happiness about them.

I am concerned that it is becoming too predictable a trend that the bulk of the government's legislation that we see in any session of Parliament is coming to us bundled together with many unrelated pieces of legislation. In fact, over 30% of the government legislation in the previous session of Parliament came in the form of omnibus bills. These measures, about which my hon. friend is so happy, are ones that I am very concerned about, such as the changes to the Canada Labour Code, changes to the public service act, changes to the Supreme Court Act. These have nothing to do with one another or with the budget.

Would they not have been better handled as separate bills?

(1045) Mr. Rick Norlock : Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that during the lead-up to the last election, the Green Party candidate in my riding said that the economic policies of the Green Party were very conservative in nature, yet I noticed the voting record of the only member of the Green Party is pretty close to 95% to 100% of that of the New Democratic Party. The policies of the Green Party are very democratic socialist in nature. She mentioned that we have these omnibus bills and we need to talk at length about all the things that happen.

My constituents tell me they are tired of a bunch of politicians who talk and talk, and very little gets done. I tell my constituents that we are getting things done, that we have had more private members' bills in the history of this country happen under this government, that we get things done such as the economic action plan, that our place in the world, especially in the G7, is at the top of the heap and not where we want it to be quite yet but getting there. They tell me that they want to see action taken, not more talk from a bunch of politicians here in Ottawa.

I am happy that we get things done and that we do not sit here babbling ad infinitum about things that are not really of interest to average Canadians. They want action, and that is what they are getting from our government. Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill, which, as you know, the Liberals will oppose. I would like to address three issues. One is the fact that it does nothing for middle-class families. Second is the omnibus nature of the bill.

Third are issues related to immigration. [ Translation ] The basic problem with this bill is that, really, it does nothing for the middle class in Canada. [ English ] This is an important issue, because the middle class is really struggling. It is only this week that the Bank of Canada came out with a radically more pessimistic projection for the Canadian economy. We know that the youth unemployment rate is twice the national average. We know that there are 224,000 fewer jobs for young people today than there were before the recession. We know that Canadian debt levels are at a record level.

It is about $1.6 dollars for every dollar of income, which is considerably higher than it is in the United States. We know that tuition fees have been going sky high way faster than the rate of inflation. We know all this, yet I do not think the government does anything significant to address these fundamental issues facing middle-class Canadians. Yes, the Conservatives would extend the hiring credit, but that is just the status quo. Yes, they would refrain from further increases in employment insurance premiums, which they had for the last three years, to the tune of $600 million per year.

They would freeze them. They should have frozen them for the last three years as well as for the next two years, because this is a job-killing tax. A time of economic weakness is not the time to increase EI premiums. Yes, the books have to be balanced over the longer term. Economists agree with that. However, that does not mean that we have to have increases in premiums every single year during a period of economic hardship. The fact that the Conservatives have increased those premiums in each of the last three years has done damage to the economy and damage to jobs.

There are many other details, but the fundamental point is that middle-class Canadians are struggling, and this budget implementation bill has essentially nothing to provide assistance or to provide hope to those people. At best, it is the status quo with little that is new or novel or helpful to help the Canadian economy at this time of weakness. The second issue I would raise is the question of omnibus bills. This is a bill of 308 pages with 472 clauses. (1050) [ Translation ] We are fully aware that the problem with this kind of bill is that it goes against democratic principles.

Neither the House nor the committees of the House have had the time to study the provisions of this bill. This has been a problem since this government arrived and it continues to be a problem. Another aspect of this problem is that mistakes are made. [ English ] One example of mistakes I would mention is the question of credit unions. In the budget, the Conservatives proposed a major increase in taxes on credit unions. This bill has a decrease in taxes on credit unions, but that is only because they made a mistake the first time around. They increased the tax on credit unions radically more than they intended.

That was a mistake partly related to the omnibus, complicated nature of the bill, and now they have to undo that mistake. They throw in corrective measures regarding the Supreme Court, which have absolutely nothing to do with the budget. It is an important issue for Canada but one parliamentarians will not have the opportunity to study in any detail. The last point I would like to make has to do with immigration, which is currently and recently one of my responsibilities. There are two aspects I would like to mention. The first is potentially positive.

It is the idea that new economic immigrants would first write a letter of interest, and then the government would decide whether those people were likely to have the skills and qualifications to match the needs of Canada before they were allowed to make a formal application. Other countries have done this. To some extent, it makes sense, in principle. However, here is a case where the devil is in the details. How would the government implement this? Which people would be advantaged? Which people would be disadvantaged, and according to what criteria?

This is where the regulations and the details of the proposal, which are absent from the bill, have to be studied in detail by the immigration committee to see whether the proposal, which in principle maybe makes sense, will in practice make sense, given the way the government plans to implement it, which is something we do not yet know. The last issue I would like to mention is perhaps the most egregious, the most serious, in the area of immigration. It is the dramatic increase in waiting times for family class immigrants. Over the last five years, we have seen those waiting times double, triple, and quadruple.

In the case of China, the average waiting time five years ago, in 2007, was seven months. In 2012, that had ballooned from seven months to 39 months. In other words, the average waiting time has gone from just over half a year to more than three years. China is not alone. For India, the waiting time has tripled from eight months to 24 months. The situation is at least as bad, or worse, for Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and many other countries. Many new Canadians come into my office desperate, often in tears, because they are waiting interminably for their spouses, their children, or their parents to be allowed in.

The waiting times keep growing and growing. The government said absolutely nothing about this issue in the throne speech except a modest amount of self-praise, if one can believe it, for its treatment of family class immigrants. There is nothing in the budget to correct this egregious situation. As one who represents Canada's most diverse community, Markham, I know very well from the day-to-day work in my office that this is a huge issue for new Canadians. It is not only the waiting times to be reunited with children, spouses, or parents.

It is also the denials for parents or grandparents who want to come to attend the weddings of their grandchildren or funerals in the family or other important family events. They keep being turned down, for no apparent reason. This is a sin of omission, not of commission. There is nothing in the throne speech and nothing in the budget bill to address this problem, which is of huge concern for all the new Canadians across the country.

(1055) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a serious economics question for the member. A lot of us in this place talk about economics. The member for Markham—Unionville is one of those who is actually qualified to speak to it, having achieved a Ph.D., having taught at four universities, and having been the former chief economist at the Royal Bank. I am curious about his views. We keep hearing the mantra that cutting corporate tax rates, so that Canada now has the lowest corporate tax rate in the OECD, is helping the job creators.

However, we are also seeing that our job creation rate is very low. Youth unemployment is 14%. Current RBC staff are telling us, as Mark Carney from the Bank of Canada pointed out, that low corporate tax rates are resulting in a large accumulated pile of what Carney called “dead money”. It is not going into the economy. It is not stimulating jobs. A current RBC economist says that it is now $600 billion. I believe that is 32% of our current GDP. I wonder if my friend from Markham—Unionville has any comments on this. Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her reciting of my various credentials.

