House of Commons Debates — Tuesday, December 3, 2013 (Sitting 29, 41st Parliament, 2nd Session) — VOLUME 147

2013-12-03 / Sitting 029 / 41-2 / E

House of Commons Debates

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 029 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, December 3, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES December 3, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 029 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 029 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 029 (Version officielle) 147 029 03 12 2013 2013/12/03 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner The Speaker : Pursuant to

section 28 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, it is my duty to present to the House the report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on an inquiry in relation to the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable .

Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's responses to 54 petitions.

[ Translation ] Northwest Territories Devolution Act Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Madawaska—Restigouche, CPC) Bill C-15. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15,

An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ English ] Parliamentary Science Officer Act Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) Bill C-558. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-558,

An Act to establish the position of Parliamentary Science Officer . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce my very first private member's bill, Bill C-558 ,

an act to establish the position of parliamentary science officer. Science in Canada is at a crossroads. For too many years we have heard that scientific evidence is often ignored by policy-makers and that federal scientists are being unduly prevented from sharing their research with Canadians. My bill calls for the creation of an independent office tasked with providing Parliament with sound information and expert advice on all scientific matters of relevance. This would revitalize the exchange of knowledge between scientists and politicians and give public science a more robust voice in the legislative process.

Modelled after the U.K.'s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy and our very own Parliamentary Budget Officer, my proposal aims to help ensure decisions made in Ottawa are informed by the best scientific evidence available. A parliamentary science officer would be a significant improvement on the previous Office of the National Science Advisor, which lacked the institutional independence from the government of the day.

As science is fundamentally a non-partisan issue, I hope this legislation will receive the support of members from all sides of the House. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Reform Act, 2013 Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) Bill C-559. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-559,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (reforms) . He said: I have the honour to present my bill. It is a bill that would strengthen the principle on which our democratic institutions in Canada were founded, that being the principle of responsible government. It would strengthen local control over party nominations. It would restore and strengthen the concept of confidence in House of Commons parliamentary party caucuses and would reinforce the caucus as a decision-making body.

The bill is based on some old ideas that people like Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine—a monument to whom is standing behind the Centre Block on Parliament Hill—put forward that established the principles on which modern Canadian political institutions are based. These ideas have laid the foundations for this country. If adopted, I hope this bill will strengthen those ideas and allow our Parliament to flourish in the 21st century. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions Criminal Code Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I have hundreds of signatures on a petition from Ontario that requests Parliament amend the Criminal Code to decriminalize the selling of sexual services and criminalize the purchasing of sexual services, and provide support to those who desire to leave prostitution. In this day and age, the petition is extremely important, and it is the Canadian public that is bringing forth this request.

Science Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first petition calls on the Government of Canada to respect the right of Canadians to access unbiased information through the collection of requisite statistics, adequately fund basic research, and free scientists to speak openly on all tax-supported findings, apart from those subject to legitimate national security constraints.

(1010) Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the petitioners say the practice of shark finning results in an estimated 73 million sharks a year being killed for their fins alone and that over one-third of all shark species are threatened with extinction as a result of shark finning. Measures must be taken to stop the global practice of shark finning and ensure the responsible conservation management of sharks. They call on the Government of Canada to immediately ban the importation of shark fin to Canada.

Sambro Island Lighthouse Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of Nova Scotians, who are calling on Parliament to create a strategy to preserve the Sambro Island lighthouse, an important symbol of our local heritage. In fact, it is the oldest lighthouse in operation in North America. I met with the community and with MLA Brendan Maguire recently, and I saw how strong the attachment is in the Sambro area. I want to congratulate the Sambro Island Lighthouse Heritage Society for its efforts to preserve and maintain this iconic structure.

The society has actually gathered more than 5,000 signatures in support of the lighthouse. On behalf of those who signed the petition I am tabling today on behalf of all Nova Scotians who want our heritage preserved, we call on the federal government to continue to fund the Sambro Island lighthouse.

[ Translation ] Mining Industry Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this morning I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of petitioners from Sherbrooke. This petition was initiated by Development and Peace. I met with representatives from the organization in Sherbrooke, in the Eastern Townships, where it is quite active.

In this petition, the organization is calling for the creation of a legislated, extractive sector ombudsman mechanism in Canada that would have the capacity to receive and investigate complaints and assess compliance with corporate accountability standards that are based on international labour, environmental and human rights norms. It is a very simple request. I hope to receive a satisfactory answer from the government for the hundreds of people who have signed the petition in Sherbrooke and the rest of the Eastern Townships.

[ English ] Lyme Disease Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first petition is from residents of my constituency, Saanich—Gulf Islands , from Sidney and Saanichton, supporting my private member's bill for a national Lyme disease strategy, Bill C-442 , and they are very hopeful that it will receive non-partisan support across this House.

Proportional Representation Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for proportional representation to make sure every vote counts in Canada. The petitioners are from Edmonton, Port Moody and Langley, as well as some from within my riding.

International Trade Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of many Canadians who are calling on our government to decline to ratify the Canada-China FIPA, that is the foreign investment, promotion and protection agreement, and take immediate steps to limit the influence of state-owned enterprises on our democracy. FIPA compromises Canadian sovereignty and it gives the Communist Chinese state-owned enterprises a say in Canadian law-making.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 51, 53, 55, 56, 58 and 59. [ Text ]

Question No. 51--

Ms. Kirsty Duncan

With regard to the development of greenhouse gas regulations for the oil and gas sector: (

a) what is the total of all relevant government expenditures related to the activities of the Process Working Group (PWG) including, but not limited to, (

i) travel expenses (transportation, accommodation, rental of meeting spaces or equipment, food, and other travel-related expenses), (ii) staff time costs, including any overtime pay incurred, (iii) any services or other support procured from consultants or other contractors, (iv) other relevant expenses incurred, with a break-down of all related details; (

b) in addition to those expenditures incurred through the operations of the PWG, what are any other government expenditures regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with oil and gas sector companies including, but not limited to, (

c) in addition to those expenditures incurred through the operations of the PWG, what are any other government expenditures, regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with oil and gas sector industry associations including, but not limited to, (

d) in addition to those expenditures incurred through the operations of the PWG, what are any other government expenditures, regarding consultation, discussion, engagement, negotiation with the government of Alberta, including, but not limited to, (

e) in addition to those expenditures incurred through the operations of the PWG, what are any other government expenditures, regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with other provincial or territorial governments, including, but not limited to, (

f) what are the government’s expenditures, regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with First Nations representatives, including, but not limited to, (

g) what are the government’s expenditures, regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with representatives of other governments (e.g. municipal governments, U.S. officials, etc.), including, but not limited to, (

h) what are the government’s expenditures regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with environmental organizations, including, but not limited to, (

i) what are the government’s expenditures regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with scientists, economists, and other independent experts, including, but not limited to, (

j) what are any additional government expenditures not included above regarding consultation, discussion, engagement or negotiation with other stakeholders, with a break-down of all related details, including, but not limited to, (

Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (i), based on readily available information, Environment Canada’s total travel expenditures related to the development of greenhouse gas regulations for the oil and gas sector is approximately $135,680. This includes travel related to activities of the process working group as well as other travel for consultation, discussion, and engagement. A detailed breakdown of the expenditures by stakeholder type is not available, as trips frequently involve multiple meetings with different stakeholders, individuals, or organizations. For this reason, some of these expenditures may include travel for purposes other than the greenhouse gas regulations.

With regard to (ii), Environment Canada has no database that records project-specific staff time costs. Based on readily available information, Environment Canada’s overtime expenditures related to the development of greenhouse gas regulations totals approximately $3,643.

With regard to (iii), based on readily available information, services or other support procured by Environment Canada from consultants or other contractors to directly support the development of greenhouse gas regulations totals approximately $187,294.

With regard to (iv), other expenditures made by Environment Canada to support the development of greenhouse gas regulations total approximately $4,772. This amount includes expenditures for non-travel hospitality and room rentals.

Question No. 53--

Ms. Kirsty Duncan :

With respect to the chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) clinical trial being undertaken by Dr. Traboulse: (

a) what milestones are reportable to the government, (

i) on what date(

s) is reporting expected to occur, (ii) how will this information be communicated to patients, the medical community, and the general public; (

b) on what date did each of the trial sites pass ethical review; (

c) on what date did recruitment of patients begin for each of the trial sites; (

d) how many patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are being recruited for each site, and how is consistency in diagnosis and treatment being ensured across sites; (

e) who is performing the diagnoses for CCSVI for each site, (

i) how is the diagnosis being performed, including, but not limited to, ultrasound and venogram, (ii) how many diagnoses has each person undertaking the diagnosis at each site performed prior to the study, and by whom was each person trained; (

f) who is performing the procedures for each site, (

i) how is the procedure being performed, including, but not limited to, anesthetic, balloon size, (ii) how many procedures has each person undertaking the procedure at each site performed prior to the study, and by whom was each person trained; (

g) what are the selection criteria for the trial, including, but not limited to, type of MS, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, venous abnormality/malformed valve/stenosis, mobility, (

i) how do these criteria compare with the international literature, (ii) with how many international studies to date will the selection criteria be analytically comparable; (

h) if both progressive and relapsing-remitting forms of MS are to be examined in the trial, how will statistical significance be ensured given that 50 of 100 patients will undergo a “sham” procedure, 25 patients will have a progressive form of the disease, and 25 will have a relapsing-remitting form of the disease, and will people with both primary progressive and secondary progressive forms of the disease be included, and if so, how will statistical significance be ensured; (

i) given that research has shown numerous venous abnormalities in the head, neck, and chest of MS patients, (

i) how will statistical significance be ensured if there are only a limited number of patients, but multiple types of venous or valvular abnormality, (ii) how will a venous stenosis be measured (e.g. diameter, size); (

j) what outcomes will be measured, including, but not limited to, EDSS, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, and Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Inventory, and at what time scales; (

k) will patient-reported quality of life scores be included, and if so, what is the specific methodology; (

l) what specific follow-up care will patients undergoing the “sham” procedure and treatment receive, and at what specific time periods; (

m) if patients received the “sham” procedure, within what time period will they receive treatment; (

n) how will the results of this study be interpreted within the growing international body of research, (

i) to how many studies will this study be compared, (ii) to how many studies will this study be directly comparable; (

o) what long-term follow-up will those enrolled in the trial receive and for what time period; (

p) what is the cost of the trial, and what are each of the partners contributing, including, but not limited to funding, equipment, expertise, pharmaceutical products; (

q) what is the cost of each diagnosis, (

i) what is the cost of each “sham” procedure, (ii) what is the cost of each procedure; and (

r) who is overseeing the trial, (

i) the safety of the patients, (ii) the integrity of the results?

