13261 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 204 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, April 30, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES April 30, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 204 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 204 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 204 (Version officielle) 147 204 30 04 2015 2015/04/30 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 ] 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 two petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, four reports of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United States Inter-parliamentary Group. The first report concerns the seventh annual conference of the Southeastern United States--Canadian Provinces Alliance that was held in Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America, May 4 to 6, 2014. [ Translation ] The second concerns the 24th Annual Summit of the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region held in Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, from July 20 to 24, 2014.

The third concerns the National Conference of State Legislatures legislative summit held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America, from August 18 to 22, 2014. [ English ] The fourth report concerns the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance conference that was held in Washington, D.C., United States, September 28 to 30, 2014. Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Canadian delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

The first report is respecting participation in the mid-year executive committee held in London, United Kingdom, April 28 to May 1. The second report is respecting participation in the 60th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference held in Yaoundé, Cameroon, from October 2 to10, 2014.

[ Translation ] Committees of the House Finance Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) Motion for concurrence moved: That the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Wednesday, December 10, 2014, be concurred in. He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Welland . I would like to talk about the prebudget consultations, since that is the subject of the report. I am in a good mood this morning, because yesterday we learned that the Rimouski Oceanic will be taking

part in the Memorial Cup as the champions of the Quebec major junior hockey league. This will be their fourth time participating in 20 years, which is remarkable. My good mood is a little tempered, however, by the content of the prebudget consultations. This is in no way a criticism of the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Edmonton—Leduc , for he is doing an excellent job. I think all the parties in the House and all members of the finance committee recognize what a great job he is doing.

Although there are some interesting points in the prebudget consultation report, there are also some really troubling elements. We have no problem with some of the points, and we have supported them. Some of them even appear in budget 2015. Others, however, do pose a problem. Until January, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and had been for three years. Usually, the recommendations were a fairly accurate—though not perfect, by any means—reflection of the testimony we heard.

However, the recommendations in this report, which was tabled in December 2014, make it more of a pre-election document for the existing government. Most if not all of the recommendations are from the Conservative side. Not a single NDP or Liberal amendment was accepted. Annual prebudget consultations are an opportunity to hear from witnesses from many parts of Canadian society. Whether they are from the business sector, unions or civil society, their concerns deserve to be heard and properly reflected in the prebudget consultation report. In this case, there are a number of problematic elements.

Several recommendations in the report are nothing more than lip service. For example, recommendation 23 says that the federal government should consider new ways to increase support for the Canadian aerospace industry, but does not say how. This recommendation is akin to many of the other 47 recommendations in this report in that it says where the government wants to go but not how to get there. That is a problem because other recommendations are more than just wishful thinking. They are blatantly a rationale for Conservative policies.

In any case, the committee itself was not even able to unanimously agree on those recommendations. When the government proposes to continue reducing tariffs, for example, it fails to mention that, overall, tariffs have gone up because it eliminated the general preferential tariff. Prebudget consultations should be an exercise that reflects what was heard in committee, but in this case what we got seemed more like the Conservative government's shopping list to prepare for the next election.

We think that is unfortunate because the Standing Committee on Finance should be the place where we can thoroughly examine all the policies that were adopted by the government. That also includes Conservative members. A committee meeting is the only place where we can call members by name. The reason for that is that, in committee, they are not government members and they do not represent their riding. They are there to use their expertise to advise the government on what direction it should take. That is not what happened in the prebudget consultations.

This time, the consultations were much more negative than previous consultations and reports.

(1010) We submitted a minority report, which is a supplementary rather than dissenting report. It is supplementary to the 47 recommendations presented by the government. There was consensus on some of those recommendations, but the two opposition parties voted against others. One problematic issue that the government refused to address, even though it was mentioned a number of times during the consultations, is employment insurance.

The report was tabled in December 2014, but at that time, we were already worried about the government using the employment insurance fund to balance its budget since we have seen that happen before. That concern is included in the NDP's supplementary report. We had no idea what the budget was going to look like, but we were worried about that happening because of what we had been hearing.

This is what we wrote in our supplementary report: The Conservatives are banking on surpluses in the EI Account in order to fund their return to budget balance—at the same time that they continue to restrict access through the implementation of their regressive EI reforms. By “regressive reforms” we specifically mean all the measures that were adopted during the major reform of 2012. These measures have made it impossible for many Canadians to get employment insurance even though they contributed to it.

Today, less than 38% of Canadians who contribute to employment insurance, who make their contributions expecting that employment insurance will help them, can get it when they lose their job. This does not make sense and, at the end of the day, it is very detrimental to regions like mine, like the Lower St. Lawrence, eastern Quebec, and eastern Canada. The economy in these regions has historically depended on seasonal employment, to a great extent, and still does.

I am proud of the efforts my riding and my region have made over the past few years to diversify their economy and ensure that they are not as reliant on seasonal employment as they have been in the past. When we talk about seasonal jobs, we are talking mostly about jobs in the primary sector, the resource sector, the forestry or the fishery. We are also talking about jobs in the service sector, which for obvious reasons are only seasonal jobs, in the tourism industry for example. Going back to natural resources, there are also core industries such as agriculture. A farmer cannot harvest in winter.

Maple syrup producers cannot do much of their work in the fall or winter either. The government has failed to acknowledge this reality that affects several regions. We spoke out against this when the reform was introduced. Year after year, many witnesses have told us that the system is no longer adequate today. The EI fund has a surplus because of the increase in premiums imposed by the Conservatives. The government no longer knows what to do with it. One of the recommendations we received was to increase access to the program. The Conservatives completely ignored the recommendations.

Instead they took part of the surplus and decided to give it to small and medium-sized businesses. That measure was passed last year. Small and medium-sized businesses were handed over $550 million of the employment insurance surplus with the hope of creating jobs. However, the House will remember that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report stated that it would take over half a billion dollars to create 800 jobs, contrary to what the government was saying.

Today, we find ourselves in a situation where the surplus in the EI fund, which we would like to be independent, has in large part funded the balanced budget that the federal government is boasting about. The prebudget consultation report contains several interesting items. The work of the committee chair, the member from Edmonton—Leduc was impeccable. However, I would like to submit to the House the problems that exist in terms of the philosophy of implementing the prebudget consultations. The government is moving steadily away from taking the consultations into account and that remains a serious concern for us.

On that note, I will turn the floor over to the member for Welland , who is certainly going to continue in the same vein.

(1015) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of concern with regard to the budget and the manner in which the Minister of Finance has presented what I would suggest is a bogus balanced budget, not to mention its unfairness to the middle class on taxation policy. This is a budget that does nothing for real tangible economic growth for Canada. The government does not seem to get it. It does not understand that it is the middle class of Canada that will be the driving force of our economy.

Giving strength to our middle class will give strength to the Canadian economy. That should be the priority. Obviously, the minister was not listening when he canvassed and solicited opinions on the budget. The question I have for the member is on the general behaviour of the Minister of Finance . For example, ever since the budget presentation, he has not stood in his place to answer any questions related to the budget.

I am wondering if the member might want to comment on the facade of having budget consultations and then not even having the courage to answer questions on the budget after he has delivered it. (1020) [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I will start by answering the question about the balanced budget. Indeed, a large part of the balanced budget this government brags about so much comes from sources that were not recommended in pre-budget consultations. The first source is the EI surplus, which was about $1.8 billion.

Since the surplus announced by the government is just $1.4 billion, it had to take the $1.8 billion from the EI surplus and add it to the consolidated revenue fund, even though the Finance Minister 's predecessor, Jim Flaherty, had said that the government would never use the EI surplus to finance a balanced budget. The second source is the contingency fund—not just this year's fund, which went from $3 billion to $1 billion, but the fund for the next two years as well. This measure was not recommended in the pre-budget consultations either. No one made that suggestion.

The third source is the early sale of GM shares, worth $3.1 billion. You have to add the $2 billion to this $3.1 billion. I said “early sale” because the government lost a lot of money on these GM shares. If it had waited just one more week to sell them, it would have made $100 million more. At the end of the day, we are talking about nearly $7 billion taken from these three sources to achieve this balanced budget. [ English ] Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the people of Vancouver Kingsway have been very clear for a number of years about the kinds of issues they believe are important and which they really would like the federal government to address. There is a crushing, critical shortage of affordable housing in Vancouver. People are extremely concerned about the lack of good quality, full-time jobs, the kind of jobs on which people can raise a family. People are very concerned about the environment in Vancouver Kingsway . They are worried about climate change and protecting Canada's pristine environment.

They want to make sure our children and our children's children can enjoy that. I am wondering if my hon. colleague can comment on whether or not he feels that this budget has done an adequate job in addressing those major pivotal concerns of affordable housing, good jobs and protecting the environment. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for that very important question. Affordable housing is definitely one of the biggest losers in this budget. Many organizations have condemned the lack of adequate funding.

None of the recommendations coming out of the pre-budget consultations really address this issue in any meaningful way, despite the fact that we heard witnesses talk about the importance of investing in housing and express disappointment in the federal government's lack of interest in this issue. Also, in our supplementary report, we specifically talked about how the government should take immediate action to address the affordable housing crisis facing Canadian municipalities by renewing social housing agreements and working to develop and implement a national housing strategy as proposed by Bill C-400 .