I believe that Canada already has a very low corporate tax rate on the largest corporations. I believe that it is something in the order of 25%, when we include both the federal government and the provinces,

whereas in the United States, it is something in the order of 39%. There is a huge gap. In previous election campaigns, we in the Liberal Party said that we did not want to go back to super high corporate tax rates, but we thought that given other needs of the economy, this gap was larger than it needed to be. At the time, we wished to freeze corporate tax rates rather than allow them to go down further. That was in the past. If we look to the future, I take her point about the proceeds from these lower taxes not always being used to advantage the Canadian economy through investment.

There is a lot of what Mark Carney called dead money. Personally, if one thinks of all the possible tax cuts, it seems to me that the cut in corporate tax rates to the low level it is at today would not be among my top priorities. I do not think there is a great deal of evidence that the cuts we have seen to date have had a major positive effect on investment and jobs in the country. Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The Liberal candidate in Toronto Centre says amen to taxes.

The Liberal member over there is talking about corporate taxes. He thinks they should be reallocated. In fact, Stephen Gordon, an economist who runs the Worthwhile Canadian Initiative, has actually pointed out that a low corporate rate lends to better productivity and eventually higher wages for skilled workers. There are some very good benefits there. I would also like to remind the member that when corporate taxes are raised, the people who are able to manage the taxable amounts they pay to the treasury are corporations. He refers to dead money.

The market will actually allocate where those resources can be best put to use. It is not dead money; it is called savings. Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, I would say that my hon. friend over there is guilty of what one might call selective Conservative listening. I certainly never said that I was advocating an increase in corporate taxes. What I said was that among the options for lowering taxes, I would put corporate taxes fairly low on the list. It was not I who talked about dead money. It was the Governor of the Bank of England.

His name is Mark Carney, who, the member might remember, used to be the governor of the Bank of Canada. He is hardly a railing socialist or communist, yet he was the one who used that expression with regard to Canada's corporate sector. There are only a limited number of dollars available. If we have very low corporate tax rates, we have to have other kinds of higher taxes or lower social spending. There is only so much money in the pot. We have to make choices.

My point was that taking corporate taxes to the point where they are some 14 percentage points lower than they are in the United States may not be the best allocation of limited Canadian resources.

Statements by Members Statements by Members (1100) [ English ] Bruce Melanson Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the life and achievements of long-time Etobicoke resident and D-Day veteran Bruce Melanson. Bruce volunteered with the West Nova Scotia Regiment and went overseas at the age of 17, stretching the age requirement to join the fight against tyranny in Europe in 1940. He soldiered in the Battle of Britain and then joined the D-Day invasion of Normandy, a time he would never forget.

He fought with the Allied forces in the battles of Caen, Falaise Gap, Belgium, Holland, and finally Germany. Bruce went on to become a small business owner and alderman in the city of Etobicoke. He was a volunteer with veterans groups, including the Royal Canadian Legion and the Juno Beach Centre, where he served as director. Bruce worked tirelessly to raise funds for the construction of the five-acre facility in Normandy, which honours the brave Canadian men and women who served during the Second World War.

For his efforts to raise awareness of the sacrifices Canadians made, I was honoured to award Bruce a Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee medal in 2012. To his partner, Sonya, daughters Ann and Sue, and his extended family, I extend my condolences. To his friends, I am sure Bruce would say, “Let us never forget”.

Infrastructure Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this past summer, the city of Toronto suffered what is described as a once-in-a-hundred-years storm. Thousands of homes were flooded, families lost cherished possessions and spent millions rebuilding. Neighbourhoods in my riding of York South—Weston were among the hardest hit. I visited the flooded streets to offer comfort and assistance. I saw tremendous resilience from the very young to the very old.

I also saw the aftermath of the current Conservative government's neglect of our city and its critical infrastructure needs, such as improved sewer systems, some of which are over 100 years old. With climate change, severe storms like the one that hit Toronto on July 8, will become more frequent. The Conservative government needs to get off the sidelines and start investing to prevent widespread flooding from happening with each big storm. I have written on these matters to the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Infrastructure , but the response did not offer any assistance.

This is a prime example of the climate change adaptation the government talks about. The time to help is now. My constituents not only expect it, they demand it.

The Environment Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my husband gave me a book for our anniversary yesterday called Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: . The crux of this book is that countries succeed by working with their environments. This is exactly what our government is doing: encouraging economic growth, while protecting the environment. It is too bad the NDP wants to stop all development, and the Liberals do not know what they think.

This summer when I was door-knocking in my riding of Calgary Centre, it was very interesting because this is the crucible of the energy industry, and I met a lot of environmentalists, not the extremists that hang off smokestacks but the environmental engineers, scientists, and researchers. Do members know who they work for? It is oil companies: Suncor, Syncrude, Nexen, Imperial Oil, CNRL. It is true that we can develop our economy and protect the environment. That is why, under the Conservatives, our country is succeeding.

Kingston Penitentiary Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Kingston Penitentiary opened 32 years before Confederation in 1835. After 178 years of continuous operation, the Pen, or “KP”, as this national historic site is locally known, officially closed on September 30. I want to recognize the generations of Kingstonians who have worked at KP. They held the often stressful jobs of running the prison or serving as guards, doctors, nurses, teachers, counsellors or chaplains. May their work be remembered and their legacy be preserved.

I also want to honour all of the staff and leadership of the Correctional Service Canada Ontario Region, including the members of the Union of Solicitor General Employees, and the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers who, under difficult circumstances, executed and continued to manage the regional effects of this closure. Finally, let us remember those offenders at KP who did turn their lives around; there is no achievement more worthy of our joy.

CIBC Celebration of Hope Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by giving my congratulations to the CIBC Celebration of Hope luncheon committee from my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham for over 25 years of successful events. This year's event will take place this Sunday, October 27, in support of Markham Stouffville Hospital. This luncheon brings community together to educate and create awareness for breast cancer and the people it affects.

I would like to recognize and congratulate the co-chairs, Karen Gerrard and Christine Taylor, as well as the event's host, Erin Davis and her co-host, the one and only Allan Bell. Their selfless commitment to the community is something to be honoured and celebrated. Efforts like the CIBC Celebration of Hope luncheons are evidence that Canadians will continue to play a leading role in creating a future without breast cancer--indeed, all cancers.

(1105) [ Translation ] Klaus Hochheim, Daniel Dubé, and Marc Thibault Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 9, 2013, three Canadians who had a passion for the Far North were the victims of a helicopter accident. Today in the House, I would like to pay tribute to Klaus Hochheim, researcher; Daniel Dubé, helicopter pilot; and Marc Thibault, commander of the Amundsen, the Coast Guard icebreaker. Commander Thibault was from the municipality of L'Islet-sur-Mer, in the riding I am privileged to represent.

