12855 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 198 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, April 22, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES April 22, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 198 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 198 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 198 (Version officielle) 147 198 22 04 2015 2015/04/22 14:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers Statements by Members (1405) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem, led by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard . [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Seniors Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Saturday, April 18, was a very exciting day in Mississauga East—Cooksville .

I was pleased to host a 50+ Expo, which welcomed hundreds of constituents who took time to visit the many vendors on a variety of topics concerning people 50 years of age and over in our community. I want to thank the vendors who took time to share with our guests on topics such as safety, financial management, travel, recreation, and more. Service Canada gave presentations on CPP, OAS, and caring for aging family members.

I am happy to say that economic action plan 2015 will support seniors by introducing changes to the registered retirement income fund and by introducing the home accessibility tax credit, which will help with home improvement costs so that seniors can live independently in their homes. Finally, the 50+ Expo provided an opportunity to meet with constituents and hear their feedback and encouragement. Indeed, it was a wonderful spring day in Mississauga East—Cooksville .

Battle of Ypres Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago this month, Canadian soldiers bravely fought in the second battle of Ypres. They distinguished themselves by their courage and tenacity in the face of unspeakable horrors, including the world's first poison gas attack. While other forces bled and fled, the Canadians held the line against all odds. It proved to be the beginning of their ascent into their recognized status as the pre-eminent fighting force in Flanders.

More than 6,500 Canadians were killed, wounded, or captured during the two battles, including many brave men from the Essex Scottish Regiment. The sacrifices of our veterans did not end in the trenches of France. Many came back to their homes debilitated, wounded in mind and spirit, yet in spite of their limitations, they still contributed to building our great country. They overcame the odds against them to become valued members of society. The guns have long been silent since they won the war. We know all the heroes are gone now, but we still recognize them as our greatest generation.

Even 100 years later, honours still come their way, including most recently from Queen Elizabeth II, at Canada House in London. We will remember them.

Legion of Honour Mr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place today to recognize a great veteran in my riding: Sir Sylvester Bus McCallum. For his contributions to the allied war effort in World War II, Sir Bus was recently granted a knighthood in the French Legion of Honour. This is the highest honour the French government bestows upon international residents. In 1944, at just 17 years of age, Sir Bus sailed to Europe and was soon one of the first Canadian soldiers to storm the beaches of Normandy on D-Day.

Later on, in Belgium, he was wounded by a piece of shrapnel while trying to rescue one of his fellow Canadian soldiers from harm's way. It is thanks to the heroic efforts of men like Sylvester Bus McCallum that in Canada today we enjoy the freedom and democracy we do. I would like to offer my heartfelt congratulations to Sir Bus, his wife Doris, and the entire McCallum family. I thank him for service, his bravery, and his dedication to this great nation.

Governor General's Caring Canadian Award Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Patricia Lafford for having received the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award last week. Patsy has long been an important part of the Sackville and Tantramar, New Brunswick communities. She has given her time to help those around her who are in need. She helped found, for example, the Sackville Food Bank in 1988 and was a very active member of the Catholic Women's League.

She even brings communion to residents of a local nursing home who are unable to travel to regular church services, all the while finding time to care for her 10 beloved grandchildren. I have known Patsy for many years and have constantly been impressed by her love of community. Patricia Lafford is exactly the kind of person this award was created to recognize. Once again, my sincere congratulations to Patricia Lafford and her family and to Sackville and Tantramar for being home to such a terrific woman.

Ontario Theatre Festivals Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the Stratford Festival on its 2015 season, opening later this spring. For over 60 years, people from around the world have come to Stratford for unparalleled performances from North America's leading theatre company. This year's performances include The Sound of Music , Hamlet , The Diary of Anne Frank , and many more.

In addition to the Stratford Festival, I would also like to recognize other theatre groups in southwestern Ontario that greatly contribute to the arts and culture of this nation. Drayton Entertainment, the Shaw Festival, the Grand Theatre in London, the Blyth Festival, and many other companies, are examples of these great assets in Canada. I congratulate all of these theatre groups for their continued success and thank them for their enormous contribution to the arts in Canada.

[ Translation ] Earth Day Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today is a very special day because we are celebrating something unique and irreplaceable, something that we all share no matter where we live or who we are. Today is Earth Day. Since the environmental movement took root in the 1970s, there has been growing awareness worldwide that we must protect our planet to ensure a viable future for all.

Many in Laurier—Sainte-Marie have taken up the challenge, including Amis du courant Sainte-Marie, Les Valoristes, Les Amis du Champ des possibles, the Carrefour alimentaire Centre-Sud, Sentier Urbain, Cultivons le Plateau and the Éco-quartier program. Many individuals are working to green their alleyways and taking the time every day to think about how their actions affect our environment and have an impact on the whole world, as well as about the future that we are creating for the coming generations. Let us join them. Happy Earth Day.

(1410) [ English ] World War II Veterans Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this past week, I took an amazing trip back in time while visiting with five of our World War II veterans. It was truly one of the highlights of my time as a member of Parliament. The purpose of my visit was to thank these extraordinary men for their service and the sacrifice that they made during World War II: Edward Titchner, Francis Newland, Donald Monteith, Bernard Stankevich, and Gerald Russell.

All were very young men when they left their homes during World War II, setting out with purpose in their heart to do what Canadians do when called upon: fight for what is right. Talking with these gentlemen reaffirmed my belief that the greatness of our country is the character of its citizens. These men, so very humble about their contributions during the war, are proud of their community, proud of their sons and daughters, and proud of the country they helped build, Canada.

Edward, Francis, Donald, Bernard, and Gerald, I am proud to be their member of Parliament and again, on behalf of everyone in this place, I thank them.

The Budget Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the 18th time I sat in this chamber and listened to a budget being presented in this House of Commons. Eleven of them have been Conservative budgets. This was only possible because of the constituents of Calgary East. This morning, Canadians of all ages and from all walks of life are pleased that we have kept our promise to them by balancing the budget in 2015, the first balanced budget since the great recession.

This budget reaches out to all Canadians, from the hard-working constituents of Calgary East to everyone else across this great country. This budget supports jobs and growth. It helps our families and our communities prosper. It ensures the security of Canadians. It lowers taxes and provides benefits directly to families, assist small businesses and support seniors. Our government will continue to manage Canada's economy well, focus on job creation and keep Canada safe.

[ Translation ] Earth Day Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, each of us has the power to make changes that can have a significant impact on the environment, especially if we work together. Earth Day is an ideal opportunity for Canadians to join together to preserve our planet. New Democrats want to leave future generations a cleaner, healthier planet.

The Conservatives, however, have failed Canadians when it comes to climate change. [ English ] After systematically dismantling Canada's environmental protection laws, we were handed a Conservative budget that does not even mention the words “climate change.” Canadians deserve better. The NDP is the only party with a credible plan to protect the environment and grow the economy, including with the climate change accountability act, which is strong, effective legislation that would be our offer to the global community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The greatest legacy we can offer future generations is a clean and healthy planet. Let us work together to make that happen.

The Budget Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon (Miramichi, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since 2006, our Conservative government has delivered for seniors with income splitting for pensioners and the largest top-up to the guaranteed income supplement in a quarter decade.

Unlike last month's Liberal budget in the province of New Brunswick, which attacked seniors and increased the cost of nursing home care and prescription drugs, economic action plan 2015 would build on our support for seniors by increasing the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit, introducing a new home accessibility tax credit, establishing a Canadian centre for aging and brain health innovation, and extending employment insurance compassionate care benefits from six weeks to over six months. In addition, the Mayor of Fredericton said, “Well, we're very pleased. That's exactly what we asked for”.

Unfortunately, the leader of the Liberal Party has already said that he would cancel our expansion of the tax-free savings account and increase taxes on middle-class seniors.

[ Translation ] The Budget Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government balanced the budget yesterday at the expense of Canadian women. The Conservatives' tax policy is a total failure for gender equality. Budget day also happened to be Equal Pay Day. Yes, it was also a day to remind everyone that a woman must work until April of the next year to earn the same amount made by a man the previous year. That is a 30% gap. Yesterday's Conservative budget provides nothing to reduce the gender gap.

In fact, it is more like the same old same old, creating even more obstacles for women, with measures that are good for only a small group of Canadians. Instead of providing affordable and accessible child care for all families, the Conservatives chose to spend billons of dollars on income splitting for the wealthy, a measure that will decrease women's participation in the workforce. Canadians deserve better. We deserve a budget that takes into account the burden of unpaid work, the wage gap and the high rates of violence against women. We deserve an NDP government.

(1415) [ English ] Taxation Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance tabled our plan for jobs and growth. This is a great budget for middle-class Canadians. For example, the new family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit will benefit 100% of families with kids, the vast majority of benefits going to low- and middle-income families. The Liberals and the NDP will take all of these away. They want high taxes on middle-class families, high taxes on middle-class seniors and high taxes on middle-class consumers. That is their plan for the middle class.

Our government's plan is reducing taxes on middle-class families. Constituents in my riding of Brampton—Springdale are looking forward to the implementation of all of these benefits and support programs that are offered in this budget.

Battle of Ypres Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, “In Flanders fields the poppies blow, Between the crosses, row on row“. It was in the terrible shadow of those graves and the nearly 6,000 Canadian casualties of the Second Battle of Ypres that Guelph native, Colonel John McCrae, composed In Flanders Fields . We commemorate the anniversary of that battle, which began 100 years ago today. Over the next two days, Canadian and other allied troops would face the first real deployment of chemical weapons as they fought through chlorine gas.

Despite the heavy losses, nearly one in three, Canadians established themselves as a military force to be reckoned with. I was so fortunate to visit Ypres last year and was astonished to think that so many young Canadians could have fought and died somewhere so serene. I felt I finally understood the full weight of our sacred obligation to Canadian veterans as the silence was broken by young Canadian students reading solemnly in turn, “If ye break faith with us who die, We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields”. Lest we forget.