Unfortunately, the government did not pay attention to that recommendation, which is a real shame because the affordable housing crisis is affecting the whole country and is not getting any real attention from the federal government. (1025) [ English ] Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join this debate. I want to thank my good friend, as well as the other members of the committee, for all of their hard work. As he said earlier, I would thank the chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc .

I have worked with him in the past, and I have always found him to be an honourable gentleman who embodies the sense of trying to work in a non-partisan way, especially at the committee level. I appreciate all of his hard work. I want to thank the members of our party, the New Democrats, who worked on that committee. These documents are not props, because they are documents that have been tabled and we can actually use them. This is the kind of work that goes into the prebudget consultations by a committee of parliamentarians.

They go out and talk to people across the country, and people from all walks of life from across the country come to speak to them. It is not just the financiers that folks talk to. Our members are absolutely passionate about making sure that folks from every walk of live have input, because that is what this place is about. This is their place. It is their House. It belongs to the common folk of the country, hence its name, the House of Commons. The greens out at the front are called “the commons”. They are the common place for all of us to come. That is what this document is meant to do.

It is unfortunate that when the people speak through their elected representatives the government does not hear them. It seems to turn a deaf ear to the folks who come forward and say, “Here are the things that we would like to see for us”. The “us” is not the members who are sitting in the House, but the folks across the country that we represent who are saying what things they would like to see, the things that they want us to work on, the things that they think would help them. What did we find? We found that basically most folks were ignored. I found it fascinating.

I looked at the supplementary report that was submitted by my good colleagues. One of the pieces was on employment insurance and what that should mean to those who are unemployed. Mr. Speaker, I know that your riding is in southwestern Ontario and, like mine, has come through a huge restructuring in the manufacturing sector. Literally tens of thousands of folks are unemployed and have gone on employment insurance. When I first came to this place, I heard the government talk about what the previous Liberal government had done in raiding the EI fund.

What it said, and I absolutely agreed with it and almost applauded it one day, was that it would never do what the Liberal government had done previously and raid the fund. What did it do to balance the budget? It raided the fund. When we have the highest youth unemployment that the country has seen in decades, instead of making sure that there is money for training, retraining, and job opportunities for young people and those who do not have work, the government took about $2.1 billion out of the fund and decided to balance the books. Why did the Conservatives want to do that? It is an election year.

They promised that they would balance the books, but they did not promise to balance the books on the backs of the unemployed in this country. That is not what they said they would do. They said that they were good, prudent, fiscal managers and they could manage to do it without doing what the Liberal government had done years ago. Well, they failed. They failed on that score. They put the test in front of themselves and they failed. There are teachers in this place. I would suggest that when they give the Conservatives a report card, they give them an F, because that is exactly what they deserve.

On the other hand, what we had said was that the employment insurance fund belongs to those who are unemployed. It belongs to all of those who contribute, because it is indeed an insurance fund. I have said this many times before. If we buy insurance for our car and have an accident, the insurance should cover the car. Therefore, I have no idea why it is that the government seems to think that we should enrol in the employment insurance fund and pay the insurance, but people should not be able to collect it if they become unemployed.

There is one thing that is absolutely crystal clear, and the law has been this way since the mid-1990s. The rules changed and people cannot quit their job and get employment insurance. People must be unemployed and they must have been laid off by the employer, which means that the employer put them out of work and that they did not leave voluntarily. There have been some minor tweaks to the rules, such as if there was harassment or some other things that gave just cause, or some other things can happen. Clearly, the government failed on this particular attribute, and it failed the youth of this country.

We all recognize that this country has high youth unemployment. It is apparent here in the province of Ontario. It is apparent in the province of Quebec, and across this entire country.

(1030) One thing we talk about in this place is the human capital, the human potential of this great country, which is embodied in its youth. We continue to say that we need to ensure we have those folks in the future who will look after us, because we all get older. The one thing I can say about today is I am a day older than I was yesterday, but I am a day younger than I will be tomorrow. The bottom line is that we will all get older and at some point in time we may need those young folks to look after us. Some of us are older than others. I will not point any fingers.

I could point a finger at myself, I suppose, because I am older than some, but I am also younger than others. The bottom line is that if we do not invest in that human capacity, that human potential, all those young folks, when will they have the opportunity and when will they finally join in the capacity to make sure that when we need them, they will be there? The government has lost an opportunity. New Democrats, on the other hand, would not have lost that opportunity. We would have made sure that opportunity was taken. We would make sure that young folks actually have an opportunity to go forward.

If youth do not have the opportunity, then they are stymied, and we put them in a place where they lose hope. If they lose hope, there is no sense in going forward, so what would be the point? The very things we want to remove in the sense of impediments, we did not do, which is really unfortunate in this case. That takes me to infrastructure. One thing that has to be built is capacity, because we need capacity for the economy. I am not an economist, but I am a Scotsman, so I can count. God knows, I count pennies.

The bottom line is that if we are going to have an economy that functions, we have to be able to move throughout the economy. We have to be able to move physically as well. It is not all just electronic stuff. It is not a question of going on the Internet, pressing a button and shooting it through the air, through the wireless spectrum. The bottom line is that goods and services and people have to move. In order to move them, there has to be infrastructure. If there is no infrastructure, they are not going to move.

The investment in infrastructure that this budget proposes is lacklustre at best, and it is also down the road. I hate to tell the Conservatives about that road, but that road has a pothole in it. In fact, it has more than one pothole. It is going to be pretty tough getting down that road to get to where we want to go if we do not fix the potholes. I will not say everyone knows this, because the Conservatives decided to remove the long form census, so they do not really know what they need because if they do not have information, they cannot make firm decisions.

That reminds me of my days when I was a municipal councillor. I know a number of us in the House at one point had that career previous to this one. That information was of absolute value to municipal politicians in deciding whether to build a home for the aged or an arena for young kids. Without the data regarding the demographics and where things are headed, it is hard to know which one to build. What should we do? Should we flip a coin, hope for the best and spend hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure that sits vacant because the group we built it for no longer exists? It makes no sense.

We need information. We need hard facts to make decisions on what is going to be done. If we have those hard facts and data, we can build the infrastructure in the appropriate places at the appropriate time to make sure we are getting what colloquially is called a good bang for the buck, which the Conservatives always say. However, I would refer them to the Auditor General's report of yesterday, which really was quite shameful in the sense that the Auditor General said that when it came to antimicrobials, it took 18 years for them to do something, and they still have not done anything, which I find surprising.

It is unfortunate the Conservatives did not listen to the folks who came before committee, but that is par for the course, because they do not like listening to us either. Time and time again there has been time allocation in this place. Over and over there has been time allocation. Motion Mr. Speaker, I move: That the House do now adjourn.

(1035) 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.

(1110) (The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:) (Division No. 386) YEAS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Ashton Atamanenko Ayala Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Brahmi Caron Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Crowder Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Day Dionne Labelle Doré Lefebvre Dubé Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Freeman Garrison Genest-Jourdain Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hughes Julian Kellway Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Liu Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen May Michaud Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Pilon Plamondon Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Rousseau Sandhu Scott Sellah Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Stoffer Sullivan Toone Tremblay -- 75 NAYS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Barlow Bateman Bélanger Bennett Benoit Bergen Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brison Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Byrne Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Casey Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Cotler Crockatt Cuzner Daniel Dechert Devolin Dion Dreeshen Dubourg Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Easter Eglinski Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Fry Galipeau Gallant Garneau Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodale Gosal Gourde Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lamoureux Lauzon Leef Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacAulay MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire McCallum McColeman McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Murray Nicholson Norlock Obhrai Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Perkins Poilievre Preston Raitt Rathgeber Regan Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Scarpaleggia Schellenberger Seeback Sgro Shea Shipley Shory Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Trudeau Truppe Uppal Van Loan Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga -- 161 PAIRED Nil The Deputy Speaker : Motion negatived I declare the motion defeated.

(1115) Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Motion Mr. Speaker, I move: That the debate be now adjourned. 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 yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1150) [ Translation ] (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 387) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Barlow Bateman Benoit Bergen Bezan Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Eglinski Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Gosal Gourde Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Leef Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Perkins Poilievre Preston Raitt Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Van Kesteren Van Loan Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 139 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Atamanenko Ayala Bélanger Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Brahmi Brison Byrne Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Fortin Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest-Jourdain Goodale Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hughes Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Murray Nantel Nash Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Pilon Rafferty Rankin Rathgeber Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Toone Tremblay Trudeau -- 101 PAIRED Nil The Deputy Speaker : I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to

(1155) [ English ] Petitions Dementia Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from several dozen residents of Burnaby and Richmond, British Columbia. They call upon the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to pass Bill C-356,

An Act respecting a National Strategy for Dementia , which was introduced by the member of Parliament for Nickel Belt . While I am on my feet, I move, seconded by the member for Compton—Stanstead : Motion That the House do now adjourn. [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : 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.