Commander Thibault provided support to scientists, rescued shipwrecked individuals and created trade routes. He did a great deal to ensure our country had a physical presence in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the sometimes hostile environments of Canada's North. The remarkable skills of Coast Guard pilots and commanders make it easy for us to forget, in the comfort of our own homes, the heroic risks they sometimes take and their key role in building our national security and our country.

On behalf of all my constituents and the elected members of the House, I would like to extend our condolences to the grieving families and say how grateful to and proud we are of Marc Thibault, this son of the South Shore.

[ English ] Poppy Campaign Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as of today, we see poppies pinned close to the hearts of our fellow Canadians. In Orléans earlier this morning, I participated in the launch of the poppy campaign together with members of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 632.

We owe many thanks to Susan Ierfino, Bill Gloss and Daniel Dion for undertaking this campaign and to the numerous dedicated volunteers who participate in its annual success. [ Translation ] The bright red poppy, a symbol of our support for our soldiers and veterans, adds a splash of colour to brighten up the dreary month of November.

It is a pleasure to encourage all Canadians to proudly display the poppy on the left side of their clothing, near their hearts. [ English ] By wearing this precious symbol, we remember all those who fought for freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in such conflicts as World War I, the Korean War, and the war in Afghanistan. [ Translation ] We will remember them.

[ English ] Eid al-Adha Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish Muslims around the world a happy Eid-al Adha. Eid-al Adha is about sacrifices. This week I had the pleasure of attending a marvellous celebration of Eid on the Hill. Members of the Muslim community travelled a great distance to attend the celebration on the Hill, including members from my own riding of Brampton—Springdale. Canadian Muslims continue to make an incredible contribution toward our great nation. I often meet with Muslim businessmen, women, faith leaders, and hard-working families who play a vital role.

Individuals such as Kamran Ali, Aqeel Akram, Tahir Khan and Safdar Hussain constantly go out of their way to help others. One of the wonderful initiatives they have taken on is to provide aid to the less fortunate in the region of Peel by helping pay for funeral and burial services. From the bottom of my heart, I would like to wish Muslims around the world a happy Eid Mubarak.

[ Translation ] Project BUMP Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on October 10, 2013, the Little Burgundy community and I celebrated the 10th anniversary of project BUMP. My heartfelt congratulations go to Steve, Francesco, and Renée for their ongoing work with youth through this project. [ English ] Ten years ago, in response to the violence that engulfed Little Burgundy, Rosemary Segee took it upon herself to develop a means to bring her community together in settling its conflicts, and project BUMP was born. [ Translation ] Ten years later, Little Burgundy is a new community.

The joint efforts of the police, organizations, and the community help our young people reach their full potential, be more determined, and accomplish great things. [ English ] I stand in this place today and proudly offer my most sincere thanks to all those who work so tirelessly with and for our young people.

Small Business Mr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today is Shop Small Business Day. What better day than today to highlight the importance of investors making a real contribution in exchange for the security and pathway to citizenship that Canada provides? This week the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration launched the new business incubator stream under the start-up visa program to recruit dynamic foreign entrepreneurs. This will attract early-stage and high-growth businesses. It will encourage innovation and economic growth.

It will position Canada ahead of other countries in the global competition of the 21st century. Our government is focused on creating jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity for Canadians. It is critical for Canada that we attract the best and brightest entrepreneurs and innovators from around the world

(1110) Foreign Affairs Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, early yesterday morning I made my way to the Montreal airport to welcome home a Canadian mom and her three children. Ola Elgadi spent more than a month trapped in Gaza after Egyptian authorities closed the Rafah border. While many Canadians question why a woman and three children would travel to a country under a travel advisory, the answer is simple: the undeniable and unbreakable bonds of family. [ Translation ] In August, Ola and her three daughters went to Gaza to visit their grandfather, who is very ill.

The three girls, aged 12, 8, and 3, had never met their grandfather before. [ English ] Canadian citizens abroad, regardless of their country of origin, their religion, profession, race, sexual orientation, age, or gender, are Canadian citizens and deserve the aid of their government in times of need. We cannot ask, we should not ask Canadian citizens to sacrifice their family bonds because their ancestry is not composed of Canadian citizens. To do so would simply be un-Canadian. I welcome home the Elgadis, residents of Vaudreuil—Soulanges and proud Canadian citizens.

[ Translation ] Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Leader of the Liberal Party likes to travel all over the country to talk about himself on the taxpayer's dime. In February, he told the Ottawa Citizen that he had earned $277,000 as a speaker since 2008, while working as an MP. That is a lot of extra money. Members of Parliament now have until the end of the month to submit a form to the House of Commons management, listing their salaries as speakers, which could ultimately hurt the Leader of the Liberal Party .

We have said a number of times that the Leader of the Liberal Party should not accept money from schools or charities for his speeches while earning a salary as an MP. I know that I would not want my children's school to pay a politician for bragging about his accomplishments to the students. It is sad to see that he is happy to accept their money.

[ English ] 1993 General Election Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today marks a momentous anniversary. Twenty years ago today was the 1993 election that elected many of my colleagues, but it also elected the government of my great friend, former prime minister Jean Chrétien. I send my congratulations to Mr. Chrétien this day, but also to the person he always called his most trusted adviser, his wife Aline. I appreciate the confidence the former prime minister showed in me. I was honoured to serve in many roles, including minister of labour and solicitor general.

Together our team achieved much to be proud of: turning a $42 billion deficit into nine years of balanced budgets, team Canada trade missions, massive job creation, a UN land mines treaty, sustaining the CPP, the Clarity Act, and the list goes on. I would also like to sincerely congratulate my colleagues in the House who are celebrating their 20th anniversary today. We may have different views, but we are all here to make a better Canada.

International Trade Mr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, one week ago today, the Prime Minister signed the historic European trade agreement in principle, which means a 20% increase in trade with Europe and 80,000 net new jobs. With NAFTA and the European deal, Canada will soon have preferred access to over 800 million of the world's best consumers. In the face of this huge win for Canada, the NDP members continue their doublespeak on trade and on the European deal. This week they have placed the MP for Windsor West on the trade committee.

This member is noted for his anti-trade positions, and last year he supported a big union plan to stop negotiations with Europe and all our other foreign allies in our trade negotiations. Trade is good for Canada; there is a $1,000 net benefit for families with the European deal. The NDP has to stop speaking out of both sides of its mouth and get behind our European deal.

(1115) [ Translation ] Conservative Members Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it must be fun to be a Conservative member these days, tucking yourself in each night saying that it was another good day and pretending that it was not your crew that appointed Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, and Patrick Brazeau to the Senate.

It is also a good day for them to be reminded that the Conservative Party has broken all of its promises about the Senate, to face the fact that the Conservative leader put the country in the hands of rogues like Nigel Wright and Ray Novak, and to applaud like trained seals when the Prime Minister invents his latest version of the facts and treats Canadians like nincompoops. I imagine that the Conservatives dreamed of a more wholesome political career before they were corrupted by power, but we will let them live with their consciences.