Taxation Mr. Rob Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our low-tax plan for families is working. Under our Conservative government, the tax burden on Canadians is at the lowest level in more than 50 years. As part of that, every family with children will benefit from our new family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit. The family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit will leave 100% of families with kids with more money in their pockets. The Liberals and the NDP will take this away.

They want higher taxes on middle-class families, high taxes on middle-class seniors and high taxes on middle-class consumers. That is their plan for the middle class. Our government's plan is reducing taxes on the middle class.

[ Translation ] The Budget Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is like David Copperfield. He made a surplus appear. Analysts are calling this creative accounting, a smokescreen, really. Canadians are not fools. They know that the Conservatives have mismanaged our economy and that we have lost 400,000 well-paying jobs since the Conservatives came to power. Canadians know that this government put all its eggs in one barrel of oil.

Instead of proposing measures to help middle-class families, who are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet, the Conservatives insist on helping their friends, the well-off and the CEOs, those who do not need help. Canadians deserve better. In October, they can choose the only party that fights for them in good times and in bad: the NDP.

[ English ] Taxation Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our budget honours this government's commitment to increase the annual tax-free savings account contribution to $10,000. This initiative significantly benefits seniors. In fact, 70% of those who maximize their accounts are seniors. Economic action plan 2015 also allows more choice and flexibility for seniors' retirement by relaxing the rules around withdrawals from registered retirement income funds, something the Canadian Association of Retired Persons strongly supports.

Our Conservative government will continue to stand up for seniors and middle-class families by putting more money in their pockets, but the Liberals would take this money away. They would raise taxes on middle-class families and middle-class seniors. Our government will continue to support a low-tax plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions (1420) [ English ] The Budget Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last night, when talking about how to pay for the massive multi-year costs of the Prime Minister 's tax giveaways to the wealthiest few, the finance minister had this to say: ...why don't we leave that to [the Prime Minister's] granddaughter to solve that problem. Leave it to our grandchildren. Really? I have grandchildren and like so many grandparents I do not want to leave the responsibility for cleaning up the Prime Minister 's mess to my grandchildren.

Will the Prime Minister stand in his place and reject those unacceptable statements by his finance minister ? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was dismissing a clearly preposterous argument. The tax-free savings accounts have been great things for Canadians, for the Canadian middle class and for the Canadian economy. As I said when we created that program several years ago, those billions of dollars that middle-class people are putting away will create tens of billions of dollars of long-term savings in our economy, which will drive jobs and growth.

These are a good thing. I know the NDP wants to raise taxes on middle-class families. It does not want to see middle-class families be able to do those savings. We are proud to be able to deliver for them. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that is appalling. His government is going to leave the largest economic, social and environmental debt ever to future generations, and the Prime Minister just said that he agrees with his Minister of Finance . Shame on him. Today is Earth Day.

The budget makes no mention of climate change, which is a real threat with catastrophic consequences. Is the Prime Minister really going to pass this burden on to our grandchildren? It may already be too late. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is the only party to have ever reduced greenhouse gas emissions. There are still many programs in the budget to support research that will lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Once again, the budget rejects the carbon taxes and consumption taxes proposed by the NDP.

That is not a good policy for the middle class. We support what matters to the middle class.

Ethics Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in Canada, a senator must be a resident of the province for which he is appointed. That is a basic requirement. The Prime Minister should not have any difficulty answering this question, because it is really very simple. When he appointed Mike Duffy to the Senate, did the Prime Minister believe that Mike Duffy was a resident of Prince Edward Island, yes or no? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, the government followed practices established almost 150 years ago by Canada's Constitution.

This is about the actions and statements of Mr. Duffy, whose case is before the courts. Obviously, I do not intend to comment on the testimony in this case. [ English ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refers to a 150-year parliamentary practice emanating from the Constitution, so why do we not look at what the Constitution of this country actually says about the residency requirements of senators. The Constitution is, after all, the owner's manual for running the government. It states, “He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed”.

That is simple. Therefore I will ask this again. Did the Prime Minister make sure Mike Duffy met that requirement before he appointed him to the Senate; yes or no?

(1425) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, according to constitutional practice, all senators must make such a declaration. As members know, it is Mr. Duffy's actions that are before the court right now. The government has been assisting the RCMP and the Crown in its prosecution of this particular case, but obviously I am not going to comment on the merits of the case or any testimony before the court. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, let us look at what the Prime Minister actually thinks about Mike Duffy's actions: To Duff, a great journalist and a great senator. Thanks for being one of my best, hardest-working appointments ever. As a senator, Mike Duffy never put forward a single piece of legislation. What great, hard work was the Prime Minister actually referring to? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, Mr. Duffy has since been charged with a number of offences. We have been working with the police and the Crown on these matters. I am not going to comment on those.

Just as another example, I am sure that the leader of the NDP works very hard. That does not entitle him to take $3 million of public money, to which his party was not entitled, and use it for illegal purposes.

The Budget Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canada is a great country because we believe in building a better country for our kids and grandkids than the one we inherited from our parents and grandparents. Incredibly, the Minister of Finance said yesterday that his TFSA increase for the rich will be paid for by the next generation of Canadians. He said: “...why don't we leave that to [the Prime Minister's] granddaughter to solve that problem.” Since when does Canada burden our grandchildren instead of building for them? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, once again, the Minister of Finance was clearly dismissing a preposterous argument because balancing the budget is good for future generations. Cutting taxes and allowing people to save and keep money in their own pockets is good for future generations. Giving to money to Canadian families, so they can raise their children is good for future generations. I noticed yesterday, and everybody noticed, the leader of the Liberal Party was condemning tax cuts for small businesses claiming that they are all rich. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and we are proud to cut taxes. Mr.

Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is paying for doubling the TFSA contribution limit by cutting old age security for seniors. We know from evidence at the Mike Duffy trial that even his Conservative caucus is uncomfortable with this old age security cut. Why is the Prime Minister taking $28,000 from our most vulnerable seniors to pay for his tax break for the rich? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is, of course, completely false. The government has not taken a dime from seniors.

On the contrary, this government brought in the single biggest increase to the guaranteed income supplement in a quarter of a century and the Liberal Party voted against it. This government brought in income splitting for Canadian pensioners. That party voted against it and that party has, in the past, threatened to take it away from our seniors. One party and one party alone stands for middle-class Canadians and seniors, and that is this party. We are going to fight them every step of the way. (1430) [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, by increasing the contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts, the Prime Minister is giving even more money to those who need it the least. How is he getting the money to do that? By making cuts to old age security, something that even his own caucus finds extremely worrisome. Why is the Prime Minister giving tax breaks to the most wealthy rather than helping people in the middle class who need it? When will he introduce a plan that helps the middle class? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is completely false.

It is the Liberal Party that wants to raise taxes for middle-class families, middle-class seniors, middle-class consumers and SMEs in this country. We have lowered taxes. Tax-free savings accounts are used by middle-class seniors, and we have increased the annual contribution limit. That is a good policy for seniors. We will always resist the Liberal Party's attempts to take away income splitting from seniors.

Ethics Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps telling us that the rules for appointing senators have been clear for 150 years. However, when he appointed Mike Duffy to be a Conservative senator, Mr. Duffy had been living in Ottawa since 1971. He had an Ontario driver's licence, and his passport indicated that his permanent residence was in—you guessed it—Ottawa. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister still appointed Mike Duffy to be a Conservative senator representing Prince Edward Island.

Can the Prime Minister tell us today what ancient magical rule dating back 150 years made Mike Duffy a resident of Prince Edward Island? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I already said, the constitutional practice on this has been clear for nearly 150 years. What is also very clear is that it is against the rules of the House to use taxpayers' money for partisan purposes. [ English ] This particular member owes Canadian taxpayers $122,122 for illegal offices in Montreal. He is not alone of course.

He is joined by the member for Scarborough Southwest who took it to a bigger level at over $140,000, not to be outdone by the Leader of the Opposition who owes taxpayers $400,000. I suggest they pay it back. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that was not Parliament's finest hour. We are talking about the role of the prime minister, as defined by the Senate, in determining the eligibility requirements for Mike Duffy. What we find is that the Crown attorney says that Duffy did not meet those eligibility requirements, which is why he is up on fraud charges.

The Deloitte auditors also found that Mike Duffy in Kanata did not meet those requirements, yet the Prime Minister's Office intervened to try and have the issue of residency whitewashed out of the audit. If these rules of 150 years were so clear, why was it whitewashing the audit? Why did it allow Mike Duffy to sit in the Senate when he clearly was not eligible to represent Prince Edward Island? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing again today is the Liberals trying to make a victim out of Mike Duffy.

Mike Duffy is responsible for his actions and he is facing those actions in front of a court. He is absolutely right that it is not the finest hour for Parliament when the members for Trois-Rivières , Honoré-Mercier , Jeanne-Le Ber , Pierrefonds—Dollard , Louis-Hébert , Gatineau , Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie , Hochelaga , Saint-Jean , Berthier—Maskinongé , Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques , Davenport , Drummond, and Trinity—Spadina are just part of the crew that owe $2.7— The Speaker : Order. I know it is a Wednesday, but the noise level is getting rather elevated.

I will ask members to come to order to allow members to both put the questions and answer them. The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

The Budget Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, while Conservatives like Mike Duffy got to live large on the taxpayers' dime, ordinary Canadians are feeling squeezed, and yesterday's budget provides them with little relief. In nine years, the Conservatives have failed to create a single child care space. The budget offers costly tax breaks for the wealthiest Canadians, the top 15%. Families desperately need help with child care costs that are breaking the family budget. Why has the government abandoned middle-class families?

(1435) Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Conservative government tabled a low-tax plan for jobs and families. We know that the New Democratic Party wants a high-tax plan for middle class families. It wants high taxes for middle class seniors. It wants high taxes for middle class consumers. That is its plan. High taxes on everything. High taxes on the middle class. Our Conservative government has reduced taxes on the middle class. We put $6,600 back in the pockets of the average Canadian family of four. The NDP wants to take that money out. Mr.

Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative budget shows that the government still does not understand that a strong Canada requires strong cities. Under this budget, desperately needed public transit funding is still years away, and even then, it is a slow ramp-up to meaningful dollars, all of it complicated by red tape and many strings attached. Why do multi-billion dollar income splitting handouts to the wealthier few start immediately while the vast majority of Canadians are left waiting for the bus? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, yesterday, the Conservative government tabled a budget, a low-tax budget for families and jobs. However, we know that the New Democrats want high taxes on the middle class. They want high taxes on families. They want high taxes on middle class seniors. They want high taxes on middle class consumers. That is their plan. That is their strategy: high taxes on everything and high taxes on the middle class. Our government has reduced taxes. We will continue to reduce taxes on the middle class. We have put over $6,000 back intro the pockets of Canadian families. They will take it way.

Canadians know they are better off with this Conservative government. [ Translation ] Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is clear that their priority is giving gifts to the wealthy instead of helping the middle class. The Conservatives had an opportunity to invest in our cities to promote public transit and help repair our bridges and roads. The provinces are outraged. The Government of Quebec is saying that the funds allocated to infrastructure in the Conservatives' budget are woefully inadequate.

Why are the Conservatives giving gifts to the wealthy instead of investing in our infrastructure? Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday we tabled a balanced budget that lowers taxes for all Canadians. I remind the opposition that it wants to increase taxes for the middle class, seniors and small businesses. On this side of the House, we know that we can create wealth by lowering taxes for people and putting money back in their pockets. That is quite clear and that is what is most important.

The opposition believes in and even glorifies big government, and it puts down Canadians. We believe in Canadians, and we are putting money back in their pockets. [ English ] Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that is failing another generation of first nations, Métis and Inuit children with inadequate funding for basic services like child welfare, education and health.

We should all know that no matter where children live in Canada, they should have access to quality education, but the Conservatives are more focused on blaming indigenous communities for their own failure with Bill C-33 . Why is the Prime Minister not honouring his pledge to invest $1.9 billion to bridge the education gap that first nations in Canada tragically face? Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is that unlike the Liberals and New Democrats, whose mantra is to increase taxes for every Canadian family, we on this side of the House believe that they should get the money back in their pockets. As a matter of fact, we are focused on the priorities of all Canadians. The economic action plan 2015 will help create jobs, spur economic growth, and ensure the long-term prosperity of all Canadians, including aboriginals.

(1440) [ Translation ] The Budget Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it reeks of petty political revenge. The minister's numbers are nothing but smoke and mirrors. All this budget will do is maintain the status quo. The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations called the federal budget a “missed opportunity” and “one of the weakest for First Nations”. Abandoning yet another generation of this country's first peoples—is that what a balanced budget means to the Conservatives? Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, unlike the Liberals and the white-collar socialists in the NDP, our government is focused on Canadians' priorities. This economic action plan will help create jobs and new wealth and ensure the long-term prosperity of all Canadians, including aboriginal Canadians. Economic action plan 2015 makes strategic investments in major initiatives intended to improve the well-being of first nations by enabling them to benefit fully from Canada's economic prosperity. [ English ] Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, this budget puts a burden on future generations, and the Minister of Finance has admitted it. Today is Earth Day, but climate change, one of the biggest threats to future generations, is not in the budget, which is not surprising. Environment Canada's main estimates cut climate change funding by 26% and the report on plans and priorities slashes climate change staff by 54% next year. Meanwhile, our emissions keep growing, no matter what the Minister of the Environment says. Why is the government making our children and our grandchildren pay for its inaction on climate change? Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, no federal government has done more for the environment than this one. Budget 2015 is investing in the chemicals management plan, federal contaminated sites, species at risk, meteorological and navigational warning services in the Arctic for safe marine transportation in the Arctic. The NDP and the Liberals, however, want to hike taxes for all Canadians. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, it would be comical if the results were not so tragic. Yesterday, when asked about the huge cost of his spending promises to future generations, the Minister of Finance actually said, and I will quote for my Conservative friends, “Why don't we leave that to [the] Prime Minister's granddaughter to solve that problem”. We could not make this stuff up. If one is already rich, then yesterday was a good-news budget, but young families looking for affordable child care are not a Conservative priority. Single moms working for minimum wage are not a Conservative priority.

The 1.3 million Canadians out of work must not be one of the Conservative target groups. Do the Conservatives actually believe it is a good idea to burden our grandkids with their multi-billion dollar election pandering? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the minister was dismissing a claim by the opposition that was preposterous. Yesterday we tabled a balanced budget, a low-tax budget, for Canadians. We know that the opposition would place high taxes on middle-class families. They would raise taxes on middle-class seniors. They would raise taxes on middle-class teachers.

They would raise taxes on middle-class nurses. They would raise taxes on consumers. That is their plan: high taxes. Theirs is a high-tax plan. Our Conservative government is reducing taxes to the middle class. Our family tax cut supports— The Speaker : The hon. member for Bourassa. [ Translation ] Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' agenda for seniors is deeply misguided in this budget. For one thing, doubling the TFSA limit will benefit only the rich. Very few families can sock away $20,000 per year, and this measure will cost Canadians a fortune.

For another, the Conservatives are robbing seniors of up to $28,000 by increasing the age at which they can start collecting old age security to 67. Why are the Conservatives still making the rich richer at the expense of the middle class and seniors?

(1445) Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is utterly false. The fact is that we are reducing taxes for seniors and reducing taxes for entrepreneurs, including entrepreneurs in Beauce, Quebec and across Canada. We are putting money back in their pockets so they can stimulate the economy. In contrast, the opposition thinks that a big government that spends money it does not have and racks up debt for future generations will stimulate the economy. That is not true. It would actually slow the economy. [ English ] Ms.

Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, “multipliers for infrastructure spending...are...high. In contrast, a reduction in personal income taxes has a considerably lower multiplier...”. Those are not my words. That is the sound economic argument laid out by Jim Flaherty in his 2009 budget. Could the current minister explain why he is ignoring this wise advice and handing out tax breaks to the rich instead of investing seriously in infrastructure and the economic growth middle-class Canadians so urgently need? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the Liberal leader said that the government was spending money on income splitting. Whose money is this anyway? We are putting money back into the pockets of Canadian families. They want to spend it before they can even receive it as revenue. Shame on the government— Hon. Kevin Sorenson: —or shame on the Liberal Party. We know that we will do everything to cut taxes to middle-class families. We will lower taxes for middle-class seniors. We will lower taxes for middle-class consumers. Canadians know that they are better off with this Conservative government. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker : If we keep spending time waiting for the House to come to order we might lose questions later on. Order. The hon. member for Kings—Hants. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, shame on the government, indeed, for doubling the TFSA is irresponsible. In a few short years, the costs will be over $1 billion a year, but then by 2040, it will be over $10 billion per year. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance admitted that this a problem and he said, “Why don't we leave that to [the] Prime Minister's granddaughter to solve that problem”.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his finance minister that fiscal sustainability is a problem for his granddaughter's generation and not for him? Why is he putting a reverse home mortgage on Canada's fiscal house to pay for his election giveaways to the rich? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the minister was dismissing a claim that was preposterous by the opposition. Half of tax-free savings account holders earn less than $42,000 a year. Some 600,000 seniors with incomes below $60,000 are currently maximizing the tax-free savings account room and will benefit by the measure.

We know that the Liberal Party would take away the tax-free savings account. We know the Liberals want higher taxes on middle-class families. We know they want higher taxes on middle-class seniors. We know they want higher taxes on middle-class consumers. Tax-free savings accounts are a measure brought forward by this government to help Canadians save. It is working. [ Translation ] Status of Women Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, pay equity, affordable child care and concrete solutions to address violence against women were left out of yesterday's budget.

The Conservatives' incompetence is not only creating further disparity, it is also widening the gap between men and women. Canada currently ranks 19th in the world in that regard. It is time we had a budget centred around a gender-based analysis, a budget that would advance the equality of women. Why did the Conservative decide to do the opposite? [ English ] Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our government has been very focused on what matters to Canadians, particularly Canadian women, making sure they have a job and making sure that we are growing our economy. Yesterday's budget, if the member will take a moment to look at it, supports an action plan for women entrepreneurs. It supports a number of initiatives that specifically make sure that women are equal in this economy. I would encourage the opposition members to vote with us. They seem to vote against everything for women. This time is an opportunity for them to support what we are doing.

Housing Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in addition to ignoring women, the budget also ignores Canada's affordable housing crisis. According to estimates by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, almost 200,000 social housing units will lose funding over the next five years, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians are waiting for new social housing units, including 100,000 families in Toronto alone. However, yesterday's budget did not announce any money to renew lost funding or build new units. Why will the government not commit to being a predictable, long-term housing partner?

(1450) Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that Canadians have access to affordable, secure housing. We reaffirmed that commitment in budget 2015. On top of that, we also are giving substantial funds to co-op and non-profit housing groups that are now able to renegotiate their mortgages with no penalty. This is something they have been asking for. They are tangible results. We are listening to housing providers. We are not listening to the high-tax, high-spend opposition that would increase taxes even on vulnerable Canadians.

We want to make their lives more affordable. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative budget has once again failed those most in need. While the cost of housing has reached record highs in our largest cities, the government is sweeping the problem under the rug. It refuses to invest to build new social housing units—and the worst is yet to come. Long-term agreements are expiring, and the Conservatives still have not committed to renewing the funding.

Why does the government refuse to be a reliable partner for social housing and to make long-term investments in our communities? [ English ] Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, listen to what Nicholas Gazzard, the executive director of the Co-operative Housing Federation said just yesterday about our announcement: “This is very good news. The elimination of prepayment fees will make a real difference to housing co-ops” across the country. We are going to listen to the people who are providing housing. We are going to give them the solutions they are asking for.

