13313 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 205 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, May 1, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 1, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 205 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 205 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 205 (Version officielle) 147 205 01 05 2015 2015/05/01 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1005) [ English ] Citizen Voting Act The House resumed from February 3, consideration of the motion that Bill C-50,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-50. Second reading Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on the second reading of Bill C-50 , the citizen voting act. Bill C-50 proposes important reforms to Canada's election act. These reforms would reinforce the integrity of a special ballot voting system while at the same time showing fairness for resident and non-resident voters alike.

In doing so, the citizen voting act would follow in the footsteps of the Fair Elections Act. In particular, Bill C-50 would ensure fairness by providing that non-resident voting procedures are consistent with the procedures for resident voters that were brought in with the Fair Elections Act. Among these key provision, the citizen voting act would require that electors applying for a special ballot must include within their application for registration proof of identity and residence, and, if they apply from outside Canada, proof of Canadian citizenship.

Electors who are resident outside of Canada would only receive a special ballot for the address at which they last resided within Canada. In the debate thus far, some concerns have been raised about the potential negative impacts that could arise as a result of the new identification requirements for non-resident voters. I would like to demonstrate that these concerns are unfounded. Accordingly, I will focus my comments today on the voter identification requirements in the Canada Elections Act and what is proposed in Bill C-50 for special ballot voters.

Before addressing any specific concerns, I think it is worthwhile to again briefly review the voter identification requirements in Bill C-50. The voter identification provisions would require that electors voting by special ballot, non-residents and residents, must include within their application for a special ballot proof of identity and residence, similar to that set out in the Fair Elections Act. Further, Canadians living abroad would be required to prove the place of residence in the riding in which they would be voting, using the same documentation that voters living within Canada must also provide.

The same general identification scheme that was established in the Fair Elections Act would apply to applicants wishing to vote by special ballot. Under the first option, a voter may provide one piece of government-issued identification with the voter's photo, name, and address. An example would be a driver's licence or a provincial or territorial ID card. Under the second option, a voter may show two pieces of ID authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, one with the voter's name, and one with the voter's name and their address.

An example would be a health card and a phone bill, or a debit card and a bank statement. Under the third option, a voter would provide two pieces of ID with the voter's name, and an oath or declaration of residence that is attested to by a properly identified voter from the same riding. For non-residents, the attestation process would enable them to provide proof of their last residence in Canada by means of an oath or written declaration.

A person providing the attestation could be either a resident of Canada or another non-resident who is qualified to vote in the same electoral district as the person applying for the special ballot. In either case, both the applicant and the person attesting for their residence would have to provide either an oath or a written declaration. An oath would have to be administered by a qualified official, either in Canada or abroad. On the other hand, a written declaration could be completed by the applicant abroad, and it would not require that an official be present in order to administer it.

To sum up, the provisions of Bill C-50 would ensure that Canadians living abroad follow the same rules as those living in Canada. It is only fair that non-resident Canadians be required to comply with the same rules that are followed by other Canadian voters. I would now like to address the concern that has been raised about potentially disenfranchising voters as a result of the new identification rules set out in Bill C-50. The amendments contained in Bill C-50 would simply ensure that the same clear identification rules that apply to voting in person would apply to voting by special ballot.

I understand that there are now 47 approved identification documents listed on the Elections Canada website, some of which were added recently. The website lists 28 pieces of approved identification providing a voter's name, including, to name a few, a health card, a Canadian passport, a birth certificate, an Indian status card, a Veteran's Affairs health card, a student identity card, and an identity bracelet issued by a hospital or long-term care facility.

(1010) The list of pieces of identification providing both name and address currently includes 19 items.

Examples on that list are a utility bill; a bank statement; a credit card statement; a residential lease or sublease; an income tax assessment; a letter from a public curator, public guardian, or a public trustee; a letter of confirmation of residence from a first nations band, reserve, or Inuit local authority; a letter of confirmation of residence from one of several designated establishments, including a student residence, a seniors residence, a long-term care facility, a homeless shelter, or a soup kitchen, and the list goes on.

This demonstrates the sheer number of pieces of identification that may be used as voter identification, and the breadth of options which are captured by this list. The Chief Electoral Officer is always at liberty to authorize further pieces of identification for the purpose of voting as he sees fit. I recall an empirical study, conducted by Professor Ian Lee of Carleton University last year, in which he examined the numbers and types of identification that are accessible by Canadians.

He concluded that there are identity cards well in excess of 200 million for 18 million voters, and that excluded millions of monthly utility bills. Apart from these sheer numbers, the list that has been approved demonstrates that a lack of identification should not be a barrier to voting in Canada. None of these would change because of the provisions of the citizen voting act. To conclude, the citizen voting act is designed to reinforce the integrity and fairness of the electoral system for all voters, resident and non-resident voters alike.

The new measures will help ensure that non-resident voters have a direct connection to Canada and are subject to similar voter identification rules that all other voters must also follow. The right to vote is at the very foundation of our democracy. It embodies a responsibility and duty on all of us to familiarize ourselves with the voting process. In that spirit, I encourage all Canadians to become familiar with the identification rules and to ensure that they have the proper ID to vote, whether at the polling station or through a special ballot.

It is incumbent upon all of us to support integrity measures aimed at ensuring that ballots are legitimately cast by eligible voters. [ Translation ] Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this new way of doing things will cause people a lot of problems. Having worked at polling stations myself, I know that lots of seniors, among others, come with just their voter card. They do not bring anything else. They are asked to go get some ID because their home is usually right in the same building, and they go get a bill or something.

However, their health insurance card does not have a photo. They need photo ID, and many of those people do not have any. They do not drive, so they no longer have a driver's licence. How can the government justify excluding those thousands of people from voting in the next election? [ English ] Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, as we know, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we have integrity within our democratic system. During an election, we must ensure that people are rightfully and dutifully casting a ballot, and that they have the integrity to cast that ballot in a fair and democratic manner.

That means that Canadians in Canada who come to vote must be able to prove their residence and identity. That is the very fabric of a democratic system. Literally millions of Canadians have voted in subsequent elections, both provincially and federally, and have produced the appropriate ID to do so. We continue to expand the list of authorized identification so that seniors, young people, middle-income Canadians, low-income Canadians, and Canadians from all walks of life, are able to cast their ballot.

To do so, they must be able to demonstrate that they are rightfully on the voters list and live in the electoral district where they are casting their ballot. That is the integrity of the system. A number of lists and the flexibility have been provided by the Fair Elections Act, and now, through Bill C-50 , we will ensure we have an equal and level playing field for Canadians voting in Canada and Canadians voting abroad. We must ensure that there is integrity in both systems, domestically and internationally.

(1015) Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. One of the fundamentals is that the international voters list has been eliminated, which was something that was updated on an ongoing basis. It served the international community well for Canadians living abroad. I wonder if he could give the logic as to why that particular item was eliminated. To get rid of it seems to be a solution looking for a problem that did not exist. Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr.

Speaker, the process being put in place is to ensure that people who are voting abroad through a special ballot will have their vote count in the electoral district where they last resided in Canada. That requires some proof of when they actually emigrated to another country to reside in a different place internationally. By providing identification which shows their previous address, that makes sure that their ballot and vote is being counted in the right electoral district.

This stops anyone from trying to game the system by collecting a lot of international votes from many citizens abroad and putting them all in one single or a very few electoral districts. This way, if an individual left a certain electoral district in Canada, went abroad and cast a ballot, which they are rightfully able to do, it will count in the same electoral district where they used to reside. Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite refers to the notion that people will somehow have an ability to change the electoral district from which they came. I have two questions.

One, does he have any evidence that this is actually happening anywhere in the world? Two, he stated in his speech that the Chief Electoral Officer would have the discretion to determine what pieces of identification would be necessary, and yet the bill does the exact opposite; it limits the type of information that the Chief Electoral Officer can use to determine someone's identity. How is it that he can say on the one hand that we are giving him discretion, but on the other hand the bill does something completely opposite? Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr.

Speaker, as I said in my remarks, it is an extensive list of identification that can be used by Canadians, both domestically and internationally, to make sure they can prove who they are and where they live, or where they used to live when it concerns citizens abroad, so that their vote will be counted in the electoral district where it rightfully deserves to be counted.

In addition to the extensive amounts of different identification, attestations, oaths, and also declarations that can be written and sent in, the Chief Electoral Officer does have the flexibility to add other pieces of identification he sees as necessary to ensure that all Canadians, both domestic and abroad, would have the ability to vote in the election. We also need to have integrity in the system. As I mentioned, the way that the rules are now, there is the ability for people who are casting their votes internationally through a special ballot to name the district where that vote should count.

That would open up the opportunity for an abuse of the system. That is a loophole that this legislation seeks to close. [ Translation ] Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He was a long-time member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The way our government handles various bills that amend the Canada Elections Act is problematic. Most of the problems with this particular bill boil down to the same things we have seen in other bills.

The changes the Conservatives make are never motivated by anything other than their own interests. In this particular case, the court was very clear. I can go into more detail in a little while, but the point is that we have no idea what the real reasons driving these changes are, other than the fact that the Conservatives are not really interested in increasing voter turnout and helping people cast their vote. They are more interested in making the process as complicated as possible.

When this bill goes to committee, which will probably be soon, does the member think the government will be open to considering the amendments proposed by the opposition and amending parts of the bill that need amending? (1020) [ English ] Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, committees are masters of their own destiny, so when the report goes to committee and comes back to the House, we will have to see what the committee suggests and recommends. It is incumbent on the Government of Canada, and all Canadians, to ensure we have integrity within our democratic system of elections.