Meanwhile, we are going to hound them until they stop their pitiful excuses, admit to their failings, and start telling the truth. In 2015, we will deal with the Senate.

[ English ] Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Ms. Roxanne James (Scarborough Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Liberal leader likes to travel across the country to talk about himself on the taxpayer's dime. In February he told the Ottawa Citizen he had earned $277,000 in speaking fees since 2008 while earning an MP's salary. That is a lot of extra money. MPs now have until the end of the month to submit a form to the House of Commons administrators listing all of their paid speaking engagements, which may eventually pose a challenge for the Liberal leader.

We have mentioned several times that the leader of the Liberal Party should not be taking money from schools and charities for speaking engagements while earning a salary as a member of Parliament. I would not want my child's school to pay for any politician to tout his or her accomplishments to students. It is sad that the leader of the Liberal Party happily accepts this money.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Ethics Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, after months of saying Nigel Wright acted alone, claiming on June 5 that Nigel Wright's cheque to pay off Mike Duffy and his bad debts was “...not communicated to me or to members of my office”, yesterday the Prime Minister contradicted himself and said the Duffy cover-up scheme was communicated to “[a] few people” in his office. Which statement was true, and which one was a lie?

The Speaker : I do not think the hon. member is suggesting that any member in this House would have deliberately misled the House. I just encourage members to avoid using that word during the course of question period. Is the hon. parliamentary secretary rising to answer the question? The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the Prime Minister has been actually very clear and concise on this matter.

Nigel Wright, in his own filings, expressed whom he brought into his confidence on this matter. The Prime Minister spoke about this in July when he was asked this question. However, what is also clear is that when Senator Duffy approached the Prime Minister to try to justify his inappropriate expenses, the Prime Minister told him he needed to pay back any inappropriate expenses he did not incur. What the Prime Minister said to Senator Duffy is very clear: he should back the expenses that he was not entitled to.

I wish that the opposition, especially the opposition Liberals, would get on board with us and pass the suspension of the senators and stop obstructing that motion in the Senate. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us just ask the Conservatives to focus on their own mess for a moment. The minister does not seem to have understood the question. The Prime Minister has now given two completely contradictory versions of events. I asked which one was the truth and which one was not. Two opposite statements cannot occupy the same place at the same time.

Let us try another simple question: who are the “few people” in the Prime Minister's Office who were aware of the cash for repayment scheme to buy off Mike Duffy? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have been entirely consistent. Nigel Wright, in his own filings, identified the people he brought into his confidence with respect to this issue.

However, it is also clear that when Mike Duffy approached the Prime Minister with respect to his inappropriate expenses, he was told clearly and concisely to repay any expenses to which he was not entitled. He talked to us in caucus and he talked to senators and to the senior staff and to the MPs, making it quite clear to the rest of us not to accept payment for expenses we did not incur, and if we did to make it right. If we did not, we would not be sitting as a Conservative in this caucus. That is the standard they should accept. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I do not think my hon. friend across the way understands what the definition of being clear and consistent actually means, because this Prime Minister has been anything but. The Prime Minister 's explanations about the involvement of his office in a serious ethical scandal have now proven to be false. In documents filed by police in Federal Court, Nigel Wright said that at least four people who worked in the Prime Minister's Office knew about the cash for repayment scheme. Why will Conservatives not simply come clean, tell Canadians the truth, and let us know who else was involved in this scandal?

(1120) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, he is referring to the exact same documents that we are referring to. The Prime Minister was very clear on this. He responded to this as well in July. What is very clear is that the opposition needs to come on board, especially the opposition Liberals, and pass the suspension in the Senate immediately. What is also clear is that the Prime Minister said to Senator Duffy that if he had inappropriate expenses, he had to repay those expenses. It was very clear.

There can be no ambiguity about that. If he incurred an expense to which he was not entitled, he had to pay it back. [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, one of the people named by Mr. Wright in his RCMP document is Benjamin Perrin. However, the Prime Minister refuses to provide any details on that person's involvement. The day before yesterday, the Prime Minister said: “any information that we can provide, we have provided and will continue to provide.” So the Prime Minister too has provided information to the RCMP. Is that information about Benjamin Perrin? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said just the other day in this House, Mr. Perrin has actually spoken on this matter. What is also very clear is that Mr. Wright, in filings with the court, identified the people he brought into his confidence on this matter. Again what is very clear is that when Senator Duffy approached the Prime Minister on this matter, the Prime Minister told him that he had to repay those expenses.

What the Prime Minister also said was that he expected more from the people in his office, and had he been aware of this, there was no way the Prime Minister would have accepted a deal like this.

[ Translation ] Democratic Reform Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, can the government commit to appointing no further senators before receiving the final opinion from the Supreme Court? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear since we were elected in this place that we do not want to appoint senators: we want to elect senators. We want a Senate that is accountable to the people of Canada. It is the NDP that has consistently obstructed us in that matter.

When it comes to accountability in the Senate, it is the New Democrats and the Liberals who constantly obstruct us. We will not appoint any senators if they agree to elect senators.

Ethics Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister is in trouble, he resorts to Conservative lawyer Arthur Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton led the Prime Minister 's unsuccessful defence in the illegal in-and-out election financing scam. The police raided Conservative headquarters, charges were laid, the party pled guilty, convictions were entered, and the biggest possible fine was imposed. Mr. Hamilton is also the lead Conservative on robocalls, election fraud, throwing Michael Sona to the wolves, and so on. What was Mr. Hamilton's role in paying off Mike Duffy? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, in his filings Nigel Wright has identified the people that he brought into his confidence on this matter. More importantly right now, why are the Liberals in the Senate obstructing the passage of this motion, which would see these three senators stripped of their pay? Why do they not get on board in bringing real accountability to the Senate, stand up for taxpayers, stop obstructing the Senate's work, and vote in favour of this motion to respect taxpayers? Hon.

Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I say establish a committee and let us hear the evidence under oath. Arthur Hamilton and Benjamin Perrin, the Prime Minister 's former lawyer, are members of provincial law societies. As such, they are considered to be officers of the court with a duty to uphold the law.

As the Duffy deal and cover-up evolved since last December with hush money, threats, intimidation, deliberate interference with the Deloitte audit, and corruption of a Senate report, did these lawyers or any others warn the Prime Minister about potentially illegal activity, and did the Prime Minister ever ask? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that Nigel Wright, in his filings, has identified the individuals whom he brought into his confidence on this matter.

What is also clear is that we on this side of the House want this motion respecting taxpayers' rights in the Senate to pass. We want it to pass immediately and we are asking the Liberal senators to stop obstructing it and pass the motion so that we can respect taxpayers' rights, get rid of these three senators, and stop paying them. That is what Canadian people want us to do, and the Liberals should stop obstructing us.

(1125) Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Liberals will not be complicit in the Conservative cover-up. In terms of who beyond Nigel Wright was involved in the PMO's cover-up of the Mike Duffy scandal, “no one else” has changed to “a very few”, and the circle keeps expanding. Has the Prime Minister asked any questions of all the people who have worked for him since last December about what they knew of the Duffy payoff and what they did about it?