(1235) [ English ] (The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division: (Division No. 388) YEAS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Ashton Atamanenko Ayala Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Brahmi Caron Cash Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Côté Crowder Cullen Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Day Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Freeman Garrison Genest-Jourdain Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hughes Julian Kellway Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Liu Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen May Michaud Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Nash Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Rousseau Sandhu Scott Sellah Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Stewart Sullivan Toone Tremblay -- 75 NAYS Members Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Barlow Bateman Bélanger Bennett Benoit Bergen Bezan Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brison Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Casey Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Cotler Crockatt Cuzner Daniel Dechert Dion Dreeshen Dubourg Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Easter Eglinski Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Fry Galipeau Gallant Garneau Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodale Gosal Gourde Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lamoureux Lauzon Leef Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski MacAulay MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McCallum McColeman McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Murray Nicholson Norlock Obhrai Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Perkins Poilievre Preston Raitt Regan Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Scarpaleggia Schellenberger Seeback Sgro Shea Shipley Shory Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Trudeau Truppe Uppal Van Kesteren Van Loan Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 159 PAIRED Nil The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : Motion negatived I declare the motion defeated. The time for petitions having expired, questions on the order paper, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 Bill C-51—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-51,

An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts , not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted for the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the 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.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. At this point I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise, so the Chair has some sense of how many questions will be asked. There seems to be significant interest. Consequently I ask members to keep their questions to about one minute and whoever is responding for the government to do likewise. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Really, Mr. Speaker, shame is the only word that comes to mind.

This is the 94th time the government has used what it likes to call scheduling, but what is really closure, on important bills before this House of Commons. When it comes to debating Bill C-51 , the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness stood in this House and said that the proper place to have a full debate—as he moved closure at second reading—was committee. Then when we went to committee, we had a severely restricted number of sessions that were allocated to hear witnesses. Not only has the government proven unwilling to hear from people, but it has proven incapable of listening on the bill.

We had a statement, which I just want to ask whether the Conservatives have really fully considered. That statement said: Protecting human rights and protecting public safety are complementary objectives, but experience has shown that serious human rights abuses can occur in the name of maintaining national security. Who said that? Who signed that statement? It was Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, Joe Clark, John Turner, five former Supreme Court justices, three past members of CIRC, and two former privacy commissioners. How are we to deal with the serious concerns expressed across the country?

Of all the amendments that were presented at committee, the government rejected all of the opposition amendments. Clearly, the Conservatives are illustrating, once again, no willingness to listen and no ability to hear Canadians' objections to this very dangerous bill. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I find it deeply ironic that members of the party that has twice moved to shut down the House this day—because they do not want to work anymore, do not want to have any more debate today, want the place shut down, and have moved it twice—are now complaining there is not enough opportunity for debate.

There is a little bit of irony in such an approach, in such a question. Then with regard to the question he asked and the individuals he listed who were complaining that there is insufficient political oversight of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, he listed a series of prime ministers who said that should be there, a series of prime ministers who never took that step themselves when in office and, in fact, actively resisted it themselves. That, too, is also the height of irony.

(1240) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, once again what we are really debating is the issue of time allocation, and on the issue of time allocation, let us be very clear that this Reform/Conservative government, since it acquired its majority, has demonstrated a genuine lack of respect for proper procedures in the House of Commons.

Whether it is through closure or time allocation, which are the same thing, or the way the government brings in legislation as a whole—multi-hundred-page documents for budget bills, and ministers of finance who feel they have no obligation whatsoever to stand up and answer questions after tabling a budget—the government has a genuine lack of respect for proper parliamentary procedures inside the House of Commons. My question for the government House leader is this.

Why, since the Conservatives have achieved this majority government, have we seen the Prime Minister and his ministers, and particularly the government House leader, demonstrate so much disrespect for proper procedures here in the House of Commons? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the hon. member and his party for their support of this legislation. It is very important in the national interest to protect the security of Canadians. We appreciate that support a great deal and we thank them for it. In terms of debate in this House and the use of time allocation to

schedule debates with certainty, part of the side effect of the approach used by the government that he complains of is the fact that we actually have more time for debate in this Parliament than the parallel time the British Parliament has had for debate on bills, a parliament that is often held out as a model example. In fact, on average, at every stage we have exceeded by far the amount of debate that the U.K. Parliament has on relative bills.

I think we should be very pleased that we have in this House a robust democracy, robust debate, ample opportunities for views to be heard, and in fact the record shows, more so than even in the United Kingdom. Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is just unbelievable. We have seen a coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives on Bill C-51 , and that is quite problematic. The government and, from what we can see, the Liberals are saying that Canadians should have to choose between whether they want their security or their rights. It should not be one or the other.

The government says that it is tough on crime, but it is cutting funding in areas where it should be investing. Instead of promoting discrimination, communities need more help to counter radicalization in Canada. Where is the counter-radicalization strategy to work with Canadian communities? Why is the government taking the rights away from Canadians? The Conservatives do not know what they are doing and, obviously, the Liberals are supporting their position. That is shameful. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, on the question of radicalization, the government has a number of programs under way, and the RCMP is also engaged in community engagement that works toward countering radicalization. I want to pay tribute. The scourge that we have been battling most of all, the rising tide, is Islamist extremism and jihadism, and it is the Islamic community in Canada that has been the principal source of intelligence and assistance in helping to counter occasions of radicalization.

It is working hand in hand with the public security agencies, with the Government of Canada, and with law enforcement to protect against those isolated elements in the community that move in that direction. What that community and law enforcement have told us, is that they need additional tools. That is why this legislation proposes, for example, the ability to remove from the Internet, on a judge's warrant, information or propaganda that is aimed at the radicalization of young people, encouraging them to commit terrorist acts. In fact, it would make, for the first time, the advocacy of a terrorist act a crime.

This is long overdue. The advocacy of terrorism has to be a crime. If we are going to do something to combat radicalization in a meaningful way, that is a key element to doing so. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the government House leader who said that none of the past prime ministers had done anything about oversight. I would like to point out for him that in 2005, when Paul Martin was the prime minister, we had in place something to ensure oversight.

In fact, at the time, the current justice minister, who was then in the opposition, was on side with it, and so was the NDP. Unfortunately, it never came to pass, because the NDP provoked an election. However, the point is that we very clearly pushed for oversight 10 years ago.

(1245) Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, this brings to mind the national child care plan that the Liberal Party promised some four times and just could not get done. It brings to mind its policy on greenhouse gases, when it committed Canada to reducing them, yet increased them by over 30%. It just could not get it done. Once again, on this, the Liberals fought it for over two decades. They just could not get it done. They finally changed their mind on an 11th hour deathbed repentance, facing the loss of government. The fact is that they just were not serious about it, and there is good reason for it.

We have robust oversight in the form of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. In terms of the additional powers in this bill, we have more significant oversight. That is before the oversight of judges with regard to the extended powers that the bill contemplates for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which are the disruption powers. Those would only be exercised with the approval of a judge in advance under a warrant. That is real, valuable oversight and the protection of our rights. Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, a critical economic infrastructure exists between the cities of Windsor and Detroit in the form of both a rail tunnel and the Ambassador Bridge. The government is intent on building a new international crossing between the two. Therefore, our community is very much interested in what a bill like this might mean for averting potential terrorist attacks that involve our economic infrastructure. Could the government House leader give those in our community a sense of how much debate has already been invested in this and when we can look forward to legislation that would start to protect us even further?

Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, our borders are some of the most sensitive areas in terms of combatting terrorist threats. In my time as public safety minister working with the Obama administration, this was a matter of great concern to it. It wanted to work hand in hand with us and we did, in fact, a great deal in seeking to provide it the assurances it needed. There are elements of this legislation and previous legislation that move us down that path of providing the assurances that are actually important for our economy.

Unfortunately, one of the things we occasionally see is an overreaction on the national security side in the United States, which has the side effect, unintended, I believe, but a genuine side effect, of slowing commerce at the borders. That is why we have been working, in our partnership with the United States, to get, for example, approval for advanced inspections for border clearance for trucks, similar to what we have, for instance, for air passengers right now. These are things that help facilitate movement and the economy, but, at the same time, provide greater assurances of national security.

It is those kinds of win-win opportunities for which we have been looking. I thank the hon. member for Essex , who is very sensitive to these issues and has been a very strong advocate for them, particularly for the manufacturing industry in Canada, as it is so dependent on those linkages. Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the decision of the government to reduce the debate on this important bill. I listened to the House leader talk about the great consultation that the government conducted with Canadians.

I took the time to meet with members of one of the mosques in my riding last week and asked them if they had been approached by or met with any of the Conservative members to discuss their concerns with Bill C-51 , and they said not once. The members had actually done a survey in their mosque on the deep concerns about the ramifications of this bill. They are also concerned that no one has reached out to them to work with their members to try to prevent anybody from being lured by terrorists.

I take severe objection to the suggestion that there has been adequate consultation with Canadians about this bill and that the bill would not impact the rights and opportunities of Canadians. There are many in my riding who are deeply afraid of the implications of the bill on their rights and privileges in our country. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Frankly, Mr. Speaker, my experience is very different. I actually commend the Islamic community for its effective efforts to work together with law enforcement and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

My experience is that the community has been overwhelmingly exemplary in its conduct, overwhelmingly exemplary in communicating when it is aware of threats or have concerns about radicalization in the community, and that is good.