The way the legislation is currently worded, it does open up loopholes where people could attempt to game the system, and we are closing that loophole to stop that potential. I was asked what the intent of the government is and why we are doing this. We are doing these changes to make sure that all Canadians have the right and ability to cast a democratic ballot in all federal elections, whether they reside within Canada or they currently reside outside of Canada. We also have to ensure the integrity of that vote. That is the very basis of our democratic system.

That makes sure that the elections can be reflected as being democratic, fair, and also having the integrity that all Canadians deserve. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my question is fairly straightforward. Does the member believe that the government has a responsibility to work with other political entities, particularly opposition parties, on the best manner in which to proceed in making changes to election laws? Election laws are one of the fundamental issues we deal with in terms of our democratic principles.

Would he not agree that there is an obligation for governments to work with opposition parties when they want to change institutions or things like our election laws? Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, all pieces of legislation take input from anyone in the House of Commons. Legislation is brought forward, either by the government or by private members in this institution. If it is passed by the House of Commons, it goes to committee, where all recognized parties have the ability to put forward amendments that can be debated there.

When it returns to the House, it is once again open to debate by all members of the House. There is a set process for legislation. It is a long and gruelling process to make laws in Canada, as we all know in the House of Commons and in the other place. However, to say that there are is no option or opportunity for opposition members to comment on legislation is false. They have every opportunity in the House, in the Senate, and at committee to comment on and make recommendations and possible amendments to legislation. [ Translation ] Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I find it very unfortunate that this is the 95th time the Conservatives have imposed a time allocation motion. I think it is positively shameful that in our democracy, in 2015, the Conservatives will not let us have an honest discussion in the House of Commons on something like closure motions and time allocation motions. Many of the solutions proposed could help us create a more vibrant democracy. The Conservatives have always rejected the solution proposed by the NDP to have limits on when time allocation motions can be used. I find that unfortunate.

Ironically, when the Liberals imposed too many time allocation motions, the Conservatives were the first to denounce it, saying how wrong it was and how limiting debate was an affront to democracy. Now the Conservatives have set a new record. I think there is an explanation for this. The Conservatives have realized that this is no longer making headlines. Early on, when they began moving closure and time allocation motions, that got a reaction out of people. People wondered why the Conservatives were doing that, and they were not happy about it. Now, 95 time allocation motions later, people are sick of it.

There is a certain point where people stop talking about it, because it becomes redundant and there is nothing more to say on the matter. Saying that the Conservatives are attacking our democracy elicits responses like “Yes, but that is the way it is and the way it has always been”. This is nothing new, and people eventually ignore the situation. However, the reality is that we are once again faced with closure on debate. I truly believe that the Conservatives must have some sort of goal to move 100 time allocation motions before the end of the 41st Parliament.

It is really unfortunate, but that is just the way it is. Today I will be sharing my thoughts on Bill C-50 . It is yet another bill to amend the Canada Elections Act. This time the amendment has to do with voting from abroad. Bill C-50 is the solution the Conservative government is proposing in response to the legal problem caused by the Ontario Superior Court ruling in Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada. I would like to take a bit of time to go over the events that brought us here in order to help those watching at home who may not have all the facts they need to properly understand our discussion today.

Summing things up like that will make it easier for me to explain why I refuse to support this bill. At the same time, I will have the opportunity to share with my hon. colleagues a few suggestions for improving this bill. First, as I was saying, the impetus for introducing this bill last December was the decision by Justice Michael Penny of the Ontario Superior Court to nullify a part of the Canada Elections Act, specifically paragraph 11(

d) regarding certain restrictions on voting applicable to Canadians living abroad. Up until that verdict was handed down a year ago tomorrow, Canadian citizens living abroad for more than five years would lose their right to vote. Justice Penny held that this loss of the right to vote violated a constitutional right guaranteed by

section 3 of the charter, which states that “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.” This prescribed time limit was contrary to the spirit of the charter because it could not be justified under

section 1, which guarantees the right to vote in a free and democratic society. Justice Penny further held that voting is an inalienable right under the charter. That is what is at the heart of the discussion we are having today, and it is this key point that informs my entire understanding of the problem. We must say it over and over again: every Canadian citizen has the sovereign right to cast a ballot during an election. It is simple. However, this statement has two logical consequences. First, anyone who would attempt to hinder or prevent a Canadian citizen from voting is guilty of very serious wrongdoing.

Furthermore, and this is the impetus for the bill, as a moral entity, Canada must do everything in its power to ensure that its citizens can exercise their right to vote during an election. In other words, the state administration must adjust to its citizens and not the opposite. Best efforts must be made to facilitate, encourage and honour the citizens' democratic exercise. This view of the right to vote that I just explained will be upheld by all the courts in the land, no matter what happens.

(1025) I do not believe that I am mistaken when I say that, in addition to the courts, the people themselves will confirm this

interpretation of our constitutional rights and defend it. It would seem that the only person who has not understood this is the Minister for Democratic Reform . However, I am not here to argue with and insult the government. I would like all of us to work together to find a solution to this problem. A consideration related to what I said earlier should be addressed here. We agree that the right to vote is an inalienable constitutional guarantee. The right to vote is also a civil responsibility. A citizen has the right and the duty to vote. However, he or she does not have an obligation to vote.

Refusing to exercise one's democratic right is, in my humble opinion, also guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because abstaining from voting or spoiling one's vote constitutes a valid democratic gesture. A vote does not have any qualitative aspect. A spoiled ballot is still a ballot. I am dwelling on these details, these facts, because I want to be clear and I want to properly identify the essential nature of the right to vote. I would like my colleagues to correct me if they believe that my

definitions are incorrect. I would like to come back to the judge's verdict. This Superior Court decision took effect immediately and struck down the five-year limit set out in paragraph 11( d ). After all—and I am asking those who are listening this question—why five years? What was the rationale for that timeframe? Why not 6, 10 or 20 years? I am sure that some thought went into that decision when the Canada Elections Act was reviewed in the 1990s, but this number still seems rather random to me.

I am not sure when this provision was added to the Canada Elections Act, but perhaps migration was less common or more permanent at that time. When a person left for more than five years, it was only logical to assume that they were never coming back. After all, international travel was not always as easy and common as it is now. I think that this is one of the shortcomings of the decision to quantify the loss of the right to vote at five years, a flaw that remains in the bill despite the fact that the bill is supposed to fix it. Everything I am about to say now should be taken with a grain of salt.

I am going to try to describe the perception that Canadians have of themselves when they take shortcuts. In their minds, Canadians are not the sort of people who tend to emigrate. People leave for a year or two, but then they come back. They may go to the United States or Great Britain to go to school, or they may move for a diplomatic post or because they are in the military and they are stationed abroad. Otherwise, being an expat is not very serious and is more

an act of social rebellion than anything else. That is basically the stereotype we have about ourselves. However, it is quite close to the reality of many Canadians. Some Canadians do a lot of travelling. Many of them have dual citizenship and share their time between two countries. These people follow Canadian politics, talk about Canada in their second country and keep up with current events in Canada. These people are full citizens and they have the same constitutional guarantee to the right to vote as every other Canadian. This was confirmed by Justice Penny in his ruling.

If a rose is a rose is a rose, then a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. No matter where a Canadian may be—even on Mars—they have a right to vote. The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer quickly responded to this Ontario Superior Court ruling, and it announced that it would no longer apply the parts of the Canada Elections Act that had been invalidated. In theory, the right to vote was thus expanded to a pool of about 1.5 million newly enfranchised voters. This was a historic decision. An entire group of people had once again been vested with the most fundamental right in our Constitution.

It was anachronistic, but still exciting. Just last week we celebrated the anniversary of women obtaining the right to vote in Quebec. Need I remind members that aboriginal people just obtained the right to vote in their own country in 1960? The five-year period set out in the Canada Elections Act was a remnant of an bygone era, and this ruling appears to have completely eliminated this exclusion. Although this speech will soon take a more negative tone, I am very happy that the last restriction on enfranchisement in Canada has been eliminated.

With respect to selective inclusion, I would like to share a quote from David Smith of the University of Saskatchewan: (1030) [ English ] Voting is the hallmark of citizenship, both symbolically and practically.... ....at different times, the House of Commons admitted and the House of Commons excluded, but in each instance, the House of Commons defined Canada. [ Translation ] The value of the right to vote as a guarantee of the legitimacy of this House demands absolute respect on our part. However, this decision creates a big problem.

These 1.5 million citizens who will now be able to exercise their right to vote will be added to the approximately 2.8 million other expats who were already eligible to vote. Electoral logistics need to be properly set up so that these millions of people can vote. After all, as I said, the state is responsible for facilitating the process and collecting ballots everywhere in Canada. This is where things get a little less fun because we are getting right into the frustrating world of political calculation. Let us start with the good ideas and the brilliant initiatives.

In February, my colleague from Halifax introduced Bill C-575 , which presaged Justice Penny's decision and attempted to ensure that absolutely all Canadian citizens residing abroad would have the right to vote. The thinking behind Bill C-575 is self-evident. In the interconnected and instantaneous world of globalization, it a good thing for Canadians to live and work around the world. The House must take immediate action to confirm these citizens' right to vote.

I would imagine that everyone agrees with the member for Halifax 's ideas on this, but of course, such a historic and generous initiative from the opposition could not be tolerated, much less endorsed, by the government. The Conservatives would rather die than take the lead and accept a perfectly acceptable opposition proposal. Hubert Aquin wrote: Political partisanship is a means of action, not a mode of thinking. A year and a half later, the Conservatives are finally taking action. Bill C-50 is the Conservative proposal for dealing with the consequences of Justice Penny's ruling.

However, the minister's response goes much further. In response to a clear legal decision regarding an even clearer problem, we have a vague proposal that is like a reflection dimly seen in a mirror, as St. Paul put it. When you take a closer look at the proposals in Bill C-50 , it becomes very clear very quickly that this bill is not about empowering citizens. This bill accepts the basic premise that Canadians abroad have the right to vote, but it does so in a backwards way.