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to milestones and the reporting process in the Canadian MS clinical trial supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as queried in questions (a), (b), (c), (d), (n), and (r), the Canadian MS clinical trial supported by the Government of Canada is taking place in four sites across the country: Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal, and Quebec City. The trial led by Dr.

Anthony Traboulsee from the University of British Columbia started on November 1, 2012; two sites, Vancouver and Montreal, received ethics approval in 2012, and the other two sites received ethics approval from their research institutions by February 2013. The four teams have met on a regular basis to ensure harmonization of the protocol among the sites. Protocol training, ultrasound technician training, and interventional radiologist training took place at the four sites over the course of 2013 and were completed by September 2013.

The recruitment of patients has started at the four sites and is expected to be completed over the next year. In all, 100 patients are expected to participate in the trial. In August 2013, Dr. Traboulsee announced that researchers had been able to assess approximately 50 patients to determine whether they have the CCSVI condition and that procedures had been done on fewer than 10 patients. It is important to note that the study is a double-blind study. In other words, neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment.

This process is important, as it guards against both experimenter bias and placebo effects. In this context, the researcher team will be unable to analyze and share preliminary data before the study is completed.

Dr. Traboulsee expects to reach final conclusions on the safety and efficacy of the CCSVI procedure by 2016. It is expected that the results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Under CIHR’s open access policy, researchers awarded CIHR funding are required to ensure that all research papers generated from CIHR-funded projects are freely accessible through the publisher's website or an online repository within 12 months of publication. As indicated in the request for applications, the principal investigator will have to submit a final report to CIHR.

He is also required to submit annual progress reports. With regard to the protocol and funding of the MS clinical trial as queried in questions (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (o), (p), and (q), funding of the $6 million study over four years is a collaborative effort of CIHR, the MS Society of Canada, and the provinces in which the trial will take place. The Provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, and Québec and the MS Society of Canada have each pledged $500,000 towards this clinical trial.

Details regarding the funding opportunity developed by CIHR to support a phase I/II MS clinical trial, including the selection criteria, are available on CIHR’s website.

The proposals submitted to CIHR for the funding opportunity were rigorously evaluated by a panel of international experts. The panel recommended supporting the application submitted by Dr. Anthony Traboulsee, which ranked first in the competition. It is important to note that all of the 100 MS patients participating in the trial will receive the CCSVI procedure at some point. During the first year of the trial, half of the patients will receive the CCSVI procedure, while the other half will undergo a placebo procedure.

In the second year, MS patients who received the placebo procedure in the first year will undergo the CCSVI procedure, while those that received the CCSVI procedure in the first year will undergo the placebo procedure. MS patients participating in the double-blind clinical trial will be monitored over a two-year period. Specific questions regarding the protocol of this independent research project or the cost of the clinical procedures should be addressed directly to the principal investigator of the study.

Question No. 55--

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia :

With regard to Health Canada’s Radiofrequency Exposure Guidelines known as Safety Code 6: (

a) how was the code established; (

b) does the code deal with potential dangers from all electromagnetic devices; (

c) what is the distinction between thermal and non-thermal effects of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy; (

d) does existing research on the thermal effects of exposure to RF energy adequately determine whether such exposure is safe for humans; (

e) does existing research on the non-thermal effects of exposure to RF energy adequately determine whether such exposure is safe for humans; (

f) what work is Health Canada undertaking to remedy the uncertainty surrounding the non-thermal effects of exposure to RF energy by carrying out additional research into the non-thermal effects of exposure to RF energy; and (

g) are changes to the code planned to include the most up-to-date scientific research on devices such as Hydro “smart” meters?

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the exposure limits in Safety Code 6 were developed in accordance with the World Health Organization’s Framework for Developing Health-Based EMF Standards, where “EMF” represents “electromagnetic fields”, and are based on the lowest exposure level—that is, the threshold--at which any scientifically established human health hazards occur. Safety factors were incorporated into these limits to add an additional level of protection for the general public and personnel working near RF sources.

When developing the exposure limits in Safety Code 6, Health Canada scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies, thermal and non-thermal, and employ a weight-of-evidence approach when evaluating possible health risks from exposure to RF energy. With regard to (b), Safety Code 6 sets forth human exposure limits for electromagnetic fields in the frequency range 3 kHz to 300 GHz. The exposure limits in Safety Code 6 are established to protect individuals from established adverse health effects from electromagnetic radiation, regardless of their origin.

This would include exposure to emissions from all wireless devices and associated infrastructure. The sum total of electromagnetic exposure from all sources combined must not exceed the limits in Safety Code 6. As long as wireless devices do not expose persons to electromagnetic fields in excess of the limits of Safety Code 6 there is no danger to human health.

Wireless devices such as cellphones, smart meters, Wi-Fi, and their associated infrastructure, such as cellphone towers, are regulated by Industry Canada. To ensure that public exposures fall within acceptable guidelines, Industry Canada has developed regulatory standards that require compliance with the human exposure limits outlined in Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 as of 2009.

With regard to (c), thermal effects are defined as biological effects resulting from heating of the whole body or a localized region resulting from exposure to electromagnetic energy, where a sufficient temperature increase has occurred that results in a physiologically significant effect. Non-thermal effects are defined as biological effects resulting from exposure to RF fields that are not due to tissue heating. Safety Code 6 considers both thermal and non-thermal effects for the establishment of human exposure limits. With regard to (

d) and (e), yes, Health Canada scientists monitor the scientific literature on this issue on an ongoing basis, and Safety Code 6 is periodically updated to take into account recent scientific data from animal, in vitro, and epidemiological studies carried out worldwide. The limits recommended for general public exposure to RF energy are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including children, on a continuous basis.

Based on a thorough review of scientific data conducted over the past 50 years, Health Canada has concluded that there is no scientific basis for the existence of any short- or long-term adverse health effects or of cumulative adverse thermal effects associated with RF exposure at levels below the limits outlined in Safety Code 6.

With regard to (f), for more than two decades, Health Canada has conducted its own research on the potential non-thermal effects of RF energy. This research has increased the scientific knowledge regarding the intensity of RF energy in our environment and has helped to establish the human exposure threshold at which potentially adverse health effects can occur. This important information, along with the review and consideration of other Canadian and international studies, forms the basis for establishing safety standards for RF energy that protect the health of Canadians.

All Health Canada research on RF energy is funded by the Government of Canada. Research publications from this research are available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/radiofreq/research-recherche-eng.php.

With regard to (g), Safety Code 6 is currently under review to ensure that the most up-to-date scientific studies on the potential effects of RF energy on human health are reflected in the code. The review includes an independent assessment by an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada. It is anticipated that the expert panel report will be released early next year. It is important to note that Safety Code 6 sets forth maximum human exposure limits for a range of frequencies in the RF spectrum and not device emission limits.

Question No. 56--

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia :

With regard to the Royal Society of Canada’s Expert Panel on Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices, commissioned by Health Canada: (

a) for the period of 1990-2012, how have panel members been selected; (

b) for the period of 1990-2012, what has been the composition of the Panel by (

i) professional background, (ii) regional origin; (

c) are any conflict of interest provisions imposed on committee members and, if so, what are they; and (

d) with regard to the conflict of interest provisions referred to in ( c ), who determines if they apply?

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the selection of expert panel members is an independent process undertaken at the discretion of the Royal Society of Canada, the RSC, as per their internal policy guidelines. The 2013 contract with the RSC stipulated the various areas of technical expertise required of the members that comprise the expert panel. As per the standard process established by the RSC with respect to the development of expert panels, Health Canada provided recommendations in 2013, upon request by the RSC, on potential members for consideration.

All selections and final decisions regarding expert panel membership are made by the RSC. As such, any queries regarding the selection process should be directed to the RSC. Health Canada has no record of the process used for the selection of expert panel members contributing to the first report, dated March 1999.

With regard to (b), the 1999 expert panel consisted of a molecular biologist, a geneticist, a bio-statistician-epidemiologist, a biophysicist, a physician-immunologist, an epidemiologist, a radiologist, and a neurologist-biochemist. In terms of regional origin, six of the 1999 expert panel members were from institutions located in Canada: three from Ontario, two from British Columbia, and one from Quebec. Two members were from American institutions, one located in Ohio with the U.S. federal government and one located in California with a public university.