At the same time, Canadians across the country are looking for their lives to be more affordable. We are keeping taxes low on the middle class. Opposition members want to raise taxes on middle-class Canadians.

[ Translation ] Agriculture and Agri-Food Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance himself admits that this budget will burden future generations. It is truly incredible. The budget is just another fine example of the Conservatives' lack of understanding of the agriculture and agri-food sector. A 25% budget cut for the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food over the next few years means sacrificing services for producers and the agriculture sector. Why does the minister not support producers or the growth of the agri-food sector? Hon.

Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the agri-food sector, farmers, small business owners and Canada's middle class, everyone benefits from this budget because we are lowering their taxes. It is simple. What the NDP wants to do is clear: it wants to spend money that we do not have and give it to public servants who will create inefficient programs. We are giving money to business owners and Canadians. We are helping them create wealth and that is why with us the future is stable and with the opposition it is unstable.

[ English ] The Budget Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House I was elated to see the Minister of Finance table economic action plan 2015, a balanced budget. This prudent document lays out a plan for future growth and opportunity. It was the result of hard work and of unwavering focus, and also a result of firm resolve. Budgets do not balance themselves. This budget is reducing taxes on middle-income families, on seniors and on consumers.

Could the Minister of State for Social Development please tell this House what this budget is actually doing for our middle-class families? Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have balanced the budget, and we are supporting families through our enhanced universal child care benefit, our family tax cut and the new home accessibility tax credit. Overall, these measures will save the average family $6,600 a year.

As University of Windsor Professor Lydia Miljan pointed out, “every Canadian is going to see something” because the economic action plan is “helping everybody”. Across the country, groups, experts, families and sectors are supporting this budget because it is putting money back in the pockets of everyday Canadians.

[ Translation ] Labour Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the budget is passing on a burden to future generations. For years, the NDP has been calling on the Conservatives to give unpaid interns protections under the Canada Labour Code against sexual harassment and dangerous and abusive working conditions. Yesterday's budget is a step in that direction, but important questions about how this will be implemented remain unanswered. If the Conservatives are serious about this, will they support my bill to protect unpaid interns this evening? (1455) [ English ] Hon. K.

Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. Economic action plan 2015, as stated in the budget yesterday, supports our Conservative government and the Canada Labour Code to ensure that interns under federal jurisdiction, regardless of pay, receive occupational health and safety supports. Really, what the issue is here is the New Democratic Party wants to raise taxes on middle-income Canadians, on middle-income consumers. Our party is about lowering taxes. I encourage those members to get on board. Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, yesterday at 2:30 p.m., the Minister of Labour got up and said that interns are already protected under the Canada Labour Code. Then at 4:30 p.m., the Minister of Finance tabled a budget that will extend, in the Canada Labour Code, rights and protections for interns. Like the minister of unpaid labour, this budget is long on spin and short on details, but luckily there is the NDP's intern protection act. We could pass this bill tonight. We could do the job for unpaid interns if we got the support. Will the government support our bill to protect unpaid interns? Hon. K.

Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me state what I said yesterday, like I have said before, this government is committed to the safety of all workers. In economic action plan 2015, as stated yesterday, and I can cite the page number if the member wants, we are committed to making sure that unpaid interns are safe and protected in the workplace.

Marine Atlantic Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are raiding the emergency fund to give billions to the wealthiest instead of helping average Canadians. Take Marine Atlantic as an example. After being told yesterday to “wait for the budget”, there was nothing in the budget to address the massive cuts that the Conservatives have made to the ferry service.

Will the minister come clean and admit that the Conservatives are moving ahead with an 85% cut to the critical transportation link that the people and the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador cannot live without? Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, what I indicated was that the estimates were just that, they were the estimates, and that if the member wanted to speculate on what was in the budget, he did not have much longer to wait. They are two separate issues.

With respect to Marine Atlantic, we greatly support the functioning of that very important link between Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, I guess that is a good point to point out as well. For the men and women who work on Marine Atlantic, they will very much enjoy having lower taxes and greater benefits as a result of this government, as opposed to higher taxes and less help they would get from an opposition like that.

The Environment Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister openly admitted the budget would put a burden on future generations, which is just unacceptable. However, the irony that a budget that does not even mention climate change was introduced a day before Earth Day is not lost on British Columbians. There are no significant investments in housing or infrastructure, no reversal of cuts to the Coast Guard, yet today the Conservatives are busy congratulating themselves, despite the fact that last month alone B.C. lost 5,700 full-time jobs.

Why are the Conservatives abandoning B.C.? Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government's record is very clear when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. We have reduced greenhouse gas emissions, while growing the economy and creating good-paying jobs. We will continue to implement a responsible sector-by-sector regulatory process aligned with the United States. Canada's economic competitiveness is protected.

Our government is also the first one in Canadian history to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a net basis, and will continue to do so without the job-killing carbon tax.

Infrastructure Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, cities and towns across the country had hoped that the finance minister was taking the extra time to write a budget so he could rethink this crazy notion of deferring infrastructure spending until the Tories were out of office. He did not. That means cities like Calgary, Vancouver and Toronto that got no money last year will, once again, get no money this year. On housing, there is not one new dollar for new housing to shelter people. Housing does not just fight poverty; it builds cities and protects people. Why has the government turned its back on cities and why is it turning its back on vulnerable people?

(1500) Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday this government tabled a low-tax budget to create jobs and a low-tax budget for families. Measures in that budget were praised by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, by the mayors of Toronto, Vancouver, Quebec City, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The list goes on and on. It was a very good budget. It was a good budget for small and medium-sized business. It was a good budget for families.

We encourage the Liberal Party to vote with the government and support a good budget for the— The Speaker : The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina . Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that the mayors were praising the 2017 budget and the 2019 budget, not this year's budget. On transit, the government is not just doing nothing, it is doing next to nothing, and it will be doing nothing for two whole years. It is ridiculous.

The minister is telling folks that they are actually going to be stuck in transit waiting for a bus for two years, and it is never going to come if it keeps this up. Gridlock costs the country's economy billions of dollars. The delayed budget and the delayed funding is not helping Canadians get to work. The drive-by budget has literally missed the bus. When will the government fund transit and why will it not fund it this year? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, under our Conservative government, Canada has led G7 countries with respect to investments in infrastructure. We are taking a leadership role with respect to federal infrastructure. Provinces and municipalities have never had a stronger partner, and yesterday's budget announcement of a dedicated public transit fund only adds to that record of accomplishment. Our investments in infrastructure are three times greater than the previous Liberal government. The Liberal plan for infrastructure is to hike taxes on the middle class.

[ Translation ] Veterans Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in true Conservative style, this budget goes nowhere and does not offer any solutions to veterans' demands. The budget simply contains old announcements that were already in their previous budget. It was not even worth wasting ink and paper on that. Veterans deserve better. Why does the minister refuse to reopen the regional service offices and to give veterans the services that they are demanding and that they deserve? [ English ] Hon. Erin O'Toole (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our budget yesterday, like Bill C-58 before the House, shows our tremendous obligation to our veterans and their families. That budget documents our spending on the retirement income security benefit, the critical injury benefit and the family caregiver relief benefit, addressing our most seriously injured and the stress and strain of those injuries on the family. The time is now for less rhetoric by that member and to get behind not only Bill C-58 but this budget. Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, on a quick trip to the Memorial Chamber people will understand the phrase that growing old is a privilege denied to so many. However, on page 274 of the budget, for the veteran who makes $62,000, when he or she turns 65 that goes to $27,000. The Conservatives' budget would increase that to $43,000. My question is for the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada.. When veterans turn 65 years old, why will they still lose money under the Conservative government? Hon. Erin O'Toole (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, that member is on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and last June a unique thing happened. All parties on that committee came together to support changes to the new veterans charter. Their third recommendation was for seriously disabled veterans to receive financial benefits for life and an appropriate portion to a surviving spouse. That is what the retirement income security benefit does. It provides that certainty. That is why veterans are behind it. That is why the ombudsman has praised it as one of the most urgent new veterans charter issues. Who is standing in front of it?

The only member of that committee who voted for the new veterans charter, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore .

National Defence Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, national security is an issue that is top of mind for my constituents in Prince Edward—Hastings and certainly all across Canada. Could the Minister of National Defence update the House on what the budget introduced in the House by our government would do to ensure that our Canadian Armed Forces are ready to respond in the defence of Canada both at home and abroad? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his commitment to the Canadian Armed Forces.

We recall that when the Liberals were in office they slashed the budget for the Canadian Armed Forces. We had the decade of darkness. Under this Prime Minister 's leadership, we have rebuilt the capabilities of our military, increasing the National Defence budget by 27% today, massive important new acquisitions and new equipment. In yesterday's budget, we had a historic commitment to an enormous long-term, stable, predictable increase in funding for our men and women in uniform that would amount to nearly $12 billion over the course of a decade. This government is standing with our men and women in uniform.

(1505) The Environment Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the oil spill on the west coast, we still have a problem on the east coast regarding the Manolis L sunken freighter. It continues to spill oil and will potentially be a major disaster. Here is the latest. Kevin Stowbridge, a naval architect and engineer, has said that the oil has to be removed. He says, “By today's standards”, the ship's hull “is paper thin”. He says that cracks are developing and they will spread, leading to “a catastrophic structural failure that could release the oil”.

Finally, once again, will she save our shorelines? Would the minister please clean up this mess as a permanent solution? Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Coast Guard continues to regularly monitor the Manolis L site with Canadian Coast Guard vessels and Transport Canada aerial surveillance. As recently as this morning, we were out there. Should conditions change, the Coast Guard is prepared to move swiftly and take further action as necessary.

I can assure the hon. member that I have instructed Coast Guard officials to review long-term options for the Manolis L . If environmental response is important to the member, he will support our budget.

[ Translation ] Intergovernmental Relations Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives' budget ignores Quebec. I will give a few examples. With this budget, the Conservatives have confirmed their cuts to health transfers; they have given us nothing but recycled announcements of funding for infrastructure; and they have confirmed that cuts to employment insurance will continue to hurt regional economies. Can we truly believe that a Conservative government would one day be able to govern and take into account the needs and expectations of Quebec? Hon.

Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what do Quebeckers want? Quebeckers want more money in their pockets. We have lowered taxes for Quebeckers. What does the Government of Quebec want? It wants a federal government that respects the Canadian Constitution. We respect the Canadian Constitution. There are no squabbles. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister we have constitutional peace. What do Quebeckers want? They want stability—not instability under the NDP, which wants to make Quebeckers' taxes even higher.

We increased transfers to the provinces. It is untrue to say that transfers were cut; they were increased. Quebec receives $20 billion in transfers.

[ English ] Public Safety Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada and her allies. We have seen horrific terrorist attacks against two Canadian Armed Forces members. Our Conservative government took strong action by bringing forward the anti-terrorism act 2015 to combat the jihadi threat. Could the Minister of Public Safety please update the House on what financial resources economic action plan 2015 will allocate to this fight against terrorism? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga—Streetsville for working to make his community safer and for reaching out to the leader of his community. Over the course of the last week he has been supportive of our anti-terrorism measures. We always said that we would provide the tools and the resources. Yesterday, in the budget, we announced $300 million for our police officers so they can keep us safe. Despite the lack of support of the opposition, this government will stand up to keep Canadians safe.

The Environment Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the majority of Albertans have called for action on climate change, yet the budget commits nothing. Instead, the government has clawed back spending on renewable energy and energy efficiency. It refuses, stubbornly, to impose greenhouse gas standards on oil and gas. It has ignored the calls by Albertans to diversify our economy away from reliance on oil revenue. Why zero investment in this budget for a diversified, clean energy economy for Alberta and Canada?

(1510) Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, no federal budget has done more for the environment. Let me outline some of the initiatives in budget 2015. The 2015 budget includes initiatives for a chemicals management plan, federal contaminated sites, species at risk, meteorological and navigational warning services in the Arctic, and safe marine transportation in the Arctic. The NDP, however, wants to hike taxes for Canadians. [ Translation ] Mr.

Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, FD) : Mr. Speaker, the day after the tabling of a budget that completely ignores the environment, Earth Day is all the more important. Our quality of life and the environment are elements of wealth. Investing in the environment provides the best return on capital. The Minister of Finance is still basing his decisions on archaic measurements. The World Bank recommends including natural capital in the calculation of GDP to make it a fair and responsible indicator, as we in Forces et démocratie will be proposing in a motion.

Will the government use modern calculations? [ English ] Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, in yesterday's balanced budget, our Conservative government announced a dedicated public transit fund, for the first time ever, moving forward $1 billion every year to support municipalities with their public transit needs. Like never before, this government is getting it done.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ Translation ] Agreement on Land, Rail, Marine and Air Transport Preclearance Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement on Land, Rail, Marine and Air Transport Preclearance between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America”, signed in Washington on March 16, 2015. [ English ] An explanatory memorandum is included with the treaty. [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-François Fortin : Mr.

Speaker, today, in honour of Earth Day, I am seeking unanimous consent to move the following motion: That, in the opinion of the House, the government should take the necessary steps to integrate into the calculation of GDP a natural capital accounting system, as recommended by the World Bank's WAVES project: by recognizing that Canada's natural resources, such as forests, water, earth, air, minerals and other energy sources, are vital to the economy and recognizing the delicate relationship between economic progress, the health of the environment and the well-being of the population; by recognizing that GDP is not an appropriate indicator for responsible decision-making; by re-evaluating how the common well-being and the progress of Canada's economy are measured; and finally, by committing to examine the implementation of a natural capital accounting system in Canada and look into the possibility of integrating such a system into the calculation of GDP to encourage true growth of the green economy and long-term progress in terms of prosperity and common well-being. [ English ] The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Speaker: There does not seem to be consent.

Points of Order Oral Questions Points of Order Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period, a member opposite, I believe it was the member speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister , referenced the riding of Trinity—Spadina and its member having used funds illegally and using taxpayers' dollars to fund offices in Quebec. I want to assure the House that I have never done that. The member for Trinity—Spadina has not opened offices in Quebec, has never been brought forward with these charges, and has never even been asked to explain any of these charges.

I do not know why my riding and I were referenced in such a way. I would like the comment withdrawn, please. Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm whether or not he did actually pay for NDP offices in Montreal. I was referencing the former member for Trinity—Spadina, who actually did that. As a result, I withdraw that accusation against the particular member and put it back onto the former NDP member for Trinity—Spadina.

Government Response to Petitions Routine Proceedings 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 14 petitions.

(1515) [ Translation ] Interparliamentary Delegations Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association respecting its bilateral mission to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Republic of Djibouti from October 13 to 17, 2014, and its bilateral mission to the Kingdom of Lesotho and the Republic of Malawi from January 19 to 22, 2015. [ English ] Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, four reports of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group . The first concerns the U.S. congressional meetings that were held in Washington D.C., United States, February 24-26, 2014. The second concerns the Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance, BTA, conference that was held here in Ottawa, May 4-6, 2014. The third concerns the 2014 annual summer meeting of the National Governors Association that was held in Nashville, Tennessee, United States, July 10-13, 2014.

The fourth concerns the 69th annual meeting of the Council of State Governments Midwestern Legislative Conference that was held in Omaha, Nebraska, United States, July 12-16, 2014.

Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 36th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee advises that pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2) the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the items added to the order of precedent as a result of the replenishment on Monday, March 30 and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated not votable, be considered by the House. The Speaker : Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the report is deemed adopted.

Industry, Science and Technology Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in relation to Bill S-4 ,

an act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Genocide Recognition Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe that if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following.

Motion I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, in relation to Motion M-587 on genocide recognition, standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville, the House may continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Friday, April 24, 2015, to consider the motion and that after 60 minutes of debate, or when no Member rises to speak, whichever is the earlier, the Speaker shall put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion.

The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: 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 Public Safety Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to table a petition signed by hundreds of people in my hometown of Hamilton who are opposed to Bill C-51 . The petitioners agree that terrorism is a real threat and must be confronted, but they also agree that, instead of making Canadians safer, Bill C-51 is dangerous, vague and likely ineffective.

Instead of passing Bill C-51, which would threaten our rights and freedoms by giving CSIS sweeping new surveillance powers without proper oversight to prevent abuse, the petitioners agree with New Democrats that we cannot protect our freedoms by sacrificing them. For all of those reasons, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to stop the attack on civil liberties and join the NDP by voting down Bill C-51.

While the rules of the House do not allow me to endorse a petition, let me conclude by saying that I am delighted to have so many residents of Hamilton Mountain get actively engaged in this important petition campaign.

(1520) Komagata Maru Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to table a petition signed by members of the Sikh Society of Manitoba who are clearly indicating that the Komagata Maru incident was a dark moment in Canada's past when, in 1914, 352 passengers aboard the steamship were denied entry into Canada based on a discriminatory immigration policy. The ship was forced to return to India and as a result 19 passengers were killed. The petitioners are asking for a formal apology by the Government of Canada to be presented here, on the floor of the House of Commons.

Violence Against Women Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by constituents in my riding of Halifax, around Nova Scotia and a few from Newfoundland for good measure. It is a petition to end violence against women. The petitioners note that women are 11 times more likely than men to be victims of sexual offences, that indigenous women are 7 times more likely to be murdered than non-indigenous women in Canada and that 60% of women with disabilities in Canada are likely to experience some form of violence in their lifetime.

Therefore, the petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to create a coordinated comprehensive national plan to address violence against women, and launch an independent national inquiry into the deaths and disappearances of first nations, Metis and Inuit women. The petitioners and I look forward to the minister's response.

Nuclear Waste Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first petition is from hundreds of citizens who are concerned about Ontario Power Generation's proposal to construct a deep geological repository on Lake Huron in the Great Lakes. This affects an estimated 40 million Canadians and Americans, and will cost $7 billion. The petitioners are calling for a more robust review process because the proposal would put radioactive nuclear waste next to our freshwater supply as well as a commercial artery that is important to our country.

Windsor-Detroit Bridge Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my second set of petitions are for the creation of an international bike and pedestrian lane on the new crossing between Windsor and Detroit. The petitioners request this to be part of the project so that we can increase ecotourism, have stronger cultural, economic and development connections with the city of Detroit, and be able to access the system in the United States as well as on the Canadian side.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, on this Earth Day, I am pleased to rise to present three petitions. One is from residents throughout the Vancouver area calling for a legislated ban on dilbit supertankers along the B.C. coastline.

Genetically Modified Foods Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents primarily in the Montreal area as well as in Ottawa and Whitby, calling for the mandatory labelling of genetically modified products.

Public Safety Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, my last petition is a timely concern from residents throughout Ontario, outside of Toronto as well as in areas of Ottawa calling for this House to reject the so-called anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-51 . Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is on behalf of hundreds of constituents in Parkdale—High Park calling for the government to stop the attack on our civil liberties by voting down bill C-51 .

The petitioners agree that terrorism is a threat that must be confronted, but rather than making Canadians safer, the Conservatives are playing politics with Bill C-51 and that it is dangerous, vague and ineffective by giving CSIS sweeping new powers without proper oversight. They are calling on the House of Commons to stop this attack on our civil liberties and join the NDP in voting down Bill C-51 .

Child Care Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in support of the NDP's plan for affordable child care. It notes that after a decade of Conservative government, child care costs are soaring. I know in my riding, I speak to constituents who are paying thousands of dollars each and every month for child care. They know that early child care, early learning programs provide the best start in life for kids, and it also strengthens our economy. These constituents are supporting the NDP plan for quality affordable child care spaces at a maximum of $15 a day.

They are calling on the Government of Canada to work with the provinces and territories to implement the NDP plan for affordable child care in Canada.

Genetically Modified Foods Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in support of labelling of genetically modified foods. The signatories to the petition wish to point the attention of the House to the right of all Canadians to make informed choices when purchasing products.