That is a good example to all of us and a good reassurance to many Canadians that, indeed, the kind of country we have, one that involves the diversity of people, is not one that is broken into camps, but is overwhelmingly composed of people with all kinds of backgrounds who share in common a belief in our country, the values that it holds, our democracy, keeping it safe and secure, combatting terrorist threats and preventing them from arising within their communities. This is something in which we can call take comfort. However, the risk is very real.

We have seen the occasions most recently where radicalization has occurred. A lot of it has been individual self-radicalization, a lot of it prompted by material on the Internet. That is why this bill seeks to address exactly that kind of radicalization, one that is not necessarily easy for others in the community to detect. The good news is, as we know, in both of these cases they were on the radar screen. Unfortunately, we did not have all the tools in place to prevent the terrorist attacks from occurring at the time. (1250) [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, there has been a great deal of opposition to this bill. We have seen demonstrators in the streets of Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and across the country. Our online petition has been signed by 200,000 Canadians who oppose this bill because they think it goes too far and violates our rights and freedoms. The government seems very pleased to be able to pass this bill very quickly, without allowing us to really study it or even hold a real debate. To date there has been only one day of debate at this stage, and that was a Friday. We know that Friday is usually the day when bills are expedited.

Therefore, the fact that we are debating a time allocation motion is really problematic for me. I want to know what this government has to say to the 200,000 Canadians who have signed the online petition and to the thousands of demonstrators who took to the streets to protest against this ill-conceived bill. [ English ] Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, first, it is ironic that the member has twice voted today to shut down the House, twice voted to ensure there is no debate in the House of Commons today, twice voted to ensure we all go home early, and then she complains that there is not enough opportunity for debate. I see a bit of irony in that. However, in terms of those who have concerns, we recognize their concerns.

However, I have found that with those who are concerned and with my constituents when I speak with them, those concerns are largely driven by a misunderstanding or lack of information, perhaps from members of the opposition, perhaps from others. For example, many are concerned that all their information will be shared across all departments of government, notwithstanding privacy laws. That would not be the case.

What the bill says is that if, for example, a passport officer is looking at an application of somebody who has as their sponsor a person who is a known recruiter of people to participate in jihad abroad and we know the individual wants a passport to go to Syria for that purpose, should the passport officer be able to share that information with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service? This is a person who is linked to someone known to be radicalizing, who has the intention of travelling and maybe he or she should be watched. According to the NDP, that information should not be allowed to be shared.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service should not be allowed to be informed of that. It objects to the information-sharing provisions of the proposed legislation that would allow, in a case like that, information of a person who is identified as a threat to national security to be shared. The information to be shared is only for that person, not for everybody, identified as a threat to national security. Canadians understand that. They realize they are not a threat to national security, that it will not affect them.

That is why I say there are many people who demonstrate with legitimate concerns because they think the bill will do something that it will not. However, the bill is quite narrow, quite focused and focused on national security in the way it should be. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Before I go to questions and comments, I want to remind all members that when the question is being answered, popping up before the answer is delivered will not get them to the top of the list. If that behaviour were rewarded, we would have 50 members on their feet all the time.

Therefore, if members stand earlier, they in fact will not be recognized, as opposed to be recognized. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the bill was rushed through the committee process, the witnesses were piled on and pushed through in a week in which there was not adequate time to even learn what the witnesses before committee had to say, much less to hear from people who were not called, like the Privacy commissioner, or a very important witness who then appeared at the Senate.

I refer to Joe Fogarty who was a U.K. espionage security expert. He had worked with MI5 and the British Police, and also as a liaison officer to Canada. This is the key point on why we must not shut down debate on the bill in the House. The bill would not protect us from terrorism. The bill, due to the recklessness of the Conservatives, would put us at greater risk of terrorist attack. That is the advice from experts.

The bill, according to Joe Fogarty, would lead us down a disaster waiting to happen with no oversight, none, because the Conservative administration eliminated the inspector general for CSIS, has put in no judicial oversight or parliamentary oversight. This bill must be stopped.

(1255) Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, the legislation was introduced January 30. It is now April 30. The bill has been before Parliament and a parliamentary committee and debated for some quarter year right now, a quarter of a year and we do not even have report stage approval yet. In that context, one can see this has been out in the public realm. Our government's commitment is to ensure that this becomes law before we rise in June. Remember, it still has to go through a whole parallel series of steps in the other chamber.

Therefore, if we want to do that, it is important that we ensure members get a chance to vote and decide on this matter. However, the hon. member is quite mistaken. She said that there was no judicial oversight. I really would encourage her to read the bill. Expanded powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service require judicial oversight, a warrant from a judge, in order to exercise its expanded powers of disruption. That is significant oversight. It is judicial oversight. It is exactly that kind of ill-informed and incorrect statement that causes alarm among the public.

We want to have a debate, but there is no point having years of debate if people will not take the time to read the legislation and learn the facts on which we are debating. Judicial oversight is there, it is significant and it is powerful to protect human rights. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, just to correct the government House leader , there is not judicial oversight. There is judicial authorization for CSIS folks to do certain things. That is a different thing entirely from oversight as our Five Eyes partners have.

I cannot understand why the government is so reluctant to have proper parliamentary oversight, as does our Five Eyes partners. That is what is really required with this bill and what is missing. The government House leader went on at great length to talk about how long this bill has been debated. I would in fact agree with his arguments where he was arguing the point about the sharing of information. That is the kind of information he gave in that response that Canadians need to have. We agree with the sharing of information with limitations.

However, his argument there shows that there needs to be more time given for the debate of this bill, a bill which a lot of Canadians have concerns about. It needs to be explained in a way that Canadians understand all the aspects of the bill. This closure motion is another affront that is in fact undermining democracy and debate in this place. The government continues to resist accepting amendments from this side of the House. We are all MPs. We all represent people. Our amendments make sense, too. Why will the government not accept them? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member is a very significant person to speak to this, because he was actually solicitor general of Canada. As solicitor general of Canada, he was responsible for this legislation. If he believed that parliamentary oversight above and beyond the public safety committee was necessary, he would have introduced that when he was minister, but as minister, he did not see fit to do that. I think that speaks well to the fact that he thought, as does this government, that the after-the-fact review that is provided by the Security Intelligence Review Committee is a significant form of review.

In fact, we are seeking to make it even more effective, and not by politicizing it. The opposition would like to have politicians doing the review. We actually believe it is better to have independent experts do the review. That is the direction in which we are taking the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

When I talk to my constituents and ask them who they would prefer to have providing oversight, judges beforehand and experts after the fact or a bunch of politicians, they say that politicians have their role, and it is important, they can pass the legislation, they have a committee, but that their real confidence in objective oversight is in that expert committee and in the judicial warrants.

(1300) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House what we are debating right now. It is actually a move by the Conservative government to shut down debate on Bill C-51 . I remember being in this House and being told that time allocation had to be moved at second reading so that we could go to committee where in-depth discussions would be had. Lo and behold when we got to the committee stage, there were very restrictive time allocations. We as the opposition had to fight for more time, and only a little bit more was granted.

Now here we are, when we, as parliamentarians, have an opportunity to stand up and present our constituents' perspectives, to take

part in that debate, and once again I am being denied that opportunity because the government is using the bullying tactics of the power of the majority to tyrannize and silence the voices of those who oppose this legislation. What does the government have to hide? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the hon. member had an opportunity to get up to speak to Bill C-51 today. She just got a chance to participate in the debate on Bill C-51 . The reason I like that is that twice today she voted to keep us from debating. Twice today she voted to shut down this House.

Twice today already she has voted to go home, turn on the TV, kick up her feet and relax, to shut down the House of Commons. Instead, because the government wanted to proceed, we are here debating Bill C-51 right now. I am glad she has that opportunity to do that. Of course, I will point the member once again to the statistics. Our government's approach has been one of using time allocation as a scheduling device. The result, compared with other parliaments, compared with the United Kingdom, for example, is held out time and time again as the best example of robust debate.

We debate at every stage on bills, on average, much longer than they do in the United Kingdom Parliament. That is because our approach is one that facilitates debate, but also one that prevents the gridlock we see south of the border where decisions never get made because of overly partisan filibusters. We want to give members of Parliament a chance to actually vote on the questions that are important to Canadians, to pass judgment on them.

That is particularly important on a question as central as combatting terrorism and keeping Canadians safe, something which Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work on and make decisions on. [ Translation ] Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons just said. Perhaps we debate for so long because the government ignores all the amendments we propose. Obviously, the role of the government in the House of Commons is to propose legislation.

However, the role of the opposition is to critique it and propose ways to improve it. That is part of the opposition's duty, but this government almost never takes our proposals into account. It is no wonder that debates drag on, because the government does not want to listen to reason. Our goal is not necessarily to prevent a bill from passing, but rather to improve it. In this case, as the Leader of the Opposition clearly stated, our goal is to have a safer environment while still protecting our rights.

Does the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons recognize that if his government accepted more of the opposition's amendments, debates would be more harmonious and our work here would be more effective? [ English ] Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, the legislation has been improved through amendments that were made at committee. If we can ever get to the report stage debate, all members of the House will have an opportunity to debate them and vote on them. That is what we would like to see on the legislation improved, as he said, by the amendments that were made. However, make no mistake.