The 2013 expert panel is composed of an epidemiologist, a physicist, an engineer, a neurologist, a biologist, two radiologists, and a public health expert. Two members of the panel are from Ontario, one from Alberta, and one from British Columbia. The other four members are from international institutions, academia in the United States, a consultant organization in the United Kingdom and the government of the Netherlands.

With regard to (c), the RSC has conflict of interest provisions for expert panel members outlined in their procedural manual Expert Panels: Manual of Procedural Guidelines. These provisions require the disclosure of personal involvements that may impact service on an expert panel. It indicates that prospective panellists are required to complete declaration forms outlining any issues that might give rise to a real, apparent, or potential conflict of interest in relation to their official duties.

Specific considerations are given to the following categories: individual economic impact; proprietary information; public statements and positions; access to government information; reviewing one’s own work; and employment by a sponsoring agency. Conflict of interest policies often acknowledge that the existence of such considerations does not in itself establish that the individual is in conflict. Additional information on the RSC’s conflict of interest guidelines can be found in their procedural manual online, available in English only.

With regard to (d), the assessment of conflict of interest, as it relates to expert panel members, is an internal RSC process carried out by two committees; the Committee on Expert Panels and the Scientific Advisory Committee on Expert Panels. Procedures for reviewing points of view and conflict of interest are outlined in the RSC’s document; Expert Panels: Manual of Procedural Guidelines. These committees assess the declarations of prospective panel members and determine if any adjustments need to be made to the membership of the expert panel. All queries regarding this process should be made directly to the RSC.

Question No. 58--

Mr. Ryan Cleary :

With regard to the Department of Natural Resources and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB): (

a) can the department provide details of any studies carried out on helicopter night flights to oil facilities, specifically the safety of day flights versus night flights in transporting employees to and from the offshore work site; (

b) has the government taken any action to implement recommendation 29(

a) of the 2010 Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry into the establishment of an independent offshore safety regulator; and (

c) has the government investigated the costs associated with establishment of the office of an independent safety regulator, and, if so, can the department provide a breakdown of the cost?

Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Canada’s offshore installations and the equipment and training required to operate them must meet strict regulatory standards that are among the highest in the world. The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, the C-NLOPB, continues to act on the recommendations in the 2010 Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry, the OHSI, that are within its purview, including in the area of worker safety on helicopters. While industry has signalled its interest in extending flying hours, the C-NLOPB has not yet received a formal application.

Once received, the C-NLOPB will conduct a thorough analysis and ensure that the eight conditions required by the Board are met. Until then, night flights will not resume.

Further information on the C-NLOPB eight conditions may be found at http://www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/ohsi/advdoc12.pdf.

With regard to (a), the following four publicly available studies on helicopter night flights to oil facilities, related to the safety of day flights versus night flights in transporting employees to and from the offshore work site, have been conducted and can be found on the C-NLOPB’s web site: report by SMS Aviation Safety Inc. in support of the OHSI implementation team, entitled “Operational Safety Risk Analysis of Night Helicopter Transport Operations in the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Industry”, at www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/ohsi/osrareport.pdf; operators’ report, entitled “Return to Night Passenger Transport Operations”, at www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/ohsi/nightpassengerupdate.pdf; “Level of Service Requirements for First Response Helicopters”, at www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/ohsi/levofserv.pdf; and “Level of Service Analysis Gap”, by Cougar Helicopters, at www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/ohsi/losanalysis.pdf.

With regard to (b), the Government of Canada takes the recommendations of the 2010 Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry seriously and continues to work with the boards, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia to strengthen worker safety in Canada’s offshore. The government has full confidence in our experienced, independent offshore regulators to responsibly manage occupational health and safety requirements as well as oil and gas development.

The C-NLOPB has been structured in such a way as to ensure that worker safety is managed separately under the supervision of a chief safety officer, a CSO, with considerable independent authority. The CSO can order the discontinuation of an operation at any moment if he or she believes there is risk of serious bodily harm. Such an order can only be overturned by a judge.

Further, following consultations with industry, regulators, and labour groups, the Government of Canada, in partnership with the Provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, is proposing improvements to legislation that will establish a clear occupational health and safety framework in legislation that is enforceable by law and free of any jurisdictional uncertainty.

The proposed changes will also provide modern enforcement powers to new occupational health and safety officers and existing operational safety officers and will clarify that the occupational health and safety regime applies to employees and other passengers in transit to and from offshore workplaces.

With regard to (c), the Government of Canada has not conducted a detailed cost estimate for an independent safety regulator.

Question No. 59--

Mr. Ryan Cleary :

With regard to Transport Canada, and specifically the St. John's Port Authority: (

a) what new commercial infrastructure projects does the Port Authority currently have underway on the St. John's waterfront; (

b) what are the details of the commercial arrangements for the infrastructure projects; and (

c) what other developments does the Port Authority have planned for the St. John's waterfront?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada port authorities, such as the St. John’s Port Authority, operate at arm’s length from the federal government and on a commercial basis, within the parameters set by the Canada Marine Act and associated regulations and their individual letters patent. Each Canada port authority has an independent board of directors that is responsible for determining the port authority’s strategic direction and overseeing the port authority’s operations. The St. John’s Port Authority is responsible for determining its capital projects and how these are financed and implemented. Questions regarding the St.

John’s Port Authority’s current and future port infrastructure projects and the associated commercial arrangements should be directed to the port authority.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 50 and 54 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. [ Text ]

Question No. 50--

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay :

With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard: (

a) what is the complete list of all Canadian Coast Guard ships in service each year since 2000, including (

i) the name of each ship, (ii) the location of the home port for each ship, (iii) the number of months per year each ship is operational, (iv) the annual operating budget of each ship, (

v) the number of full time and part time employees on each ship, (vi) a list of each operation undertaken by each ship, including a detailed

summary of the operation, date, and location(s); (

b) what are the ships that are currently slated to be taken out of service or have annual operational service times decreased; and (

c) what are the ships that are currently in production and the proposed location for their home port?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 54--

Hon. Mark Eyking :

With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces, since January 1, 2006: (

a) what are the file numbers of each set of Minutes of Proceedings for a Board of Inquiry convened to investigate the death, attempted suicide, serious injury, or injury likely to cause permanent disability of a Canadian Armed Forces member; (

b) what was the date on which the Chief of Defence Staff, or a person acting on behalf of the Chief of Defence Staff, approved those minutes; (

c) if the minutes have not been approved, the date by which such approval is anticipated; and (

d) has a copy of the minutes of the Board of Inquiry been released to the victim or next of kin of each victim?

(Return tabled)

[ English ] The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 Bill C-4—Time Allocation Motion Hon.

Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: Motion That, in relation to Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures , not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

(1015) Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, here we are again. [ Translation ] The government is using this procedure for the 58th time. That is unbelievable. This is the 58th time since the last election alone. The government is shattering all the records and the worst records at that.

This government is obsessed with shutting down all debate. [ English ] Something to notice about this particular one, which I think makes the point as to why the Conservatives are so offline and so contrary to parliamentary rules and procedure, is that the bill they are rushing through under time allocation this time, which they had to rush through in the last stage of debate to get it to committee, was not looked at by the committee for three weeks. The government hit the panic button in the House of Commons and shut down debate because it is such an urgent bill. We had to get to it right away.

It was so vital to the economy, but of course, the finance committee did not look at it for the next 21 days. A second piece of this time allocation, which is fascinating, is that the Conservatives make so many mistakes when they do this, when they shut down debate in Parliament. Bill C-4 , which they are shutting down today, is there to make corrections to a previous bill that they rushed through Parliament, Bill C-60 , which was making corrections to a previous bill that they rushed through Parliament, Bill C-48 . This is what the government does time and again.

It keeps making these mistakes because it is in such a panic, yet it calls it good government and good order. It is not. It is bad legislation. It is bad process. When is the government going to learn? This is no way to run a country. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, the approach of this government to the use of time allocation has been as a scheduling device, not as a device to end debate. As has been noted, there have been occasions when the opposition has been critical of the use of time allocation, stating that we have allocated more time than is necessary for the debate on a bill.

The reason is that the opposition keeps getting confused about its purpose. The opposition thinks it is about limiting debate, but we believe it is about ensuring a proper amount of debate, as well as ensuring certainty about decisions getting made. When we look around the world today, the problem is gridlock, especially on economic questions, and this is a budget implementation bill. There is uncertainty, whether it be in legislatures across the border to the south or in the legislatures of Europe, where they have had a crisis going on for some years.

Where there has been an inability to make decisions, that has undermined the confidence and economies. We in Canada have the benefit of the strongest economy of the major developed economies. The fact is, and we will hear it again and again from people around the world, that it is because this government shows clear leadership and has the ability to get decisions made by Parliament to give the people in the House the right to actually vote on the economic measures in front of them. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I think the whopper of the year would go to this particular government House leader in terms of how he tried to spin this issue. To say that time allocation is about scheduling is so far from reality that it is totally amazing that he would even stand in his place to try to make that sort of an assertion. Let there be no doubt, it is absolutely shameful the manner in which the Conservative government is treating the House of Commons. It is an assault on democracy, and it is as simple as that. We have procedures put in place.

