12977 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 200 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, April 24, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES April 24, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 200 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 200 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 200 (Version officielle) 147 200 24 04 2015 2015/04/24 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 Bill C-51. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of 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 , as reported (with amendments) from the committee. (1005) [ English ] Speaker's Ruling The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : There are 66 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for report stage of Bill C-51 . Motions Nos. 1 to 66 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. [ Translation ] I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 66 to the House.

Motions in Amendment Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) moved: Motions Nos. 1 to 3 Motion No. 1 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting the

long title. Motion No. 2 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting the

short title. Motion No. 3 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 2. [ English ] Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) , seconded by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert , moved: Motion No. 4 Motion No. 4 That Bill C-51, in Clause 2, be amended (

a) by replacing line 21 on page 5 with the following: “information that is necessary to protect Canada against activities that undermine the security of Canada and that is disclosed under subsection” (

b) by replacing line 25 on page 5 with the following: “restrictions and prohibitions, while respecting any caveats on, and originator control over, shared information.” [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) Motions Nos. 5 to 44 moved: Motion No. 5 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 3. Motion No. 6 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 4. Motion No. 7 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 5. Motion No. 8 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 6. Motion No. 9 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 10 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 8. Motion No. 11 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 9. Motion No. 12 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 10. Motion No. 13 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 11. Motion No. 14 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 12. Motion No. 15 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 13. Motion No. 16 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 14. Motion No. 17 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 15. Motion No. 18 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 19 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 17. Motion No. 20 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 18. Motion No. 21 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 19. Motion No. 22 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 20. Motion No. 23 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 21. Motion No. 24 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 22. Motion No. 25 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 23. Motion No. 26 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 24. Motion No. 27 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 28 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 26. Motion No. 29 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 27. Motion No. 30 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 28. Motion No. 31 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 29. Motion No. 32 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 30. Motion No. 33 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 31. Motion No. 34 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 32. Motion No. 35 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 33. Motion No. 36 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 37 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 35. Motion No. 38 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 36. Motion No. 39 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 37. Motion No. 40 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 38. Motion No. 41 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 39. Motion No. 42 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 40. Motion No. 43 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 41. Motion No. 44 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 42. (1010) [ English ] Ms.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) Motion No. 45 , seconded by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert , moved: Motion No. 45 That Bill C-51, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 49 with the following: “enforcement power, including the power to perform the duties that are the primary responsibility of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.” (1015) [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) Motions Nos. 46 to 66 moved: Motion No. 46 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 43. Motion No. 47 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 48 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 45. Motion No. 49 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 46. Motion No. 50 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 47. Motion No. 51 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 48. Motion No. 52 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 49. Motion No. 53 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 50. Motion No. 54 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 51. Motion No. 55 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 52. Motion No. 56 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 57 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 54. Motion No. 58 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 55. Motion No. 59 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 56. Motion No. 60 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 57. Motion No. 61 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 58. Motion No. 62 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 59. Motion No. 63 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 60. Motion No. 64 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 61. Motion No. 65 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 66 That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting the Schedule. She said: Mr. Speaker, thank you for accepting the amendments that the official opposition wants to make to Bill C-51 . These amendments did not come out of nowhere, and I will comment on that in my speech. After the Conservative government introduced Bill C-51 , we, the official opposition, took the time to do the work that the government should have done. We consulted the people and experts in various fields affected by this bill. Most of the Canadians who have been following the debate on Bill C-51 realize that is has some serious flaws.

We are not the only ones to have identified those flaws; many other members of our society have as well. These include important leaders in our first nations communities, eminent constitutional law professors, former Supreme Court justices, former prime ministers and community leaders. The Canadian Bar Association also testified before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security about the serious flaws in Bill C-51 . We have taken the time to study the bill, unlike the Liberals, who immediately said they would support it, even though it is a bad bill. The official opposition did its job.

We read the bill carefully and realized that we unfortunately could not support it. That is why today, after examining it rather closely in committee and consulting with a number of stakeholders and citizens, we must present these amendments. That is the most sensible thing to do, given that in committee we were told to go back to the drawing board. For my colleagues who were unable to attend, let me give a brief overview of the evidence we heard on Bill C-51 at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

There were nine committee meetings to hear evidence, including one with the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice . At the other eight meetings, the vast majority of the witnesses were there at the government's request, but there were also a few that appeared at the request of the official opposition or the third party. Forty-five of the 48 witnesses who appeared before the committee said we should amend Bill C-51 , or scrap it altogether and go back to the drawing board, and, as I said, most of the witnesses were there at the government's behest.

The Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister must realize that Bill C-51 is perhaps not the best solution. The right thing to do would be to listen to the official opposition and the various civil society stakeholders, go back to the drawing board and come back with real anti-terrorism legislation. Such legislation should not violate our rights and freedoms, the fundamental rights of first nations, or the right of various groups in civil society to protest, as Bill C-51 does, just to give a few examples. The opposition did its work in committee.

We examined Bill C-51 and heard from witnesses who identified its shortcomings. About a hundred amendments were proposed to Bill C-51 by the various opposition parties and they were debated for several hours, but we once again witnessed the Conservative government's lack of openness in that regard. One after the other, each of the amendments was rejected, often with no explanation from the government. It was likely simply because they were not proposed by the Conservatives. Three amendments were adopted, but they were minor amendments proposed by the Conservatives.

We are therefore not surprised at the government's blatant failure to listen during the committee meetings. We heard extremely important testimony and time was limited. As a result, many witnesses appeared at the same time. We often heard from three or four witnesses in one hour, and unfortunately, we had very little time to ask them questions and continue the debate with them.

(1020) I did not want to send Bill C-51 to committee. I would have preferred it if we had scrapped that bill and all of the parties had worked together to come up with something else, a good collective response to terrorism and radicalization. Unfortunately, that did not happen. We proposed amendments in committee in good faith. We heard from excellent witnesses from all sides. The Conservatives did not listen to them at all. They really should have listened, because I am not sure that Bill C-51 will even stand up in court, which is fundamental when a government proposes a bill.

Unfortunately, the Canadian Bar Association and eminent professors who are extremely knowledgeable about constitutional law came and explained that to us. In fact, I asked them directly whether Bill C-51 was constitutional. The answer was a categorical no. Large parts of Bill C-51 are not at all constitutional and will not stand up in court. It is a government's primary duty to get legal opinions confirming that the bills it introduces are constitutional. That is fundamental, but Bill C-51 is not even constitutional. The members opposite did not do their job properly.

There was talk of the need to provide law enforcement agencies with new tools, but a number of the RCMP and police services representatives that we talked to told us they already have the tools they need to deal with terrorism. The problem is with resources. They do not have the resources they need. The RCMP set aside almost 200 criminal cases in order to assign all its officers to tackling terrorism. There is a serious lack of resources right now, but we do have the tools we need to take action and deal with terrorism.

When the budget was presented to us this week, nearly two months late, I was hoping to at least see a decent allocation for fighting terrorism. I saw that it was included in the budget and I looked at the amounts. To my great surprise, no money was allocated at all. For the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the envelope is a little less than $300 million over five years. Before 2017, these agencies combined will get less than $20 million to deal with terrorism.

This is a drop in the bucket and an insult to the work of our police services. They are being squeezed and are forced to move their staff in order to do the work being asked of them. Now, this budget is giving them peanuts for their work. When a government claims that it is there to protect its communities, cities and the entire country, to serve its citizens and protect national security, it must turn words into action. It has to allocate the necessary money. It has to provide the money and give it to our law enforcement agencies so that they have the means to act.

That is not in Bill C-51 or in the 2015 federal budget tabled by the Conservative government. I am extremely disappointed with the government's lack of leadership and its failure to take seriously the fight against terrorism and radicalization. There are a lot of holes in the Conservatives' botched approach. For example, it would have been productive for the Conservatives to propose measures against radicalization. Various stakeholders have talked about this. Efforts are being made to counter radicalization in some of our regions and communities, and this work has even been adapted in the United States.

That is the first suggestion. The American government is currently working very hard on devising a national strategy to combat radicalization and is achieving some success. Communities are working with law enforcement agencies on a national strategy to counter radicalization. Quite frankly, we should have followed that fine example. The NDP suggested it at the outset. Unfortunately, once again, I cannot support Bill C-51 as proposed by the Conservative government. That is why the amendments moved today by the official opposition are so important.

(1025) We have to go back to the drawing board, draft a bill together, ensure that we have a national strategy to counter radicalization and stop terrorism once and for all. [ English ] Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I will admit that I do enjoy working on the committee with my colleague from the NDP. I do notice she took a little side slap at the Liberal Party. That is fine, that is politics. In reality, the Liberal Party on this bill is the only party in the House of Commons that has a responsible and reasonable position. We are trying to find the balance on both sides.

On the one hand, the government does not care a smidgen, it seems, about the civil liberties of Canadians. On the other hand, the NDP does not seem to care a smidgen about the public safety of Canadians. There is a place where this Parliament can find balance. Some are in the NDP amendments, as they were in the Liberal amendments. We did have quite a number of witnesses. Although the majority of witnesses had concerns about the civil liberties side of the issue here, they also recognized that there need to be some measures and provisions to ensure the national security and public safety of Canadians.

My question to the member this. Does she not see what those witnesses who indicated that there is a need for greater public safety and national security provisions said? Does she not agree that what they said was important? Why do the New Democrats not seem to care about that side? I know they care about national security, but their position is strange. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : Mr. Speaker, if there is one party that has a strange position on Bill C-51 , it would unfortunately have to be the third party in the House, for several reasons.

When Bill C-51 was introduced, the Liberal leader claimed that he had concerns—before he had even read it—but then immediately said that he would vote in favour of the bill. The Liberals are giving the Conservatives a blank cheque. Why? Because at the time, the majority of Canadians supported the bill. However today, two-thirds of Canadians reject Bill C-51 .