Is it the Prime Minister 's story that his most senior staff, fully knowing about the payoff, told him nothing and allowed him to mislead the country for months? How is that believable? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that Nigel Wright, in his filings, identified the people he brought into his confidence here. This is really an issue between Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright. Senator Duffy accepted payment for expenses that he did not incur. That was wrong. He was told to pay them back.

Nigel Wright then paid those expenses back and has accepted responsibility for making that payment. Now we have an opportunity in the Senate, and the Liberals are obstructing us. They need to get out of the way, respect taxpayers' rights, and help us get these three senators out of— The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Gatineau . Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I honestly think, and so do Canadians, that all of them need to get out of the way. [ Translation ] The Prime Minister is still refusing to say why he changed his version of the facts about the February 13 meeting between Nigel Wright, Mike Duffy and himself. He still refuses to say why he misled the House about the number of people who were aware of the $90,000 cheque. Can the Prime Minister tell us the exact number of people who were aware? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the Prime Minister was very clear. On February 13 when Senator Duffy approached him to try to justify these inappropriate expenses, the Prime Minister was very clear. He said, “Repay those expenses”. Senator Duffy then went on TV and issued a press release saying that he had repaid those expenses by taking out a mortgage on his home. This is what he said. Obviously, that did not happen. What Nigel Wright did was inappropriate. He is accepting responsibility for his actions. Senator Duffy should do the exact same thing, as should Senator Brazeau and Senator Wallin.

The opposition needs to get out of the way and let us do our job. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, none of this has any credibility. The Prime Minister pats himself on the back for making Mr. Duffy reimburse Canadians, except that he is the one who created the problem by appointing the Wallins, Brazeaus and Duffys of the world. So much for credibility; there is none. The Prime Minister waited until February 2013 to act, even though Mike Duffy's scandalous expenses began to come to light in November 2012. Why do nothing for so long? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Again, Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear. I like standing on this point because the Prime Minister was very clear. When he was approached by Senator Duffy, who tried to justify these inappropriate expenses, the Prime Minister said to him, “Repay those expenses”. Senator Duffy then went on TV and said that he repaid those expenses by taking out a mortgage on his home.

That was not right and when we found that out, he was removed from the Conservative caucus because, as the Prime Minister said, we expect a higher standard on this side of the House. We cannot expect our colleagues to support us when we do not live up to that standard and disrespect taxpayers' money. [ Translation ] Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knew, in October 2012, that there was something fishy about Mike Duffy's expenses.

When the scandal erupted, his chief of staff, the now-famous Nigel Wright, wrote in an email to Mike Duffy that this was just a smear campaign. Was the Prime Minister of the same view as his chief of staff at the time? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been of the same view: do not accept a payment for an expense was not incurred. He has said that in the House. It is a standard that we expect on this side of the House.

He said to our caucus and senior staff that if there is an issue with expenses, they need to repay those expenses and if they do not make that right, they will sit outside of this caucus. That is the standard that we expect on this side of the House. Contrast that to the Liberals, who would have been prepared to invite back disgraced Senator Mac Harb, or the leader of the opposition, who waited 17 years to tell police about a bribe he got. We expect more on this side of the House and so do Canadians.

(1130) Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us try again to clarify the doublespeak coming from the Conservatives about the Senate-PMO scandal. The Prime Minister admits he spoke to Mike Duffy about his expenses in February. Therefore, can the minister confirm that between then and May 15 the Prime Minister asked his staff no questions about Mike Duffy, nor was he told anything by his staff about Mike Duffy? Is that really the official Conservative story? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, what is clear here is the high standard that this Prime Minister expects of Conservative members of Parliament and our senators. He has made it very clear. If members have inappropriate expenses, if they claim expenses that they did not incur, they must repay those expenses. That is the standard that Canadians expect. It is, unfortunately, apparently not the standard that the NDP or Liberals expect. I would call on them now to work with us to make sure that the suspension vote in the Senate passes immediately. Stop this obstructing. Have the Liberal senators stop obstructing and pass this immediately.

Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Let us try again, Mr. Speaker. When the Prime Minister says a few people in the PMO knew about the Nigel Wright-Mike Duffy cash for repayment scheme, is he talking about the four people listed in the RCMP production order, the 13 people reported by CTV, or some number in between? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Again, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister addressed this in July. Nigel Wright, in his court filings, identified the people who he brought into his confidence on this matter.

This is an issue between Senator Duffy, who should repay the expenses that he did not incur, and Nigel Wright, who understands that what he did was wrong. He has accepted responsibility for that and is ready to accept the consequences of that. Unfortunately, Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin have not taken the same responsibility. That is why we are bringing a motion forward in the Senate to remove them from the Senate, to have their pay stripped. Unfortunately, Liberal senators are standing in the way of that. They need to pass that immediately. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the government claims to be co-operating with the authorities, yet it has not yet said whether it has handed over any documents or which Conservatives were involved. Has the Prime Minister 's Office handed over any documents to the police? Which Conservatives were involved? Has anyone now working in the PMO been interviewed by the police? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as the Prime Minister said from day one, we will continue to work with the authorities and provide them with any information that they require, but at the same time, the Prime Minister has been very clear. He wants the motion in the Senate to pass. The Prime Minister has been very clear, if members have an expense which they did not incur, they should repay that expense. The Prime Minister has been very clear, if they do not make that right, they will not be sitting in the Conservative caucus. That is the standard that Canadians expect.

That is the standard that they are getting from this party and the Prime Minister . Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the member talks about clarity. I would hate to see his definition of murky. How can Conservatives ask Canadians to trust them to manage billions of tax dollars when they cannot even trust them to tell the truth? Let us just try again. Can the government confirm that Ray Novak, Carolyn Stewart Olsen and Marjory LeBreton were involved in conversations demanding Pamela Wallin step down? Was the Prime Minister aware of these conversations? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear on this. Nigel Wright in his own court filings has identified the people that he brought into his confidence. What this is, is that Senator Duffy accepted expenses that he did not incur. He needs to repay those expenses. At the same time, Nigel Wright made a payment that he should not have made. He has accepted responsibility for making that payment and is prepared to accept the consequences of that. Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the member seems to forget that this scandal was created by the Prime Minister who appointed these senators in the first place and by the Prime Minister's Office, which tried to cover it up. Let us try again. Can the government confirm Pamela Wallin's assertion that the Prime Minister directed Marjory LeBreton and Ray Novak to request her resignation?

(1135) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, we have been very clear on this matter. Nigel Wright in his filings identified the people that he brought into his confidence on this matter. This is an issue between Senator Duffy and Mr. Wright. Senator Duffy accepted expenses which he did not incur. Nigel Wright then paid those expenses. That was inappropriate. Nigel Wright has accepted sole and full responsibility for his actions and is prepared to accept the consequences of those actions.