No government in the history of our country has ever gone into time allocation in the same fashion that the current government has done. It has also brought in these huge budget bills and used them as a back door to pass numerous other pieces of legislation, which should be stand-alone legislation. I believe that Canadians will become more and more aware of the tactics of the Conservative majority government and when the time comes, we will see that there will be a huge change because what the Conservatives are doing inside this chamber is a disservice to each and every member of Parliament.

It does not matter whether one is a Liberal, a Conservative or a New Democrat, it is a disservice. When can we expect this government House leader and the PMO to start demonstrating more respect for proper procedures here in the House of Commons?

(1020) Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North carries out office hours in McDonald's every Saturday morning. I have read that. Therefore, I am surprised by his use of the Burger King reference in offering me a Whopper, but I would be happy to take up that offer with him some day.

However, I know he is new to the House, relatively speaking, because had he been here when the Liberals were last in government, he would have found that in their last budget implementation bill they were quite content to amend a range of legislation on a broad range of topics.

For example, the last bill from the Liberals on budget implementation amended the Auditor General Act, the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, and many more. I could go on.

I say this not to be critical of that practice because it was doing what a budget implementation bill does: implement a budget. My problem is that he is being a typical Liberal in saying, “Do as I say, not as I do”. It is that hypocrisy from Liberals that for generations has disappointed Canadians. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons . When we talk about time allocation motions, we normally assume that discussions haven taken place with the government leader.

There are supposed to be discussions and negotiations. Why is he incapable of holding these discussions and negotiations? Why did he have to use a time allocation motion for the 58th time? It seems to me that this undermines the credibility of this government, because a government should be capable of negotiating different agreements with other countries. However, the government is proving that it is incapable of sitting down with the opposition parties and having a reasonable discussion.

When I see the government behaving like this, I have no confidence in its ability to negotiate with other countries, even though that is one of its responsibilities. I would like to know what discussions the government held and why it is incapable of reaching an agreement. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, the challenge our government is facing is the fact that the opposition opposes all of our measures that are important to Canada's economy. [ English ] This budget implementation bill has a number of very important measures, which our government has advanced.

Unfortunately, we find the NDP, once again, opposing the legislation despite the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small businesses, for example, which will benefit an estimated 560,000 employers and many more employees in terms of job creation over the long term. That is something they are resisting having passed. We think it is important that this is put into place. There is also the increased indexing of the lifetime capital gains exemption, which would make investing in small businesses more rewarding.

Once again, they say they support small business, but they are opposing the legislation and opposing our effort to ensure that it does come to a vote so that it can become law before the end of this year. We have an expansion of the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation. One would think they might be sympathetic to that, but no, once again they oppose the legislation and they oppose having it come into effect before the end of this year. That is what we will see them do later today with their votes on this.

I look at the important economic measures in this, which are important to ensure Canada continues to play a leading role economically and continues to have a relatively strong economic position in a world where economic circumstances are most uncertain. We think it is important that we stay on that course in a very focused fashion. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the House leader's response to the question from the member for Winnipeg North , where he said in part that the purpose of the budget implementation act is to implement the provisions of the budget.

This budget implementation act amends the Supreme Court Act and try as I might in going through the volumes of the budget, I could find no reference to the Supreme Court Act. Therefore, I would argue that this budget does a lot more than that. In fact, I asked the Minister of Justice if he could find it and he could not find it either. My question for the hon. House leader is this. Apparently matters of economic interest are not entitled to a full debate here, so we are imposing the guillotine. Is there any subject matter that would warrant a full debate that is not limited by time allocation?

Is there anything the government feels justifies a full and unlimited discussion in the House?

(1025) Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misunderstands. With time allocation what we are doing is establishing certainty of scheduling and of decisions being made. My question for him would be this. Is there any issue on which he is happy to see votes occur on a regular basis, or is it really his objective to keep decisions from being made? Is it because he simply does not like the agenda of our government, notwithstanding that the agenda of the government has delivered a relatively strong position for Canada on the world stage economically?

We have had over a million net new jobs created since the economic downturn. Nearly 90% of those are full-time and 85% of them private sector jobs. This is the track record of our government delivering through our budgets on strong economic policy. It has given us the strongest job creation of any of the major developed economies, the G7 countries. Our unemployment is at its lowest level in many years. In fact, it remains below that of the United States. For almost my entire lifetime, Canada's unemployment was always higher.

However, under our government, for the first time in decades, Canada has consistently had lower unemployment than the United States. Again, this is proof that the economic policies are working. The reason they are working is that we are running the affairs of the government and the House in a productive, orderly and hard-working fashion that allows decisions to be made. It sets a clear policy course and then implements it. That is what we are doing today and that is why we think it is important that the budget implementation bill be in place before the end of this year. Mr.

Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the government House leader alluded just a minute ago to some of the challenges within the House. He also mentioned some of the macroeconomic challenges. This budget was introduced in March of 2013. We had the first budget implementation act in June of 2013. Here we are in December of 2013. It would be an interesting, novel concept to get the 2013 budget passed in 2013.

Therefore, could the government House leader maybe describe some of the unique economic challenges that we have in 2013 and why it is so important that we get the budget passed now? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a good point. We already debated the budget at length in the House. There were votes on it and the House decided to go ahead with it. We already had excessive debate on the first budget implementation bill and now on this, the second budget implementation bill. It really is time that we had all these measures in place.

When we look at the overall challenges in the world, we can see the question of investment, for example. Attracting foreign investment is a critical element to creating jobs in our country. Canada is the only one of the major developed economies that has recovered more business investment than we had before the economic downturn. There is no other major developed economy in the world that can make the same claim.

The reasons for that are the economic policies we have put in place: a low-tax plan for jobs and growth, the lowest taxes on new job-creating businesses anywhere among those developed economies, the fact that we have the most skilled workforce in the world, and the fact that we have the lowest debt and the lowest deficit of any of those major developed economies. All of this makes Canada a very attractive destination for foreign investment.

However, we have to continue to put in place those policies and ensure that we stay focused and do not go down the path of higher taxes, bigger government, debts and deficits that the opposition would have us go down. The budget implementation bill will be another step in the right direction of that low-tax plan for jobs and growth for Canada. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about a time allocation motion for the 58th time. As I have always said, this government is becoming increasingly arrogant with respect to democratic institutions.

Here we are in Parliament, and within that word is the French word “parler”, which means to talk. However, the Conservatives will not let us talk about the issues that are very important to our constituents, who sent us here to debate bills. Once again, we are dealing with a government is even more arrogant than the previous Liberal government, even though the Conservatives criticized the Liberals for it at the time. Unfortunately, we are faced with a very arrogant government that shows contempt for our democratic institutions.

Why is this government even more arrogant than the Liberals were back in the day? (1030) [ English ] Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple for the hon. member. Why is she defending the arrogance of those special interests that resist this budget in holding hands with them and taking up arms with them against measures that we think are important on behalf of ordinary Canadians?

For example, her party, in resisting this measure to put the budget implementation bill in place this year and voting against it, is resisting what the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants described as a budget that: ...looks to close tax loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules, reduce international tax avoidance and tax evasion and improve tax fairness. It also provides the Canada Revenue Agency with new tools to enforce the tax rules.

The people who know best understand that this is a bill that is on the side of ordinary taxpayers against those who are engaging in aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion, making sure that the wealthy and those special interests cannot pay their taxes. I ask the member why she is standing on the side of those special interests that are trying to avoid their obligations to pay taxes and resisting measures to ensure that they have to pay their obligations so that ordinary hard-working taxpayers do not have to carry more than their fair share of the load. Why is she proposing that?

The Deputy Speaker : I would remind all members that the target is for the question to be for one minute and the response to be for one minute. The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona. Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I noted the hon. member mentioned that we are going to vote against the bill. One would be led to presume that the Conservatives intentionally draft their bills so that we will oppose them. If one takes an action, one will get the predictable response.

Clearly one of the strong arguments that we continue to make in the House on behalf of Canadians, who are equally fed up with the way the government operates with its budget bills, is the inclusion of legislation that should be tabled independently. One strong example is the long-awaited legislation to afford a level of protection for offshore workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Grudgingly, Conservatives allow the review of that briefly. We waited 12 years for that legislation to come forward. Surely that merits a separate debate.

I can simply quote the now Minister of Justice in 2004 who said: The speed with which the government has acted in this fashion in bringing about closure is a true signal as to how the Prime Minister and the government are going to treat the so-called democratic deficit that the Prime Minister has had a revelation on in discovering that a democratic deficit exists in the country. That was the current government complaining about the previous Liberal government. The Conservatives changed sides of the room and they changed their attitude to parliamentary democracy. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, I will remind the hon. member that the House has had before it in the past a free-standing bill on the offshore health and safety measures. That is dealt with separately, so I am quite puzzled as to her concern. However, I will say it is quite predictable that the NDP will oppose our budgets and budget bills. Yes, we do calculate them that way because we say we do not want to go down the NDP path, we want to keep taxes down, so we will put forward a budget and a budget bill that keeps taxes down. We know the NDP will oppose that.

We will freeze employment insurance rates, for example, and will create incentives for the creation of small businesses by having a tax credit, a further tax reduction. Again the New Democrats always oppose those tax reductions, whether it be the reductions in the GST that we brought in twice or income tax reductions that again they opposed or reductions in taxes for small businesses, such as the small business job creation credit. They always oppose those things. Yes, to that extent it is calculated that way, but it is calculated that way because that is what is right for Canadians.