Furthermore, what intrigues me the most about the Liberals' position on this, aside from the fact that they use the polls to form their opinion on Bill C-51 or to decide on any position they may take, is that as it stands right now Bill C-51 will not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have some questions that I would have liked to ask my Liberal colleague. I hope he will make a speech so I can ask him the following question: why do the Liberals want to vote against the charter by supporting a bill as flawed as Bill C-51 ? (1030) [ English ] Mr.

Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent discourse and her hard work with respect to this difficult situation. As she mentioned, even the Conservative witnesses who were called opposed this bill, and the vast majority of the witnesses were called by the Conservatives. It is passing strange what we have heard from the Liberals. The Liberal leader is an example and we have to make mention that the only reason he was voting for the bill is because he was worried that the Conservatives would use his opposition to the bill in a future campaign against him.

That is what he said. Those are not our words, they are his, and the polling at the time was supportive of Bill C-51 . I have seen many bills pass through this House in my 11 years, but I have never seen a bill for which constituents were coming to me mentioning the number and the name of the bill and suggesting that we need to do everything we can to stop it. My question is very direct.

What exactly is it today that the NDP are trying to do in order to stop this terrible attack on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as has clearly been demonstrated by former Supreme Court justices, former prime ministers, and virtually every security and constitutional expert that we were able to hear from? [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley , who raised some very important points. What we are trying to do with respect to Bill C-51 is a matter of principle.

We are a party of principles, and nothing could make us vote in favour of a bill that violates our rights and civil liberties as much as Bill C-51 does. We are people of principle. Early on, the polls did not support our position, not at all. We stood up anyway. Our leader, a very principled man, stood up and decided that, no, we would not support something that is an attack on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an attack on our fundamental rights. Frankly, this is partisan politics. This is putting partisanship before principles, which we will never accept.

We will not get involved in the Conservatives' game or the Liberals' when our rights and civil liberties are being attacked. I am proud to stand up today with my caucus colleagues to once again support the amendments we are proposing. The government needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a solution that works for all Canadians, instead of introducing a botched bill like Bill C-51 . Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues.

Not only is Bill C-51 appalling, it is also dangerous. [ English ] I want to pause for a moment, because this is not an ordinary debate, this is not an ordinary bill, and this is not about politics anymore. This is about the soul of the country and whether we understand what Canada stands for, for ourselves and what we represent around the world. We just bowed our heads in prayer. The Supreme Court is taking a look at bowing our heads in prayer, and we may be visiting that some day. However, we just, through the words of the Speaker, prayed that we make good laws and wise decisions.

If we meant that prayer and then passed Bill C-51 , our words would be blasphemy, because this is not a good law, nor is it wise. The story the Prime Minister would like to have Canadians believe about this law is that in this place, some members of Parliament, the ones in the Conservative Party, want to protect Canadians from terrorism, and other members of Parliament—namely Greens, New Democrats, the Bloc, and Independents, and I certainly hope in future the Liberal Party will come to its senses and join us—who will vote against Bill C-51 , do not care about security.

Certainly in the course of clause-by-clause, various Conservative members of that committee actually said what a shame it was that the Green Party was willing to “privilege” the rights of terrorists over the those of Canadians, I think were the words used. That is the story Conservatives want Canadians to hear, to think that we are so concerned about rights and freedoms and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and civil liberties that we would turn a blind eye to the threat of terrorism.

The bill was initially launched at a campaign style rally in Richmond Hill, Ontario, and not in this place, something we are becoming all too familiar with as sort of a routine contempt of Parliament. The Conservatives launch big initiatives and laws outside of Parliament, with cheering crowds and campaign banners. When this was first launched, the Prime Minister said, “Violent jihadism is not a human right; it is

an act of war”. It is an extraordinary thing to say, as if anyone had ever suggested that violent jihadism was a human right. It set up a frame in which those of us who oppose Bill C-51 are somehow associating ourselves with violent jihadism. In response to that torqued campaign rhetoric, we have the words and the advice of some of the country's leading constitutional, legal, and operational security experts in relation to this notion of

an act of war. We have the words of professors Craig Forcese from the University of Ottawa and Kent Roach from the University of Toronto, who said: “False analogies between crime and war can contort law”. We need to look at this bill, which is an omnibus bill of five different sections, five different laws, thrown together and rushed through Parliament and rushed through committee, and ask this question: Does this make us safer? I ask my colleagues not to fall into the trap of saying it is civil liberties versus protecting us from terrorism. Does the bill make us safer?

Does it actually confront terrorism in a fashion that makes Canadians safer? Then we can have a discussion about whether we are willing to make compromises about civil liberties because the bill will make us safer. We see how cleverly the Conservatives' spin puts us wrong-footed before we even begin. The assumption is that the bill makes us safer, and I want to spend most of my time this morning at report stage to persuade as many colleagues as I can that the bill is dangerous because it makes us less safe.

There are the losses of civil liberties the bill represents, the violations of privacy, and indeed, the most unprecedented, anti-constitutional, anti-democratic provision in any law that has ever come before this place, a law to allow a CSIS agent, in a secret trial before a judge, where the only evidence presented would be from the government, and the existence of the hearing would never be known to the public, to get a warrant to violate our Constitution. It is astonishing. It would be a constitutional breach warrant. However, let us look at the question of whether the bill would make us safer?

(1035) After the rush of witnesses through the House, they began the hearings in the Senate. Before we have completed our review of the bill in this place, and here we are at report stage, the other place has already begun its review. I think some of the most powerful testimony yet on Bill C-51 came up in the Senate from a British security expert who has worked as a liaison officer within the Canadian security establishment. In other words, he is an operational spy. He has worked for MI5 in security, and he has worked in Canada as a liaison officer with Canadian security.

He is an expert in what we need to do to make us safer, which is to find and stop terrorist plots. His name is Joe Fogarty. He introduced himself to the Senate, and I have his testimony before me, from which I will quote. He said, “The question I was asked to address was why it appeared to be the case that the relationship between the police service and MI5 in the United Kingdom was so close, with such easy sharing of information and with such a consistently strong outcome in terms of arrests, prosecutions and convictions in national security cases”.

In contrast, since 2001 in Canada, there have been 30 terrorism-related arrests,

whereas in the U.K., there have been some 2,000, and these figures do not include Northern Ireland. It could just be that we do not have very much terrorism activity here, but it could also be that we have set up silos, with security services and police operations, which do not work with each other and actually can trip each other up. In that sense, Mr. Fogarty gave further testimony, which I found quite shocking. He said that this is all on the public record but is not that easy to find. These examples were put forward.

These are recent: “CSIS discovered the location of a suspected terrorist training camp inside Canada.... it decides not to tell the RCMP about it”. Here is another example: “CSIS realized that the RCMP was following the wrong targets. So having identified certain people who are believed, by that stage, to be threats to public safety, realizing that the RCMP was following the wrong people, CSIS decided not to say anything”. This evidence from Mr. Fogarty, which I will come back to, is directly relevant to testimony the House of Commons committee heard.

John Major, former Supreme Court Justice, who chaired the Air India inquiry, pleaded with the committee not to pass the bill in its current form and not to pass it without oversight.

Part 4 of the bill would create for CSIS new powers of disruption, and as I mentioned earlier, would allow it to get a warrant from a judge to break domestic law and to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, nowhere in Bill C-51 are CSIS agents required to share information with the RCMP. Now, we will hear from Conservatives that we should not worry, because

part 1 of the bill is all about information sharing. Yes, the words “information sharing” are used, but they are not about sharing information between CSIS, Canada Border Services Agency, CSEC, and the RCMP. Those are the four different agencies that are collecting information and have a role in disrupting terrorist plots, but there is no oversight. There is no pinnacle command. There is nobody watching what each entity is doing, and there is no requirement to share information. On the contrary, we have set up a system where there are disincentives to sharing information. Mr.

Fogarty testified very clearly that in the U.K., due to a law that was passed back in 1996, a situation was created under that legislation that “all national security material is afforded third-party status in criminal proceedings as a matter of statute”. With that assurance, in the case of the U.K., the police work with MI5. In Canada, we do not do that. Our current system lacks any oversight. I cannot say that clearly enough. We have a review committee in SIRC, but that is not oversight.

Here we have a situation where a security expert came before Parliament and to the Senate committee and said: “At the minute...with the greatest of regret, if you continue with the situation in which your security intelligence agency is reluctant, for very good reasons, to share with your law enforcement team, this is the equivalent of sitting on top of a tragedy waiting to happen”. He went on: “I was asked this question a number of years ago....

I was asked to have a look at which bits of the Canadian operational relationship I would incorporate into the U.K. because, as liaison officers, you were very acquisitive and looking for best practices all over the world.... with the greatest of respect, I wouldn't incorporate a single aspect of it, at the minute, because it's dangerous”.

(1040) Here we are being told by the Conservatives and the Prime Minister that we must accept a bill that would trample on the Constitution, trample on our rights and freedoms, and violate our privacy rights because it would make us safer. Here is the big lie: it would not make us safer. It is dangerous. It would make us less safe. It would create circumstances in which CSIS and the RCMP operate in silos. That led to the Air India disaster. I plead with my colleagues to reject this bad law. Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I was pleased to hear my friend and colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands refer to my former political science professor and others, but aside from that, I take umbrage with much of what she said. The bill is designed to bring our government up to the level of other western democracies. It is modest in the changes it would make, given the threats we as Canadians confront. I would ask two questions. First, I would ask if my friend has to be confronted personally by a knife-wielding terrorist for her to understand that the threat really is out there and that Canadians need to face it.

Second, why would she oppose a bill that seeks to bring judicial overview of the kinds of measures we are looking at as opposed to the executive approval used in other democracies, which is much less cumbersome and unwieldy than judicial oversight?