In the meantime, we have a motion before the Senate that the opposition Liberals in the Senate need to help us pass immediately so that we can continue to respect taxpayers' money. Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, if the government were being very clear, we would not need to keep asking questions. Conservatives refuse to answer questions, evade responsibility and use their power as a tool to induce others to do their bidding.

Yesterday in the Senate, Marjory LeBreton said she and Ray Novak told Mike Duffy he had to leave the Conservative caucus because “this is the only option that can ensure your future livelihood”. Does the government think it is ethical to threaten senators who do not go along with its schemes with the loss of their livelihood? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will let the NDP and the Liberals defend these three senators. I will let them do that.

The Prime Minister has been very clear on this matter: members should not accept payments for expenses that they did not incur. If they did that, they had better make it right. If they do not do that, they will be sitting outside of the Conservative caucus. That is the standard that we expect on this side of the House. The Prime Minister has also been very clear that he wants this motion of suspension passed in the Senate. I hope that the Liberals in the Senate will get out of the way and let us pass this motion immediately. Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister stated twice during a radio interview that no one in the PMO ever briefed the Prime Minister that others beyond Nigel Wright knew about the Duffy-Wright deal. The PM says he learned of the scandal on May 15 and he has repeatedly claimed he only learned of the cheque on July 5, but RCMP court files released on July 5 revealed his entire senior staff knew what was going on. Are Canadians really supposed to believe he never asked his staff for all the facts until July 5? Is it normal for a parliamentary secretary to say his boss is incompetent? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the member perhaps has his facts wrong after all of these weeks of talking about it. The Prime Minister said that May 15, when this came out in the media, was when he learned of the cheque. He addressed the people on the staff who may have known about this in July when Nigel Wright, in court filings, identified the people he brought into his confidence on this. The reality is that right now in the Senate we have a vote to suspend these three senators.

It is the Liberal senators who are standing in the way, obstructing this, and they are doing that because they support the status quo. They need to get out of the way, let us pass this suspension motion and get on with reforming the Senate. Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member is not speaking of Hugh Segal or Don Plett, is he? [ Translation ] No one believed the Prime Minister when he said that Nigel Wright was the only person who knew about the cheque to Mike Duffy. No one believes him today when he says that very few people were aware of this deal.

His senior staff were more than aware. They devised the plan to cover up the bribe. When will the Prime Minister commit to testifying under oath? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear on this matter. Mr. Duffy approached the Prime Minister on February 13 and tried to justify these expenses. The Prime Minister said to Mr. Duffy, “Repay those expenses”. That is what he said. Right now before the Senate we have a motion that will suspend these senators without pay.

The Liberals are defending the status quo. They are doing everything in their power to obstruct the motion. They need to get on board, and as the Prime Minister said and as we all believe, pass the motion to get these three senators out of the Senate, because that is what Canadians expect, respect for their tax dollars. Get out of the way and let us do that. Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, no one believed the Prime Minister when he said in June that only Nigel Wright knew of the $90,000 cheque to Mike Duffy. No one believes him now that he has changed his story to “very few people knew”.

We now know the Prime Minister 's entire senior staff not only knew, they devised the plan to cover up the bribe, extortion and corruption. The Prime Minister refuses to tell the truth to Parliament. When will he commit to testifying under oath so Canadians will finally hear the truth?

(1140) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if this member would like to come outside of the House with me right now and repeat those exact same words in front of a TV camera. We will wait for the press gallery to go outside, then he can repeat those same words outside. The Liberals will do anything to try to avoid the fact that it is their senators who are obstructing the motion in the Senate that would strip these three of their pay.

That is the standard that Canadians expect, not the Liberal standard of hiding $40 million from the taxpayers, and not the Liberal standard of slinging mud with no options. Come outside of the House and say that.

The Environment Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the last report from Environment Canada confirms what Canadians have known for years. Under the Conservatives, serious action on climate change is a fantasy. In fact, the Conservatives are further than ever from meeting their own weakened emissions targets. In other words, even after they moved the goalposts, they still cannot score. Does the government intend to take immediate corrective action or does the minister still doubt climate change? Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to achieving Canada's targets, and our leadership and actions prove this. We introduced new emissions regulations for vehicles and we are the first major coal user to ban construction of traditional coal-fired plants. Thanks to our actions, carbon emissions will go down close to 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberals.

We are accomplishing this without the NDP carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything. [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, “not even close” is what Environment Canada's report says about the Conservatives' prospects of reaching their 2020 greenhouse gas reduction targets. What is worse is that we are taking a step backward. At this rate, by 2015 their record will be just as bad as the Liberals. Enough with the nonsense. When will the minister announce reduction targets for the oil and gas sector to get the polluters to start doing their part? [ English ] Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we introduced new emission regulations for vehicles, and we are the first major country to reduce coal-fired power plants. Thanks to our actions, carbon emissions will go down close to 130 megatonnes, unlike what they would have been under the Liberal government. Unlike the NDP who thinks we can tax our way out of every problem, we are getting results without having to impose a carbon tax. [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, one day the minister might understand the consequences of the government's inaction when it comes to fighting climate change. I think one of the saddest examples is the gradual disappearance of beluga whales from the St. Lawrence. Climate change has caused the population of this marine mammal to drop by 12% in the past decade. This emblem of Quebec could even be put on the list of endangered species in the next few months. What concrete measures is the minister going to take to fight climate change and save the belugas? [ English ] Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has taken action to address climate change. We are a founding member of an international coalition taking action to reduce pollutants like black carbon, and we have made it a priority under the Arctic Council. These actions are seeing real results for Canadians without killing the economy, like the opposition wants to do. [ Translation ] Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister does not get it.

The Conservatives' attacks on science are preventing us from properly monitoring changes in the beluga population in the St. Lawrence. Are the belugas victims of an epidemic? Are toxic algae responsible for the population's decline? We do not know, and because of the Conservatives' cuts to the St. Lawrence research program, we will likely never know. Will the Conservatives restore the funding and the beluga research station that they cut? (1145) [ English ] Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, researchers from DFO have been working with partners to study the beluga whales in the St. Lawrence. A scientific peer review meeting was held to review the knowledge on the state of the population, and that peer-reviewed science advice will be published in the coming months. We will continue to conduct research on marine mammals in co-operation with all of our partners.

Consumer Protection Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the CRTC launched an initiative to consult with Canadians on the future of television. According to Jean-Pierre Blais, the chair of CRTC, this is an opportunity for all Canadians to provide feedback on what they think of their television system and how they would like to see it changed. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage please tell the House what our government is doing to ensure Canadians have greater consumer choice in television services? Mr.

Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member has a lot of concern about this issue and a lot of constituents from his riding will participate in the dialogue. When it comes to television service, Canadian consumers have told us that they want choice. It is consistent with our Speech from the Throne, where we committed to unbundling TV channels while also protecting Canadian jobs. Consistent with that commitment, yesterday the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission launched a dialogue with Canadians on the future of television.