That is what is right for the economy and that is why the NDP policies are so dangerous for the economy. That is why we do have a genuine contrast in views here between ours, which says Canadians should keep more of their tax dollars and we should keep taxes low to create jobs, and the NDP approach of high taxes, big government, big spending, big deficits. The member is right. It is a very clear difference. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I found the House leader's statements about the government's economic record a little funny.

As we know, Canada has now fallen to 154th worldwide in terms of economic growth, so I do not think we can take any lessons from the Conservatives in that sense. They have dragged us down a number of spaces. I want to ask who said this: ...the decision to invoke closure on the bill represented in some ways the death of the true meaning of parliament.... The federal...government has failed Canadians. Who said that? It was Stockwell Day, the former leader of the Reform Alliance party, I think called C-R-A-P at one point. Absolutely, that was the Conservatives when they were in opposition. Who said this?

When the bill was rammed through the House with closure, it really did not present a lot of opportunity for meaningful public debate.... The interests of all of Canadians must be served, not the interests of politicians, not partisan interests or political self-interest. In referring to closure, who said that? It was the Prime Minister . Finally, who said this? ...we have morphed into what we once mocked.... I no longer recognize...the party that I joined.... Why have the Conservatives become what they used to mock?

(1035) Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, on the question of economic growth and prosperity, it is interesting that the approach of the NDP and the hon. member is to compare Canada with developing countries where people live on a handful of dollars a day. That is what he wants to compare Canada to, and there is good reason for that. It is because if the NDP were in government, its policies would lead us to them as a peer group.

We believe that economically, our peer group consists of the major developed economies of the world, the OECD countries and the G7, and we lead those countries consistently in economic growth. In fact, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has again indicated that Canada will lead the G7 in economic growth in 2013. Once again, that is where we are headed. We do not compare ourselves with countries where people live in abject poverty, in many cases because of terrible government policies. I know that is what the NDP uses as a comparison.

We compare ourselves with those countries that can deliver the highest standards of living for themselves, and among the countries with high standards of living, we are proud to be leading the world in economic growth and delivering a good standard of living for— The Deputy Speaker : I would appreciate it if all members would look at the clock. One minute is one minute, and I am going to enforce it henceforth. The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, it is the same old story: the Conservatives put all kinds of unrelated items in omnibus bills. Then they rise in the House during a debate such as this one, or during question period, they take a small piece of the mammoth bill, something we could have approved, and they say how awful it is that the opposition voted against it. However, the “it” is buried under a heap of policies that simply do not make sense. The Conservatives think that they can convince Canadians with such a ridiculous line. What kind of respect does the government have for Canadians? [ English ] Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me that at the end of the day the arguments of the opposition members consistently are that their problem with the government is that the government is actually getting things done. It is that we are delivering on our agenda, whether it be our economic policies, our policies for developing the labour market, or our policy for harnessing Canada's economic advantages and resources, but I make no apologies for that. Our government is proud to be delivering on that track record.

Again this year, we will have our strongest legislative performance with the most bills passed at any time since we became government, and the reason is that we are here to change this country for the better, to ensure that we are on a strong economic course, and to consolidate our position as a leader among the developed economies in getting things done. Of course, the NDP resists, because it does not like that path, the path that leads to low taxes, economic growth, job creation, and, it is fair to say, perhaps a smaller role for government than the NDP would have.

We believe that the solution to Canada's problems and the opportunities for Canada's future lie in the hands of Canadians—not in the hands of the Canadian government, but Canadians, who, through their own hard work and initiative, work to build a better life for their families' futures, to build small businesses, to build stronger communities where they live, and to make better lives for themselves. Our economic policies aim to do exactly that, and we are going to make sure that we give everybody in the House an opportunity to vote on those policies.

I know that on this side we will support them; I am quite confident that members on that side will oppose that approach.

(1040) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am sitting here shaking my head. We are not really here to discuss the mythology of the Conservatives' economic record. What we are here to discuss, and what is very dangerous, is the fact that the government is trying to shut down parliamentary debate yet again. If there is a danger to our parliamentary democracy, it is sitting right across the way. The Conservative government invokes the closure motion to shut down debate over and over again.

Part of the parliamentary process is that parliamentarians are given an opportunity to speak and to shed light on what the government is trying to do. My question is based on the motion that is before us. Why are the Conservatives trying to ram through this bill? What do they have to hide? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, what is curious is that I thought we were here to discuss a budget implementation bill and why it is important for the country.

The member is saying that we need to debate the important issues, yet I have not heard one single criticism from the opposition of the major elements of this budget implementation bill. The opposition members do not actually want to debate the bill, yet they are calling for more debate. They are not discussing— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. On a point of order, the House leader of the official opposition. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, the leader of the government in the House of Commons knows better.

He knows exactly what we are here debating, which is the time allocation motion that the Conservatives moved. We would like to move this question because it is an important question of the fundamentals of democratic behaviour and how government works. The current government has invoked time allocation 58 times. The Conservatives started this debate today. This is what the debate is about: the current government's heavy-handed tactics when it comes to Parliament. The issue of the bill itself will be debated once we move past this and back to the legislation itself.

For the Conservatives to pretend this is about something other than the democratic principles of Parliament and how they are ramming through legislation in bill after bill is a fallacy. The government House leader knows this. I would ask that he stay on topic and stay on the anti-democratic point that he started with today. The Deputy Speaker : I would ask the government House leader to wait just a moment. The tradition in the House on motions like this is quite clear. The debate can focus on either the motion itself or on the bill that is the subject of the motion.

Any debate today with regard to the motion is in order, and any debate with regard to Bill C-4 is in order. I turn the floor back over to the government House leader. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those wise comments. That is exactly the point that I would like to make.

It is that we have before us an opportunity to put in place before the end of the year, by scheduling the order in which we are going to do this and ensuring there is a vote, measures to extend and expand the hiring credit for small businesses for an estimated 560,000 employees; measures to increase and index the lifetime capital gains exemption to help small businesses and to help farmers; measures to expand the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy; and measures to freeze employment insurance premiums for three years, benefiting millions of employers and employees.

Therefore, my question is this when I hear the resistance from the opposition: What is it about those measures that the opposition members do not want them in place by the end of the year? Why is it that they wish to see them delayed and resisted? That is what we are debating here today. We think they should be in place by the end of this year. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, my question is for my friend. There is suddenly this urgency. It seems to me that when the Conservatives were in opposition, they hated these very same tactics because they did not agree with the agenda.

Now that it is their agenda, they think the tactics are wonderful—so wonderful, in fact, that they have used them more than any government in Canadian history in invoking closure on debate in the House of Commons and shutting down what happens in this place. This bill was so urgent that it took three weeks before the finance committee even picked it up. This bill is so important that it would fix the mistake of the last bill they rammed through Parliament, which was so perfect that it fixed the mistakes of the bill they rammed through Parliament before. At one point, the Conservatives are going to actually learn.

The member talks about his economic agenda, and, Mr. Speaker, you properly ruled that we can talk about it. All right, the two largest deficits in Canadian history were Conservative deficits. The greatest job losses in the manufacturing sector in Canadian history were Conservative job losses. This is the Conservative record: adding deficits and growing government faster than any government in Canadian history. Now the Conservatives stand here and say those things are not true. They are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts, and the facts speak clearly.

The current government has shut down debate more than any government in history. This government has added more to the national debt than any government in history. Those are the facts that the Conservatives will have to live with. Those are the facts that we will take to the Canadian public in the next election.

(1045) Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, the approach of the opposition House leader—not surprisingly, as it is the NDP's economic policy generally—is one that treats Canada as an island. It does not realize that there is actually a global economy out there. When we look at that global context, we see that Canada actually has the strongest record. Canada has a deficit that has been cut in half and is on track to having a balanced budget in 2015, ahead of all our other competitor countries.

We have far and away the lowest debt per capita, the lowest debt as a proportion of GDP, meaning that we can keep taxes low and have the lowest taxes on investment and new job creation in this country for those who want to come and invest here and create jobs. We have the strongest job creation record of any of those developed economies. This is the track record. This is the product of our economic policies. This is why we want to stay on course.

This is why we want to see a productive, hard-working, and orderly Parliament approve these economic measures by the end of the year, measures that were introduced almost a year ago in the budget. It is time to get on with it, and I look forward to the House doing that today and in the days ahead. [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : It is now my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. [ English ]

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

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

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

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

(1125) (The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 18) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Anders Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Baird Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chong Clarke Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Fantino Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty Fletcher Gill Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Holder James Jean Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKenzie Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Norlock Obhrai O'Connor O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Poilievre Preston Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Young (Oakville) -- 134 NAYS Members Andrews Angus Ashton Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bennett Benskin Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Byrne Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Chow Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Foote Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Hassainia Hsu Hughes Hyer Jacob Jones Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Mulcair Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Péclet Perreault Pilon Plamondon Quach Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Toone Tremblay Trudeau Turmel Valeriote -- 113 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

(1130) Report Stage Bill C-4. Report Stage

The House resumed from December 2 consideration of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures , as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. The Speaker : I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings of the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes. Resuming debate, I will recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture . [ Translation ] Mr.

Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the Conservative Party's 2013 budget, especially since my colleagues and I have worked very hard to give Canadians the best possible financial plan as part of the federal budget. The budget focuses on what is really important to Canadians. It gives Canada the means to stay the course while we focus on Canadians' priorities, namely economic growth, job creation and fiscal balance.