(1045) Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, my friend from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country misunderstands if he thinks that I said in my speech that I do not take terrorism seriously. I take it seriously. The Conservatives do not, because they have put forward a bill that would create a situation in which we are less safe. As for the specific circumstances of the words “judicial oversight”, let us be clear. This bill does not contain a single element of judicial oversight.

It would allow a CSIS agent to go to a judge and obtain a warrant, but would that judge have the overview and oversight to continue to monitor the way that warrant is used? No other modern democracy, none anywhere, would allow a judge in a secret hearing to give a warrant to violate the Constitution. It is unheard of in the democratic world. It is unheard of period, and Parliament should not stand for it. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. She raised some very serious objections related to the dangers of Bill C-51 .

When the Standing Committee on Finance was studying terrorism financing and in related conversations, I had the opportunity to talk to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Daniel Therrien. He confirmed the impression I had that some federal agencies and departments affected by the bill, such as the Canada Revenue Agency, could end up freely sharing information from individuals' tax records. Mr. Therrien said that was indeed the case. Can the member elaborate on other examples of information sharing allowed by this bill that would be excessive or potentially inappropriate? Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my colleague. I myself was appalled when I found out that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada had not even been invited to appear before the committee. I know that because I was there when the NDP members tried to invite him. What are we to make of the intentions of a government that prevented the Privacy Commissioner of Canada from testifying? It is clear that this bill is dangerous and will violate Canadians' rights. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the Liberal Party has indicated that one of the biggest omissions from this legislation is parliamentary oversight, something we believe is absolutely critical. However, we recognize that there is some value to the legislation. Even the New Democrats have indicated that if they were elected to government in the fall, they would not repeal the act. Does the member see any value in the legislation? Is there any valuable aspect of the legislation she thinks would be of benefit to Canadians? Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, there is virtually nothing.

The one thing in here that would be of value would be the ability to stop someone from boarding a plane. On the no-fly list right now, it is restricted to people who pose a danger to the flight, as opposed to someone seeking to leave Canada to join foreign fighters. Other than that, this entire bill is so bad that neither opposition party in this House, should they ever form government, should imagine that it could be fixed with amendments. I hope that the horror of this bill will not pass in this place.

I still think that if the Liberals were to vote with the rest of the opposition parties that there are enough Conservatives of conscience that this would not pass. However, if it does pass, after the next election it must be repealed, and then the small change to the no-fly list could be made. Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a privilege to have the opportunity to speak with respect to Bill C-51, anti-terrorism act, 2015.

As we have seen in Canada, the new national jihadist movement has declared war, and Canadians are being targeted by those terrorists simply because they hate our society and the values it represents. It does not matter what the opposition may say and what members may say, it is a present reality. It is a fact, and we only need to look back over the past number of weeks at the terrorist attacks in Ottawa, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, as well as attacks upon Australia and Paris, to see that the threat of radical Islamic extremism is a very real threat that needs to be dealt with, that needs to confronted.

I do not need to mention that here in this House we were not only witnesses, but were directly involved with events that took place. That certainly shattered the innocence of this House and many Canadians. I think it struck a chord with Canadians that someone has to do something, has to take some immediate steps to address what is happening. We need to be sure that the law enforcement agencies and other agencies have the tools they need to deal with this new situation. It was interesting. The first speaker misspoke by saying initially that the agencies needed “the tools”; then she said “I meant to say the funds”.

They need the funds, and we have provided for those funds. More important, we need to be sure as legislators that we provide the tools to the law enforcement agencies and other agencies that have to deal with the security of Canadians. These threats are real. They require a strong response and strong action.

That is why, under the strong leadership of our Prime Minister , our government took action and brought forward the protection of Canada from terrorists act and the anti-terrorism act, 2015, which take steps to protect Canadians against jihadi terrorists who seek to destroy the very principles that make Canada the best country in the world to live. When the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands says that the bill does not in any way enhance our security and protection, that simply is not so. I will certainly point out in the course of my discussion of the bill that indeed it does do that very thing.

Canadians understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand. Canadians expect us to protect their privacy, to protect their freedom, but also to protect them. There are protections in this legislation to do exactly that. The fundamental fact is that our police and national security agencies are working to protect our rights and freedoms. They are not working against us; they are working against the terrorists. We have to remember that these are jihadi terrorists who endanger our security and take away our freedoms in a very fundamental and barbaric way.

Providing national security agencies with new tools will ensure that gaps in sharing information about suspected terrorists does not limit their ability to prevent attacks on or against Canadians. We, as politicians, do not enforce the law, but we do have the duty and responsibility to make sure that law enforcement agencies, security agencies, have the necessary tools to keep Canadians safe. Canadians expect no less.

Canadians want to be sure that we are confronting the terrorists, confronting the danger to us in the best we can, and that those in positions of authority who have to do that have the tools and resources. It is a coming of age for Canada to file a comprehensive anti-terrorism bill in the face of terrorism threats and activity. This is activity that has already taken place. It is my view that there is no more fundamental role for a government than to protect its country and its people.

In today's world of global travel, sophisticated communications, and the use of Internet, it is timely and appropriate for the government to get up to speed and to ensure that we have the ability to counter, disrupt, and, where possible, eliminate the threat of terrorism and the threat that may be imminent to Canadians. This is especially so when activities that undermine the security of Canada are often carried out in a clandestine, deceptive, or hostile manner, and are increasingly global, complex, and sophisticated.

They often emerge and evolve rapidly, and we need to be sure that our security forces can also adapt and react rapidly and do what we need to do to counter those threats.

(1050) The proposed legislation is therefore timely, and provides the tools and flexibility to keep pace with evolving threats and better protect Canadians. The legislation would criminalize the advocacy for promotion of terrorism in general, and would give the courts authority to order the removal of terrorist propaganda online. That is a sensible thing. Most Canadians would expect them to have the ability and power to do that.

As a member of Parliament, I find it remarkable that we have to date not had specific legislation to authorize the sharing of information between government institutions having to do with the security of Canada and ensuring that the threshold to do so is not unduly onerous. How is it that we have a government department that has to do with security that does not share that information with another department that has to do with security? For anyone to say that to allow them to do that is somehow not helping to better protect Canadians, I do not understand where they are coming from.

With respect to air travel, it is only reasonable to be able to screen and prevent individuals from boarding an aircraft if they pose an immediate threat. There are provisions to give the minister certain powers to do that. Surely that is a direct protection of Canadians. The legislation allows the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to not only gather information, but to intervene and disrupt terror plots while they are in the planning stages. If it can gather information and know there is a plot but not disrupt it, are Canadians safer? Of course they are not.

If we know there is a plot, we do what we can to disrupt it. We make sure that our security agencies have the ability to do that. That would indeed make Canadians safer. Canadians expect that much. They expect our governments to ensure that our agencies can do that. Of course, it does not give CSIS the power to enforce; that is left to the police. The legislation would also enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to detain suspected terrorists before they can harm Canadians. The ability to detain those who might harm me, anyone in the House, or any Canadian, is a fundamental ability.

That is an obvious positive thing in the legislation. The legislation would enhance the ability for law enforcement agencies to detain suspected terrorists before they can harm Canadians. It would ensure that a recognizance can issue, with conditions, in peace bond provisions. Judges can require persons to surrender their passport or not leave the jurisdiction. The legislation would lower the threshold to obtain a recognizance with conditions in circumstances where a peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that a terrorism activity “may” be carried out, as opposed to “will” be carried out.

It is lowering the threshold. He must have reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism activity “may” be carried out as opposed to “will” be carried out, and actions would be taken. For the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands , I would point out that this specific legislation would indeed protect Canadians. Under one threshold that recognizance may not be issued; under this threshold, the recognizance would be issued and would prevent a dangerous event from happening that would harm an innocent Canadian.

It also replaces the requirement that a recognizance is “necessary to prevent” with the words “is likely to prevent”. Anyone who knows that something is “likely” to prevent ought to take steps to ensure that it is prevented. It is a lower threshold, but it is there for the purpose of protecting Canadians, not for the purpose of protecting terrorists. It would also allow for an increase in the period of incarceration from three days to a possible seven days, with periodic judicial review. The need for these types of provisions is very obvious. It is a coming of age for Canada and Canadians as a whole.

I am sure most Canadians would say that it is about time we tackled terrorism head-on, not watching on the sidelines, not hoping that someone will look after us, but actually putting legislation in place that will protect us, that will enhance the security and protection of Canadians. I think all Canadians expect us to do that, and I would ask the opposition to get behind the bill.

(1055) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain will have five minutes for a period of questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members (1100) [ English ] Goldman Environmental Prize Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House today, within the same week in which we celebrated Earth Day, to mark the accomplishments of some global leaders, real eco-heroes around the world, who is in this week received the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize. These prizes are given out annually. They are significant awards.

They recognize heroism, grassroots work, often people who are fighting for change in their communities in very difficult situations, in which they face threats to life and limb. We celebrated one of those heroes many years ago when Colleen McCrory, from the Kootenays, won the prize for her work in British Columbia in protecting the wilderness. Another British Columbia has been nominated and has received the award this year.

My congratulations go out to the former chief of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation, Marilyn Baptiste, who has received global recognition for her work in fighting the proposed gold and copper mines that would have destroyed Fish Lakes. Congratulations.

The Budget Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2015 is great news for the people of Mississauga—Streetsville. First, our government has tabled a balanced budget. We are increasing the annual contribution limit to a tax-free savings account to $10,000. We are supporting seniors by reducing the minimum withdrawal requirements for registered retirement income funds. We are introducing the home accessibility tax credit to help with renovation costs so seniors and disabled persons can live independently and remain in their homes.

We are increasing and expanding the universal child care benefit and introducing income splitting that benefits every single family in Mississauga—Streetsville with children. Members of the Streetsville Business Improvement Association will benefit from a reduction of the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019. We are creating the public transit fund and providing over $5 billion per year for infrastructure through the new building Canada fund. People in Mississauga—Streetsville are better off because of this Conservative government.