We are not going to allow opposition to be manifested in a form that is simply lengthy filibustering debate and by keeping the bill from passing, because we know the NDP opposes the bill. We think it is important because we need to have measures that, for example, criminalize for the first time the advocacy of terrorism. That is incredibly important. Right now people can go out, declare jihad and encourage people to go out and kill non-believers. That should be a criminal offence.

We will, for the first time, allow with judicial warrant removal of terrorist propaganda online that has been a factor in radicalization time and time again of people who have committed acts in this country and people who have travelled abroad to participate in jihad.

We are going to, for the first time, give the Canadian Security Intelligence Service the opportunity to disrupt plots while they are under way in such a fashion that will allow them to unfold while keeping the public safe and thereby enhancing the prospects of prosecution, which I think all of us agree is a preferable approach to dealing with terrorism. Of course, we are improving the passenger protect program, the so-called no-fly list.

Right now, we cannot prevent someone who we know is planning to participate in a terrorist act abroad from boarding a plane as long as the person is not a risk to the plane or aviation itself. That is unduly limited. We need to expand the passenger protect program to allow a refusal of boarding for anyone who plans to participate in a terrorist act or to join a terrorist organization anywhere.

(1305) Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of 9/11, many things were determined. One of them was that the agencies were not speaking to each other and there was a very real opportunity beforehand to have stopped 9/11 in its tracks if only they had been sharing information. I would like to ask the hon. government House leader, what would it be like in Canada if we looked back on an incident like 9/11 and realized if only we had talked to each other we could have stopped it? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, this has been one of the most frustrating things.

One would have thought after the 9/11 commission identified the many intelligence failures by the siloed approach, by the inability of departments to communicate with each other and provide intelligence to each other, we would recognize here in Canada the importance of that. Our government has. It is long overdue. That is why this legislation will permit information sharing between departments of individuals who represent a threat to national security. I used the very good and very real example of an individual who applies for a passport and has as a reference someone who is a radicalist recruiter.

Should the passport office be allowed to share that information with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service so the person is watched? The NDP oppose that. We support that. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The 30 minutes having expired, 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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Call in the members.

(1345) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 389) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Barlow Bateman Benoit Bergen Bezan Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Crockatt Daniel Dechert Dreeshen Dykstra Eglinski Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Gourde Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Leef Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Perkins Poilievre Preston Raitt Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Van Kesteren Van Loan Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 134 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Ashton Atamanenko Ayala Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Brahmi Brison Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Day Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Fortin Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hughes Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty Michaud Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Rathgeber Ravignat Raynault Regan Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Stewart Sullivan Toone Tremblay Trudeau -- 104 PAIRED Nil The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to

Citizen Voting Act Bill C-50--Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker: I move: Motion That, in relation to Bill C-50,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act , not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second 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 said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : Before we proceed with the 30-minute question and comment period, pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), I would like to provide a brief explanation as to how we will proceed today. The situation the House finds itself in at this point appears to be unprecedented. That is, the time stipulated in the Standing Orders for the start of statements by members, which today is 2 p.m., will arrive before the time for the 30-minute questions and comments period for the time allocation motion will have expired.

Having not encountered this before, the Chair has had to consider how best to proceed in the interest of the House while, of course, respecting the rules and practices of the House. What has made this difficult in this instance is that the committee that created the procedure, the modernization committee, does not seem to have envisaged this and so provides us no guidance, and in addition, no specific reason or justification for not interrupting to proceed with the statements by members, a procedure the Standing Orders clearly stipulate will start at 2 p.m. Thus, this is what we will do in this instance.

There are, of course, opportunities for the House to resume and finish the procedure at a time determined by the government. Since, as I have said, we are in unchartered waters, the way we will proceed this time is not necessarily to be looked upon as a precedent. As always, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is responsible for reviews of the rules of the House, may want to look at this very question, and if it desires, provide the House with recommendations on how to proceed in such situations in the future. In short, we shall begin the question and comment period now.

It will be interrupted at 2 o'clock, when we will proceed with statements and following that with question period. When question period ends, we will resume the 30-minute debate and subsequent bell and subsequent vote. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

(1350) Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the minister. I would also like to thank the House leader for giving us the opportunity to have more people in the House to listen to exactly why the government is shutting down debate again, for the 95th time in this Parliament. It is very clear that Bill C-50 is a bill the Conservative government does not want Canadians to know about. It has only received one day of debate so far.

The Conservatives have had six months to push it through, and now, on a Thursday, with debate on the bill scheduled for tomorrow, Friday, they want to slip through the fact that, following Bill C-23, Bill C-50 is a deliberate attempt to suppress the votes of citizens abroad. There is a nonsensical creation of a barrier in the bill that would make it very difficult for many Canadians abroad to register in time to vote. The minister knows that. There is also a stripping of powers from the Chief Electoral Officer to determine what ID is sufficient for citizens abroad.

There are all sorts of things that have actually not registered yet on the radar screen of the media or citizens, and one of the reasons the Conservative government does not want the bill fully debated is exactly that. When Canadians come to realize that it is step two after the former unfair elections act, they will resist, along with the official opposition. Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, first of all, to push back on some of my colleague's false assumptions, I think it is worth noting that it was the NDP today that tried to shut down debate and adjourn the House. Therefore, in terms of wanting debate today, I think that is a little rich. Talking to the form and substance of the bill here today, this bill speaks, of course, to the Frank ruling that came out in May 2014, which has material impacts on the upcoming election.

That is why it is prudent for the House to move forward and consider this bill, as it deals with material changes that will impact the voting process, because of this ruling, in the upcoming election. I will point out that I did read my colleague's speech from a previous round of debate, and he actually agreed with some of the content of this bill, including the need to ensure that the 40,000 non-citizens who are on the registry be removed, which this bill would provide for.

(1355) Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, back to the substance of the bill once more, one of the issues brought up by the Chief Electoral Officer was the fact that time is not on Election Canada's side for this. That was several months ago, so we should have a thorough debate about this to realize that the time impact is going to be great. Getting over Bill C-23 was bad enough. Now we have this one. In addition, there are several questions that need to be asked.

For instance, Armed Forces personnel would not be involved, but what about the spouses or partners of these individuals? They would also have to go through this routine. As my colleague pointed out, debate is of the essence, because they would have to register each and every time internationally. Why not maintain the international list of electors? Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question had two components. With regard to time for coming into force, I believe that Elections Canada would have time to prepare for this.

Many of the new rules that would be put in place by this bill would actually be extensions of existing rules, so there is precedent that could be applied. Of course, having us proceed to the committee stage of this review and having us proceed with debate would allow officials to have as much time as possible, which is why it would be prudent for the opposition to vote to send this to committee stage.

With regard to the components on diplomats and special forces officers and how they would apply, again, this would align our rules for international voting with how people can vote here in Canada, so there would be a similar set of rules. I would note, as the member correctly pointed out, that there are special rules in place for Armed Forces members who are serving overseas, and those rules would continue to apply. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it makes me laugh every time a government member claims to be a victim of the procedural war that is going on right now.

The minister of state could never criticize the opposition for defending itself against this cheap gamesmanship we have to endure. This is the second time allocation motion today. The minister is following in the footsteps of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and claiming to be a victim of the big bad NDP. Really, she is the one who is betraying the very spirit of the work of this House. She is betraying her role as a member of Parliament by preventing us, the representatives of the people, from expressing ourselves.

How is she going to face her voters and explain this denial of democracy? [ English ] Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that my colleague opposite used the term “victim” to talk about legislation that goes through this House, because it has been our government in this Parliament that has actually put forward substantive laws to protect victims of crime, many of which the NDP did not oppose. Of course, we did that by ensuring that bills received timely debate and timely passage through the House of Commons.

Some of those bills include the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, the tougher penalties for child predators act, and the Victims Bill of Rights Act. All of these are legacies of our government. I find it very rich that my colleague opposite is portraying himself as a victim, when in fact, he did not stand up for these pieces of legislation. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my question is in regard to the issue I have consistently brought up, which is the use of time allocation. It shows the government's lack of respect for democratic process.

Why does the government House leader feel that the only way the Conservatives can get legislation through the House of Commons is through time allocation? By doing that, they are really saying that they do not have the ability to negotiate in good faith with opposition parties, which is not healthy for democracy inside the House. Would the government House leader not agree?

(1400) Hon. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, I find myself explaining recent history to my colleague opposite. When we came into government in 2006, we had more than a decade of bad policy and steering the country in the wrong direction that we had to come back and legislate through. I am very proud of the fact that our government, since it came into office, has done things like create over 1.2 million net new jobs for Canadians since the depths of the economic downturn. I am proud that small businesses would now pay 44% less in taxes, thanks to this new budget that we have put forward.

When we came into office in 2006, Canadians were paying $6,600 more in taxes and benefits that they were not receiving. Our government has gotten things done for Canadians, it has put through some substantive legislation, and we have had meaningful debate in committee and all of these sorts of things. My question for my colleague is why would he not support us, but I guess I have my answer, because he is part of the Liberal Party of Canada. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The Chair must interrupt at this time.