I especially want to point out the significant financial support in the budget for infrastructure across the country. I am referring in particular to measures such as the gas tax fund, which benefits my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell . [ English ] Our government has proposed a 10-year funding commitment through the community improvement fund, the new building Canada fund, and the renewed P3 Canada fund. This would build on significant infrastructure funding delivered since 2007 and should be highlighted as we discuss the budget.

The new building Canada plan would mean stable, long-term funding for important projects, such as roads, bridges, water, waste water, recreational facilities, and other important community infrastructure. This would represent a total of more than $2.7 million across my riding each year through the federal gas tax fund alone. Since being elected in 2006, I have listened carefully to my local mayors and their councils. Local infrastructure, particularly roads, is a top priority within my riding for the people of my riding.

Our Conservative government has extended, doubled, indexed, and made permanent the gas tax fund. These improvements provide predictable, long-term funding for our municipalities. It helps them build and revitalize local public infrastructure while creating jobs and long-term prosperity. [ Translation ] I recently had the honour of announcing projects that were carried out in my riding through the federal gas tax fund, in the communities of Hawkesbury, Russell and La Nation. These municipalities are very pleased with the results.

With our resurfaced roads, residents and visitors will enjoy better traffic flow and increased safety in the region for a long time to come. In a riding like mine, which hosts visitors and tourists for festivals and special events, sustainable infrastructure offers some solid economic advantages that are very important to growth. [ English ] I am very honoured to continue serving as the member of Parliament for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell in this 41st Parliament, particularly during this time of growth. My constituents are eager to see the budget implemented, as it means continued growth and prosperity for them.

The opposition has consistently voted against the implementation of our budgets. They have sent a clear message that they are not listening to the voices of hard-working Canadians. They have voted against our budget measures in the past and will likely vote against this one, even though our track record is one of economic growth and sustainability, which is important to all Canadians. Bill C-4 clearly outlines our government's commitment to businesses, which, I might add, create jobs and are a driving economic force in many rural communities, such as mine.

I hope the opposition will note that we have committed to extending the hiring credit for small businesses, which are the real job creators. The hiring credit assists employers with a tax credit of up to $1,000 to help cover the cost of hiring new workers. This gives them the opportunity to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities. We would extend the hiring credit because of its success. Our economy is improving, thanks to our economic action plan and measures such as the hiring credit. It is not just businesses in my riding that would benefit.

In fact, it is estimated that 560,000 small businesses across Canada would benefit from this measure, saving them $225 million in 2013. Across my riding, people are also concerned about employment insurance and its sustainability. They are concerned about the effectiveness of the program. These are legitimate concerns that our government has recognized and would address through budget 2013. Allow me to explain that in these challenging economic times, our federal government has focused on strengthening our Canadian economy and on job creation.

The encouraging news is that since 2009, our economy has created more than one million net new jobs. Ninety per cent of these are full-time jobs, and 75% are in the private sector. (1135) [ Translation ] Unfortunately, a number of Canadian businesses are having a hard time hiring enough Canadians, even though our employment rate hovers around 7%. As a result, businesses are using the temporary foreign worker program to bring qualified people in from other countries to fill their employment needs.

Nevertheless, many jobs that could be filled by Canadians remain vacant, and that is why the government must ensure that they are given priority for these jobs. In order to increase job opportunities for Canadians, our government took the initiative to change two important programs, as we explained in our budget: the temporary foreign worker program and the employment insurance system. [ English ] With respect to the temporary foreign worker program, we have adjusted some of the criteria to improve the system. Businesses will need to make a greater effort to hire Canadians.

The only acceptable job language requirement is now French or English and businesses must pay a fee of $275 per position requested. With respect to employment insurance, Canadians on EI are now expected to accept suitable employment opportunities within their local area. The highest weeks of earnings are now used to calculate EI payments. “Working While on Claim” has been implemented to encourage Canadians to accept some available work while receiving EI benefits provided that they are looking for other work.

Additionally, a link between the temporary foreign worker program and EI is being implemented to better connect Canadians to available jobs in their local area. In essence, these changes will mean more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. We are equipping Canadians in their search for work and adjusting regulations to ensure they can gain more money than before as they search for full-time employment. That is not all. Our government recognizes that we are still living in an uncertain global economic environment. This is why we have committed to maintaining a sound fiscal position.

Responsible fiscal management is necessary for the sustainability of our public services and ensuring low tax rates for future generations. Our federal government will continue to restrain spending growth without cutting transfers to Canadians, including vulnerable persons such as seniors, children and the unemployed. We will restrain growth without cutting transfers to other levels of government in support of health care and social services. Our record clearly speaks for itself in that regard.

In Ontario alone, for example, our government has increased federal transfers, which includes health care, by more than 200% since 2006. That is over $8 billion in increase. This is tremendous and unprecedented, yet the opposition would have Canadians believe we are cutting support for crucial health care needs when in fact we have increased this funding to record highs. We are committing to improving services and achieving efficiency and we will do this while keeping taxes low and enhancing the integrity of the tax system.

As a result, the deficit is expected to return to a balanced budget in 2015-16, which will be another tremendous achievement for our government. [ Translation ] The budget is excellent news for the people of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and for all Canadians. It sets us on the right track towards economic prosperity. I assure the House that we thought long and hard before making our decisions. We made our decisions carefully, after considering the priorities and well-being of Canadians. I urge the opposition to support this bill so it can be passed quickly. (1140) [ English ] Mr.

Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise. I would have asked a question, except I have some issues I can pose to the entire Conservative caucus as opposed to any one individual member. I want to start off by addressing the comments of the previous speaker about reaching a balanced budget by 2015. That is going to be much easier for the Conservatives because last year, as we understand it, there were $10 billion allocated in the budget they did not spend. There were people who were expecting monies, heritage and other places that was not spent.

In other words, the Conservatives broke promises to people, which does not come as a great surprise. Therefore, hallelujah, they are going to announce that we have this money to put toward the deficit, so it is more important to meet this one target than it is to follow through on their commitments to Canadians and Canadian organizations.

I sat on the finance committee for a period of time through the last omnibus bills and all of the what I would call nothing short of craziness happened at committee as a result of the fact that so many things had been piled on top of the other that actually belonged, in our opinion, in other committees. With Bill C-4 , the Conservatives are doing it again. Of the last bills that came before that committee, Bill C-38 , was the biggest one with which I was involved.

It changed the Navigable Waters Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and all kinds of things that a person outside this place would ask what it had to do with the budget. The fact was it did not. It was just a tactic on the part of the government to jam things together to get it through as fast as it could, to keep it from being at committees where it could receive the proper scrutiny by members and the witnesses who could bring the expertise before the committee to fortify the situation. Before the prorogation, we were dealing with Bill C-54 about the not criminally responsible.

Some of the witnesses who came from the health community said that nobody in the psychiatric community was asked about that bill. All of this is symptomatic of what is happening with the government in the sense of not wanting to hear from anyone, MPs or anyone else. My view and the view of the New Democratic Party is that committees are there to make bills better. We are there to help the government.

The government brings forward a bill and we have a critique of it and recommendations, which are called amendments, never see the light of day because they are voted down at committee or motions are passed at committee to limit the time we have. If we do not meet that time allocation, anything that has not been voted on is deemed to have failed. Therefore, we could have a list of 25 good quality amendments and Conservatives will not even listen to them. That anti-democratic aspect limits the ability of the sincere efforts of the House to try to improve legislation in a way that is just baffling.

How in the world can Conservatives justify shutting out information, even if it is not from us? Information from the public or from experts in any given field relative to the budget or relative to those things that have been piled into the budget, how can they shut that down without giving it any consideration? It makes us wonder what is behind the agenda. This is not new. As I said, it happened with Bills C-38 , C-45 , C-60 . Other speakers today talked about the fact that all of those bills had some blatant mistakes that successive bills had to correct.

I am troubled again by the fact the Canadian Federation of Municipalities warned the current government and the previous government about a deficit in infrastructure to the tune of somewhere between $175 billion and $200 billion that needed to be taken care of now. Look at the situation with the bridge in Montreal, and we understand how desperate it can get really quickly. It looks like some interim work has been done to repair the bridge and get the traffic flowing, but stepping back from that, we have almost $200 billion elsewhere in our country that deserves support.

I believe the Minister of Finance has said that there is $800 billion of dead capital that businesses are holding onto for a couple of reasons. There is some sensibility to what they are doing because in 2008 they had trouble getting money from the banks. We had the lowest interest rates practically in the history of our country, so why was the government not taking 10-year bonds and partnering with the business community to start addressing some of the infrastructure needs?

(1145) In my community of Hamilton, we are near desperate on sewage. I hear of figures somewhere close to $200 billion of a deficit on Hamilton sewage. Basements of houses on certain streets in Hamilton flood every time there is a serious rainfall. They cannot even get insurance anymore. It is very clear for us. The previous speaker made reference to temporary foreign workers. The figures I have may not be precise but they are certainly close. Two or three years ago we had roughly 240,000 new immigrants to Canada. They have support here.

They have a sponsor who is responsible for all of their costs for 10 years, so there is no liability to us for them. However, in that period there were 241,000 temporary workers. The temporary worker program was initially put in as support for the farmers. There was lots of work Canadians did not want to do and farmers needed help, and that program was originally set up to bring them in. Then all of a sudden, certain aspects of the business community woke up to the fact that they could pay temporary foreign workers less money and they would not have obligations to them.