Canadian Legion Branch 4 Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 2015 marks the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Ypres. This Sunday I will again be participating in the commemoration of this important event. As always, this remembrance ceremony will be hosted by Canadian Legion branch 4, in Verdun. Legion 4 is the only Legion branch in Canada that steadfastly continues to remember the contribution and sacrifices of Canadian service members in this important battle. [ Translation ] Let us take a moment to remember those who risked their lives and fought to protect our rights and freedoms.

We must take care of our veterans by bringing in better measures to protect their health. [ English ] Veterans in this country fought for the freedoms we now hold dear. Let us in this House honour their spirit and sacrifice by protecting those freedoms, for if we sacrifice those freedoms out of fear, then what did they fight to protect? Lest we forget.

Children's Day Celebrations Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on Apri1 23, 1920, the national assembly of the Turkish republic was established. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the Turkish republic, dedicated April 23 to the children of the country because they would be the future of the new nation. Turkey's children's day showed the world the importance he placed on the health and education of young people. Years later, UNICEF decided to recognize April 23 as International Children's Day.

Since 1979, National Sovereignty and Children's Day in Turkey has been celebrated with guest children from around the world. They are housed in Turkish homes and interact with kids from other nations, and learn about each other's cultures. When these children participate in a special session of the parliament, a truly international assembly is formed, where children pledge their commitment to international peace and friendship. Turkish Canadians are rightly proud that their country of origin was the initiator of the world's first national children's holiday.

Children's day in Canada is celebrated with numerous multicultural children's activities and events that focus on our children, our future.

National Day of Remembrance and Action on Mass Atrocities Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the fifth anniversary of the unanimous adoption by this House of a resolution establishing a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Mass Atrocities, of which the worst is the crime which name we should even shudder to mention: genocide. Today, we mark the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, as last week we observed Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. Yesterday also marked the 67th anniversary of the State of Israel, born out of the ashes of the Holocaust.

It is sometimes said that if there had not been a Holocaust, there would not have been a State of Israel, but it is the other way around. If there had been an Israel, there might not have been a Holocaust or the horrors of Jewish history. Yesterday was also the birthday of former prime minister and Nobel Peace Laureate, Lester Pearson, who was an early advocate for the establishment of a Jewish state and in whose memory the resolution was established.

May I close, in his memory, with the biblical prayer: [ Member spoke in Hebrew , as follows: ] Oseh shalom bimromov Hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol Yisrael v'imru amen. May God, who establishes peace on high, grant peace for all of us in the State of Israel. Amen.

(1105) World Meningitis Day Ms. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, meningitis is a serious infection caused by inflammation of the lining around the brain and spinal cord. It can strike any time and within hours, and it can result in lifelong disability or death. Meningitis Relief Canada was established in 2012 with a vision to improve the lives of individuals and families afflicted by the complication of meningitis by providing means to heal and rebuild.

Last December, Meningitis Relief Canada shared beautiful images by world-renowned photograph Anne Geddes of children around the world affected by meningitis. It opened my eyes, and those of my colleagues, to how serious this disease is and that we can do more to raise awareness and prevent it. Today is World Meningitis Day. I ask everyone here to recognize World Meningitis Day and let us all work toward sparing the heartache of losing one more loved one to this devastating disease.

[ Translation ] Scientific Heritage Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the federal budget was an opportunity for the Conservatives to repair the damage they have done to science since forming a majority government. However, we see that the Conservatives have not changed their formula. They keep promoting industrial research to the detriment of basic research. However, between 2006 and 2014, Canada went from ranking 16th to 22nd among the 34 OECD countries in terms of business investment in research and development, which means that the Conservative strategy is not even working.

The Conservatives closed a number of research institutes, which are a treasure trove of knowledge in Quebec, including the francophone scientific library at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute. They also jeopardized funding for other institutes such as the Mont-Mégantic observatory. I am working hard in Ottawa to counter the Conservative government's short-sighted vision. The NDP understands the importance of preserving our scientific heritage.

[ English ] Armenia Mr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today marks the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, perpetrated by the Ottoman empire between 1915 and 1923. After 100 years, it is now widely accepted as the first genocide of the modern era. In Canada, our Parliament, in 2004, acknowledged the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemned this act as a crime against humanity. In 2006, the government affirmed this resolution that the 1.5 million Armenians who died during those years were in fact subjects of the genocide.

All across Canada today, and in my riding of Don Valley East , Canadian Armenians are holding commemoration ceremonies to mark this tragic event in history. On this solemn anniversary, I recognize the great work of the Armenian Genocide Centennial Committee of Canada, an organization that unites Canadians and Armenians right across our great country.

Second Battle of Ypres Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second battle of Ypres, which started 100 years ago on April 22, marks a pivotal moment in Canadian military history. Ypres was a battle of firsts for Canadians. It marked the Canadian Expeditionary Force's first significant engagement of the First World War and, despite the horror of the first chlorine gas attacks, adversity was turned into triumph at Kitcheners' Wood, which marked Canada's first victory on European soil.

Treating the wounded and dying at Ypres inspired Canadian physician Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae to pen the poem In Flanders Fields , which, to this day, urges us to remember this sacrifice and to hold the torch of remembrance high. Today, and every day, we honour those brave Canadians who fought and died during the second battle of Ypres. We hold high that torch of remembrance for all who have sacrificed in the struggle for enduring peace and freedom throughout the world.

(1110) Armenia Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today marks the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. A century ago, the world stood silent, while more than 1.5 million Armenians were killed. In recognizing this terrible event 11 years ago, the House passed a motion to acknowledge the Armenian genocide of 1915 and to condemn this act as a crime against humanity On this 100th anniversary, we again remember the suffering of those men, women and children, and mourn their loss. This dark period of our history cannot be forgotten.

Nor can we look aside from the ongoing suffering of countless other atrocities and crimes against humanity around the world. Today, we join with thousands of Canadians of Armenian origin to remember the victims of this tragedy and to recommit to protecting fundamental human rights and dignity for all. Together, we stand united. [ Member spoke in Armenian ]

Taxation Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Brampton—Springdale are concerned about the Liberals' new mandatory pension payroll tax that could force a family of two workers in the home to pay as much as $3,200 per year. This is what Liberals consistently do: force Canadians to pay higher taxes. We know the Liberal leader approves of the plan to raise payroll taxes. Our government does not believe in forcing Canadians into a single compulsory one-size-fits-all approach or reaching into the pockets of hard-working, middle-class Canadians and reducing their take-home pay.

Under our government, there will be no mandatory job-killing, economy-destabilizing or pension tax hike, not for employees, not for employers. We will continue to support the vital small business sector, the creation of jobs and growth with our low-tax, balanced budget.

Canada-U.S. Border Security Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the friendship of the communities of Stewart, British Columbia and Hyder, Alaska represent the best of our friendship with our American cousins. The towns are interwoven and deeply connected. However, on April 1, the Conservative government decided to close the vital border crossing between Stewart and Hyder for eight hours a day, cutting off these two intertwined communities, one from the other.

The Conservatives did not consult with the local community or businesses and the government admitted it would not even save any money by this action. The local businesses in the region have been clear that it will cost jobs in tourism, mining and other pillars of that small community. If the situation does not sound ridiculous enough already, last week the state of Alaska voted to offer to pay Canada to keep the border open 24 hours a day. When it comes to respecting our friendship with the United States and protecting the jobs and safety of northern communities, the Conservatives are an embarrassment.

The people of Stewart and Hyder deserve better. Conservatives must change this idiotic decision, but rest assured, a New Democratic government will come through for the people of Stewart and Hyder when we form government a little later this year.

Taxation Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I urge the NDP to actually read the budget, because this week the Minister of Finance tabled a great budget for middle-class Canadians. It is a balanced budget, just as we promised, and it cuts taxes for Canadians, just as we promised. For example, the new family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit will benefit 100% of families with kids, including in NDP ridings, the vast majority of these benefits going to low and middle-income families.

The Liberals and the NDP will take this away and raise taxes on small businesses and workers. Under our government, there will be no mandatory job-killing, economy-destabilizing, pension tax hike, not for employees and not for employers.

Alasdair Graham Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, with heavy hearts, we note the passing of a great Nova Scotian. The Honourable Alasdair Graham was an inspiration to so many people in Nova Scotia, across Canada and around the world. Born and raised in the coal mining town of Dominion on Cape Breton Island, he never forgot where he came from. A champion of Liberal International and president of the Nova Scotia Liberal Party and in the Liberal Party of Canada, he served in the Chrétien government as leader of the government in the Senate and regional minister for Nova Scotia.

Throughout his career in radio, at Devco and in parliament, he was a voice for the downtrodden and disenfranchised, a voice for social progress. He had a deep love of his family and took great pride in their achievements. He delighted to be with them, and our hearts go out to them. Al Graham was full of stories and jokes and fun and laughter. He was full of life. Goodbye my friend. He will be missed.

(1115) Rouge National Urban Park Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in 1972, the then Trudeau Liberal government seized thousands of acres of class 1 farmland in my community, separating farmers from the lands they had farmed for generations. Yesterday was truly an historic day as the Governor General provided royal assent to the Rouge National Urban Park. It is a great day.

In 2008, I promised to find a way to reverse what the Liberals had done to farmers and yesterday we did that, thanks to the hard work of the Minister of the Environment and other members of Parliament on this side of the House. This park will guarantee our farmers the right to farm with long-term leases. It also creates a national urban park for the first time under a model which can be used not only in Canada but globally. In creating this park, we consulted with over 150 municipal, provincial and aboriginal partners, and we took over 15,000 comments.

The park will have the highest level of protection it has ever had, which far exceeds the protections the current provincial Liberal government gives. I am so proud of the work we have done to get this done and I am proud of the community that made this park a reality.