They call upon the Government of Canada to introduce mandatory labelling of products containing ingredients that have been genetically modified, and to undertake a balanced approach to the use of genetically modified organisms that considers the health and sustainability of our environment and communities, the protection of biodiversity and of course the economic interests of farmers.

(1525) Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1093, 1096 and 1099. [ Text ] Question No. 1093-- Hon. Irwin Cotler : With regard to Bill C-51,

An Act to Enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to Amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to Make Related and Consequential Amendments to Other Acts: (

a) what studies, reports, or other documents were consulted by the government as part of the process of developing the legislation; (

b) what groups or individuals were consulted by the government as part of the process of developing the legislation; (

c) when did each consultation in (

a) and (

b) occur; (

d) who carried out each consultation in (

a) and ( b ); (

e) in what way was each group or individual in (

b) consulted; (

f) by what process was the legislation reviewed to ascertain whether any of its provisions are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (

g) what officials at the Department of Justice participated in the process in ( f ); (

h) what groups or individuals outside the Department of Justice participated in the process in ( f ); (

i) what changes were made to the legislation as a result of the process in ( f ); (

j) did the government seek opinions from any group or individual outside the Department of Justice about whether any of legislation’s provisions are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (

k) from what groups or individuals did the government seek the opinions in ( j ); (

l) when did the government seek each opinion in ( j ); (

m) when did the government receive each opinion in ( j ); (

n) what was the cost of each opinion in ( j ); (

o) who in the government determined that the legislation is consistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (

p) on what basis did the individual or individuals in (

o) make that determination; (

q) has the government evaluated the likelihood of any of the legislation’s provisions being challenged before the courts; (

r) what is the result of the evaluation in ( q ); (

s) on what basis has the government made the evaluation in ( q ); (

t) has the government evaluated the likelihood of any of the legislation’s provisions being struck down by the courts; (

u) what is the result of the evaluation in ( t ); (

v) on what basis has the government made the evaluation in ( t ); (

w) how much money has been or will be set aside to cover the cost of litigation related to challenges of the legislation before the courts; (

x) how did the government determine the amount in ( w ); (

y) when were instructions given regarding the drafting of this legislation; (

z) how long did those drafting the legislation have to consider any constitutional impacts of the legislation; ( aa ) were any constitutional concerns raised during the legislative drafting process and, if so, (

i) what were these concerns, (ii) how were they addressed, (iii) by whom were they addressed, (iv) when were they addressed; ( bb ) apart from any analysis pursuant to

section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, in what ways did the government assess the constitutionality of this bill; ( cc ) in what ways did the Minister of Justice undertake to verify this bill's constitutionality; ( dd ) were any outside legal opinions sought relative to this legislation; ( ee ) in total, how many employees reviewed this legislation with a specific mandate to ascertain its constitutional compliance; ( ff ) what are the policy rationales for this legislation; ( gg ) in what ways did the government consider whether alternative policies might attain the objectives in ( ff ); ( hh ) what impact will this legislation have on the provinces and territories; ( ii ) if any provinces or territories were consulted, (

i) when were they consulted, (ii) how were they consulted, (iii) in furtherance of what objective were they consulted; ( jj ) how much will this legislation cost to implement; ( kk ) do resources exist to implement this legislation effectively and fully; ( ll ) what is the basis for the government's response in ( kk ); ( mm ) by what means will this legislation be monitored and evaluated for its effectiveness; ( nn ) by what means and how often will this legislation be reviewed; and ( oo ) by what metrics will the government determine whether this legislation, once enacted, has made Canadians safer? Hon.

Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. Canadians are being targeted by jihadi terrorists simply because they hate our society and the values it represents. The Government of Canada rejects the argument that every time security is discussed, somehow freedoms are threatened. Canadians understand that there can be no liberty without security. Canadians rightly expect the government to protect both, and that is precisely what the anti-terrorism act, 2015 would do.

The fundamental fact is that police and national security agencies are working to protect Canadian rights and freedoms. It is not they who seek to take away freedoms, but rather the jihadi terrorists.

Canada will not sit on the sidelines, as some would do, and is instead joining the international coalition in the fight against the so-called Islamic State. With regard to (

f) and (cc), pursuant to the Department of Justice Act,

section 4.1, the Minister of Justice is required to examine every government bill presented to Parliament in order to ascertain whether any of its provisions are inconsistent with the purposes or provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the minister believes that the legislation is inconsistent, it must be reported to Parliament. Proposed government legislation is reviewed for charter and other legal risks throughout the policy development and legislative drafting processes. The process of examining government legislation for charter compliance is dynamic and ongoing.

Section 4.1 is only one part of a broader process that involves three distinct components: advisory, certification and reporting. The advisory component takes place throughout the policy development process, up to and including the introduction of legislation. With regard to (nn), the Government of Canada believes that independent, expert, non-partisan oversight of national security agencies is a better model than political intervention in the process. Further, the key powers of the anti-terrorism act, 2015 would be subject to judicial review and judicial authorization. Question No. 1096-- Hon.

Ralph Goodale : With regard to legal costs incurred by the government: what are all costs incurred for legal services, broken down by services provided internally and services contracted out, relating to to (

i) Federation of Law Societies of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCCA 147, (ii) R. v. Anderson, 2013 NLCA, (iii) R. v. Smickle, 2013 ONCA 678, (iv) R. v. Nur, 2013 ONCA 677, (

v) R. v. Charles, 2013 ONCA 681, (vi) R. v. Hill, 2012 ONSC 5050, (vii) Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling, 2014 SCC 20, (viii) Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, 2014, (ix) Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling, 2014 SCC 20, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 392, (

x) Smith v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] 1 FCR 3, 2009 FC 228, (xi) Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 125, (xii) Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3, (xiii) Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134, (xiv) Canadian Doctors For Refugee Care v. Canada (Attorney general), 2014 FC 651, (xv) Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 433? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, to the extent that the information that has been requested is protected by solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts that privilege and, in the following cases, has waived that privilege only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs.

With regard to (i), the total legal cost is approximately $332,771.78.

With regard to (ii), the total legal cost is approximately $1,339.80.

With regard to (iii), the total legal cost is approximately $207,746.55.

With regard to (iv), the total legal cost is approximately $333,594.52.

With regard to (v), the total legal cost is approximately $95,983.84.

With regard to (vi), the Attorney General of Canada was not involved in this case.

With regard to (vii) and (ix), the total legal cost is approximately $439,667.85.

With regard to (viii) and (xv), the total legal cost is approximately $347,271.69.

With regard to (x), the total legal cost is approximately $852,911.28.

With regard to (xi), the total legal cost is approximately $229,802.61.

With regard to (xii), the total legal cost is approximately $396,879.03.

With regard to (xiii), the total legal cost is approximately $426,529.76.

With regard to (xiv), the total legal cost is approximately $1,062,187.23. Question No. 1099-- Mr. Mathieu Ravignat : With regard to the loan made in 2010 by Canada Economic Development to the Trebio company in Litchfield, Quebec, when it relocated to the industrial park in the Regional County Municipality of Pontiac in the Outaouais region: (

a) who approved the loan, including the names and titles of the people who signed the agreement; (

b) what were the repayment conditions; (

c) what amount has been repaid to date; and (

d) how many jobs were created as a result of this loan? Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the letter of offer for the Trebio start-up project was signed by Mr. Marc Boily, regional director of the Outaouais business office of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Mr. Louis Campeau, president of Trebio.

With regard to (b), the financial contribution was repayable.

With regard to (c), in processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. The amount that has been repaid to date is withheld on the grounds that the information constitutes third party information.

With regard to (d), the agency does not gather data for jobs as a direct result of its funding. However, for some projects, estimates of jobs created and maintained are provided by the project’s sponsors and reflect the contributions granted by all donors.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1086 to 1092, 1094, 1095, 1097, 1098 and 1100 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ] Question No. 1086-- Mr. Adam Vaughan : With respect to citizenship ceremonies held outside of government facilities since January 1, 2006: (

a) where did the ceremonies take place; (

b) did a third party, such as a corporation, not-for-profit, or charity, partner with the government for the ceremonies; (

c) in the cases where there were partners involved, what were the names of these third parties; (

d) were any gifts provided to the new citizens, their families, or others in attendance; and (

e) if gifts were provided, what are the details regarding these gifts? (Return tabled) Question No. 1087-- Mr. Adam Vaughan : With respect to the expiration of federal housing operating agreements: (

a) how many agreements expired, broken down by year, since 2014; (

b) what are the details of the agreements identified in ( a ), including (

i) name or title of the agreement, (ii) how many units were affected, (iii) what was the date of expiry, (iv) in which municipality, province, territory, Aboriginal community, or other jurisdiction were they located; (

c) how many agreements are set to expire by December 31, 2015; and (

d) what are the details of the agreements identified in ( c ), including (

i) name or title of the agreement, (ii) how many units will be affected, (iii) in which municipality, province, territory, Aboriginal community, or other jurisdiction are they located? (Return tabled) Question No. 1088-- Hon. Carolyn Bennett : With regard to the implementation of the government’s deficit reduction action plan: (

a) what are the total number of federal government positions that have been eliminated pursuant to the plan, broken down by year since 2012; (

b) what proportion of the job reductions since 2012 have been within the National Capital Region (NCR) compared with those outside the NCR, broken down by year; (

c) excluding positions in the NCR, what are the details of all positions eliminated as part of the deficit reduction action plan since 2012, broken down by (

i) province, (ii) year; (

d) what percentage of the total federal public service workforce was situated in the NCR at (

i) year-end in 2012, (ii) year-end in 2014; (

e) what percentage of the total federal public service workforce was located in each province, excluding the NCR positions for Ontario and Quebec, at (

i) year-end in 2012, (ii) year-end in 2013, (iii) year-end in 2014; (

f) what were the total government expenditures on outside consultants to review corporate services, including human resources, finance and administration, communications, and information technology, broken down by year since 2012; (