By the way, because they are here on a temporary permit, if they do not do exactly what they want, they get to go home really quickly. People from other countries come here. They are very dependent on money to help their families back home. It is a very insecure situation and they are being abused by the government and employers in Canada. That is shameful. There is no other word for it.

From my perspective, to hear the Conservatives talk about some modest change, I would love to have seen that at the immigration committee, to talk about temporary foreign workers and to look at that program in-depth, to step back from it and make some suggestions to help with that, but that opportunity was not afforded to us. Going a little further on this, Bill C-4 , as previous omnibus bills, piled together amendments to over 70 laws. One of them is the Public Service labour relations employment board act. That is a new addition. Another one is the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act.

Why do we need a new act for labour relations when we have had labour relations in the country between the public service workers and the government for many decades? Why do the Conservatives suddenly need to change that? If we do need to change it, why is it not done through the appropriate department and the appropriate committee rather than a budget bill? It sounds like somebody is up to something. If I were a worker, with the number of cuts there has been to the public service workers already, I would be a little nervous just about the title of that bill.

Contained in Bill C-4 are very vicious anti-worker and anti-veteran measures. I never thought I would stand in the House of Commons in our country and say our government has anti-veteran policies. The Conservatives have made changes to health and safety protection for workers. My time is running out and I have not even started my speech, but this is part of the give and take in this place. The last speaker spoke about some things that drew my attention to it, but if I have to close, I am certainly proud to close on defending veterans. There is a Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

We have seen day in and day out in the media of late where the ombudsman has spoken out in defence of veterans saying that they are not getting the health care or the protection they deserve and there are numerous budget cuts to that department. That is shameful. One thing Parliament must stand for is the veterans of our country. This is an anti-worker, anti-veteran bill and it is absolutely shameful.

(1150) Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the statements and submissions made by the member. I certainly appreciate his input into this process. I do want to clarify a comment he made about the temporary foreign worker program not having ever been studied. The member needs to do a bit more work in terms of his research if he is going to make statements like that.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for approximately five years, I can say that the committee studied the issue of temporary foreign workers on a regular basis. It reviewed the issue of temporary foreign workers. It accessed a policy and regulatory review of the temporary foreign worker program. I spent countless hours travelling across this country listening to small business and businesses in the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia right across to British Columbia.

There is substantive and very aggressive review of the program done on a regular basis at the committee level, within the ministry, and across the country. I would like to give the member the opportunity to acknowledge, whether he agrees or disagrees with the direction the government takes, that the review takes place and that he clarify his comments. Mr. Wayne Marston : Mr. Speaker, if members listen to the tone of my voice they will know that I definitely have a cold which, as a result, is causing a bit of a distraction. I do agree with the parliamentary secretary that there has been a review.

I should have said that there had not been an effective review relative to the problems that have been raised. For the continuation of this program, I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary that from the indications coming to us, there is more work to be done. I see the parliamentary secretary is nodding his head. Again, I would be quite satisfied if his committee were to look at this and review it. That is the point we are trying to make: it should not have been part of a budget bill. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Although he has a cold, he was on point and very clear. We are used to seeing this government move to pass omnibus legislation and push through any piece of legislation in an omnibus bill. The proof is that we have a bill before us that will correct the mistakes made in using this approach. We know that this bill does not give Canadians the right to a healthy and safe workplace. However, in the NDP, we are convinced that no worker should have to jeopardize his or her health and safety to be able to work.

Does my colleague not think that this bill will put all powers related to health and safety into the minister's hands? [ English ] Mr. Wayne Marston : Mr. Speaker, the health and safety legislation of this country was put together through tripartite negotiations among government, employers, and labour. A consensus was reached, often after fatalities and after very serious issues with respect to industrial-related diseases. All of those things that have brought us to this stage of protection for workers are crucial every day.

I do not know if the House is aware, but a worker is killed in Canada almost every day of the workweek. Roughly 300 workers are killed a year. Anything that could potentially impede that should certainly not be in a budget bill. If it is deemed urgent that we talk about that issue, the human resources committee should look at it and study it in depth, because if we are going to make changes, we should be including all three players at the table when we discuss it.

(1155) Mr. Devinder Shory (Calgary Northeast, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-4 , our Conservative government's plan for securing Canada's future. This economic action plan focuses on the things that matter to Canadians: jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. In budget 2013, we are connecting Canadians with available jobs, helping our manufacturing and business sectors succeed in the global economy, investing in research and innovation, and supporting the building blocks of this great nation: families and communities.

What I would like to focus on specifically today in this budget implementation bill are our efforts to support job creators, streamline systems, close tax loopholes and prevent tax evasion, and demonstrate respect for taxpayers' dollars. Bill C-4 covers a broad number of acts of Parliament, so what I intend to highlight in the relatively brief time I have to speak are some aspects of this bill that stand out for me and will resonate with Canadians. Let me start with the lifetime capital gains exemption.

The lifetime capital gains exemption exists to reward Canadians for investing in small businesses and makes it easier for the owners to pass their businesses along to their children. Our Conservative government believes strongly in supporting small business people and entrepreneurs, and that is why we are increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption by $50,000. It will be effective for the 2014 tax year and it will increase with inflation each year after that.

We understand that it is important to reward hard work, allow Canadians to keep more of their own wealth, and support family businesses, and that is what this measure accomplishes. Now let me talk about the accelerated capital gains allowance for clean energy generation equipment. Bill C-4 will modify the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment. The capital cost allowance regime under the income tax system can be accelerated for some clean energy generation equipment.

To further encourage businesses to invest in clean energy generation and clean energy equipment, our Conservative government is expanding the biogas production equipment that is eligible for inclusion under this regime. I believe there is a bright future for clean energy in Canada. Measures like these are paving the way for a better future, one in which we will rely less on antiquated technology and will move into an era of cleaner energy. These measures will expand eligible waste to include pulp and paper waste, winery and distillery waste, and separated organics from municipal waste.

This measure will also expand eligibility under the tax regime to include all types of cleaning and upgrading equipment used to treat eligible waste. Now I would like to speak about restricted farm losses. Canadians understand that farmers feed our communities and play an important role in the food security of this country. We honour their hard work and we give them all the support they deserve. That is why our Conservative government is increasing the restricted farm loss limit to $17,500 of deductible farm losses annually.

We realize the sacrifices farmers make to work their land and we understand that for reasons beyond anyone's control, production will not be the same from year to year. That is why we have taken this measure. At the same time, Bill C-4 will carry an amendment to clarify that taxpayers' other sources of income must be less than their farming income in order to take advantage of the full farm losses deduction. Our Conservative government aims to protect farmers from unexpected losses.

We are taking this measure to ensure that the bulk of these resources are aimed at those farmers for whom farming is the bulk of their livelihood.

(1200) I would also like to speak about software for the electronic suppression of sales. We know that the best way to get ahead is to work hard and play by the rules, but unfortunately some people in our society feel they can cheat the system with impunity. The vast majority of businesses in the country are run by honest and hard-working Canadians, but for those very few people who have decided not to pay their fair share, we are introducing criminal offences and monetary fines under the Income Tax Act that are specifically aimed at combatting tax evasion software.

This software is designed with one intention in mind: to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion. People who use electronic suppression of sales software would be subject to any of a number of new penalties. In terms of administrative monetary penalties, anyone who uses electronic suppression software would be liable for a penalty of $5,000 for the first use and an additional $5,000 for any subsequent use. If a person possesses or acquires this illegal software, there would be a penalty of $5,000 for the first offence and a fine of $50,000 for any subsequent offence.

Of course, in this bill we reserve the toughest measures for those who have decided to manufacture and sell these illegal products. It is more than just unscrupulous to make money from selling a product that allows people to engage in tax evasion, thereby skewing the playing fields for all businesses. For a first offence, the developer or the seller of such software would be fined $10,000; for a subsequent offence, this would rise to $50,000. In terms of criminal offences, the possession, use, acquisition, manufacture, development, or sale of this illegal software by a person could be dealt with on

summary conviction, which would entail a fine of between $10,000 and $100,000 or a prison term of up to two years or both. If there is a conviction on an indictment, the fine would be between $50,000 and $100,000 or a prison term of up to five years or both. This may seem excessive to some, but when talking with business people in my riding of Calgary Northeast, which is of course the hardest-working riding in Canada, they will say that when some business people cheat the system, it creates an uneven playing field for everyone, especially those who choose to work hard and play by the rules.

If we ask our business people to play by the rules and they do so, then we have a duty to protect their interests from those who would lie, cheat, and steal to get ahead. Now I would like to talk about the hiring credit for small businesses in 2013, which brings me to another portion of our government's budget bill, Bill C-4 . In budget 2011, our government announced a temporary hiring credit for small businesses of up to $1,000 per employee. We did this under the realization that small businesses drive growth in our economy and provide substantial amounts of employment across Canada.

In a time of global economic uncertainty, we know that supporting small businesses is essential. The hiring credit provides financial relief, offsetting the costs of hiring a new employee for a small business. In 2012, we extended this hiring credit again. Now we remain in a time of economic uncertainty. Despite the fact that Canada's economy is on track and improving steadily, we have to remain vigilant about market forces outside our control. It is for that reason that we intend to extend the hiring credit for small businesses again this year.