[ Translation ] Ethics Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Mike Duffy's journal reads like a bad crime novel: it contains corruption, scandal and a failed attempt to hide Duffy's dubious lobbying of Enbridge managers. However, the Conservatives have always had a tendency to give a free ride to leaders of major corporations. As was the case with the last budget, they are again attacking the most vulnerable by taking $2 billion from the unemployed instead of making CEOs contribute by limiting their ability to pay themselves with stock options.

In any event, it is of no consequence to the Conservatives: they will pass the burden on to our children and grandchildren. Our children deserve better. They deserve a Canada where no one is left behind. That is what Canada will get in October 2015. Their parents and grandparents will vote for the only party that stands up for families: the NDP.

[ English ] Taxation Mrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my constituents of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar were very pleased to see our Conservative government continue to lower taxes for Canadians with our balanced budget. Families all across Saskatchewan are looking forward to receiving the benefits from the family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit. These benefits will leave 100% of families with kids with more money in their pockets. The Liberals and the NDP would take this away and raise taxes on small businesses and workers.

Under our government, there will be no mandatory job-killing, economy-destabilizing pension tax hike, not for employees and not for employers.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] The Budget Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it seems the finance minister let the cat out of the bag the other day that this budget will take billions from working families and give it to the wealthy few, leaving a massive burden for future generations, but the Prime Minister said that consequences be damned; who cares if our grandkids have no money for health care, roads or pensions. The Conservatives are determined to funnel money to the wealthy no matter what the cost.

Why do they think hard-working Canadians should pay more so that their insider friends can pay less? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our family benefits will help 100% of families across Canada with kids, with the vast majority of the benefits going to low- and middle-income Canadians. There are 11 million Canadians who have a tax-free savings account, with the vast majority of accounts belonging again to low- and middle-income earners.

The Liberals and the NDP want high taxes on middle-class families, high taxes on middle-class seniors, and high taxes on middle-class consumers. Our Conservative government is lowering taxes on the middle class and lowering taxes for all Canadians. Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Conservatives have a no-tax plan for the wealthy and everybody else has to pay for it. They have a TFSA time bomb that funnels billions to the richest. They have kept loopholes to let CEOs skip out on millions in taxes.

They have an income-splitting scheme that rewards the wealthy, but does nothing for 85% of Canadians, yet the Conservatives have failed to invest even a cent in affordable child care. Why are the Conservatives proposing a budget that passes along the costs of their election promises to our children and grandchildren? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are proud to introduce a balanced budget and a plan for job creation and economic growth while keeping taxes low.

Thanks to our low-tax plan, the average Canadian family of four now has an extra $6,600 in their pockets every year. Here is what the opposition is not telling people: The Liberals and the NDP want high taxes on middle-class families, high taxes on middle-class seniors, and high taxes on middle-class consumers. That is their plan: higher taxes for the middle class. Our Conservative government is lowering taxes on the middle class and lowering taxes for all Canadians.

(1120) Ethics Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, while their budget was a most blatant example of electioneering, let us remember what the Conservatives are really trying to hide from: questions about the Prime Minister 's appointment of Mike Duffy to the Senate. Senate appointments are the sole responsibility of the Prime Minister , not someone else, as the parliamentary secretary keeps incorrectly claiming. Could the parliamentary secretary explain how the Conservatives could be the only people in Ottawa that did not know Mike Duffy lived in Ottawa? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question on a number of occasions. The member is quite right, though, in the sense that it is only the Conservatives who understand how hard Canadian families work. That is why we are putting more money back in their pockets with the policies that have been brought forward by the Minister of Finance . At the same time, the New Democrats could help.

They could help by repaying the $2.7 million that they illegally used to fund illegal offices in Montreal, offices that they said they were creating in Ottawa with employees who actually lived in Ottawa. However, we know that was a lie because they actually lived in Montreal and worked in Montreal, against the rules of this House. They should pay back the $2.7 million they owe the taxpayers. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Constitution states that for a senator to be appointed, “He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed.” That is a requirement that the Prime Minister has a duty to verify, since he is the one who appoints senators. However, we know that did not happen, since Mike Duffy has lived in Kanata, Ontario, for years. What, exactly, made the Prime Minister think that Senator Mike Duffy was indeed a resident of Prince Edward Island? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I have already said, the constitutional practice on this has been clear for almost 150 years. It is also clear that it is against the rules of the House to use taxpayer money for partisan purposes. There are 68 NDP members who used taxpayer money in violation of the rules of the House, and I encourage all NDP members to do the right thing and repay taxpayers. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the more the Conservatives avoiding answering, the more Canadians have questions about this affair. It is rather simple.

Either the Prime Minister was not aware of Duffy's place of residence—which shows that he really did not do his job—or else he was aware, in which case he should not have appointed Mike Duffy as a senator for that province. How does the Prime Minister explain his appointment of Mike Duffy as a senator for a province in which he did not even reside? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I have answered that question many times. [ English ] At the same time, as I just mentioned, there are 68 members of the NDP who owe Canadian taxpayers $2.7 million. The member who asked this question owes Canadian taxpayers over $29,000 in illegal money that was funnelled to an illegal office in Montreal, against all of the rules of the House. The NDP might think that is funny. I can assure them that Canadians taxpayers do not. Canadian taxpayers would rather have the $2.7 million in their pockets as a result of their hard work, and not in illegal offices in Montreal. I suggest that the NDP pay it back.

The Budget Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the finance minister made it clear to Canadians that Conservatives only care about short-term political gain when he said that the TFSA increase for the rich will be paid for Canada's next generation, and “why don't we leave that to [the Prime Minister's] granddaughter to solve”. The cost will rise exponentially by tens of billions of dollars a year for both the federal government and the provinces. Why are the Conservatives mortgaging the future generation, instead of building a plan for jobs and growth? Mr.

Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are proud to leave more money in the pockets of Canadians, which is good for future generations. The TFSA is the most popular savings vehicle since the RSP was introduced, with 11 million accounts and growing, the majority of which are for low-income and middle-income earners. The Liberals want high taxes on middle-class families, high taxes on middle-class seniors, and high taxes on middle-class consumers. That is their plan: high taxes on the middle class.

Our Conservative government is lowering taxes on the middle class, and we will not apologize for helping Canadians save for their future.

(1125) Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in addition to saddling our future generations with a multi-billion dollar mortgage, the Conservatives are funding this change by taking $32,000 from the poorest and most vulnerable seniors by raising the OAS age from 65 to 67. Why are the Conservatives taking money away from low-income seniors and giving even more to high wealth households? Why will they not help the middle class and those working hard to join it? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it is our Conservative government that has fought for seniors. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement by the largest amount in more than a quarter of a century. They voted against it. We have introduced pension income splitting for seniors. They voted against it. Economic action plan 2015 introduces even more support for seniors, such as the new home accessibility tax credit, more compassionate care benefits, and lower required RRIF withdrawals. They want to raise taxes on seniors. We are putting money back in the pockets of Canadian seniors. [ Translation ] Mr.

Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, increasing the TFSA limit will mainly benefit the richest Canadians and will impose a heavy tax burden on future generations. That is not fair or prudent. Canada is facing many challenges: an ageing population, a stagnant economy, a shortage of quality jobs and crumbling infrastructure. We must not mortgage our future and create problems for the Prime Minister 's granddaughter to solve. Why is the government favouring the richest Canadians by mortgaging our children's future? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, nearly two-thirds of Canadians who contributed the maximum amount to a tax-free savings account earn less than $60,000. The Liberals think that everyone who earns $60,000 or less is rich and that they need to raise those people's taxes. That is the Liberals' position. We support taxpayers and seniors, and we are going to let them save more money without having to pay taxes on their earnings.

Government Advertising Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us talk about another Conservative mess. A government ad promoting the apprentice loan program shows workers committing a wide range of serious violations of workplace health and safety standards. Now the Conservatives want to spend $7.5 million to promote their election budget at taxpayers' expense and with faulty advertising. Will the Conservatives stop wasting taxpayers' money on partisan advertising that is full of misleading information and depictions of health and safety standards being violated? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is funding apprentice grants. Why? Because we will need one million skilled workers over the next seven years. We are giving out grants and loans to apprentices to prepare them to fill those jobs. The New Democrats do not believe in the skilled trades and oppose these investments. We will create jobs by training our young people in those trades.

[ English ] The Budget Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we actually think health and safety is important for the workplace and Conservatives cannot even get that right. They are spending $7.5 million in advertising for a snake oil sales job on a budget that leaves Canadians behind and the Minister of Finance has admitted the truth that our grandchildren will be saddled with the fiscal problems of billion dollar handouts to the wealthiest few. Meanwhile, the number of out-of-work Canadians applying for EI benefits has surged, but fewer and fewer are being accepted.

Why do the Conservatives think that helping the wealthy buy a second BMW is more important than helping Canadians and parents put food on the table?

(1130) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, New Democrats think anybody who makes $60,000 a year is too wealthy. Sixty per cent of those who have maximized their tax-free savings accounts earned less than $60,000 a year. Two-thirds of those who have maxed out are seniors. These are people who are taking money from their RRSP and putting it into their tax-free savings accounts so that they can have a tax-free nest egg to live on. These are middle- and lower-income seniors and the NDP wants to raise their taxes.

[ Translation ] Regional Economic Deveopment Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the Conservatives are placing a major burden on the shoulders of future generations. The Conservative budget is a disappointment to Quebec, the regions and families. The Conservatives are unilaterally reducing the growth of health transfers to Quebec, and infrastructure funding will be both delayed and insufficient. In addition, the Conservatives are making further cuts to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

Is regional economic development not a priority for the Conservatives? Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is continuing to help all regions of Quebec with their economic development. We are a privileged partner of choice, and we would like other partners, such as the NDP, to vote for our budget, which will support many economic development projects in Quebec in the future.