I remind hon. members that there will be 21 minutes remaining in this period after question period.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Putting on the Glitz Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, high school graduation marks an important milestone in the life of a student, yet there are some who find it difficult to participate fully in the celebration, often due to the cost. “Putting on the Glitz” is a grassroots initiative in my riding that provides underprivileged students with formal attire so that they can take

part in their graduation with pride. Most of these students would not be able to join in without this assistance. A committee of volunteers from local community service agencies, School District 42 and other generous partners put together an evening where students can choose their formal wear and accessories for their upcoming graduation, have their hair styled and makeup done by local professionals, and have their pictures taken by a graduation photographer. Please join me in thanking the “Putting on the Glitz” volunteers for their great work for the third year in a row and congratulating the students of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission who will be graduating in the coming weeks.

[ Translation ] Morelle Elementary School in Saint-Ubalde Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as you know, April 22 was Earth Day, and one of the elementary schools in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier celebrated that event in a very special way. For nearly five years now, the students and teachers at the Morelle elementary school in Saint-Ubalde have been actively involved in a concerted effort to learn more about the environment and sustainable development.

Over the years, they have carried out many projects to help protect the environment and preserve the shorelines of Portneuf's many waterways. In order to demonstrate their commitment to this cause, the Morelle elementary school became the first elementary school in the Portneuf school board to adopt a charter of environmental and sustainable development education. I would like to recognize the efforts of this school's young students, the principal, Marie-Claude Gignac, and all of the teaching staff who worked together to carry out this inspiring project.

This sort of initiative not only helps children become engaged and responsible citizens in the future, but it also sets a good example for all of us to follow.

[ English ] Financial Institutions Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I recently applied for a credit card from a major financial institution I do banking with. I am appalled at the depth and scope of the questions I was asked by one of the country's leading banks. Particularly, I was told my information could be shared with any of its other business operations. The banks are simply asking and, obviously, collecting too much information from Canadians, right down to the amount I pay for rent, my building fee, and even the liquidation value of my 2007 F-150.

Respect is a two-way street and Canadians are entitled to it when dealing with our banks. If my treatment is typical, and I certainly hope it is not, then we are not getting that respect. We all have credit trouble at some point in our lives, so what was equally egregious is being told the card's interest rate at 20% rises to 25% if a payment is missed by the due date. When the prime lending rate is at 3%, this is near extortion on working families and makes payday loans look like a giveaway.

Herbert H. Carnegie Future Aces Foundation Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the winners of the Herbert H. Carnegie Future Aces Foundation scholarships and awards for 2015. Karissa Hufnagel, Tamara Twumwah-Ofori and Lillian Grant are just another example of three extraordinary women from the Jane-Finch community who received these prestigious awards last Friday night. I had the opportunity to meet with the three young winners and their families, and I was truly impressed.

The Future Aces award is given each year to students who endeavour to respect others regardless of race, language, creed or colour, and it seeks to recognize those who work each day to make a difference for others and for Canada. Karissa, Tamara and Lillian have set a powerful example for all of us by demonstrating the importance of embracing diversity as a strength and a societal asset. On behalf of the Liberal caucus and all members of the House, I congratulate and thank the Herbert H. Carnegie Future Aces Foundation and all of the recipients for their sacrifices and encouragement. They make us all proud.

(1405) [ Translation ] Richard Desrochers Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Richard Desrochers, the state deputy of the Quebec Knights of Columbus, who lives in my riding. He has helped the Knights of Columbus movement thrive across Quebec. He joined the Knights of Columbus in 1991 and quickly rose through the ranks in his council, taking on many responsibilities where he was able to act on his values of friendship and service, most notably with the Fondation Maison de la Famille, Aide Alimentaire Lotbinière, FADOQ and the choir.

As a knight, father and husband, he is a true ambassador for family values and charity. Richard Desrochers has been married since 1976 to Suzanne Mercier, who supports him in all of his initiatives with the Knights of Columbus. He has three children and eight grandchildren. I congratulate Richard Desrochers for all of his work with the Knights of Columbus and for his humanitarian service to all Quebeckers.

[ English ] Officers of the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment and Garrison Officers' Mess Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, It was my distinct honour to be invited to the 69th military ball hosted by the Officers of the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment and Garrison Officers' Mess. Let me offer a special thanks to Major David Ratz and the entire 2015 ball planning committee for organizing a wonderful evening, with a special mention to the incomparable MacGillivray Pipe Band. Canadians might not know that Thunder Bay is known as the “City of the Poppy”.

On July 5, 1921, the Great War Veterans' Association, a forerunner of the Royal Canadian Legion, held their national organizational meeting in Port Arthur, Ontario. There, they approved the poppy to be worn on the anniversary of Armistice Day. Within a year, all Legion branches across the country wore the poppy as a means of remembrance. Thousands of men and women from northwestern Ontario have served in the defence of Canada. Lest we forget.

4-H Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, growing up, I was part of 4-H and have some great memories of that time. Today, young 4-H representatives from across Canada have come to visit Parliament Hill and observe question period. They are the future of Canadian agriculture. Earlier this year, our agriculture committee had the opportunity to hear from representatives of the Canadian Young Farmers' Forum, many of whom have had past involvement with 4-H. The knowledge and experience that these young farmers bring to the table is quite incredible.

Farmers and the agriculture industry are the backbone of our country. As a government we will continue to do what we can to help make sure that industry sector remains strong and viable. I would like to recognize the 4-H youth for their commitment and dedication to our industry and to Canada, and wish them all the best in their future endeavours..

Marven McCarthy Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon (Miramichi, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the memory of a dear friend, a great Irishman and a true Miramichier. Marven McCarthy passed away suddenly, surrounded by his loving family. Marven has been described as a travel agent, a tour guide, a fund raising expert, guardian of Middle Island and a champion of all things Irish-Canadian. Most important, he was a generous Christian, an amazing husband, father, grandfather, son and brother. Born and raised in Miramichi, Marven spent his entire life on the river.

He fulfilled his life's journey by teaching high school math to countless young people at James M. Hill High School. His spirit and passion for community was shown as he gave tours of Middle Island, and imparted many life lessons to the hundreds of athletes he coached and managed. Marven is remembered by his loving wife Mary Ann, their children and grandchildren. He will be missed by all who had the pleasure to know him and who have been affected by his generous and passionate spirit.

[ Translation ] Chambly Seigneury 350th Anniversary Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 2015 is the 350th anniversary of the arrival of the very first French regiment, the Carignan-Salières regiment, in New France. When Captain Jacques de Chambly and his soldiers built a wooden fort in 1665, they laid the foundations of our great story. Some months later, Henri Chastelard de Salières built Fort Sainte-Thérèse on the banks of the Richelieu River where the town of Carignan now sits.

Paul-Henri Hudon, president of the historical society of the seigneury of Chambly, described it like this: The seigneury of Chambly was born 350 years ago, and along with two parishes, it would become what we now know as the municipalities of Carignan, Chambly, Richelieu, Saint-Basile-le-Grand and Saint-Mathias-sur-Richelieu. We have a duty to remember. I invite all of my colleagues and constituents to join me this summer at the festivities celebrating this 350th anniversary and the 50th anniversary of the town of Carignan.

(1410) [ English ] Taxation Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this week the Leader of the NDP called our tax cuts, “giveaways”. On this side of the House, we will never make any apologies for allowing Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned money in their own pockets. That is why we are cutting taxes for middle-class Canadian families through the family tax cut and the enhanced universal child care benefit. These measures will benefit 100% of Canadian families with kids, leaving every family with more money in their own pockets to spend as they choose.

Sadly, the Liberals and the NDP have a different plan. They want higher taxes on Canadian families. They want higher taxes on middle-class seniors. They want higher taxes on middle-class consumers. That is not the right plan and that is why we will continue to cut taxes for Canadian families.

[ Translation ] Gatineau Park Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, for the past nine years, the Conservatives have done nothing but turn their backs on the people of the Outaouais. With their savage cuts to the public service, they have deprived thousands of workers of a steady income and poisoned the work environment for thousands more. Refusing to back down, they even went as far as blocking the bill to protect Gatineau Park that was sponsored by my colleague, the member for Hull—Aylmer . That was one year ago today.

The purpose of the bill was to provide legal protection to one of the most visited parks in Canada, a park that is truly at the heart of the identity and the economy of the Outaouais. There is a reason this bill was supported by experts and thousands of Canadians. During the debate, the Conservatives and their Liberal friends told us that they had a better plan for our park—and we are still waiting.

[ English ] Vietnamese Community Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today marks 40 years since the capital of the Republic of South Vietnam fell to the communist invaders from the north. An iron curtain of totalitarianism fell upon the democratic south. Many were sent to political re-education camps, tortured, beaten, and killed. More than two million people from the south fled by any means possible. Many escaped on makeshift rafts. They set out to sea in search of freedom. Some 250,000 of these boat people, as they became known, died at sea from drowning, starvation, thirst, and hunger.