Expanding the constitutional right that is the very essence of the bill and should be showcased does not actually appear in the bill and can only be read between the lines. It is an odd masterpiece of inversion, like a photographic negative. In his speech introducing the bill, the minister showed no signs of excitement. This bill is not about the right to vote, nor is it about righting a historical wrong, far from it. Rather, it is about tyring to combat electoral fraud.

The minister said, and I quote: (1035) [ English ] The citizen voting act has three principal objectives: the first is to help prevent non-citizens from voting in federal elections; the second is to require voters living abroad to provide proof of identity, past residence, and citizenship; the third is to create one set of rules for all Canadians voting from outside the country. [ Translation ] The main focus of the bill is the fear of these so-called collateral misdeeds, which are presented as going hand in hand with the privilege that the government is taking such great risk to provide to Canadians living abroad.

From the outset, the government makes it clear that there is the risk of serious abuses, which are listed and may be impossible to prevent. The government's message is that it is full of goodwill, but the electorate abroad is asking for the impossible and, accordingly, the privilege to vote will come with very strict measures. It is as though the government were saying that it was giving us the right, but in order to exercise that right, we would have to jump backwards through rings of fire in a hoop skirt.

We might go so far as to say that the government is completely disregarding Justice Penny's ruling and not really giving Canadians who live abroad for more than five years the right to vote. The government did not welcome the decision with great enthusiasm and appealed the Frank ruling. Let us not forget that it also tried to impose a moratorium on the coming into force of the ruling. Clearly, the Conservatives were hoping the problem would go away. Nonetheless, as I said earlier, no court in this country can justify restricting a Canadian citizen's right to vote.

This is the new reality, and we must implement the necessary means to ensure that everything works as it should. In my naivety, I thought this democratic progress would be heralded for what it says about the maturity of our country. However, I again forgot that I was living in one reality

whereas the Conservatives were living in a world of Stalinist paranoia where having a passport is a betrayal. Under the guise of harmonizing the procedure—creating one set of rules, according to the minister—the Conservatives are turning what they consider to be a reversal of legal fortune into a win. Not only are they not really giving the right to vote to Canadian citizens who live abroad for more than five years, but they are also taking it away from the other 2.8 million Canadians, with a few exceptions, such as people in diplomatic postings and members of the Canadian Armed Forces. As my colleague from Toronto—Danforth wrote in an

article published in the National Post on February 3: [ English ] In fact, Bill C-50 uses the court’s rights-expanding ruling as an excuse to actually undermine the voting rights of all Canadians abroad, regardless of how long they have resided outside of Canada. It does this by generating delays that could easily prevent voting in time for election day and that creates disincentives for voting by making it unreasonably difficult. [ Translation ] This is what Bill C-50 is proposing to do: Canadian citizens living abroad who want to exercise their right to vote during an election will have to prove two things.

First, they will have to provide proof of citizenship, which goes without saying. Second, they will have to provide proof of address for the place where they last resided before leaving Canada. To better understand all that, we can propose a hypothetical scenario. Suppose that in 2011, I decided not to stand as a candidate in the federal election, and I decided instead to live happily somewhere abroad.

Had I done that, I would have remained the same citizen I was, with less contact with the political world than I have now, a normal citizen with concerns other than the legislative changes debated in the House of Commons. Furthermore, being abroad, I would work regularly to maintain my ties to Canada. I would make an effort to consult the Canadian media and keep abreast of what is happening. Say I want to vote in the October 2015 election.

I am sure that, if I have to go through a whole process to be able to vote, it is better to get started earlier rather than later, so I go online to see what that process involves. If I search for “voting from abroad, Canada”, the first hit takes me to a Government of Canada website. On that website, it says: If you live abroad, you may apply to be added to the International Register of Electors and vote by special mail-in ballot in future federal elections at any time. That is no longer true because of Bill C-50 .

It goes on to say: To apply, complete an Application for registration and special ballot for Canadian citizens residing outside Canada, available online through Elections Canada, in person at any Canadian government office abroad, or by calling Elections Canada... Send your completed application and copies of your supporting documents to Elections Canada in Ottawa. Once your completed application has been approved, your name will be added to the International Register of Electors.

When a federal election, by-election or referendum is called, Elections Canada mails a special ballot voting kit to all eligible electors whose names appear in the International Register. In order to remove inaccurate information from the register—according to the government, there are 40,000 non-Canadians on the list—voters who are living abroad are going to be asked to reconfirm their place of residence. Canadians living abroad generally believe that they will be able to just pick a riding in which to vote, but in reality that is not how it works.

Canadians who are living abroad and who have not lived in Canada for a number of years sometimes have difficulty obtaining tangible evidence that they lived at their last place of residence before moving abroad. Seeing this measure in the bill gives me a feeling of déjà vu and reminds me of the discussions that we had about Bill C-23 last year. It is very simple. Under the guise of improving the accuracy of voter identification and combatting election fraud, the Conservatives are actually making the rules as complicated and as difficult to follow as possible.

In a way, they are doing as much as they possibly can to interfere with Canadians' right to vote. As I said, it gives me a feeling of déjà vu and reminds me of Bill C-23. I do not need to remind the House about all the bad provisions that were passed by the Conservative government in its reform of the Canada Elections Act in Bill C-23 .

There were so many measures aimed at simply lowering voter turnout, such as no longer allowing the voter information card or vouching as a means of identification, that we can no longer trust this government when it tells us that it is doing good things or that it wants to help Canadians; we know that the underlying philosophy of undermining Canadians' right to vote as much as possible is always there. That is why I obviously cannot support Bill C-50 . We will make a number of suggestions to amend and improve this bill.

With Bill C-23 , we barely had enough time to debate half of the amendments proposed by the NDP.

(1040) I hope that this time we will be allowed to carefully study this bill for real in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that the government will be open to improving it as much as possible. [ English ] Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her great speech. It was a good

summary and many of the aspects in her speech were well done, because these are the problems we are experiencing. I even had a slight chuckle over the Stalinist reference as well. However, I would like to talk about the issue of the bill coming into force. We have an election coming very soon and we have heard from Elections Canada officials that they are not quite sure if they are going to be ready for this in addition to the Bill C-23 changes that took place. Would the member like to comment on that ? [ Translation ] Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his question. He has been very involved with us on this issue and he spent a lot of time studying Bill C-23 with us. When we were studying the bill in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, he proposed a number of amendments that ultimately could not be debated. He asked an excellent question. We knew that was a problem with Bill C-23 . The Chief Electoral Officer told us many times that these were massive changes.

There are the changes from Bill C-23 , the changes to electoral boundaries, the addition of 30 new members to Parliament and some very complicated voting restrictions for millions of Canadians living abroad. In addition to all of that, Elections Canada is not receiving any kind of additional assistance to implement all these measures. Indeed, the fact that the government is introducing bills to amend the Canada Elections Act less than six months before an election causes major logistical problems. I think we will notice an extreme drop in voter turnout as a result of these rules.

This is a serious issue that we need to look at. I hope that this will come up in committee and that we will be able to discuss it in depth.

(1045) Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent 's speech. I would like to ask her two questions. I hope that she will have time to answer both of them. First, can she share her thoughts on the fact that Canada has not recognized extraterritorial constituencies since 2008? Canada forbids other countries from conducting elections in embassies and consulates even though they are territories that are supposed to be independent. Second, it looks like this bill would end up erasing the names of the voters currently on the international register of electors.

Another register, an ad hoc register, would be created. Voters will have a relatively short period of time to get their names on the list of voters once the writ is dropped. This is a double standard. Some Canadian citizens will have rights and will not have to re-register for every election because they live in Canada, but others, who live abroad, will have to re-register for the same list they have been on for years. Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for those two excellent questions.

This is a real problem for voters living in Canada who are citizens of other countries. I do not know whether my colleague is aware of this, but it would seem that this government has double standards. The government systematically refuses to allow citizens of certain countries to vote, while in the case of other countries, it acts as if this does not happen. We get the impression that there are certain countries it would not dare oppose and others that it wants to intimidate. This is very odd behaviour, given that it is common practice in many countries to have members that represent their diaspora.

The government's behaviour is very odd. As for my colleague's second question, this is one of the biggest problems with this bill. It would be quite simple to have an ongoing registry that people could add their names to when they move abroad or when their situation changes. They could renew their registration at any time, not just during an election period. We know that Elections Canada is completely overwhelmed during election periods. What is more, voters are often asked to provide documents that can be quite difficult to obtain in less than two or three weeks.

This measure will only hurt the right to vote. [ English ] Mr. Scott Simms : Mr. Speaker, there is another issue that has come to light. If someone living in Abu Dhabi or somewhere in China wants to vote, in the process by which the list is created, as my colleague from the NDP pointed out, the list is created when the writ is dropped and time is of the essence. The minister said that it can be scanned and sent in that way, but in many places around the world, that type of technology just does not exist. I would ask the member to comment on that. (1050) [ Translation ] Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse : Mr.

Speaker, it is actually a major problem because basically, access to different information or resources is not the same around the world, and as my colleague mentioned, that is especially true in China. If someone happens to be in an area where access is extremely difficult and where very few electronic resources or even telephones are available, how can that person have all the information required in time to be able to vote in an election, given that an election campaign lasts no more than four or five weeks?

How can we reach the millions of Canadians living abroad if we do that just in the period mentioned in Bill C-50 ? I believe that is completely unrealistic. Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, which, quite frankly, was very instructive. After listening to her, we really understand the challenges with this bill. Listening to the speech by the Conservative member and then that of my colleague, we realize right away that we have a major problem.