g) what is the current demographic breakdown, including position level, gender, employment equity group, tenure and average years of service in the public service, for all human resources positions that fall within federal public service occupational group (

i) Personnel Administration (PE), (ii) Administrative Services (AS), (iii) Clerical and Regulatory (CR); (

h) how many PE positions have been eliminated by the government since 2012, broken down by year; (

i) how many PE positions does the government plan to eliminate in 2015-2016; (

j) how many PE category employees in the government have been promoted since 2012, broken down by year, and what percentage of employees in that category do those promotions represent; (

k) how many PE positions have been downgraded as a result of the implementation of PE Generic Work Descriptions; (

l) how many Executive (EX) positions within departmental human resources divisions or branches of the federal public service have been created, eliminated or reclassified to a higher level within the EX category since 2012, broken down by year; (

m) when was the classification standard for the PE group last updated; (

n) what are the details concerning the most recent PE group classification standard; (

o) why was the PE group classification standard not updated prior to implementing PE Generic Work descriptions; (

p) what percentage of sick days taken by employees in the public service in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 were to attend non-routine or ongoing medical appointments as opposed to illness or injury, excluding those related to pregnancy; and (

q) what are the details of any documents or memoranda that have been produced since 2010 by any department or agency regarding any current or previous plans to centralize or amalgamate human resources positions within the federal public service under Shared Services Canada or any other shared services agency including, for each document, (

i) the date, (ii) the authoring department or agency, (iii) the title of the document? (Return tabled) Question No. 1089-- Mr. Arnold Chan : With regard to the government’s Email Transformation Initiative: (

a) how many and which departments have migrated to the one email platform, including the date of the migration; (

b) what is the date for the expected migration of the remaining departments, agencies or boards; (

c) what was the original date planned for the migration of each government body; (

d) how much does the government expect to forgo in savings because of any delays; (

e) what are the projected savings arising from the move to one email platform, broken down by (

i) department, (ii) total government savings; (

f) for departments that have already migrated to the one email platform, (

i) what are the recorded Treasury Board transfers for the department to Shared Services Canada, (ii) what are the recorded Treasury Board savings for each department, (iii) what is the amount of reduction to the departments’ estimates for 2015-2016; (

g) what penalties were charged to Bell Canada and CGI Information Systems for not being able to meet their targets; (

h) what is the cost of the contract to both Bell Canada and CGI Information Systems, including (

i) how much has currently been paid, (ii) how much is expected to be paid at the completion of the project, (iii) the maximum amount that is allowed under the contract, (iv) the original maximum amount allowed at the signing of the contract; (

i) how much has been budgeted for the migration to one email platform; (

j) how much was budgeted at the start of the program; (

k) what will be the ongoing operational cost to operate the one email platform; (

l) what is the static operational cost of operating all email platforms before the migration; (

m) for departments that have migrated to the one email platform, what are the issues logged by the IT help desk, including (

i) the type of issue, (ii) the length of time on the IT help line, (iii) the cost of any outside contractors hired to address excess volumes; and (

n) what are all the contracts associated with the migration and the implantation to the one email platform, including (

i) the name of the company, (ii) the amount of the contract, (iii) the amount that has already been paid under the contract, (iv) if the contract is tendered, (

v) the length of the contract? (Return tabled) Question No. 1090-- Mr. Arnold Chan : With regard to PPP Canada: since its creation, (

a) what are the date and the details of the agenda of each Board of Directors' meeting; (

b) for each meeting, which members of the board attended; (

c) which board members declared conflicts of interest during any meeting, specifying the issue on the agenda with respect to which the conflict was declared; (

d) what projects have been announced by PPP Canada; (

e) which of the projects in (

d) had board approval; (

f) how much funding was announced for each project; (

g) when was the project announced; (

h) how much has been paid for the project and to whom; (

i) for each project in ( d ), was a cost-benefit analysis and an analysis of the advantage of using P3 done for the project and, if so, what were the projected savings; (

j) where are PPP Canada's unspent funds currently held, including (

i) amounts, (ii) terms, (iii) the details of the contracts of all investments; (

k) what travel has the board of directors done, including the location and the cost, broken down by (

i) travel, (ii) hotel, (iii) per diem, (iv) any other expenses; (

l) what were the costs for any announcements made by PPP Canada, including (

i) cost of staff travel, (ii) cost of room rentals, (iii) cost of staging equipment or contract, (iv) cost for any writing services paid for by PPP Canada (such as for speeches, press releases, media advisories, backgrounders, and websites), (

v) cost of press release distribution, (vi) date of the event, (vii) cost of any food, (viii) any additional costs; and (

m) how much has PPP Canada spent on hospitality, including, for each event (

i) amount spent, (ii) nature of the event, (iii) date, (iv) authorizing authority, (

v) location, (vi) vendor? (Return tabled) Question No. 1091-- Mr. Arnold Chan : With regard to the government’s use and receipt of credit cards since 2005-2006: (

a) how much has the government paid in credit-card merchant fees, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) company, (iii) amounts withheld, forgone, or otherwise held by either credit card companies or service providers; (

b) how many credit cards does the government currently have in use for staff, and which companies provide them; (

c) for cards provided by the government to staff, what is the annual fee paid by the government per card; (

d) does the government provide any cards to staff that include redeemable rewards and, if so, what are these rewards and who collects them; and (

e) how much has the government paid in late or overdue balances, broken down by year? (Return tabled) Question No. 1092-- Mr. Arnold Chan : With regard to the government’s non-tax revenue for each year since 2005-2006: (

a) how much has each department, agency, board, or other body collected for each year, including (

i) the dollar amount and the number of people and businesses that paid the amount, (ii) the programs, fines, services, or product the amount was received for; (

b) how much was the public charged for programs, services, products and documents, broken down by year since 2005-2006, including (

i) the cost of each product, (ii) the cost of each product where express service or premium service was offered; and (

c) how much does it cost the government to provide each program, service, product or document, including (

i) the total amount annually for the service as well as the cost per transaction, (ii) the number of transactions per year? (Return tabled) Question No. 1094-- Ms. Niki Ashton : With respect to the processing of Status Cards and of Secure Certificates of Indian Status by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, broken down by year from 2004 to 2014, and further broken down by (

i) regular application, (ii) application under Bill C-3, Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, (iii) number of Qalipu band members applying: (

a) what is the number of applications; (

b) how many are being processed; (

c) how many employees are assigned to the processing of applications; (

d) what is the amount budgeted for the processing of applications; (

e) what is the average wait time for the processing of applications; (

f) how many years behind is the processing of applications; and (

g) what are the shortest and longest turnaround times on record for the processing of one application? (Return tabled) Question No. 1095-- Mme Niki Ashton : With regard to the Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation: (

a) how much funding has been allocated for fire safety between 2011 and 2015, broken down by year; (

b) what are the details of the budgeting and spending of $39 999 of funding for fire safety in 2014-2015; (

c) how much funding has been allocated for training volunteer or professional firefighters from 2011 to 2015, broken down by year; (

d) how much funding has been allocated for building inspections and regulations from 2011 to 2015, broken down by year; and (

e) how much funding has been allocated for equipment maintenance and upkeep from 2011 to 2015, broken down by year? (Return tabled) Question No. 1097-- Mr. Paul Dewar : With regard to Canadian diplomatic operations in Haiti over the past five years: (

a) what were the total budgeted government expenditures, broken down by (

i) overall total, (ii) year; (

b) what were the total actual government expenditures, broken down by (

i) overall total, (ii) year; (

c) what were the budgeted government expenditures on security, broken down by (

i) overall total, (ii) year; (

d) what were the actual government expenditures on security, broken down by (

i) overall total, (ii) year; (

e) how many Canadian diplomatic personnel were employed in Haiti, broken down by year; and (

f) for all personnel identified in ( e ), what were the titles and terms of their positions? (Return tabled) Question No. 1098-- Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada and to the unit responsible for reviewing backlogged social security appeals: (

a) where is the unit located within the Department’s structure; (

b) to whom is the unit reporting; (

c) how many people are in the unit; (

d) how many of the people working in the unit have a medical degree; (

e) how many of the people working in the unit are lawyers; (

f) how many of the people working in the unit are Canada Pension Plan Disability medical adjudicators; (

g) what is the budget of the unit; (

h) what are the terms of reference for the unit; (

i) what is the unit’s expected length of existence; (

j) how many appeal case files have been reviewed to date; (

k) how many settlements have been offered; (

l) how many settlements have been accepted; (

m) are settlements retroactive; (

n) what are the criteria for deciding to review a file or to allow it to pass on to the Social Security Tribunal; (

o) when was the unit created; and (

p) when did the unit begin operations? (Return tabled) Question No. 1100-- Mr. Mathieu Ravignat : With regard to the redevelopment of the industrial park in the Regional County Municipality of Pontiac, specifically the purchase of the former Smurfit-Stone mill in Portage-du-Fort, in the Outaouais region, by Sustainable Site Planning and Management Pontiac, a subsidiary of Green Investment Group Incorporated: (

a) were Industry Canada or Canada Economic Development financially involved in this project; (

b) if the answer to (

a) is affirmative, what proportion of the contributions, in dollar and percentage terms, were (

i) refundable, (ii) non-refundable; (

c) were the contributions referred to in (

b) loans or grants; and (

d) what were the names and titles of the official and the entrepreneur who signed this agreement? (Return tabled) [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

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

Private Members' Business The Speaker : The Chair would like to take a moment to provide some information to the House regarding the management of private members' business. [ Translation ] As members know, after the order of precedence is replenished, the Chair reviews the new items so as to alert the House to bills which at first glance appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown.