That dialogue will play a

part in fulfilling our Speech from the Throne commitment to ensure that consumers do have a choice when it comes to TV and their selection of channels.

[ Translation ] The Budget Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I asked the President of the Treasury Board what public service jobs will be affected by the changes in the budget implementation act. His answer is an incredible example of stupidity, and I quote: “that is utterly false”. What a flop. I ask him who will be affected and he says that is false. That is not an answer. Let me try to ask the question again. Which public servants will be affected? [ English ] Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we will not speculate on a potential designation. These changes are still before the House. Unlike the opposition, our Conservative government cares about the safety of Canadians and not lining the pockets of big union bosses. Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of the Treasury Board said “We do need to have a bureaucracy that works for Canadians, that is competent, that is serving the public interest”, yet the minister did not display any level of competence when trying to answer simple questions about his own legislation.

When will the minister practise what he preaches, stop attacking the public service, and start taking care of the public interest? Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that the member raises this point. The NDP has never been on the side of taxpayers because it is in the pockets of big unions. Not believable? Its constitution uses the word “labour” and “union” 18 times, but does not say anything about fiscal accountability, not even once.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act will be amended to ensure that the public service is affordable, modern and high performing, as taxpayers expect. We will sit at the bargaining table on behalf of taxpayers to make sure they are represented, and where the rules are fair and balanced.

Labour Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is having a very hard time explaining changes he is making to the public service. He failed to provide examples of essential services that are affected. He failed to provide timelines for when details would actually be made public, and he failed to consult those affected. He launched a terrible diatribe against public service workers. How can Canadians trust the minister to manage the public service when he cannot even be trusted to explain his own legislation? Mr.

Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the budget clearly stated that the Government of Canada's intent is to set public service pay and benefit levels that are reasonable, responsible and in the public interest. The Public Service Labour Relations Act will be amended to ensure that the public service is affordable, modern, and high-performing, as taxpayers expect. The proposed amendments will bring savings, and streamline practices and bring them in line with other jurisdictions.

We will sit at the bargaining table on behalf of the taxpayer where the rules are fair and balanced. (1150) [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we do not know about that, especially coming from the President of the Treasury Board , who has been described as bargaining in bad faith. That did not come from me or the NDP, but the labour relations board. What is most shocking is that the President of the Treasury Board does not even know himself who will be targeted by the budget implementation act. That reeks of amateurism. I will give him a second chance by asking a simple question.

Which essential services and which public servants will see their fundamental right to strike violated? [ English ] Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we will not speculate on a potential designation. These changes are still before the House. Unlike the opposition, our Conservative government cares about the safety of Canadians and not lining the pockets of public sector unions and their bosses.

I look across the aisle, and a great many of the NDP caucus are former union leaders who continue to put those interests forward rather than the people who put them in office and who they are supposed to represent: the Canadian taxpayers. I hope they will look at the changes and agree that they are reasonable.

The Economy Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has joined with the IMF in downgrading Canada's growth numbers, which are now an anemic 1.6%. This year, in fact, U.K. and U.S. growth numbers are 50% higher than Canada's. Canadians, especially young Canadians, are being left behind. There are 224,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than back in 2008. Why are the Conservatives more interested in helping find the Franklin expedition than in helping find jobs and opportunities for young Canadians? Why are the Conservatives so out of touch with middle-class Canadian families?

Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada has the best jobs record in the entire G7, with over one million net new jobs created since July of 2009. Both the IMF and the OECD forecast that we will have among the strongest economic growth in the years ahead. However, as we have always said, we are not immune to the ongoing global economic turbulence.

That is why we are working hard to implement the pro-growth measures in economic action plan 2013, including extending and expanding the hiring credit for small business, increasing and indexing the lifetime capital gains exemption, and much more.

Taxation Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, credit unions, like the Victory Credit Union in Kings—Hants, are important economic drivers for rural and small town Canada. It makes no sense for the Conservatives to raise taxes on credit unions by $75 million. In Manitoba alone, this will be a loss of $5 million to credit union owner-members. In Steinbach, it is going to cost citizens there over a million dollars. Why are the tax-and-waste Conservatives ripping off the credit union owner-members of Steinbach for over a million dollars? Why the attack on rural and small-town Canadians? Mr.

Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, credit unions will still have access to the lower small business tax rate. That has not changed. We are simply eliminating an outdated tax subsidy from the 1970s, put in by the member's government, I might add, when the tax system was very different. No other small business received that special tax subsidy.

[ Translation ] Transport Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the people and locally elected officials in the Lower St. Lawrence are anxiously awaiting the announcement of phase 3 of the project to upgrade Highway 185, a four-lane highway that is part of the Trans-Canada Highway. When completed, the highway will be a vital tool for the economic development of the region and will improve the safety of one of the most dangerous stretches of highway in Quebec.

Can the minister confirm whether she discussed this with her Quebec counterpart at the most recent meeting of transport ministers? If so, did she guarantee the federal government's support, as was the case with phases 1 and 2 of the project? Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government and the Quebec government collaborate on all transportation issues affecting the province of Quebec. We will be working together. Mr.

François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Give me a break, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to have an even more vacuous reply next time and to be given even less information? We need a commitment now. Too many families have lost loved ones on Highway 185. Instead of sitting back and putting the ball in Quebec's court, the federal government has an opportunity to show leadership. The minister can be proactive and sign a federal-provincial funding agreement right now. She can confirm the federal government's participation and be prepared when the province is ready to move forward.

Accordingly, can the minister guarantee right now that the federal government will participate in this phase, just as it did in the first two phases of upgrades to this stretch of highway, which, need I remind members, is part of the Trans-Canada Highway?

(1155) Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that we always work with the Quebec government on transport issues in Quebec to the extent permitted by our programs. Quebec can establish its own priorities.

[ English ] Foreign Affairs Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, though the opposition might be fooled by Rouhani's charm offensive in Iran, we on this side of the House will not. As the UN rapporteur notes in his latest report, the human rights situation in Iran continues to be abysmal. The number of political prisoners executed is at an all-time high. Average citizens remain subject to arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, threat, harassment, and torture. Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs please tell the House the government's views on the regressive, clerical, military regime in Iran? Hon.

John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I share the member's disappointment with the NDP's recent statements in this regard. They have a president in Iran who got elected when they would not even allow women, who represent 51% of the population of Iran, to even contest the office. Iran has issues, as mentioned. It has stepped up its death penalty cases this year, which is deeply concerning to Canada. It is supporting Assad's war against his own people, including providing him with material support. It is financing and actively supporting terrorism around the world.

Its nuclear program causes us deep concern. They do not need to manufacture medical isotopes under 300 metres of rock.

Regional Economic Development Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it seems the Conservative government is continuing its march toward eliminating the federal presence on Prince Edward Island. Now it seems that the Vernon River post office is the next federal service to be axed. The government continues to remove federal jobs, assets, and services from Prince Edward Island. Will the government commit to keeping the Vernon River post office open, and stop its attack on rural Prince Edward Island? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, Canadians are choosing to communicate in ways other than sending letters. Due to the lack of demand, mail volumes have dropped almost 25% since 2008 and continue to fall. Since 1981, Canada Post has had a mandate to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis. We are concerned that it is posting significant losses.