Quite simply, and this is typical of the Conservative government, it wants to first control everything and then fix the problems. This has already occurred with several types of bills. One of the current problems in our democracy is encouraging voter turnout. Would my colleague like to comment on this deep philosophical divide between the opposition and the government? What is really important today is to make it easier to vote, not to create obstacles. Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert for his comments and his question.

He raises a fundamental issue in the debate we are having here today on Bill C-50 as well as the debate we held last year on Bill C-23 . Right now, the biggest threat to our democracy in Canada is low voter turnout. That is our biggest problem and that is what we should be trying to fix, by whatever means necessary. We as politicians should be joining forces to try to address the problem of voter apathy and low voter turnout. It is a truly serious problem. However, the Conservatives have become paranoid about massive electoral fraud by people who use vouching, although that is not at all the reality.

There is no evidence whatsoever; nothing like that has ever been documented. Faced with the immense problem of very low voter turnout, the Conservatives simply shrug their shoulders. They are not worried about it because, ultimately, they know that with fewer people voting, they can hold on to their little powers and their small majority, given to them by a minority of Canadians. The only thing that matters to them is being able to hold on to power and control. They really do not care whether democracy is advanced in any way. [ English ] Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it is truly my pleasure to address the House of Commons today at second reading of Bill C-50 , the citizen voting act. As was already explained, the bill proposes electoral reforms and aims at strengthening Canada's democracy by doing two things. One, it would reinforce the integrity of the special ballot voting system. Two, it would ensure fairness for resident and non-resident voters alike. Despite these laudable goals, which should command the consent of the House, we have heard criticism from members of the House directed at the bill.

Some have alleged that this reform could create chaos with voting in Canada. Nobody understands why we would create chaos in Canada with this kind of legislation, but the opposition would allege it. One member suggested that the bill created an administrative nightmare for non-resident voters. These allegations are fabrications and certainly, overstatements of the facts. The proposed electoral reform was carefully developed and its impacts were apprised. In truth, the reforms are more in nature procedural adjustments than a substantive overhaul of the special ballot system.

I would like to use my time today to review the new rules from an operational perspective. By this exercise, I wish to demonstrate that the concerns of certain members of the House should be allayed. I therefore propose to review the steps that non-resident electors would have to follow in order to vote in a general election under the new rules. As is known by every member in the House, an election begins with the issue of the writs.

The Governor in Council issues a proclamation that directs the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a writ to the returning officer for each electoral district, fixes the date of the issue of the writ, and then fixes the date for voting. This date must be at least 36 days after the issuance of the writs. After the issuance of the writs, non-resident voters need to apply for a special ballot. I wish to point out that this is currently what resident electors must do if they plan not to be in their electoral district on election day, either because they are vacationing abroad or for another reason.

There is no administrative nightmare here, I would suggest. I do not see why applying the same requirement to non-resident voters would make it one. The special ballot application should be available on the website of Elections Canada, at any Canadian embassy, high commission or consulate, or by calling Elections Canada. Non-resident voters would have to include with their application proof of identity and proof of residence. Proof of prior residence in Canada is currently not required for non-resident voters.

I would hope members would agree that it is reasonable to require non-resident electors to prove that they have previously resided in Canada. I think most Canadians would think that just makes eminent sense. Such proof of residence is already required from resident electors. We are only asking for the same for non-resident electors. Non-resident voters would have various options to prove their identity and last place of residence in Canada. They could provide copies of a single piece of identification issued by a Canadian government or an agency of that government with a photograph, name and address.

For example, a driver's licence would be accepted, even if it has expired. A second option is to provide two pieces of identification from the list provided by the Chief Electoral Officer, one with an address and both with a name. I invite members of the House to view the list of the types of ID that have been authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. They will see that more than 45 types of identification are currently accepted. Perhaps at this point I might address a specific suggestion from the member for Toronto—Danforth that the proposed paragraph 143(2.11)(

b) would exclude private leases—

(1055) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The Chair must interrupt at this point. The hon. member for Oxford will have 15 minutes remaining in his speech when this matter next returns before the House.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Oak Ridges Moraine Mr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Oak Ridges Moraine is a distinct land form that stretches through 32 municipalities, including Aurora, Oak Ridges and Richmond Hill. Described as southern Ontario's rain barrel, it forms the headwaters of 65 streams and delivers clean drinking water to millions of Canadians. Ninety per cent of the moraine is privately owned.

Encouraging the donation of land to the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust is therefore an important component in the ongoing efforts to protect and restore its natural environment. I am therefore very pleased that economic action plan 2015 proposes a capital gains exemption for the donation of private shares or real estate when sold and the proceeds given to a charity. Supporters of the moraine in my riding and across southern Ontario are thrilled with this initiative, just as they were with the announcement of the national conservation plan last year.

By working together, we can ensure that the Oak Ridges Moraine and other ecologically important lands are conserved and enjoyed for generations to come.

(1100) [ Translation ] International Workers' Day Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, every morning, men and women leave their homes and go to work to support their families. Work is about our skills and our know-how. It is about dignity and pride. Canadian workers contribute to our country's economic growth, and it is thanks to them that Canada is the country it is today. Unfortunately, workers' rights are increasingly threatened by the Conservatives' measures.

Wages are stagnating, permanent and full-time jobs are becoming harder and harder to find and some families can no longer make ends meet, even though they are working. Meanwhile, the Conservatives continue to give gifts to the wealthy few and abandon those who work by the sweat of their brow. The next government, an NDP government, will help all workers. Our tax measures and public programs will help all Canadians so that everyone can say that they are earning a living with dignity and seeing the fruits of their labour. I look forward to a government for the people.

This evening, I will be joining the workers in my riding in a large rally organized by the Coalition intersyndicale Coton-46 in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, which will bring together various labour union delegations from the Montérégie area. There will be music, gumboot dancing, a BBQ and hot dogs. On this May 1, International Workers' Day, congratulations and thank you to everyone— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

[ English ] Human Rights in Iran Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this week is Iran Accountability Week, a week to address the Iranian threat. I am proud to be a part of the Iranian political prisoner advocacy program. This year, I am advocating for Dr. Omid Kokabee, a 33-year-old Iranian experimental laser physicist. He has attended university in Iran, Spain and Texas. During a family visit to Iran in 2011, he was arrested and has been in detention in Tehran's notorious Evin prison ever since.

He was sentenced to 10 years in prison after being convicted of the unsubstantiated charges of communicating with a hostile government, meaning the Americans, and receiving illegitimate funds. The so-called illegitimate funds are actually the normal stipend given to doctoral students at the University of Texas. Dr. Kokabee has publicly stated that he is being persecuted for repeatedly refusing to work on Iranian military projects and help fulfill Iran's nuclear ambitions. Dr. Kokabee is yet another example of the travesty of justice in Iran, and his imprisonment is a flagrant abuse of human rights.

I call on President Rouhani to exercise clemency, suspend his sentence and immediately release Dr. Kokabee.

Physical Punishment of Children Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the house today to draw attention to a serious issue that has affected the lives of far too many Canadians, the physical punishment of children. This hurtful practice affects the cognitive, emotional and physical development of kids and can result in lifelong repercussions. Shockingly,

section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada still permits this cruel form of punishment, an archaic flaw in our legal system to say the least. Meanwhile, over 40 countries around the world have banned the physical abuse of children. Federal civil servant Corinne Robertshaw became concerned about reports of child injuries and deaths caused by parents and caregivers, and dedicated her life to repealing

section 43. An advocacy group called Corinne's Quest was started in her name. I want to thank Vancouver Quadra constituents Barbara Claridge and steering committee chair Kathy Lynn for their work on this important cause. I invite all parliamentarians to work together towards ending the physical punishment of children on behalf of the health and well-being of Canadian children today and for future generations.

Natural Resources Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the positions the NDP have taken on natural resource projects are extreme and alarming, and Albertans have a right to be very concerned. The NDP has called for a royalty review, and have come out against northern gateway, an essential energy infrastructure project for getting our oil to international markets. The last royalty review cost the province billions of dollars in investments and cost thousands of Albertans their jobs. It also shook the confidence of the Alberta economy, and that is the last thing that Alberta needs right now.

The NDP is also calling for higher taxes on job creators which would kill jobs right across the province. Unlike the path the NDP would go down, our Conservative government has committed to lowering taxes on entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, the Alberta NDP is taking its cues from the folks across the way. It is supporting higher taxes that Albertans cannot afford. It would kill jobs that Albertans desperately need, and would bring forward a job-killing carbon tax that would raise the price of everything.

World Press Freedom Day Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark World Press Freedom Day on May 3, to pay tribute to the essential work that journalists do to inform the public and to speak truth to power. I also pay special tribute to Kathy Gannon, who has received this year's Press Freedom Award. I also cannot let the moment pass without again drawing attention to Egypt's treatment of Canadian journalist, Mohamed Fahmy, who remains in legal jeopardy and is still not home.

As a former commissioner for the civil society Truth Commission established after the 2009 coup in Honduras, I came to better understand the bravery of a principled press. Honduras was the most dangerous place for media professionals in the world—intimidation, threats to family members, assaults, multiple assassinations, forced exile. Today, too little attention is being paid to the deteriorating situation in another country. I speak of Turkey, where the government has been launching raids on media institutions and detaining journalists in large numbers.

Turkey must step back from its deeply worrisome drift into repressive rule.

(1105) Public Safety Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this chamber, the opposition parties decided to filibuster the proceedings of the House. Led by the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , the opposition parties shamefully chose to trash the RCMP Hill security members as the subject of their filibuster. They chose to criticize the RCMP and complain about being held up on their trip to the House for a mere few minutes due to the security measures deemed necessary by the RCMP to protect the precinct of the Hill.