For more than 60,000, a safe haven was found in Canada. In 1979-1980, the Conservative government of the time, with the help of churches, synagogues, communities, and just plain old folks, offered them a home in Canada. The Vietnamese community now numbers more than 300,000 strong. They are fearlessly proud Canadians. Many are here in Ottawa today to mark the 40th anniversary of the start of their journey. As a country, we are marking the passage of the Journey to Freedom Day Act, now enshrined in Canadian law.

All Canadians of Vietnamese descent, and all those who came to this country in search of hope and opportunity, have made Canada the best country in the world.

[ Translation ] Journey to Freedom Day Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, under legislation unanimously passed by Parliament, every year on April 30, Canadians will now celebrate their fellow citizens of Vietnamese origin.

Our country will commemorate the boat people and other Vietnamese refugees who came here and became a part of our country, reminding us that Canada always comes out stronger when it is welcoming, confident and generous. [ English ] All together, without excluding anyone, every year we will commemorate the Vietnamese Canadian community's personal and collective sacrifices and celebrate the promising opportunities made theirs, and ours, in a Canada made stronger by their welcome presence and outstanding contributions.

Every year, we will celebrate together the uplifting symbiosis that arose between the Canadian and Vietnamese identities. What a great opportunity to remember where we come from, to better understand where we want to go together.

(1415) Taxation Mr. Devinder Shory (Calgary Northeast, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister has balanced the federal budget, our government is working to help hard-working families balance theirs. That is why we are expanding the universal child care benefit to make it available to every single Canadian family with a child. However, there are up to 200,000 families who may not get the money that is owed to them if they do not apply. Across Canada, this represents millions of dollars in unclaimed benefits.

Families who are not currently receiving the universal child care benefit, who have never received the benefit, or who have never applied for the Canada child tax benefit and still have children under 18 in their care must apply. It is important that they do so quickly because the deadline is tomorrow to apply and receive the benefit in July. To sign up, please go to Canada.ca/taxsavings. This money is owed to 200,000 families, and our Conservative government is working very hard to make sure that they get it.

Liberal Party of Canada Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, stop the press. The Liberal Party finally has a policy of sorts. It is their outrage about the Conservatives using taxpayers' dollars on partisan advertising. Now, I agree that is unacceptable. I remember a time when the last Liberal government shamelessly raided the treasury for its own partisan ads. The Liberal brand has not changed much. Let us just look at the Auditor General of Ontario, who is warning that the Liberal gang there is stripping the rules so it can flood the airways with partisan advertising.

What do these Liberals here have to say about it? They say not a peep, not from the likes of Gerald Butts who wrote the Ontario Liberal playbook. The Liberal position is really clear: they are against partisan advertising, unless they get to do it; they support labour rights, unless they are trashing collective bargaining rights on Parliament Hill; they claim to be defenders of the Charter, except when they are supporting Bill C-51 . It is Tweedledee and Tweedledum, two tired old parties cut from the same cloth. Canadians know the difference, and they are going to show both parties the door come this election.

Legalization of Marijuana Ms. Roxanne James (Scarborough Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal Party, we have been very clear. We have no intention of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana. The chiefs of police have also been very clear that they do not support legalizing marijuana. Now that he has joined the Liberal Party, Bill Blair has flip-flopped and now wants to legalize marijuana, which would make it easier for children to smoke pot. Already he puts it on equal footing with alcohol and is already planning to, as he says “tax the thing” and “control the price”. Unlike Mr.

Blair and the Liberal Party, we do not intend to compromise on the safety of our youth. These drugs are illegal because of the harmful effects they have on users and on our society. One can only wonder how Mr. Blair can feel comfortable now that he belongs in the same basket as Liberal supporters such as drug-pushing Marc and Jodie Emery.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] Ethics Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for the Prime Minister to respond to the disturbing allegations that Mike Duffy himself raised concerns about being appointed as a senator for Prince Edward Island when he was a resident of Ontario. The Constitution is clear: a senator must reside in the province for which he or she is appointed. The Prime Minister has to answer sooner or later. What did the Prime Minister do when Mike Duffy told him he was not a resident of Prince Edward Island? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question on a number of occasions. How disappointed Canadians must be this morning. They work hard, they play by the rules, and yet again they find out that the New Democrats are using their money callously. There are 68 of them who are accused of illegally using taxpayer resources for illegal offices, and 23 of them for inappropriate mailings. They were forced to pay back $350,000 worth of illegal union donations. They were charged $40,000 for illegal robocalls.

Now we find out that working in the office of the Leader of the Opposition , using taxpayer resources, is a union member who is using taxpayer money for partisan attack. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say, “Let's change the subject. We don't know any Mike Duffy”, except that 74 Conservative MPs invited Mike Duffy to their ridings on the taxpayers' dime. They know him all right; he is really at the heart of Conservative scandals and entitlement. The Prime Minister appointed former senator Mike Duffy.

Now we have sources saying that the Prime Minister insisted Duffy represent Prince Edward Island, when he knew he was not a resident there. Did the Prime Minister 's Office go to such great lengths to try to bury Duffy's expense scandal because it was trying to protect the Prime Minister ? Is that why there is this cover-up?

(1420) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I said, the constitutional practice on this has been clear for almost 150 years. It is also very clear that the NDP members, yet again, are caught using taxpayer resources inappropriately. To have a member of the union working inside the office of the Leader of the Opposition , doing partisan political work at the expense of the taxpayers, is completely inappropriate. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will do the right thing—take a step back and pay the taxpayers back the millions of dollars he owes them. He should do the right thing.

The Budget Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : The member is confused, Mr. Speaker. We are not talking about fake Conservative kangaroo courts; we are talking about real courts with real judges. They should know the difference, because so many Conservatives are before real courts right now. Here is a question for the finance minister . It would be nice to have an answer. The Conservative budget would give billions to the wealthy while making the middle class and future generations foot the bill. Today, GM announced it will cut another 1,000 positions in Oshawa.

That is 1,000 more people looking for work and 1,000 more families struggling harder to make ends meet. With all these job losses, why are the Conservatives failing to take real action to protect good Canadian jobs? Will the finance minister maybe answer that question? Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, things are looking good for October, I can say. We, of course, are very concerned about the actions taken by the company, and our hearts go out to the people affected by it. We have invested heavily in the automotive industry. We have saved 50,000 jobs.

Of course we are providing, through our capital cost allowance, to manufacturers a significant tax break, and we will continue to invest in job-creating companies.

[ Translation ] Manufacturing Industry Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has become an expert at creating illusions. The Minister of Finance likes to boast that he balanced his budget, but it is a smokescreen that poorly masks the real state of the Canadian economy, which has been crippled by the Conservatives' poor decisions. According to the most recent data, there has been a decline in manufacturing production for the second month in a row. That is worrisome because it indicates a continuing economic slowdown.

Does the minister have a plan to address the decline of Canadian manufacturers? Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have brought forward policies to help manufacturers, and we will help all businesses, large and small, by giving them a tax regime that is more competitive than that of other countries. In fact, it is already more competitive than the U.S. regime, because the tax rate is 46% lower than that of the U.S. Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the decline in manufacturing production translates into the loss of good jobs for Canadian families.

There are no measures in the Conservatives' budget to protect jobs in the manufacturing sector, and they did nothing to save the 400,000 jobs that have already disappeared since they came to power. Why is the minister not protecting manufacturing jobs that provide an adequate standard of living for many families in the middle class? [ English ] Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we have advanced job-creating businesses large and small. We have a lower tax regime than those of the other countries in the G7, some 46% lower than that of the United States.

We have advanced for big companies the accelerated capital cost allowance. For small companies, which are responsible for 50% of the jobs in the private sector, we are moving the tax rate, which we already brought down to 11%, to 9% over the next several years. This is the most significant tax reduction in 25 years.

(1425) National Defence Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Deschamps report on sexual misconduct paints a picture of wilful incompetence and complete disregard for our Armed Forces members. The report speaks of a hostile, sexualized environment, a pervasive culture of misogyny, and ongoing instances of abuse and harassment, particularly against women and LGBTQ members. Clearly, the Conservatives have been more focused on budget cuts than on protecting the men and women who serve our country. Why on earth have they been ignoring this national disgrace? Mr.

James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we thank Madam Deschamps for her report. We are deeply concerned by the findings of this report. There is absolutely no place for sexual abuse and misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces and we support its goal to eliminate this kind of behaviour. We commend the Canadian Armed Forces for undertaking this review and accepting all 10 of its recommendations.

We support the Canadian Armed Forces in undertaking a comprehensive action plan to have stronger support for victims, respond more effectively to incidents of inappropriate sexual behaviour, and prevent future occurrences. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, according to the report, Canadian Armed Forces members routinely suffer from abuse and assault, including rape. The military left victims of sexual assaults and harassments to fend for themselves. Those who speak up are stigmatized as weak. They are called troublemakers.

They face retaliation from peers and supervisors, or they are labelled unfit for work. The government had the report for months, yet the budget had not a penny in it to fix this nightmare. The Conservatives claim they are concerned. Why have they not done anything about it, nor put it in their budget? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member and all members of the House of Commons that all allegations that are reported are investigated, and where appropriate, charges are laid and individuals are prosecuted.