Finally, I would like to talk about the temporary foreign worker program and how our Conservative government is streamlining the temporary foreign worker program. Our changes involve giving the program the ability to electronically administer and enforce the temporary foreign worker program. This would include the use of electronic signatures, enabling secure online payment for the LMO process and eliminating the need to retain large amounts of paper. I am personally pleased that we are taking this step.

Streamlining the temporary foreign worker program would allow small and medium enterprises in Canada to hire workers more efficiently going forward. This is essential to our economy.

(1205) In closing, I call on members of the opposition parties to support Bill C-4 and implement this budget as quickly as possible. As I mentioned earlier, Canada's economy is on the right track. Let us support it. [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, since I will be taking the floor soon, I will come back to some aspects of the speech we just heard. That said, I would like to have the member who just spoke explain something to me. When the Conservatives took office, Canada had a surplus of $26 billion.

However, as of today, they have managed to transform this surplus into a deficit, which is now $62 billion. When they came to power we had a trade surplus, and now we have a trade deficit. How does the member explain this? [ English ] Mr. Devinder Shory : Mr. Speaker, it is astonishing to hear from the member, who has never supported any trade in this country, nor has his party. Speaking of trade, this is the government and the party that has signed the most free trade agreements in this country.

This is a government whose focus is negotiating and completing more trade agreements, because we believe that free trade agreements create jobs, bring employment to Canada, and make Canadians prosper. Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we heard past speakers talk about the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. When the budget was released in the spring, it stated: Today's budget delivers significant gains for Canada's cities and communities. We applaud the government for choosing to continue moving our communities forward even as it meets its immediate fiscal challenges....

This is also a budget that delivers real gains for Canadians.... [I]t will spur growth and job creation while laying the foundation for a more competitive economy. As I know in the Yukon, because of the gas tax funds, indexed and now made permanent, our communities are able to project and plan for their own future needs and destinies. The City of Whitehorse, as an example, is receiving nearly $7 million in gas tax funds. Smaller communities are receiving half a million dollars to invest in important infrastructure.

I wonder if my colleague could share some of the experiences of his communities that receive gas tax funds. What are his comments on their wise investments and on the comments by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities? Mr. Devinder Shory : Mr. Speaker, my colleague has already answered the question, in a way. In Calgary Northeast and in the city of Calgary itself, it is very well received that this is the government that took decisive action. This is the government that made this gas tax fund permanent, and this is the government that indexed the gas tax to inflation.

This government believes that the real people on the ground are the municipalities and councillors who know the issues and where the bucks should go. We are making the gas tax permanent so that they can make their long-term plans. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague opposite and I am not surprised that the Conservatives are still proclaiming loud and clear how good they are in economics. However, I have a question for my colleague opposite. The Auditor General revealed that the Conservatives had lost $3.1 billion.

Nearly six months later, they still do not know where the money has gone. What is worse, the debt continues to grow. The deficit in 2012-13 was almost $19 billion. How can my colleague claim that the government is good in economics? (1210) [ English ] Mr. Devinder Shory : Mr. Speaker, it is surprising that the member opposite was listening to my closing remarks. I urge her to listen to what Catherine Swift, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said: In a poll of the CFIB's members, the tax credit was chosen as the most popular measure from the last budget....

Everybody looks at that and says, “Well, a thousand bucks isn't much, but every little bit helps.” We know it was meaningful. Hopefully my colleague from the other side has heard that. [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this issue today on behalf of the people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou . The sad thing is that I have to give this speech against a backdrop of time allocation and restriction of debate. For the 58th time, the government is limiting the time we can take to discuss the important measures in the budget.

I would like to read a quotation I found that goes like this: For the government to bring in closure and time allocation is wrong. It sends out the wrong message to the people of Canada. It tells the people of Canada that the government is afraid of debate, afraid of discussion and afraid of publicly justifying the steps it has taken. Who said that? The former minister of Public Safety. I should also point out that the government wanted to prorogue Parliament for a month to rework its policies. I have nothing against that. I think the government's political agenda could use a drastic overhaul.

The government asked for an extra month to revamp its whole agenda. Unfortunately, what we are seeing now is the same old, same old. The more things change, the more they stay the same on the other side of the House. As for the budget, that too is just more of the same. This is another omnibus bill that does not meet my constituents' needs and does not offer the transparency Canadians are entitled to. The Conservatives failed to recognize the mistake they made with their previous omnibus budget bills.

For the fourth time, they are doing their utmost to rush major changes through without adequate study by Parliament. The really astonishing thing is that they are doing it despite the fact that some of the provisions in this bill are there to fix mistakes that the government made by rushing the previous budget implementation bill through the process. That is a real shame, but that is what they are doing. [ English ] To put the cherry on top of the sundae of mediocrity, this is not the first time the Conservatives have used one omnibus budget bill to fix a previous one.

One might think that after the first time, they might have taken a step back, taken a deep breath, reflected a bit, and decided not to repeat the same failed approach. One would think that they would have learned from their mistakes and would have gone in a different direction. Sadly, this is not what the government did in this case. No, it stared failure in the face, and when its mistakes were apparent, it decided to double down and continue its secretive ways. This is not an approach that builds confidence among our constituents in our government institutions.

Given the PMO's growing scandal involving the other place, one might think that the Conservatives would jump at the chance to build some confidence among Canadians, but no, it has not. [ Translation ] One thing that concerns me about the bill is the amendments to the Supreme Court Act. Some people might be wondering what the Supreme Court Act is doing in the budget. They are not alone. One does not have to be an expert on constitutional law to know that these two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Why are these amendments being included in this bill?

The government made another legislative blunder when it appointed Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court. Mr. Nadon worked for 20 years in the federal courts but never in a Quebec court, as stipulated in the criteria. This should not have been a problem. No government has ever made that mistake before. However, once again, the Conservatives thumbed their noses at these criteria. It is a bit like the Conservative government's appointment of a senator from Prince Edward Island who is still not eligible for a provincial health card because he is not considered a resident of that province.

However, that is one of the basic criteria a person must meet in order to become a senator. Whoops. That is another story that I will perhaps have a chance to speak about another time.

(1215) In the case of Justice Nadon, the government should have admitted that it made a mistake and appointed another judge from Quebec who meets the criteria, as it did in the case of Justice Wagner last year. Is that what the government did? Unfortunately not. On the contrary, the Conservatives decided to charge ahead with their appointment and then try to fix their mistake by quietly slipping amendments to the Supreme Court Act into the current budget bill, while inviting Quebec to challenge the appointment before the courts.

The Supreme Court is a non-partisan institution that should unite Canadians, not divide them. The Conservatives have found a new way to cause division, though. I am very concerned about the government's approach.

This unilateral action is not going to resolve the problems raised by Quebec with regard to its representation on the Supreme Court, nor is it going to encourage the public to trust the government's ability to govern in a responsible and effective manner. [ English ] I could go on for hours talking about the flaws and the problems with the bill, but I will save some for my colleagues in the official opposition to talk about. The Conservatives prorogued Parliament and told Canadians to wait an extra month for Parliament to resume so that they could reset their policy agenda.

However, the bill before us is a clear sign that the Conservatives are stuck in the mud, with more of the same tired agenda that has failed to address the real priorities of my constituents and all Canadians. We have a word for that in my Cree language: Wa nay ta siuch . [ Translation ] It means someone who makes a mistake. However, there is also Wa nay ta siuch .

[ English ] It means that they do not know what they are doing. That is what is happening here. Canadians deserve much better than what the Conservatives are offering, and as such, I cannot support the bill. I cannot support the Conservatives' attempt to evade scrutiny by this Parliament and all Canadians. I am proud to oppose this budget and its implementation bill, unless it is changed and corrected.

It is not too late for the Conservatives to see the light and finally address the real priorities of Canadian families by creating quality, well-paid jobs; ensuring a secure retirement; fostering opportunities for young people; and making life more affordable for families. I urge my colleagues on the other side to seize this opportunity, this chance, to get this right. Change course and work with us to make a budget bill that will truly help Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the last bit of my hon. colleague's comments was that we should “change course”.

I wonder if he thinks we should change course on meeting the needs of the north, including $890 million in transfer payments that go into the Yukon Territory to allow it to shape its own future and destiny. I wonder if he thinks we should change course on the $600 million investment in the housing first approach we have taken, or if we should change course on the largest and longest infrastructure project in Canada's history, or if we should change course on what Canadian colleges are hailing as a great investment in post-secondary education in those institutions in our country.

I wonder if the member would want us to change course on the permanence and indexing of the gas tax fund, which the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said is a wonderful achievement allowing Canadian municipalities to determine their own fates and futures. I wonder if he wants us to change course on a renewed P3 plan, incremental goods and services tax rebates, and the lowest tax burden in over 50 years.

I wonder if he would like us to change course on all those things, when third-party endorsement of the 2013 budget has been the best we have ever seen in the history of budgets released in this country. (1220) [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yukon for the question. Like him, I represent a riding that is considered a northern riding. I completely understand his comment regarding the specific needs of ridings like mine. The change I am proposing relates to the fact that I have a hard t

Document details

Collection	House of Commons Debates
Citation	2013-12-03 / Sitting 029 / 41-2 / E
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	No. 029
Language	en
Format	xml
Source	HANSARD_HOC
Identifier	a236557f4d2abbdcd65d6f3af0e41f4964d9197d

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (xml).