RCMP officers have a job to do and they do it every day with the potential always that they may find their lives at risk to protect us. I want to counter the amateur experts in the opposition and put on record my praise and appreciation of the RCMP and the job it does to protect us, and, yes, that protection also includes those opposition members who so recklessly scorned the RCMP yesterday.

Lyme Disease Awareness Day Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in recognition of Lyme Disease Awareness Day. Lyme disease is a debilitating illness that can be transmitted to humans through the bite of a blacklegged tick. The disease is on the rise across Canada, particularly in my home province of Nova Scotia. However, our government is taking action to combat this potentially fatal disease. We consider the health and safety of Canadians one of our top priorities.

We are currently working with provincial health authorities and other partners to inform Canadians of the risk of Lyme disease. We are increasing health transfers to the provinces and these funds can help further combat Lyme disease. I had the honour of participating in the debate on a national Lyme disease strategy last year, and I am proud to say that this bill would help protect the well-being of all Canadians. As member of Parliament for South Shore—St. Margaret's and a resident of Lunenburg county, I am very aware of how much Lyme disease affects us all.

[ Translation ] Sainte-Foy Seniors' Organization Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Public Works and Government Services Canada should be contributing to the well-being of our society. Recently, an important organization in my riding, Entraide Sainte-Foy, was denied a grant under the new horizons for seniors program. When I was informed why they were denied and when I saw that a misinterpretation was the problem, I politely asked the minister to review this decision.

Last year, seniors at Entraide Sainte-Foy logged more than 14,500 rides, friendly visits and respite care visits for seniors who have lost autonomy. Entraide Sainte-Foy was trying to better prepare volunteers by creating new training sessions that reflect the realities of the growing number of seniors. This was an innovative project that fulfilled all of the eligibility criteria. This government chose to save face instead of admitting that it had made a mistake. To govern means to encourage and support the drive of community stakeholders and to support innovative ideas.

When the NDP comes to power in the next election, Canadians will truly see what it means to have a government that serves everyone.

[ English ] Seniors Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has provided important and significant support for Canadian seniors. We provided the largest increase to the guaranteed income supplement in 25 years, introduced income splitting for seniors and doubled the pension income credit. This, among other measures, has removed over 380,000 seniors from the tax rolls. Our recent budget further supports seniors by increasing the tax-free savings account limit, creating the new home accessibility tax credit and expanding the El compassionate care benefit to six months.

However, the Liberals and the NDP believe that the hard-earned savings of seniors are just another opportunity to tax. Canadian seniors know they can trust our government to lower their taxes, and provide the support and programs they need.

(1110) The Environment Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, rivers in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan are in trouble. We are known as the “wet coast”, but climate change is leaving our rainforest parched. This winter brought only 15% of the normal snow pack, meaning the spring melt will bring less water to refresh our watersheds, and the El Niño system in the Pacific may mean a hotter and drier summer. Last August, a weir was used to slow the amount of water released into the Cowichan River so there would be enough flow when salmon returned to spawn.

The Nanaimo River is healthier, but its winter steelhead run is in trouble, putting at risk a successful fishery and tourism industry. The Chemainus, Koksilah and the Nitinat Rivers are all affected by logging, overfishing and urbanization. The 2012 Conservative budget removed environmental protection for these rivers and cut fisheries habitat protection, funding many communities use to build side channels and increase awareness of impacts of logging and farming practices. Many of my constituents see how climate change is affecting our ecosystem.

People are working together to mitigate its effects, but we cannot do it as a single community. We need the federal government to work with us, not against us.

Taxation Mrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we know the Liberals and the New Democrats like big deficits and higher taxes. My constituents in London North Centre know that it is only our Conservative government that will lower taxes for the middle class. When I was speaking to middle-class families in my riding last weekend, they told me that they were looking forward to receiving benefits from the family tax cut and especially the enhanced universal childcare benefit. Our plan is helping 100% of families with kids put almost $2,000 back in their pockets. We are focused on keeping more money in the hands of the real experts: moms and dads.

Iran Accountability Week Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, an all-party parliamentary group launched the fourth annual Iran Accountability Week at a most propitious time, as the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran have overshadowed, not sanitized, the Iranian regime's massive domestic oppression, including a horrific execution binge, intensified persecution of the Baha'i minority, criminalization of dissent, mocking World Press Freedom Day, and some 900 political prisoners languishing in Iranian prisons, many of them subject to torture and under the threat of execution.

Accordingly, a centrepiece of Iran Accountability Week is the Iranian political prisoners global advocacy project, which pairs parliamentarians with adopted Iranian political prisoners on whose behalf we advocate and seek to make their case and cause our own, such as those on whose behalf I am privileged to advocate, the Baha'i seven and Ayatollah Boroujerdi. We stand in solidarity with these brave heroes to let them know that they are not alone and that we will not relent until their freedom and that of the Iranian people is secure.

Nepal Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked by the devastation and destruction caused by the earthquake in Nepal. Our hearts go out to all those who have lost their loved ones and now must try to move on and rebuild. As always when disaster strikes, Canada is quick to respond. Two C-17 Globemaster strategic lift aircraft from the RCAF have already delivered humanitarian aid, and were also made available to evacuate Canadians from Kathmandu.

An assessment group from Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team is on the ground and assessing exactly what is needed and where our aid needs to go. We have also contributed $5 million in immediate assistance, and will match donations made by Canadians like Rotarians, Lions and Kinsmen. We also acted to ensure that additional consular staff were made available and deployed to provide assistance to Canadians.

I want to take this opportunity to thank our officials on the ground and the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, who are doing a great job despite the challenges presented by weather, terrain and the sheer scope of this disaster.

May Day Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is May Day, and as the rest of the world celebrates labour, some parties in Ottawa seem to think it is still the 19th century when it comes to labour rights. The Liberals and the Conservatives voted together against job protections for firefighters. They voted against protection for pregnant or nursing mothers. The Liberals have now lined up to attack basic labour rights on Parliament Hill, by saying that unions should not be allowed space to work or to organize.

The president of the UFCW has said, “it...sends a message from the Liberal Party of Canada that unions and the labour movement can be abused in the eyes of the public, and in parliament”. The president of the United Steelworkers said that Liberals had “chosen to attack a fundamental trade union right for partisan purposes”. Being friends of labour does not just mean putting on our best suits, showing up at the labour hall and calling people brother. It is about having our actions match our words, something we have never seen from either the Liberals or the Conservatives.

(1115) Taxation Mr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the leader of the NDP claimed that our new family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit were “giveaways”. The NDP is actually upset that, thanks to our budget, people will have more money in their pockets to spend as they wish. It thinks it is entitled to their money. That is the NDP plan and the Liberal plan for Canada. They want higher taxes on Canadian families, higher taxes on middle-class seniors and higher taxes on middle-class consumers.

We all know their plan is not right for Canada. That is why our Conservative government is reducing taxes, making life more affordable for every hard-working family in the country. We will never apologize for leaving 100% of the families in our country better off.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Employment Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the finance minister 's foot and mouth disease continues. First he said he would leave problems to our grandchildren. Then he said he has no idea how many jobs, if any at all, his budget would create. Yesterday, when asked about the thousand jobs lost at GM Oshawa, he replied that he is looking forward to October. Do they have no sympathy for the families who just lost their jobs, and possibly their futures?

Why do the Conservatives consistently put their own narrow self-interest ahead of working Canadian families'? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are with the workers and their families during this difficult time. We have a strong record of protecting jobs and growing manufacturing jobs. Budget 2015 created the automotive supplier innovation program, which will create jobs for Canada's automotive industry.

More than 25,000 businesses in the manufacturing sector have taken advantage of the accelerated capital cost allowance, allowing them to invest back in their businesses, resulting in $1.4 billion in tax relief. We know that the NDP would take that away from them. We will not let that happen. Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday 1,000 people found out they would lose their jobs. One thousand families are reeling, looking to find some way to make ends meet. Yet the Conservatives are more interested in their election scheming than they are in helping them find new jobs.

These families are out of work because of the current government's unbalanced approach to the economy, and as a result, we have lost more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs on their watch. Why did the Conservatives ignore these families in a budget that gives billions in handouts to the wealthy few? Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the claims of that member are 100% false. This was a restructuring plan, first of all, that was announced in 2012.

General Motors has advised us that nearly all of the restructuring will be achieved by the voluntary retirement of some workers at its Oshawa facility. GM continues to make capital investments in Ontario facilities, including plants in Ingersoll, Ontario, and St. Catharines, Ontario. GM also announced this week that it is hiring 100 engineers at its Oshawa plant for research and development work.

National Defence Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, if the member thinks he has such great news, go on down to Oshawa and take that answer. The report on sexual assault in the military has shocked and outraged all Canadians, and it is more outrageous that the government is only accepting two of ten recommendations in the report. Time to study implementation is one thing, but what we are seeing here is a real resistence to putting an independent body in place to handle complaints. The military justice system obviously needs a major overhaul.

Since the government has said it fully supports the report, will it now commit to fully implementing the report immediately? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we want to thank Madame Deschamps for her report. This is not a partisan issue. There is no place for sexual abuse and misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Tom Lawson, has accepted the report's recommendations and is acting upon them.

Since 2006 our government has continuously fought on behalf of victims and has enhanced laws in this country to combat sexual assault. (1120) [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the report by Justice Deschamps reveals how miserably the army failed to protect its own members by tolerating a culture where sexual misconduct is widespread. In 2014, two journalists from L'actualité revealed that since 2000 there had been an average of 178 complaints of sexual assault every year in the Canadian Armed Forces and that hundreds of other cases were not reported.

Why did the minister wait so long to deal with this scandal? [ English ] Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, nobody who has chosen to stand on guard for Canada should have to put up with this disgusting behaviour. Now, the Chief of the Defence Staff has stood up, with the strategic response team, under the leadership of Major-General Whitecross. She was clear yesterday that the Canadian Armed Forces is looking at how to best implement the report's recommendations in order to stop sexual abuse in the Canadian Armed Forces. [ Translation ] Mrs.

Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Justice Deschamps's report demands a strong and immediate response from the government. The Chief of the Defence Staff is promising an action plan, but does not seem to know, and I quote, “what the government expects”. What Canadians expect is protection and respect for women in the Canadian Armed Forces. Will the minister tell his Chief of the Defence Staff that so that he implements all the recommendations in the report? [ English ] Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff has been very clear. Major-General Christine Whitecross has been very clear. They are looking at how they can best implement all of the recommendations and ensure that complaints are handled and received properly in a modern system. The Chief of the Defence Staff also said yesterday that within the Canadian Forces, there needs to be a cultural shift.

[ Translation ] The Economy Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when we asked a question about the shrinking Canadian economy, the Minister of Finance could not answer the question. His colleagues had to do his work for him. The economy contracted in January. Growth forecasts were downgraded, but the minister was silent on why he has not taken action. When will he come up with a real plan for jobs and economic growth? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member knows that the strong leadership of this Conservative government has steered Canada out of the global recession, creating nearly 1.2 million net new jobs. Our government is continuing to introduce new job-creating measures in budget 2015, such as lowering the small business tax rate to 9%, providing manufacturers an accelerated capital cost allowance so they can invest back into their businesses, supporting young entrepreneurs through Futurpreneur Canada, and now a new public transit fund that will invest in infrastructure in our major cities. Hon.

John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, while the minister hides his head in the sand, Canadians are losing their jobs. Yesterday GM announced that it will cut 1,000 jobs this year from its Oshawa plant, while growing its American operations, and analysts say this is just a start. This is not a problem for the Prime Minister 's granddaughter. This is a problem for 1,000 Oshawa families today. This is a problem for the minister now. When can we expect him to do something? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, certainly we understand the loss for those families, and our thoughts are with them at this very difficult time. However, we have a strong record of job-creating measures. We have created 1.2 million net new jobs. This new budget 2015, the economic action plan, has invested again in job-creation measures and also in measures to help the Canadian Automotive Association and manufacturing. We know that all the measures we have brought, the opposition has voted against. Canadians know they are better off with-- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. member for Wascana. Hon.

Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the government brags about stale job numbers that are three and four and five years old, nothing more recent. Job growth and job quality have been dropping. In all of last year, there were just 121,000 new jobs in the whole country. That is down 60% from two years ago. Job quality is at a 25-year low, and economic growth is pathetic. In fact, the economy has grown only once in the last four months. Why is the government's plan such an utter failure, and why does it not have a job creation target?

(1125) Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Canadian manufacturing industry and its workers are one of the key engines of the Canadian economy, representing a vital source of jobs and economic growth for many communities. That is why we are investing in them. That is why economic action plan 2015 invests in job creation and the manufacturing sector.

We have brought forward measures that have created 1.2 million net new jobs, but in this budget, we are encouraging investment in the Canadian manufacturing sector, fostering automotive supply innovation, removing financial barriers. Those involved in this industry commend us on the-- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. member for London--Fanshawe.

Manufacturing Industry Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday GM announced that another 1,000 jobs will be cut in Oshawa this year. More than 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost under the Conservative government. Now it has introduced another budget that fails the middle class and working families. The Minister of Finance did not even bother to try to figure out if his budget would create any jobs. Why are the Conservatives giving billions to the wealthy, while middle-class working families and future generations pay the price? Hon.

Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, our thoughts are with the workers and their families during this most difficult time. Our government has brought forward measures in budget 2015. Our government reduced EI premiums for small businesses. We eliminated tariffs on machinery, making Canada the first tariff-free zone for manufacturing inputs in the G20. We negotiated trade agreements so that our products can get into countries around the world, and we have lowered business taxes. We know that the NDP has a high-tax, high-spend plan that will kill jobs.

We are not going to let that happen. Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have utterly failed the auto sector, failed the manufacturing sector, and failed the 1.3 million Canadians who are out of work. Canadians are working harder and falling further and further behind, but instead of helping to create jobs in Canada, the Conservatives loaned Volkswagen $526 million to create jobs in Mexico, and now there is another budget with no manufacturing strategy. Why are Conservatives abandoning the middle class, working families, and the manufacturing sector? Hon.

Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. She knows that as a result of our government's strong leadership, Canada has the strongest job-creation record in the entire G7, the most industrialized countries. Economic action plan 2015 will create more jobs, will build on that excellent record, by reducing the tax rate for job-creating small businesses. The opposition opposes this measure. We are investing in federal infrastructure and are introducing a new public transit fund.

We know that the Liberals and the NDP have a high-tax, high-spend plan that will kill jobs. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Ontario has every reason to be unhappy with the Conservatives' budget, but the budget is no better for Quebec. Quebec has lost 115,000 manufacturing jobs under the Conservatives. For the second month in a row, manufacturing production in Canada has declined. We also learned that 300 Bell Helicopter employees in Mirabel will be losing their jobs.

Can the Minister of Finance explain why his budget gives gifts to the wealthy instead of investing to create well-paid jobs in Quebec's manufacturing sector? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, our record is clear: 1.2 million net new jobs since the depths of the recession. The economic action plan is full of job-creating measures. Let me read a few: creating and promoting Canadian tourism, the labour market integration of new Canadians, and the Canada 150 community infrastructure program.

Measures like these are going to help create jobs and help build a strong economy. Canadians know they are better off with this Conservative government.

(1130) [ Translation ] Taxation Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives refuse to even acknowledge that there is a problem, how can Canadians hope to see any real solutions? It is not only the manufacturing sector that is struggling; many other sectors in Quebec are too. The Quebec finance minister has said that the TFSA increase is going to cost Quebeckers $65 million a year. That is millions of dollars that Quebec could be using to relieve the pressure on hospitals, for instance, rebuild roads or create jobs.

When will the Conservatives stop giving gifts to the rich and leaving the middle class to foot the bill? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government tabled a low-tax plan that will help create jobs for businesses. It is a low-tax plan for families. This budget 2015 economic action plan will help create jobs. We know that the Liberals and the NDP want high taxes on the middle class. They want a high-spending carbon tax. They want high taxes on middle-class seniors. They want high taxes on middle-class consumers.

That is their plan: high taxes on everyone. Our Conservative government is reducing taxes on the middle class-- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order. The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[ Translation ] Manufacturing Industry Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the member should come to my riding and tell that to the workers who just lost their jobs. The middle class is paying the price for the Conservatives' mismanagement. The manufacturing sector slipped again, for the second month in a row. Under the Conservatives, we have lost more than 400,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs, and in the suburbs north of Montreal, in my region, another 300 workers at Bell Helicopter are being let go.

Instead of passing a budget that favours the rich, will the government finally take job creation seriously? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has brought forward a low-tax plan for business. We know that when we tax business higher, as the New Democrats would do, it hurts jobs. People are laid off. The CFIB said that if payroll taxes are increased, up to 60% of businesses would reduce their workforce.

We eliminated tariffs on machinery, we are making Canada the first tariff-free zone, we are lowering corporate taxes to 15% and small business tax to 9%. We know the NDP would reverse it. We know that would kill jobs.

[ Translation ] Consumer Protection Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives, it is more and more difficult for Canadians to find good jobs and household debt is higher than ever. In the meantime, the banks are making record profits in the billions of dollars every year. This prosperity gap, with more profits for the banks and more debt for the middle class, is only going to get worse. Canadians are going to be charged fees to pay their mortgage. That is obscene.

Are the Conservatives going to turn a blind eye to the abuses by their friends at the banks, or are they going to quickly pass a mandatory code of conduct for the banking sector? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, we are the only government that has stood up for consumers by lowering taxes and putting more money back into their own pockets. Unlike the Liberals and the NDP who would raise taxes on middle-class consumers, our government has consistently reduced taxes on the middle class.

Our government has taken action to improve low-cost bank accounts and expand no-cost banking options for more than seven million Canadians. We introduced the debit and credit card code of conduct. Shamefully, they voted against it. Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : The Conservatives did introduce a code of conduct, Mr. Speaker, but it is a voluntary code of conduct, and that voluntary code of conduct gives the banks a blank cheque to charge new fees on everyday transactions that hammer middle-class Canadians, transactions like making a mortgage payment, making a student loan payment.

Seniors, even children, are going to be affected by these new pay-to-pay fees. A voluntary code of conduct does not cut it. When will the government have the backbone to stand up against the banks and stand up for Canadians against these fees? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Again, Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government is the only government that consistently stands up for the consumer. We bring forward consumer measures and consistently the NDP votes against them. Unlike the Liberals who would raise taxes, we are lowering taxes for consumers.

Just listen to what the Public Interest Advocacy Centre had to say about our government's actions. It stated, “...we support the establishment of a financial consumer code which would be binding upon financial institutions subject to federal Government authority.” Mr. Speaker—

(1135) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

Employment Insurance Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is not just consumers who are paying the price for Conservative choices. It is also over a million Canadians who paid into EI, lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and expect it to be there when they need it. Instead of making sure that EI is there for them, the Conservatives are raiding the EI fund of billions. EI is paid for by workers and businesses. When will the Conservatives stop raiding the EI fund to give handouts to the wealthy few? Mr.

Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course, the EI fund was supplemented by the general revenue from taxpayers during the recession. Now it is being returned to the general revenue for taxpayers. The focus of our EI program is to make sure that if people lose their jobs through no fault of their own, the EI program will be there for them, for Canadians. The EI program is sound. It works. Please stand up and support the EI program. Support the workers in this country.