In response to Madam Deschamps' findings that some individuals do not report crimes, the Canadian Armed Forces is now actively looking at all of these and are changing how complaints are handled and are received. The Canadian Armed Forces are going to implement best practices, such as a sexual assault prevention office, as they have in the United States, which has seen considerable success in addressing these issues. [ Translation ] Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the report found that members of the Canadian Forces routinely suffer from sexual abuse, sexual assault and rape, and that the military is leaving these victims to fend for themselves. Those who speak up are stigmatized as weak. They are called troublemakers. They face retaliation or are labelled unfit for work. Why has the government allowed this situation to develop and continue? Our troops never abandon us, so why has the government abandoned them? [ English ] Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff just acknowledged that this sexual behaviour is inappropriate and has set up a strategic response team under the leadership of Major-General Christine Whitecross. The team is going to start looking at detailed plans on how to address this problem, changing the culture and making sure that this problem is addressed effectively, and where there are problems, that there are proper ways to address them and file those complaints outside of the normal processes that are used now. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, today's report shows a shocking level of sexual misconduct, harassment and assault in the Canadian Armed Forces. Military leadership turned a blind eye to an environment that was rampant with inappropriate and criminal behaviour and failed to support victims when they came forward. This is a matter of fundamental justice for women in our society, a flagrant disregard for women's rights and repeated denial of a systemic problem in the military.

Why is the government not recognizing that profound changes are required and that the military is not capable and has not shown itself to be capable of dealing with sexual assault in its midst? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear. The Department of National Defence has been clear.

The Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Armed Forces have been clear that what has happened is completely unacceptable, that these findings are deeply concerning and that we will continue to move forward to ensure that all 10 recommendations made by Madam Deschamps, a retired Supreme Court justice, are implemented. They are doing that under the leadership of Major-General Christine Whitecross to ensure that all the necessary steps are taken and that these sexual complaints can be brought forward, as well as charges laid when appropriate. (1430) [ Translation ] Ms.

Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, an action plan is only a first step. We need to get to the bottom of things to understand this systemic failure when it comes to the investigation and prosecution of sexual crimes in the military. Canada's military justice system has completely failed the women and men who have tried to speak out about sexual misconduct, harassment and abuse. Will the minister apologize to victims for this shameful behaviour and accept all of the recommendations in the report? [ English ] Mr.

James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Chief of the Defence Staff have accepted all the recommendations. They have set up a strategic response team under the leadership of Major-General Christine Whitecross. They will be bringing forward an entire program on how to deal with this, such as having a sexual assault prevention office, similar to what they have done in the United States and other allied countries.

Consumer Protection Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when the government buckled to NDP pressure to end pay-to-pay fees, they made sure that their bank buddies were exempted and it seems that they have used that as a green light to start charging hard-working, middle-class Canadians extra fees to pay their mortgage, to make a payment on their credit card, even to pay student loans. This is pay-to-pay fees on steroids. When will the government stop sheltering big banks and their billions in profits and finally ban all pay-to-pay fees? Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we are the only government that has stood up for consumers by lowering taxes and putting more money back in their pockets. We have taken action to improve low-cost bank accounts and to expand no-cost banking options for more than seven million Canadians. We have introduced a debit card and credit card code of conduct. Our government believes that with better information, Canadian consumers can make informed choices which will be in their interests. [ Translation ] Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight.

Under the Conservatives, Canadians are working more, but a majority of them are living from paycheque to paycheque and are not in a position to save. Although Canadian banks are earning record profits in the billions of dollars, they are not satisfied and always want more. Now, customers will be charged fees to pay their mortgage, and transactions are costing all Canadians more and more. Enough is enough. Will the Conservatives finally stand up for the middle class and hold their banker friends accountable? Some hon. members: Oh, oh! [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order.

This is the second demonstration. We are going to run short on time. The hon. Minister of Finance. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order. We are going to run out of time. We are just about of time now, actually. The hon. Minister of Finance. [ Translation ] Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have provided more protections than ever for bank customers and we have done more than any other government. We will continue to help consumers in the future, thanks to our credit rating.

What is very important is that we have lowered taxes to the levels they were at 50 years ago. That is what benefits families the most.

Employment Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we just learned that 1,000 GM workers in Oshawa will be losing their jobs. We know that manufacturing sector output slowed in February for the second consecutive month. Instead of taking action to support the manufacturing sector, the Conservatives are authorizing a $500 million-plus loan to help Volkswagen create jobs in Mexico. Why are the Conservatives not helping Canadian manufacturers create jobs here? (1435) [ English ] Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our thoughts are with the workers and their families in Oshawa during this very difficult time. However, the member has it all wrong. This support is about creating new jobs and export opportunities within Canada. This is an interest-bearing loan, not a grant or subsidy. In fact, this loan will actually open the door for Canadian manufacturers to export their products to global companies. Sadly, the opposition parties want to raise taxes. They want to abandon manufacturing. That is something this government will not do. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, clearly, the Conservatives have failed to build a balanced economy. Manufacturing output has slipped for the second month in a row, and workers are paying the price. We have lost more than 400,000 good manufacturing jobs under the Conservatives' watch. Now GM has just announced that 1,000 jobs will be lost this year in Oshawa. What is the Conservatives' response? Give money to a German company to build cars in Mexico Just where is their auto manufacturing strategy, and when will the Conservatives help the workers and families hit by massive job losses in manufacturing? Hon.

Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there is no government that has done more for the manufacturing sector than this Conservative government. The results speak for themselves. The programs that she refers to, since 2003, financing agreements like this one have generated almost $49 billion of business and sales for more than 5,000 Canadian companies. Unlike the opposition parties, we will not abandon our manufacturers and we will certainly not tax them to death like the NDP wants to. [ Translation ] Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, more than 1,000 aerospace jobs have been lost in my riding in the past few years, and now, in Mirabel, we have learned that another 300 Bell Helicopter workers are being laid off. When will the Conservatives realize that there needs to be stable investment in the aerospace sector in order to create well-paying jobs in Mirabel and Montreal? Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are dismayed by this terrible news for the employees and their families.

We know that this decision affects the international operations of Bell Helicopter, not just its operations in Canada. We do not comment on private sector decisions. The Canadian aerospace sector remains solid and is still one of the most innovative in the world.

Taxation Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, according to Quebec's finance minister, Quebec will lose at least $65 million a year because of the increase in the TFSA limit. The minister was clear about this Conservative measure: “I would not have done that.” Does the minister realize that his measure will benefit the wealthy and hurt Quebec? Will he help the middle class and withdraw this measure that helps only the wealthiest Canadians? Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the tax-free savings account, or TFSA, is an excellent way for Canadians to save money to buy a house, educate their children or build a nest egg for retirement. That is why 11 million Canadians have a TFSA. The vast majority of those Canadians have a low or average income. Fully 60% of the people who contribute the maximum amount to their TFSA earn less than $60,000 a year. It is incredible to think that the Liberals and the NDP would cancel the increased TFSA contribution limit and deny the middle class and seniors this opportunity to save money. [ English ] Mr.

Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I guess we know why the Minister of Finance could not answer the question on how many jobs the budget would create. It was the wrong question. The better one is this. How many jobs would this budget destroy in Canada? The Quebec government is now speaking out against the Conservatives' plan to give billions to the wealthy through a major expansion of the TFSA. It has warned that this scheme will drain provincial budgets by hundreds of millions of dollars and grow to billions as the wealthy hide more and more of their money.

Meanwhile, middle-class and working-class Canadians work hard just to get by and will have to work even harder to pay for these giveaways to the wealthy. Why are Conservatives forcing working and middle-class Canadians to pay for their trickle-up economics?

(1440) Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is quite remarkable that the opposition does not understand that if the private sector keeps the money, the money is not lost. The money goes to investment and savings, savings for education, retirement and for a first home. Here is a little more information, if the facts mean anything to the opposition. Half of TFSA holders earn less than $42,000 a year and 600,000 seniors with income below $60,000 are currently maximizing their TFSAs.

The Economy Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, new GDP numbers confirm what the Bank of Canada was saying, that Canadian economic growth is atrocious. The fact is that it has not grown at all in 2015. In fact, it has shrunk. The manufacturing sector has been hit particularly hard, with its output declining by almost a percentage point in February, following a decline in January. When Canadians needed a plan, the Conservatives delayed presenting a budget. With all the extra time to prepare the budget, why did the minister not present us with a plan for jobs and growth? Hon.

Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a few facts for the member opposite and for the House. Both the International Monetary Fund and the OECD are projecting that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7 in the years ahead. In addition to that, for the seventh straight year, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world. Our net debt to GDP ratio remains among the lowest, and organizations like Bloomberg ranked Canada as one of the most attractive places in the world to do business.

Maybe those members should factor that in their questions. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, just to be clear for the record, that question was for the Minister of Finance to answer. Today, GM has cut 1,000 jobs in Oshawa. Today, there are 160,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than in 2008. The percentage of people unemployed for over a year has doubled since 2008. CIBC says that the quality of Canadian jobs is at its lowest in 25 years. With Canada's job market so weak, how can the Conservatives pretend everything is fine, and why do they refuse to present a real plan for jobs and growth?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have a real plan: tax cuts, trade and training, which has crea