This allows members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. [ English ] Accordingly, following the March 30, 2015 replenishment of the order of precedence of 15 new items, I wish to inform the House that there is one bill that gives the Chair some concerns as to the spending provisions it contemplates. [ Translation ] It is Bill C-544,

An Act to amend the Auditor General Act (government advertising) , standing in the name of the member for Ottawa South . [ English ] I would encourage hon. members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for this bill or any of the other bills now in the order of precedence to do so at an early opportunity. [ Translation ] I thank honourable members for their attention.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS The Budget [ English ] The Budget Financial Statement of Minister of Finance Motion The House resumed from April 21 consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise. Our esteemed House leader just made a suggestion as to what I should do with this first response to the budget as the critic of the official opposition and having unlimited time. He suggested I use 14 hours.

I do not think we are going to actually spend that much of the House's time on some of the New Democrats' thoughts about the most recent budget. Yet, it is extensive in terms of some of the things we do want to talk about and some of the things that are important to Canadians that are not in the document that was presented, this so-called plan from the government. First, I have to place myself in the context of the debate and my comments will come as the representative of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the great northwest of British Columbia. The riding represents about a third of the province of British Columbia.

It is the northwest coast, the northwest corner of our country. It is a beautiful place. As is often noted, it is also a place that has met with some of the most pressing and important questions facing our country. We are a resource-based economy, primarily. With 40% to 45% first nations representation and some of the longest and strongest traditions of first nations people anywhere in the world, we have had to meet with some of the sometimes difficult questions about how to make decisions, not only for today but for future generations. Before politics, I was in small business.

Therefore, not only the place I come from and who I am from my experience inform the way that I and many in my party try to approach every debate, which is from a place of understanding of what Canadians need and hope for from their government. In a time of economic uncertainty, as the Conservatives have admitted to, one would have hoped that we would have seen yesterday a balanced, fair approach with some measure of ambition. However, when we look through the many pages of the budget and listen to the many words coming from the Minister of Finance , a lack of ambition was clear from the very outset.

The Conservatives talked more about the past and some of their record than they did about the future. In fact, when asked later about his budget, the finance minister, when approaching the concern about how expensive some of his more outrageous decisions were, said that was not for us to have to worry about that we can simply let future generations worry about the problems of paying for his electoral promises of today. If that is not the very definition of irresponsibility, I do not know what is.

There is short-term thinking in politics, but the Conservatives have taken this to the ridiculous, fully knowing that some of their measures cost a lot today but will be increasingly expensive over years. When that is pointed out to them, Conservatives say, “Well, we're probably not going to be here”. They are not worried about it. All they are worried about is what happens over the next number of months and saving their own political bacon.

Controversies, like what is going on in the Senate, the lack of economic performance, the outrageous and irresponsible presenting of so-called anti-terror legislation that is basically just anti-charter legislation have all combined to put a certain amount of political headwinds against the government. Therefore, instead of thinking of the broader interests of Canadians, Conservatives have narrowcast, focus-grouped, and brought their messaging to the point where even budgets, and nothing but budgets, are now a political document, an electoral platform, rather than what the economy actually needs.

Let us take a look at the Conservative record first because that is where the budget falls. That is the context in which these measures will be applied. For the last almost decade now, we have had a Conservative ideology that has thought that tax cuts to the largest and wealthiest corporations, even in the midst of a recession, were the most important thing. The darkest days of the recession saw many Canadian companies struggling to make a profit and by not making a profit they did not pay taxes. The Conservatives thought that banks and oil companies, in particular, needed tens of billions of dollars in breaks.

That Conservative agenda has actually significantly shifted the tax burden in Canada. This is according to Finance Canada's own statistics. Since the Conservative's took power, personal income taxes rose to the treasury by $15 billion. Fifteen billion dollars more is collected by the Conservatives for personal income taxes, yet $4.4 billion less has come in from large corporations.

That is a clear agenda in choice where Conservatives have said that to pay for roads and hospitals and health care they are happy, in fact enthusiastic, to have taxpayers, Canadians, individuals and families pay more of the burden and lessen the responsibilities of the largest corporations. That is a Conservative tax shift of monumental proportions.

(1530) We have also seen, in the last number of years since the Conservatives took over, an economy that went through the global recession, as so many western economies did, but has since yet been able to find its feet again. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, when asked about job growth under these Conservatives, said that job growth in Canada was atrocious. For those who are not familiar with banker language, especially governors of the various banks, they do not tend to use strong language.

They use very calm, quiet, coded words to transit their intentions because every word they utter can be parsed and have big impacts on the market. When a governor of a bank comes in and says that the job performance of this economy, of the government, is atrocious, one should pay attention. He is right. The job growth in Canada right now is estimated at zero. I do not know if that is a concern or even getting through to some of my Conservative colleagues, but the job growth rate in Canada right now is 0%. I do not know why Conservatives would think that 2014 was what they called a recovery year, a good year.

The Canadian population grew at almost twice the rate as job growth did. Let us pause for a moment. This was a good year. This was before oil started to fall from its height of $100 or more per barrel to where it is settling now, around $50 or $55. This was supposed to be a good year. The Conservatives can spin, but the notion of spin in politics requires at least a kernel of truth somewhere which all the fancy words and big ad campaigns are wrapped around. However, when there is no kernel of truth, spin is turned into what we call, what it is, a lie, not truth.

Canadians can tell the difference when someone is trying to make something appear much better than it is and when someone is telling the simple opposite of facts. Let us get back to the facts. Since the government took office in Canada we have lost more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs. At one point the industry minister , who one could say is responsible for manufacturing, rose in his place in this House and disputed what the NDP was saying about manufacturing. He said that the NDP was making it up because he had read it in a magazine. I guess that is where he got his information.

A day later he had to recant, realizing that he was in fact wrong. Aside from that, who pays the penalty? The real price is paid by Canadian families who can no longer afford the mortgage, rent or putting food on the table because they have lost their jobs at saw mills, auto plants or aerospace across this country. Over these numbers of years, we have also seen the Conservatives add almost $160 billion of debt to the national debt in Canada. The Conservatives, who say how great they are at managing, have added almost $160 billion on the debt.

If we break that down, for every man, woman and child, that is approximately $4,000 for every single living soul in this country. It is a debt that the Conservatives have placed on their backs. We could ask, “For what?” If the Conservatives are going to borrow that much money, almost $4,000 per person, we should see some results. However, we have an economy that has flatlined, anemic growth. We have 130,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than before the recession. That is 130,000 fewer opportunities for young people to get into the workforce.

We have 300,000 fewer jobs across the economy than we did before the recession began. The Conservatives talk about some sort of mythical recovery and how wonderful things are, but again, spin only works if there is a kernel truth in it. How can we have lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs and be creating no jobs right now while the Conservatives are somehow congratulating themselves and pulling a muscle patting themselves on the back so often.

Conservatives are so completely out of touch with the realities facing Canadians, the people out in the real world, the people we allegedly work for and that the Conservatives are meant to work for. We proposed a very sound and reasonable solution to some of the challenges we faced, particularly when it comes to child poverty. It has been almost 20 years since the House of Commons committed to eliminating child poverty in Canada.

(1535) We came forward with a solution weeks ago to close a loophole entirely designed for the wealthiest Canadians imaginable: those who receive their pay in stock options. I do not know what kind of jobs members in the House had, but my family and friends have not had the experience of being paid in stock options. Maybe that is a common experience among the Conservatives because they maintained a loophole that was opened up first by the Liberals and it is not cheap by the way. This loophole costs the treasury about $720 million a year.

What it does, it says to CEOs and folks in the corner offices that when they are paid in stock dividends, they will be taxed at a lower rate than if they were paid the way most working-class, middle-class Canadians get paid, which is in salary. However, the government would tax them less, almost three-quarters of a billion dollars less, which is a grand and massive gift to those who already have so much. We said that we should close this loophole. These folks do not need another Porsche or Maserati going out the door.

Let us close this loophole and actually help those who are most disadvantaged, those children and families who are having trouble putting food on the table and going to school hungry. However, the Conservatives, in their budget, refused that opportunity. We see 1.3 million Canadians today out of work. Actually, we had a moment here in question period today when we asked the minister to take action to help save some jobs on the east coast.

She replied that those people are going to be so happy because of a tax cut that the Conservatives put in, which misses the concept that when people lose their job, a tax cut does not do much because they are not paying taxes. Under the Conservatives, only 30% or 35% of working people who pay into employment insurance are eligible for employment insurance. Previously, under the Liberals, somewhere around $54 billion was stolen out of the EI fund to pay for all manner of things that the Liberals wanted to do. When the Conservatives came in, they said it was a new day and they were going to change that.

However, one of the cynical tricks the Conservatives did was change the qualification rules. They made the rules tighter and harder for Canadians who work seasonal or temporary jobs, such as in the tourism and agriculture sectors. The Conservatives lump them out of the employment insurance program, but are still happy enough to collect the EI remittances from their paycheques. They get to pay in but never actually get to use the insurance. That sounds like some awful insurance scheme or scam in which they can only pay in but never receive any of the insurance benefits. That sounds like Veterans Affairs.

For those in the military, there is a certain amount of support for soldiers who are struggling and have been injured. They come back from Afghanistan, Iraq and other incredibly dangerous places, and the Conservatives thump themselves on the chest and say, “Stand up for our troops, we do”. The Conservatives are always happy with the photo ops.

Yet, when the troops come home and when we need to actually stand up for them in a sincere and honest way, we have seen the Conservatives actually claw back $1 billion from our veterans, meanwhile denying them the access to the care and coverage that they are entitled to, that they so bravely fought for. They do not ask for much, but we have seen the treatment of our vets by this government. There is no other word for it but “shameful”. It is shameful that a hero today, when they have the uniform on, is forgotten tomorrow under the current Prime Minister .

I have sat with families in my constituency who are asking for some basic treatment of fairness. One family came to me just weeks ago. Their son had killed himself not that long ago after returning from several tours in Afghanistan. His family asked for some help from Veterans Affairs for the funeral. They asked for some help to bring in some of his company who had served with him in Afghanistan. In both cases, the Conservative government decided to claw back money out of Veterans Affairs rather than support this m