Employment Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is hard to get lower than gutting EI just to pay for benefits for the rich, but these callous Conservatives just do not seem to care. Thousands of families are struggling to make ends meet and they are getting absolutely no help from the government. Instead, 1,000 more auto workers are now out of work and add to that 400,000 manufacturing jobs already lost under the government. When will the Conservatives own up to their dismal job numbers and introduce a real plan to create and protect family-sustaining jobs? Hon.

Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are with the workers and their families during this difficult time. Our government has a strong record of protecting and growing manufacturing jobs. Budget 2015 created the automotive supplier innovation program that will create jobs in Canada's automotive industry. More than 25,000 businesses in the manufacturing sector have taken advantage of the accelerated capital cost allowance, allowing them to invest back in their business, creating more jobs. The opposition votes against these measures.

We know we will stand up for the consumers and the workers.

National Defence Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Deschamps report on sexual harassment in the military outlines a culture of sexualization and abuse, particularly against women and LGBTQ members. This is inexcusable. This must be fixed now. The report laid out 10 recommendations on how to begin turning this horrific situation around. Yesterday, the government claimed to accept all 10 recommendations, but the Chief of Defence Staff said that he only accepts two and will study the rest. Who is telling the truth, the military or the government? Mr.

James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind this member that it was the Chief of Defence Staff who ordered this independent external review by Madam Chief Justice Deschamps. I can say that they have received the report, accepted the recommendations and are now currently looking at how to implement those recommendations. The Chief of Defence Staff has stood up the strategic response team, led by Major General Christine Whitecross. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Well, no answer there, Mr. Speaker.

The current government has allowed this abusive and misogynistic situation in the Canadian Armed Forces to persist. The military has both condoned inappropriate and abusive behaviour, and turned a blind eye or punished those who have complained. The minister is accountable for his department and a phantom action plan is simply not enough. Will the government take full responsibility for allowing this toxic behaviour, apologize to the victims, and make sure the abusers and enablers are held to account? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. Our thoughts are with the victims. We find this abuse completely disgusting. That is why the Chief of Defence Staff asked for this report and will be reviewing and implementing these recommendations to ensure that this culture is changed and that public education and awareness is increased, and to provide a safe vehicle for complaints to come forward. (1140) [ Translation ] Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is sad to have to mention this, but under the law, the Minister of National Defence is responsible for the Canadian Forces.

He is accountable for all matters of national defence. Why is the minister not responding to this scathing report on sexual harassment in the armed forces? Why did he not ensure that the budget included resources to protect the victims of this despicable abuse? Will he apologize to the victims and personally ensure that the Deschamps report is implemented? [ English ] Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, Major General Christine Whitecross was clear yesterday that they are looking at how to best implement the report's recommendations, such as providing the proper services and support to the victims to ensure that victims can come forward without fear of repercussion and that the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces changes. We are supporting the Canadian Armed Forces in this endeavour and we thank Madam Deschamps for her report.

The Environment Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canada has gone from climate change laggard under the Liberals to climate change embarrassment under the Conservatives, with weakened and missed targets, and a caucus that is a safe haven for climate deniers. Now the Prime Minister is saying that our next set of targets will not even match the U.S. after he spent 10 years telling us that we would harmonize with the U.S. Canada needs to bring new targets to Paris this year. Our contribution is absolutely crucial.

When will the government announce new ambitious targets to fight the climate crisis? Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have always said that to effectively reduce global greenhouse gas emissions all major emitters must be on board. We have aligned regulations with the United States in several areas, and are working closer together to developing clean energy.

Canada has one of the cleanest electricity supplies, with 80% of our economy coming from sources that emit no greenhouse gas emissions. The United States has only 30%. At home, our government is reducing greenhouse gas emissions while growing the economy. [ Translation ] Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, climate change is one of the biggest threats we are facing. The government's solution is to try to hide its incompetence behind public relations stunts. Congratulations. As a result, reduction targets keep going down and there are no real regulations for major polluters.

In short, there is no great hope on the horizon. Is this another problem for the Prime Minister 's granddaughter to sort out, or is the Prime Minister going to take action to help our planet? [ English ] Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we will submit Canada's greenhouse gas emission targets sometime this month or next month.

Greenhouse gas emission targets reflect actions by all levels of government, so we are seeking additional information from the provinces and territories on how they intend to meet their targets. This Conservative government is the first government in Canadian history to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we will continue to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without a job-killing carbon tax.

[ Translation ] Food Safety Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, three years after the largest meat recall in Canada due to the E. coli contamination at XL Foods, things are not getting any better. Four cases of tainted meat were discovered by American inspectors last year. We also learned that plant workers are not consistently being given clean clothes and that some of the bathrooms do not have running water. However, if anyone is washing their hands, it is the Conservatives. Why is the government so flippant about the safety of our food? [ English ] Mrs.

Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, action was taken back in 2014, and prior. All issues have been resolved; none have been left outstanding. It is important to note that nearly 40 inspection staff are on the ground in this facility every single day. For additional reassurance, CFIA is sending in an inspection verification team. Again for Canadians, it is important to note that The Conference Board of Canada rates our food safety system number one against 17 OECD countries, including the U.S. Ms.

Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government's response is too little, too late. After the largest beef recall in Canadian history, an independent review concluded that the CFIA needed to improve its inspection program. The minister failed to do that. Sending in new inspectors now to inspect the old inspectors does not really solve the problem. Conservatives have systematically undermined the capacity of inspectors to do their jobs. What are the Conservatives going to do to permanently strengthen our food safety system?

(1145) Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, not only are the opposition allegations not accurate, they are irresponsibly undermining confidence in our food safety systems. Again, it is important to note that all issues have been dealt with. The Conference Board of Canada rates our system number one out of 17 countries, and that includes the U.S.

Natural Resources Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government believes in responsible resource development. Sadly, it was not long ago that NDP members went to Washington to campaign against resource jobs. They have a proven record of opposing natural resource projects, and referred to the oil sands as a disease. Our government, on the other hand, has always stood up for the energy sector. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services tell this House what our government is doing to support the resource sector? Mr.

Chris Warkentin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the position the NDP has taken on the energy industry is alarming and extreme. Albertans have every right to be concerned. The NDP has called for a royalty review and has come out against the Northern Gateway. The last time a royalty review was conducted, it cost the province billions of dollars of investment and it cost thousands of Albertans their jobs. Unfortunately, the Alberta NDP is taking cues from the federal NDP.

Unfortunately, the plan would lead to higher taxes, killed jobs and a destabilized economy in the province.

[ Translation ] Public Safety Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when it comes to public safety, the Conservatives are all talk and no action. By way of evidence, we learned that the RCMP's database—which, in passing, is badly out of date, with delays dating back several years—will have its budget cut by 10% this year. We are talking about information that is essential to police officers, who are being asked to work in the dark. How can the minister go ahead with these cuts? [ English ] Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. This government has actually increased the resources to our national security agencies, including the RCMP. We have actually done that seven times. The seven times we have done those increases, that member has voted against them. Canadians know that when it comes to supporting our men and women who keep Canadians safe, it is this government that is going to give them the legislative tools, the funding for crime prevention and also the funding to get the job done. Ms.

Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Police Information Centre database is being cut by the Conservative government. It is outrageous that police are being asked to do a dangerous job without complete information. It puts them and the public at risk. Why does the minister seem to be content to sit back and let the police operate in the dark for another two years? Why is he cutting resources to this modernization project when he should be doing what it takes to get that database up to date right now? Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I just said, our Conservative government has provided significant funding to the RCMP. We have provided legislative tools in order to keep Canadians safe. In fact, it is our government that has passed more than 30 tough on crime bills to do just that. We are also the party that has invested more than $30 million on crime prevention right across the country.

Canada Post Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this week, city counsellors heard from people from across Ottawa who are concerned about home mail delivery. In neighbourhoods like densely populated Centretown, people are worried about super boxes taking over scarce green space. The Conservatives are turning their backs on the people of Ottawa. For example, they have given Canada Post the power to put these super mailboxes wherever they want, regardless of what the city wants or what local people want. They have run roughshod over their rights. When will the Conservatives stop this reckless plan?

Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that Canada Post is an independent arm's-length crown corporation. In 2014, it delivered 1.4 billion fewer letters than it did in 2006. The member should also know that two-thirds of Canadians currently do not receive door-to-door mail delivery. We do expect Canada Post to operate in a way that is financially sustainable.

[ Translation ] Housing Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, despite the gravity of the disaster, the Conservatives' latest budget shows their complete lack of compassion for pyrrhotite victims. Instead of providing financial assistance to the victims who need it, the government chose to adopt policies that help the wealthy. Just think of income splitting and the increased TFSA limit. Why do the Conservatives keep ignoring this disaster, which is now expanding to other regions of the country?

I hope they are not going to tell me that people's misery is a provincial jurisdiction. (1150) [ English ] Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact it is a matter of provincial responsibility, and as we know, in the province of Quebec, there is a program to deal with that. We on this side of the House believe very much in respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces. [ Translation ] We respect provincial jurisdictions and we intend to continue doing so.

[ English ] The Environment Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, what do these environmental charities all have in common? The David Suzuki Foundation, Tides Canada, Pembina Institute, Environmental Defence, and Sierra Club have all been critical of the government's environmental policy, and all have received unsolicited, aggressive, and unwarranted attention from the CRA. The minister is going to stand in her place and with a straight face say that these are just routine audits. Why does the minister not use some of that $750 million to stop this witch hunt against legitimate and— Mr.

Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised by the hon. member's question. I think he is aware that charities must respect the law and that CRA has a legal responsibility to ensure that charitable dollars, donated by charitable Canadians, are used for charitable purposes. I also think he is aware that CRA audits occur at arm's length. They are conducted free of any political influence or interference or motivation.

The CRA charities directorate acts independently.

Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Shoal Lake 40 First Nation has had to deal with a boil water advisory for 17 years. Now the ferry connecting the reserve to the outside world has been shut down. Chief Erwin Redsky says that without the ferry, people on the man-made island have no way to get groceries, bottled water or immediate medical attention, and normal life on the reserve is virtually impossible. The question for the minister is, what is the minister prepared to do to resolve the state of emergency at the Shoal Lake 40 First Nation? Mr.

Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our immediate priority is ensuring the health and safety of Shoal Lake residents. Our emergency management team is in contact with the community to determine the needs and identify areas where we can assist. Our government will continue to stand ready and provide any assistance that the community may require.

[ Translation ] Science and Technology Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Space Agency continues to struggle. Despite the paltry amounts announced with great fanfare in the latest budget, the agency continues to suffer because of the Conservatives' draconian cuts. It used to be that the Canadian Space Agency was a jewel of the Canadian economy. Now, the agency is struggling to hold onto expertise as staff are laid off. Will the government finally ensure that our Canadian Space Agency will remain one of our finest institutions? [ English ] Hon.

Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting question from the opposition, seeing as the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada had this to say about budget 2015: it said that the budget “is good news for Canadian companies, their employees, and our economy”. The Canadian aerospace and space industry accounts for more than 170,000 quality jobs and adds over $28 billion to Canada's GDP. Canada's aerospace sector is one of the most innovative in the world and is a huge contributor to jobs and economic growth.

Our government will continue to work with our private and international partners to ensure that Canada's aerospace sector— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles .

[ Translation ] Official Languages Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, barely 2% of immigrants who settle outside Quebec speak French as their first official language. That is well below the government's objectives for ensuring the survival of French outside Quebec. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration praised the new express entry program as the solution to the problem. However, of the 22,000 people in the recruitment pool, only 200 are francophone. The minister is supposed to ensure that 4% of immigrants are francophone.

How is his approach going to achieve that? (1155) [ English ] Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to promoting francophone immigration through our permanent immigration programs across Canada under the express entry system. Most applications are processed within six months or less. Last year alone, we welcomed almost 1,500 francophone immigrants outside of Quebec through our economic programs for permanent immigration.

Our government's goal is to increase the number of francophone immigrants who settle outside of Quebec to more than 4% of all economic immigrants by 2018.

The Budget Mrs. Pat Perkins (Whitby—Oshawa, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government introduced the family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit, which will make life more affordable for 100% of families with children. In fact, the average family will save $6,600, thanks to our measures. Sadly, the NDP and the Liberals have pledged to reverse these measures. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment please explain what the Liberals and the NDP want to take away from our families? Mr.

Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hard-working member for Whitby—Oshawa for her support for Canadian moms and dads across the country. The member is right that both the Liberals and the NDP have been full-throated in their outright disdain for our plan to provide more money directly to parents in Canada. The NDP leader actually claims that these tax breaks are giveaways. He does not think that Canadians deserve to have the money that they earn.

The Liberals and NDP want higher taxes on middle-class families. That is their plan. High taxes on the middle class: on this side of the House, we will not do that. Instead, we will continue to reduce taxes on middle-class families.

[ Translation ] Copyright Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the budget will extend copyright for sound recordings from 50 to 70 years. That is what it is in the United States and Europe. However, the government has done nothing for Canadian songwriters whose works will still be protected for just 50 years after their death. Americans' and Europeans' works are protected for 70 years after their death. Why has the Conservative government neglected songwriters?

Can the parliamentary secretary answer this question about songwriters and not avoid the question like the minister did yesterday? [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for at least taking a look at the budget and seeing within it that there are a lot of measures for arts and culture. We have introduced the Canada 150 fund, which means we are extending the copyright term for artists from 50 to 70 years. It will modernize the Canadian honour system. There is a lot of good stuff in the budget for culture.

He should support it. I know that Randy Bachman likes what we are doing.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadian veterans played a crucial role in the campaign to liberate the Netherlands during the Second World War. They fought for freedom and Canadian values. As the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands is upon us, can the Minister of Veterans Affairs please update the House on what our government is doing to to commemorate this important part of our history? Hon. Erin O'Toole (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, later today I will be leading a delegation of over 60 veterans to the Netherlands to celebrate and commemorate 70 years since Canadians liberated that country and remember the 7,600 who sacrificed their lives in that effort. Each will have a caregiver with them. I have been disappointed this week that in Stratford, 90-year old Art Boon is unable to take his son as his caregiver. There is still time for the Avon Maitland school board to reconsider this decision and allow a history teacher to accompany his father, who is living history to the Netherlands.

Copyright Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, last year's report from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which reviewed Canada's music industry, did not raise the duration of copyright protection as a concern. That was rightly so, because it is not a priority for Canadians.

Unfortunately this is a very important priority to music industry lobbyists who met with the Minister of Canadian Heritage several times last year, which is why I am not surprised to see that the government is extending the term of copyrights for sound recordings from 50 years to 70 years in this year's budget. By extending the length of these copyright protections, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not realize that more money will go to the multinational record companies, while Canadian consumers will pay more? Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to acknowledge and thank the hon. member for question because it reiterates the important study that took place at the committee on heritage and culture. The work we did and the recommendations that were made with respect to the music industry helped lead to the decision to extend copyright from 50 to 70 years and protect artists across our country. Those in the industry are supporting us. For example, Barry Sookman, copyright intellectual property lawyer, said: “The extension amendments will enable Canada to harmonize its copyright laws with the laws in more than 60 other countries..”.

We are right on track when it comes to the music industry.

(1200) [ Translation ] International Trade Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, we are hearing less and less about negotiations on the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP, but surprise: the 2015 budget would extend protection under the Copyright Act by 20 years. Strangely, there had been no discussions about it, and the stakeholders did not ask for this. Moreover, many studies oppose it. The fact is that this is not something Canadians are particularly concerned about.

Can the Minister of International Trade tell us if this amendment is a strategic gift to American lobbyists to finalize the TPP negotiations? [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, over 60 countries are doing this. We certainly are in line. In fact, the word “pandering” perhaps works on the other side of the House, but it does not work on this side of the House. We listened to the industry. Witnesses came to committee. We made recommendations. Many of those recommendations were actually supported by the other side of the House.

These measures and our government are protecting the interests of artists and their work for a much longer period of time, by extending copyright from 50 to 70 years. This will protect performers and producers of sound recordings from having their copyright expire during their own lifetimes.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Foreign Affairs Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of International Trade , I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration”, done at Port Louis on March 17. An explanatory memorandum is included in this treaty.

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

Iran Accountability Week Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties and I am hopeful that there will be unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: Motion That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, a take-note debate on the subject of Iran Accountability Week take place pursuant to Standing order 53.1 on Tuesday, May 5, 2015 and any member rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Dementia Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise again in the House to present more petitions on my private member's bill, Bill C-356 . I have 32 pages, some of them double-sided, of signatures from hundreds of people from my riding of Nickel Belt, Verner, Field, St. Charles, Cache Bay, North Bay, Sudbury, Guelph and other parts of Ontario. The petitioners ask the government to support Bill C-356 , which calls on the Minister of Health to help implement the national strategy on dementia.

Sex Selection Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first petition draws attention to a CBC documentary revealing that ultrasounds are being used in Canada to tell the sex of an unborn child so expectant parents can choose to terminate the pregnancy if the unborn child is a girl. The petitioners note that 92% of Canadians believe sex-selective pregnancy termination should be illegal and note that 200 million girls are missing worldwide as a result.

The petitioners feel that it is a terrible shame that the three deadliest words in the world are “it's a girl”. They would like Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

(1205) Prostitution Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from individuals who note the high percentage of prostitutes being forced into the sex trade and trafficked. As a result, the petitioners request Parliament to make it a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man or child, and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams and others to profit from the proceeds of the pernicious sex trade. These are people from across the country, from B.C. to Nova Scotia, and the petition has about 300 signatures in total.

The Budget Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Winnipeg North. The petitioners have indicated that they are concerned about the 2015 budget, which favours the wealthy over our middle-class and low-income Canadians; that it lacks a true plan for jobs and economic growth; and that it fails to provide the necessary investments in our infrastructure. The petitioners suggest that this budget does not meet the needs of Canadians.

Agriculture Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from residents of Duncan who have raised concerns about the ability of small family farmers to produce the food that is required to feed their families and their communities. The petitioners ask the government to adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the fight against hunger and poverty; that Canadian policies and programs be developed in consultation with small family farmers; and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use and freely exchange seeds.

Public Safety Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present today three petitions. The first petition is from my constituents who are concerned with Bill C-51 .

Agriculture Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the two other petitions are the same. The petitioners ask the House of Commons to respect the right of small-scale family farmers to preserve, exchange and use seeds.

Public Safety Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition is from residents of the London and Woodstock areas. While the petitioners agree that terrorism is a real threat and we must confront it, they are very concerned about Bill C-51 . They believe that instead of making Canadians safer, the Conservatives are playing politics with this bill, which is dangerous, vague and, mostly like, ineffective. It could threaten our rights and freedoms, and would give CSIS sweeping new surveillance powers without proper oversight.

The petitioners are very concerned about the possibility of abuse. They call upon the House of Commons to listen to the NDP's principled stand, stop the attack on our civil liberties and vote down Bill C-51 .

Employment Insurance Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with respect to Canadians who have paid into the EI fund their entire working lives and do not benefit. EI was designed to strengthen our workforce but instead, now, 6 of 10 workers are already disqualified from EI because of government restrictions. With the latest change to EI, the petitioners believe the government is hurting Canadian families, damaging regional economies and driving down wages. They call upon the Government of Canada to reverse the devastating changes it has to made to EI and to restore fair access to decent benefits.

[ Translation ] Agriculture Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The people of my riding are calling on the government to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use and exchange seeds freely.

[ English ] 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 Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Citizen Voting Act Bill C-50. Second reading The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, A