[ English ] Labour Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, with soaring rates of youth unemployment many young Canadians are being pressured into taking unpaid internships in hopes of one day landing a job. Under the Conservatives' watch, thousands of interns have been left without basic workplace protection. After finally committing in the budget to take action to protect interns, Conservatives then voted against my private member's bill, the intern protection act. Why are handouts to the wealthy few put on the fast track while rights for vulnerable workers are put on the backburner? Hon. K.

Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask the member opposite if she is supporting the budget, because we are supporting interns. Economic action plan 2015 specifically outlines for interns in federal jurisdiction, regardless of the pay they receive, occupational health and safety benefits. Please, just read the text. We are very focused on making sure that people are safe and productive in the workplace. In addition to that, we are also focused on making sure Canadians have jobs which New Democrats are also against. We are for lowering taxes.

They are for heightening them on middle-class Canadians. The facts are that we are doing things to make sure workplaces are safe, productive, and individuals are making funds. The NDP totally opposed all those things. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government talks a good line, but its actions do not measure up. The youth unemployment rate is double the national average. Too many young people are accepting unpaid internships because there are no jobs available.

In their last budget, the Conservatives promised to do something about that, but they voted against my bill to protect interns. Does the government really intend to act, or will it leave those problems to the Prime Minister 's granddaughter to solve? [ English ] Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned what is in economic action plan 2015. Our government knows that internships in particular can provide important learning experiences so people get that first job. We are focused on making sure internships are available.

They have been available in our previous budgets and would be available in this one. In fact, we have created 1.2 million net new jobs since the downturn of the recession, through numerous mechanisms. The New Democrats are against those things. In addition to that, we are about lowering taxes, ensuring middle-class Canadians and even those students getting an income have lower taxes. The New Democrats want to heighten taxes on every Canadian.

[ Translation ] Status of Women Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, while the Conservative government is putting billions of dollars into the pockets of the wealthiest Canadians, we find nothing in its latest budget to support women, nothing to provide them with support in their careers, such as affordable child care, nothing to ensure that they get pay equity. With income splitting, this spring the Conservatives told women to stay at home; now, with their budget, the Conservatives are not giving them any other option.

Why is the government doing nothing to help women? [ English ] Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in the budget there is a new action plan for women entrepreneurs, again creating new jobs. That is what we need to do, create new jobs. We know that when women lead a company they actually hire more women, again creating more jobs. Let alone, the universal child care benefit which would actually benefit every mother and every father by ensuring they have a benefit. That is unlike the plan that the NDP put forward.

We are about supporting families, particularly women, ensuring they have great jobs. The New Democrats vote against it every time.

(1135) Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this budget would take no action on violence against women, pay equity or child care. There would be nothing to empower women to make those choices. Women are more than half of the university graduates, but when they graduate they will earn 10% to 30% less than men. Women need access to child care, to proactive pay equity, freedom from violence and strong federal leadership on gender equality. Why did the budget help the wealthiest few while ignoring half of Canada's population? Hon. K.

Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the economic action plan specifically focuses on issues with sexual harassment in the workplace, ensuring women are protected there, as well as a number of initiatives that we have moved forward on to make sure we are supporting victims of crime. About job creation, there there would be a new action plan for women entrepreneurs, creating jobs. They in turn create more jobs, particularly for women. I encourage the member opposite to read the budget.

We are about making sure jobs are created, taxes are lowered and Canadian women are supported through the universal child care benefit. They vote against these things every single time.

Public Service of Canada Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in this budget the Conservatives showed once again they have no respect for public servants. How can they claim to be bargaining in good faith with the public service on sick days when they are already declaring what the outcome will be? That is not good faith, that is not respecting the process and it is not negotiation. Why does the minister show such disrespect for the public servants who work hard every day for all Canadians? They work hard for him and they work hard for the current government every day.

Why is there such disrespect for public servants here in Ottawa and across the country? Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to having good faith and meaningful negotiations with bargaining agents on sick leave and the short-term disability plan. The proposed disability plan would give public servants the comprehensive safety net that they need while protecting taxpayers who pay the bill. This is a win-win situation. [ Translation ] Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, with their budget, the Conservatives are already banking on saving $900 million on public service sick leave and disability benefits this year even though no agreement has been reached with the unions. The President of the Treasury Board maintains that he wants to negotiate in good faith, but does he realize that he is doing exactly the opposite through his actions? Is he purposely derailing the negotiations with public servants who are working hard to provide us with top-quality services? [ English ] Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, again, the government is committed to good faith and meaningful negotiations with bargaining agents on sick leave and the short-term disability plan. The 40-year-old sick-leave accumulation system is antiquated and not responsive to the needs of the majority of our employees. Over 60% of employees in the core public administration do not have enough banked sick leave to cover a full period of short-term disability. That is why the government is proposing a short-term disability plan that would help public servants get healthy and back to work.

Again, we are looking out for the taxpayer and we are looking out for our employees. This can be a win-win for everyone.

[ Translation ] Government Advertising Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, intimidating charities was not enough for the Canada Revenue Agency. Now it is campaigning for the Conservatives. Under the guise of requesting to confirm information it already has, the CRA is sending out mail to promote Conservative policies that have not even been approved here in Parliament yet. Canadians are no fools. Rosemary Ronald is not happy that this money is being spent on partisan letters. Why are the Conservatives using tax dollars to campaign? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the notice the government sent to parents indicates that Parliament voted twice in favour of increasing the universal child care benefit to almost $2,000 for every child under 6 and $720 for every child between 6 and 17. The Liberals do not want parents to know that this money is available because they want to take that money away and hand it over to big bureaucracies. We are putting that money directly into mom and dad's pockets.

[ English ] Veterans Affairs Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, veterans' benefits must also be an issue the government wants to leave to the Prime Minister 's grandchildren. First, the Conservatives claw back $1.1 billion from veterans affairs so they can dole it out in inadequate portions later. Then they deny that firing 900 front-line workers was badly impacting veterans, despite their own department's warning, until they were forced to rehire a small fraction of them. Now the Conservatives announce new financial benefits, but will not cover PTSD. Why are Canada's veterans always an afterthought for these Conservatives?

(1140) Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, how untrue. Economic action plan 2015 not only benefits all Canadians, including low- and middle-income Canadians but also veterans. Let me give some examples. Within this economic action plan is the new retirement income security benefit, which provides moderately to severely disabled veterans with a monthly income support payment beginning at age 65.

There is also the family caregiver relief benefit, a new benefit for caregivers, and the critical injury benefit, which provides a $70,000 tax-free award to support those Canadian Armed Forces personnel who experience a sudden injury. Will this member support our veterans by supporting our economic action plan? That is the question. Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, those benefits cut them from a $60,000 pension to a $27,000 pension, and back to $42,000. Why do they not get their full $60,000 pension?

Veterans suffering from latent long-term symptoms of PTSD are also excluded from VAC's new injury award under Bill C-58 . Even the Veterans Ombudsman acknowledges it does not go nearly far enough in supporting injured veterans as it will affect only a handful of former service members each year, and none with PTSD. Why are the Conservatives so stubbornly refusing to present a plan that will honour our sacred obligation to veterans and all their families? Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, this member really needs to start following the exciting new initiatives that we are delivering for our veterans. He should be aware that we are expanding and opening nine new mental health injury clinics to support our veterans and their families all across Canada. I mentioned, in this economic action plan, the family caregiver relief benefit, which provides eligible veterans with a tax-free annual grant of over $7,200 to ensure that the veterans' needs are met. That is going to support the family.

Will this member support our veterans by supporting this economic action plan that has so many excellent measures for our veterans and their families?

Agriculture and Agri-Food Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Ontario farmers are worried because avian flu has been confirmed on a second farm in Oxford County, and the quarantine now stretches into the Waterloo Region. This is the second major outbreak of bird flu in Canada in the last six months at a time when Conservative cuts have decimated the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It has lost 300 employees while 54 positions in animal health remain unfilled. What is the government's plan to contain the outbreak and protect the poultry industry?

Will the Conservatives reverse their destructive cuts to CFIA? Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, testing has confirmed that H5 avian influenza is on a number of farms in Ontario. We are working closely with the province, industry and producers. CFIA has placed the farms under quarantine, and has established appropriate control zones in accordance with international protocols. CFIA will continue to keep the public informed of developments through its technical briefings.

Employment Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Mario Martinez Diaz came to Canada as a temporary foreign worker. His employer repeatedly broke the contract Diaz had signed before coming, including changing the job description and the wage, but has his employer had his labour market opinion revoked? No. Has his employer been put on the blacklist? No. So much for getting tough on abuse of the program. Why do the Conservatives always promise reforms and then fall into the same old patterns of neglect when the media spotlight fades? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our position on the temporary foreign worker program is that Canadians should always come first for Canadian jobs. That is why we brought in massively increased inspections. We have brought in severe penalties and fines for those who break the terms and conditions of the program. We have capped the number of temporary foreign workers in low-wage sectors that a business of more than 10 employees can have at 10% of the workforce.

This ensures that employers will go out and hire Canadians and pay fair wages so that our working people always get ahead.

[ Translation ] The Environment Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the North is another file that is suffering because of the Conservatives' incompetence. Canada is preparing to hand over the chairmanship of the Arctic Council among controversy and accusations that the Minister of the Environment has politicized the council. Let us hope that the United States will be able to repair the damage done by this government. What does the minister have to say about such accusations that undermine co-operation at the council? (1145) [ English ] Mr.

Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is proud of the initiatives we put forward during our chairmanship of the Arctic Council, and we look forward to the meetings in Iqaluit. The Arctic Council is an intergovernmental forum for co-operation on sustainable development and environmental protection issues. It does not deal with matters related to defence and security, as members know.