[ Translation ] Rail Transportation Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with an incompetent government. That is what the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report on railway safety confirms. It is simply irresponsible to cut the railway safety budget by 19% when the amount of oil shipped by rail has gone up from 500 carloads to 140,000 carloads. Out of respect for the victims of Lac-Mégantic, will the Minister of Transport finally explain how she will correct the lax approach taken by her government? [ English ] Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary, the minister has been taking action. With respect to Lac-Mégantic, obviously our thoughts and prayers are with the families and victims who were affected by this tragic accident. We do need to let the authorities continue their investigation. Transport Canada will not hesitate to act on recommendations.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since 2006, our government has invested almost five billion new dollars to improve financial benefits and improve services like snow cleaning and home cleaning while focusing on veterans' rehabilitation. In total, this represents one-third more than previous governments spent on a yearly basis for Canadian veterans. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs please update this House on any new improvements our government has made? Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Northumberland—Quinte West for his hard work for Canadian veterans. In fact, according to the Veterans Ombudsman, a 24-year corporal who is medically released from the military will now receive upwards of $2 million in total financial benefits because of improvements our government has made. What is more, a veteran who is injured in the line of duty will now have up to $75,000 for university or college tuition for retraining and certification programs.

Our government is focused on helping veterans transition to civilian life, and we will continue to do that.

(1200) [ Translation ] Ethics Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, to get out of the crisis of confidence caused by the Prime Minister , his entourage and his senators, some are asking him to testify under oath, while others are asking him to submit all the documents or even to make them public. However, there is a solution that addresses all those requests. Why not have an independent public inquiry, like the Gomery commission or the Charbonneau commission?

To get out of the mess he got himself into and to prevent him from being hoisted by his own petard, why does the Prime Minister not set up an independent public inquiry right away, as the Bloc Québécois has requested since the beginning of the crisis? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, we are going to continue to work with all authorities and provide any information they require.

[ Translation ] Intergovernmental Relations Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, to please their voter base, which is grumbling about the deluge of ethical scandals in the government, the Conservatives are stepping up their vicious attacks against Quebec. The controversial appointment of Justice Nadon, the challenge to Quebec's Bill 99, and the unilateral reform of the Senate are all designed to stir up conflict and distract attention. Now the Minister of Human Resources is putting his oar in too.

He is planning to interfere once again in manpower training, and he is criticizing Quebec's requirements for apprentices in construction trades. Why does the minister want to lower standards that fall under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction? Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, manpower training is very important. We would like Quebec and other provinces to work within our program, because we have jobs available in Canada. Canadians can get training.

Matching skilled workers with job vacancies will be good for Canada's economic future.

[ English ] Ethics Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, no due process, we have no presumption of innocence, no natural justice, three senators with very different fact sets lumped together for punishment.

If this kind of vigilante justice took place in any other place in Canada, these people could go to the courts for redress following these numerous violations, but because it is in the Senate, as it would be in the House, if this precedent goes unchallenged, they will find themselves, just as Helena Guergis did, being told it “is royal prerogative and you have no right to complain if your reputation is ruined”. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing: stop this farce in the Senate, and call a full inquiry? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I will let the NDP, Liberals, and now the Green Party stand up for these three senators who are accused of very large infractions with taxpayers' money. The Prime Minister has been very clear. We want this motion passed. We want the Liberals in the Senate to stop obstructing this. They can pass this immediately. On this side of the House, we are going to stand up for taxpayers, and we want the opposition to do the same and have the Liberal senators get out of the way.

Let us pass this motion immediately.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) Bill C-6. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-6,

An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions . He said: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill S-10 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as that of Bill S-10 when it was before the House at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 41st Parliament. [ Translation ] Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Monday, October 21, 2013, the bill is deemed read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. (Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

(1205) [ English ] Canadian Museum of History Act Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages) Bill C-7. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-7,

An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian museum of history and to make consequential amendments to other acts . She said: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special orders made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-49 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-49 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 41st Parliament. [ English ] Accordingly, pursuant to an order made on Monday, October 21, 2013, the bill is deemed read the second time, considered by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, reported without amendment and concurred in at report stage. (Bill read the second time and referred to a committee, reported without amendment, and concurred in at report stage)

Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

That report states: The Committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business met to consider the items added to the Order of Precedence as a result of the replenishment of Wednesday, June 5, 2013, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House... [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the report is deemed adopted.

[ English ] Petitions Lyme Disease Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise to present two petitions. The first deals with Bill C-442 . It is a private member's bill calling for a national Lyme disease strategy. I happen to be the person who tabled it, but I like to think it comes from all members of the House. I have heard from many members of Parliament who have, as I do, constituents who are suffering from this terrible disease. This strategy will be of assistance to people who have Lyme disease, and significantly, will help with prevention and greater awareness.

Foreign Investment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from residents of Kingston and Toronto. It is calling on the government to avoid, refuse, and stop the ratification of the Canada-China investment treaty, which would bind future governments for 31 years to allowing the People's Republic of China's state-owned enterprises superior rights to bring arbitration cases against Canada if they do not like the laws we pass here.

[ Translation ] Rail Transportation Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I present to the House a petition signed by constituents in Vaudreuil-Soulanges who are calling upon the Parliament of Canada to ask the Canadian Transportation Agency to review the regulations pertaining to the speed of trains and to make it mandatory to install integrated command systems on trains.

(1210) [ English ] Cell Towers Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table yet another petition on behalf of several hundred more constituents in Guelph with regard to their health concerns about cell towers. The petitioners reference the World Health Organization, which has classified cell towers as a class 2B carcinogen. They also reference a National Research Council press report that cell towers should not be placed within 500 metres of residential properties, schools, hospitals, and daycares but should be at least 1000 metres away.

My constituents call on the Government of Canada to revise the Health Canada Safety Code 6 and enforce a moratorium on all new installations of cellular and wireless antennae and base stations until there are more studies. They also call for the immediate implementation of unbiased, non-industry-funded scientific research and ask the government to adopt the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health's report, entitled “An Examination of the Potential Health Impacts of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation”. The indiscriminate installation of cell towers at just any location must stop now.

Ferry Service Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a large number of people from Prince Edward Island who wish to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that the Northumberland Ferries Limited contract ends on March 31, 2014. The economy of eastern Prince Edward Island depends heavily on the ferry service. It helps maintain the three industries on Prince Edward Island, namely farming, fishing, and tourism.

Therefore, the petitioners wish to direct the Government of Canada to negotiate a new contract that is equal to or greater than the previous three-year contract with Northumberland Ferries Limited, taking into account the increase in the consumer price index, and to provide public funding to ensure that the infrastructure meets or exceeds the level of today's standards.

Old Age Security Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, since I