However, the fact remains that no other government in Canadian history has done more to stand up for our Arctic sovereignty than this Conservative government. Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the question is: If the government is so proud, why has it cancelled the planned showcase of Canada's accomplishments when it comes to the Arctic? In fact, we heard from the minister from Nunavut that it was cancelled because of “...the challenges of everything happening all at once”. The documents show that the meeting was cancelled because of direction from senior levels of the Canadian government.

Can the minister confirm that the meeting was cancelled because the Conservatives expected to be embarrassed by their own failures in the north? Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie, CPC) : Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Arctic Council is very important for Canada. Obviously we have a very important role to play. The chairmanship over the last two years was led very ably by our Minister of the Environment .

I would also say that the Arctic Council is an important forum for us to discuss a variety of issues, including Arctic sovereignty and Canada's claims on sovereignty in the Arctic. We are backing that up with strong investments in the Arctic. We are making sure that our voice is heard at the Arctic Council.

The Budget Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Minister of Finance tabled our government's balanced budget and low-tax plan for jobs and growth. On this side of the House, we believe in helping families and giving them back more of their hard-earned money. Can the Minister of Employment and Social Development please tell this House what budget 2015 does for Canadian families? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have good news and bad news.

The goods news is that economic action plan 2015 expands and extends the universal child care benefit. For every child under six there is $2,000 and for every child six through 17 there is $720, regardless of the family's income or the child care they choose. Now the bad news. There are 200,000 Canadian families who have not yet signed up to receive this benefit from our Conservative government. They have exactly one week until the deadline to sign up and receive the first installment of this increased and expanded benefit.

I strongly encourage people to go to Canada.ca/taxsavings to get the money that they deserve.

Canada Post Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians have made it very clear that they are opposed to the Conservative cuts to our postal service. Yesterday, protesters even followed the Prime Minister to Winnipeg to condemn the cuts to home delivery that so many Canadians rely on. Canada Post made millions in profits last year, which just underlines how wrong the Conservatives were to cut home delivery. Will they now do the right thing for our communities and halt their reckless cuts to our postal services? Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that Canada Post is an arm's-length Crown corporation, responsible for its own business decisions, especially its five-point plan. As the member will know, Canada Post delivered 1.4 billion fewer letters last year than in 2006. That trend continues to decline. Two-thirds of Canadians currently do not receive door to door. Canada Post has made a decision that in order to save daily mail, it will do so according to its five-point plan, and the member should support that. [ Translation ] Ms.

Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, two years ago a report commissioned by Canada Post forecast losses of $250 million in 2014. However, this year, Canada Post posted a profit of $300 million. That is a half-billion-dollar mistake. Canada Post used the report to justify ending door-to-door delivery against the advice of 500 municipalities, including Terrebonne. Will the minister admit her mistake and put a stop to Canada Post's plans? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, in 2014, Canada Post delivered 1.4 billion fewer letters than in 2006. Two-thirds of Canadians do not have door-to-door delivery. Canada Post must balance its budget without imposing a burden on Canadian taxpayers, and we would expect nothing less.

(1150) Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government keeps repeating that Canada Post is an organization that makes its own decisions and that the government has nothing to do with it, but that is false. The government has a responsibility to listen to Canadians. Canada Post based its decision on an erroneous report. More than 500 municipalities are asking it to start over. Seniors, people with reduced mobility and SMEs are losing access to essential services. When will the minister assume her responsibilities and stop this plan that makes no sense? [ English ] Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is an independent Crown corporation. It operates at arm's-length from the government. It has a CEO and a board of directors. They make the decisions on its operations. Canada Post has a five-point plan precisely because it is delivering 1.4 billion fewer letter mail pieces in 2014 than in 2006. It has a responsibility to operate well into the future fiscally without being a burden to taxpayers. We expect it to do that.

[ Translation ] Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the lobster-fishing season in the Magdalen Islands is scheduled to begin on May 9. However, yesterday, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans published contradictory administrative notices that are mandatory for some fishers but not for others. The department is requiring fishers to complete a logbook every time they go out to sea, a logbook that is filled with questions that have nothing to do with species management. Why will the minister not grant a reprieve to allow for real consultation? [ English ] Hon.

Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the department is in discussion with the association and the province, and will consult lobster fishers on this matter. We will continue to work with our partners to get agreement on a way forward. However, increasingly consumers demand traceability of their food products and industry certification demands additional information from the industry.

Ethics Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Mike Duffy trial, it was revealed that an expense claim for makeup services in 2009 was rejected by Senate finance officials as not parliamentary business. That being the case, could the government explain how makeup services were then paid by the Senate in 2010 through Duffy's slush fund, including those services used by the Prime Minister ? Will the government conduct a broad inquiry to determine what other government or Conservative Party expenses were also forced on to the back of the Senate? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, these types of expenses are not passed on to taxpayers. That is an unfortunate question coming from a member who was accused of living expenses that were inappropriate. I do not understand why the Liberals would have him ask this question. They should have the member for York West ask it. No, the member for York West could not have done it. The Kings—Hants promised to pay back $40 million so it could not have been him. Maybe it could be the member for Vancouver Centre .

No, the member for Vancouver Centre has illegal campaign debt, so I guess it does fall on him to ask this question. Hearing the Liberals talk about ethics is like listening to people talk about Sasquatch. We hear a lot about it, but we just never see it.

[ Translation ] Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the transfer of snow crab fishing licences. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal has already ruled in favour of Cyrenus Dugas, a crab fisher from New Brunswick. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2013. However, the case is back before the courts once again.

Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans follow the example of her predecessor and wait for the outcome of this case before she gets involved in the transfer of that licence to P.E.I. fishers Peter and Adam Gaudet, or will she respect the court of appeal's decision, which was upheld by the Supreme Court? [ English ] Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this issue has spent considerable time before the courts, and I can assure members that DFO's decision will be guided by court decisions and by DFO policies. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : My apologies.

We skipped a slot there, so we will go back to the hon. member for Malpeque .

(1155) Ethics Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's answer to the previous question I would suggest should have been stated outside, but it does show what kind of a makeup artist the parliamentary secretary really is. Surely, when the Prime Minister uses a makeup artist, any makeup artist who is given the kind of close access to the Prime Minister would have to go through an RCMP background check. Everything would be documented. It was found that there were expenses made illegally through the Duffy slush fund in 2010.

Will the government come clean and tell us how much it has cost taxpayers for the Prime Minister 's blush, makeup and hairspray? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, taxpayers do not cover these expenses. When it comes to blush and hairspray, I suggest he ask the Liberal member of Parliament for Mississauga—Brampton South . I think she would have much more knowledge of that. Again, when it comes to the ethics of the Liberals, I understand why they are having such trouble.

Again, the leader of the opposition could ask that question but, of course, he accepted money when he was giving speeches to unions, churches and school groups, when he should have been in here, doing his job as a member of Parliament. I guess there is a limited number of MPs on that side who can actually talk about ethics. We will continue to do the right thing. We will continue to provide the assistance to the Crown. If Mr. Duffy is found guilty, he should suffer the consequences of that.

Canada Border Services Agency Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on April 1, in the form of some cruel joke, the Conservatives shut down the border crossing between Stewart, B.C. and Hyder, Alaska for eight hours every day. The two remote communities share emergency services that will now be closed a full third of the time. Local tourism, mining and other business community leaders say that this is a disaster for the local economy. It has become so absurd that the Alaska State legislature recently voted unanimously to offer to pay Canada to keep its border open.

This has become a ridiculous yet dangerous problem. When will the minister stand and reverse this idiotic and irresponsible decision? Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on ensuring that our shared border is secure, while easing the flow of legitimate travel and trade. We are investing in border infrastructure to support this objective, including new lanes at the busiest crossings. The port of entry that the member is speaking about has fewer than 10 travellers who pass during non-peak hours.

It is simply not feasible to pay a highly trained border services officer to stand at an unused border crossing. Additionally, in cases of emergency, contingency plans are in place to allow smooth passage through the border in non-peak hours.

Public Safety Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Omar Ahmed Khadr is a convicted murderer. Under the direction of jihadist terrorists, he killed army medic Sergeant Christopher Speer. He left Tabitha Speer without a husband. He left Taryn and Tanner Speer without a father. The media is reporting that this terrorist will now receive bail and will be out on our streets. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness please update the House on our government's position on this outcome? Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the Yukon for his work in public safety. We are very disappointed with this decision, and I am here to say that we will appeal. Omar Ahmed Khadr pleaded guilty to heinous crimes, including the murder of American army medic Sergeant Christopher Speer. We have vigorously defended against any attempt to lessen his punishment for these crimes.

While the Liberals refuse to rule out special compensation for this convicted terrorist, and the NDP actively tries to force Canadian taxpayers to compensate him, we believe that victims of crime, not the perpetrators, are the ones who deserve full compensation.

Pensions Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Cape Breton seniors, like many across the country, have been left out in the cold by the Conservative budget. Eighty-two-year-old Minnie Piercey, who lives in a seniors apartment complex and is president of the North Sydney seniors and pensioners club stated, “I can't see anything in it for seniors unless they have $50,000 or $60,000 stashed away in a bank”. Like many other seniors she finds it hard to go month to month, let alone save. Why are the Conservatives taking from the poor seniors and giving to the rich? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how the Liberal Party can conclude that a senior who earns under $60,000 is rich. It is pretty rich coming from the Liberal Party, which wants to raise taxes on those seniors. This is how it works. When seniors take money out of their RRSP, they put it into tax-free savings accounts. They have a nest egg they can use to draw income to pay the monthly bills. We want to take taxes off that nest egg. That is what the tax free savings accounts do.

They give most of the benefits to people earning less than $60,000 a year, people on whom the Liberals would raise taxes.

(1200) Taxation Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, while our government has balanced the budget while lowering taxes, both opposition parties would reach into the pockets of hard-working, middle-class Canadians and reduce their take home pay with a forced CPP hike. My constituents in Mississauga—Streetsville are concerned with the new Liberal pension payroll tax that could force a family of two workers to pay as much as $3,200 more per year. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please inform the House of our government's view on a mandatory expansion of CPP? Mr.

Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there are many other options, voluntary options, tax saving options, that we have enhanced to help people save. What we will not suggest is raising taxes on workers, claiming it is for their own good. Under our government, there will be no mandatory job-killing, economy-destabilizing pension tax hike, not for employees, not for employers. Our government is focused on reducing taxes on the middle class, not increasing taxes like the Liberals and the NDP would do.

Justice Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, the government has spent almost $5 million fighting 15 losing court cases, including over $1 million trying to defend minimum mandatory sentences and abolishing early parole eligibility. Why does the Minister of Justice insist on wasting taxpayer dollars on expensive litigation after routinely ignoring internal Department of Justice advice that his proposed legislation is almost certainly not compliant with the charter? Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it is worth noting that while the government at any given moment is involved in some 50,000 litigation files, about 85% of them are not initiated by the government. I would also note for the hon. member that in the majority of these cases the government has been successful. We remain committed to defending the rights of Canadians and to ensuring their hard-earned tax dollars are spent efficiently and effectively.

Employment Insurance Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, budget 2015 predicts a $3.6 billion employment insurance surplus, which the government is using as a revenue source in order to balance its budget. However, the number of Albertans applying for employment insurance benefits rose by a startling almost 30% in February. Now that the EI surplus has been depleted, how will the government fund the anticipated spike in employment insurance claims? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our policy is that the employment insurance account should balance over the median term. For example, during the recession, it was in a deficit. In the subsequent years the account pays back that deficit. As a result, we are able to reduce EI payroll taxes by about 20% in the year 2017. Now, the Liberals and the NDP want to raise those payroll taxes to fund a 45-day work year; that is to have people work only 45 days and then collect EI for the rest of the year. That would be expensive. It would drive up taxes and kill jobs. We will not let that happen.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Foreign Affairs Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs , pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaties entitled “Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the State of Israel on Air Transport”, done at Jerusalem on January 21, 2015, the “Agreement on Social Security between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China”, done at Ottawa on April 2, 2015, and the “Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Burkina Faso for the Promotion and Protection of Investments”, done at Ottawa on April 20, 2015.

An explanatory memorandum is included with each treaty.

Senate Speaker Pierre Claude Nolin Tribute The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : It is with great sadness that we mark the passing of Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, the Speaker of the Senate. [ Translation ] Our thoughts and prayers are with Senator Nolin's family and friends and the entire Senate community at this time of great loss. The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons .

(1205) Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that we learned today of the passing of Senate Speaker Pierre Claude Nolin. He was a real gentleman with true character.

He was a strong Quebecker who was proud to be Canadian. [ English ] Speaker Nolin was a strong and clear voice, dedicated to serving Quebeckers and all Canadians, and he did so as a member of the upper chamber for over 21 distinguished years. [ Translation ] During his time in the Senate, he contributed to numerous committees covering a broad range of issues, including legal and constitutional affairs; foreign affairs and international trade; national security and defence; and banking, trade and commerce.

After having been unanimously elected Speaker pro tempore of the Senate in 2013, he was appointed Speaker of the Senate in 2014. A strong supporter of the military, Senator Nolin was a member of the Cercle des Honoraires of the Régiment de Maisonneuve since 1995, becoming an honorary lieutenant-colonel of the regiment in 2012. In 2014, he was also named a Commander of the Order of Saint Lazarus. [ English ] Speaking in a personal vein, I first came to know P.C. Nolin, as we commonly called him, as a political organizer.

He was very much an organizer's organizer, the best kind, and by that I mean one who was determined above all to deliver victory. In 1984, he was a key player on the team that did just that for the Conservative Party in Quebec, restoring and reviving the party in a province where it had languished since the First World War. The result was a positive one, which made our country stronger. As a senator, P.C. Nolin was serious and diligent in what he saw as the important duty of the Senate: to test and scrutinize the legislation we send over there.

A Conservative minister heading to the Senate to testify on a bill might have thought that Senator Nolin, as a proud partisan and a good team player, would give that minister an easy ride. Such a minister was in for a surprise. As I experienced first-hand, friendship and partisan ties were set aside and replaced with a higher duty. Senator Nolin would probe to ensure that a minister was truly master of the legislation presented. Then he would unerringly test the vulnerabilities of a bill and obtain the reasoned assurances that any proposal truly and genuinely reflected the public interest.

He was ensuring through his work that the Senate of Canada performed the diligent task envisioned for it when Sir John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier, and the other Fathers of Confederation built the structures of our new country and a century and a half old parliamentary democracy that endures successfully today. [ Translation ] We wish to express our sincere condolences to his wife, Camille, to his three children, Simon, Louis and Virginie, and to his grandchildren, as well as to his entire family, friends and colleagues in the Senate.

As the Prime Minister said, Pierre Claude Nolin is now part of that small group of persons whose life and example have enhanced the institution they served while contributing to the common good. His distinguished service to the upper chamber and to our country will be remembered and honoured. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this morning we were deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, a great gentleman who devoted his career to public life and who served Parliament and the public competently and with dedication.

The Leader of the Opposition , who sent a statement earlier, my caucus and I are thinking of his family and friends during these painful moments. (1210) [ English ] Ironically, I first met Senator Pierre Claude Nolin outside the Senate, on a panel for the 1997 election campaign on election night. His charm and his friendly manner impressed me right from the beginning. Earlier today I was upstairs in the parliamentary cafeteria and the sadness of the staff there when they learned of his death is a real testament to how he was appreciated on Parliament Hill.

He was appointed to the Senate in 1993, and then to the role of Speaker only last November. Senator Nolin spent his entire life involved in politics and the betterment of his community and Canada as a whole. Over the years, Senator Nolin became well known and respected for his fierce independence and disregard for partisanship on matters of importance to him. So esteemed was he by his colleagues that they unanimously chose him to be the Speaker of the Senate. Although he was a loyal Conservative, as my colleague has just mentioned, he voted often across party lines on a number of occasions.

Just to mention one, in 2002, he was chair of the Senate committee that called for the legalization of marijuana. He continued to oppose harsh penalties for marijuana possession throughout his career. [ Translation ] As my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst just reminded me, he was always a strong supporter of bilingualism in this country. As Speaker of the Senate, he was dedicated to being non-partisan in carrying out his duties and to doing everything he could to defend and restore the institution's reputation.

Transparency and accountability were the principles that guided his actions as an individual and as a parliamentarian. Last week, even as he was battling the cancer ravaging his body, Senator Nolin retained his lifelong good humour and determination. [ English ] Senator Nolin fought a brave fight against a rare form of cancer which took him far too soon. His courage in his fight is an inspiration to all of us. [ Translation ] To Senator Nolin, his family and his loved ones, our thoughts and prayers are with you. Rest in peace, Senator Pierre Claude Nolin. You will be missed. Mr.

Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honour to speak on this occasion. We were all aware of Senator’s Nolin’s health problems but it still came a shock this morning to learn of his passing. It is a reminder that our lives are finite and our time on this Earth limited. The challenge is make the best possible use of the time we have. Senator Nolin used the time that he had to make a lasting contribution. He married and raised three children. I extend my most sincere condolences to his wife Camille and his children, Simon, Louis, and Virginie.

Senator Nolin was an influential advocate for the Acadian community in New Brunswick. He was a political organizer and played an important role in building both the Progressive Conservative party and the party that emerged from the merger of the PC Party and the Reform Party, the current Conservative Party of Canada. He was also an independent thinker. Notably he chaired the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, which recommended legalizing the use of marijuana in Canada. He also advocated for the rights of married same-sex couples to equal status in the courts of law.

These were positions that were controversial among some Canadians, including many within his own party. Nonetheless, as Senator Nolin himself remarked: I think it is much easier for senators to carry out their duties if they manage to reduce the influence of partisanship on their decisions. Each individual's free will is often a much better guide. Those are words we would all be wise to remember. Near the end of his life he took on the tough and thankless task of reforming the Senate so that it was more accountable and transparent.

Unfortunately that work remains to be completed, but it is a testament to senator Nolin’s character that he was entrusted by his peers with this responsibility. On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I express my condolences to the family and friends of Senator Nolin and I thank him for his contribution to our country. May Senator Nolin rest in peace. (1215) [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands rising on a point of order? Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : On the same point, Mr.

Speaker, I just wanted to add a few words to say that Speaker Nolin was a friend to all in this place, that his— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order. Before the hon. member proceeds, is there unanimous consent of the House for the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to participate in the statement by minister? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands . Ms. Elizabeth May : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the point that Pierre Claude Nolin took over as the Speaker of the Senate, I had the great privilege of being in this place for some time.

He was extraordinarily gracious. He was always a non-partisan face of welcome for those of us in the House of Commons who had occasion to be over in the Senate. The news of his illness, of course, had reached all of us some time ago, but his passing is still a tremendous shock. I just wanted to express on behalf of the Green Party and myself our deepest condolences to his family and those who are close to him. He was a great Canadian. He will be missed. [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : I now invite hon. members to rise to observe a moment of silence in honour of the late Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin, Speaker of the Senate. [A moment of silence observed]

[ English ] Committees of the House Natural Resources Routine Proceedings Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, in relation to Bill C-46,

an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act . The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Independence of the Judiciary Act Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) Bill C-669. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-669,

an act to amend the Criminal Code (independence of the judiciary) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the independence of the judiciary act, which would ensure that judges have the necessary discretion to impose principled and proportionate sentences tailored to the particularities of individual circumstances, individual offenders, and individual victims. Everyone in this House seeks to prevent crime and keep Canadians safe. Sometimes, however, measures intended to achieve these laudable objectives, which we all share, turn out to be ineffective, counterproductive, and unjust.

Such is unfortunately the case with the government's ever-increasing reliance on mandatory minimum sentencing provisions. As the Supreme Court said last week, “Empirical evidence suggests tha