2009-10-02

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 48(1) and (2), I am rising on a question of privilege for which I have given written notice to the Speaker at 8 a.m. this morning. It is relating, as I indicated in my letter, to a matter which disturbs me very personally and significantly because it is a matter which I believe is an attempt to intimidate me from discharging my duties as a member of Parliament.
Yesterday, during question period, I raised a question which had to do with the Minister of Natural Resources. It was a question which brought into question her actions and decisions to deliberately or knowingly put herself in a conflict of interest with regard to using a registered lobbyist to do political fundraising for her and, as well, to procure the resources and private information of the Toronto Port Authority for purposes of political fundraising.
In raising those points, which the Minister of Transport acknowledged were correct and that they were totally unacceptable, the Minister of Natural Resources made a rude finger gesture at me, in the middle of the question. It was distracting.
 I raise this because this is not just a question; for instance, there was the issue where the member for Nepean—Carleton and a couple of other members were shown on film making certain gestures which were unparliamentary and it was dealt with as a privilege issue. However, because it was in the context of many members, et cetera, nothing between two members or whatever, the matter resulted in just an instruction to members that these kinds of things are inappropriate.
However,--
Mr. David Anderson:  That's BS.
Paul Szabo:  Well, no. Mr. Speaker, the member just said this is BS, and this is a Conservative member for whom I have a great deal of respect, but this is the kind of intimidation of which I speak.
It is not just that someone, some person, did what some would refer to as flip the bird or give a middle finger gesture to someone in a random occurrence. 
Mr. Speaker, you must consider the point of time at which it was done and the context in which it was done. That gesture says much more than simply, “I don't respect you”. It says much more.
In fact, the issue here it this, and I could go through a number of the processes, but I do not want to take up time. I want to be direct on this matter with the House because what happened has concerned me and disturbed me very much.
I happen to be the chair of the standing committee on ethics. I have had some activity, in terms of ethical activity, which I know is not a good experience for the government. 
However, I was also in receipt of the direct evidence showing that the natural resources minister was in a conflict of interest and had breached the code of conduct for public office holders for ministers, parliamentary secretaries and other order in council appointees.
The minister also noted that I have called for investigations to be conducted by the Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Chief Electoral Officer. 
In the context of the things that I have to do, my duties and responsibilities as a member of Parliament, that gesture to me, at the time it was being raised and after it had been in the media, was a direct statement to me that the minister was contemptuous of my right to freedom of speech, which is constitutionally protected, to raise those matters in the House, to protect the interest of the House, and to raise these issues on behalf of all Canadians. 
It is a constitutionally protected right. My freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right.
I am afraid that this is an indication that any attempt that I make in my responsibilities, whether it be as chair of the ethics committee or as an ordinary member of Parliament, to seek to have investigations until the government takes action with regard to breach of conduct and failure to abide by the code of conduct for ministers, which has been put into law, will be challenged.
Let me conclude. I see that you have heard enough, Mr. Speaker, and I accept that. I want you to know that I am very disturbed by what happened. I am very concerned. I feel intimidated, I feel that my rights are being challenged and I am anticipating that this is going to continue while I try to discharge my duties.
I wanted to bring it to the House's attention at the earliest opportunity, which I have done. I can also indicate that the member for Oak Ridges—Markham, who is not in the House today, was a witness. I am sure there are others. He is not here today but will be prepared to rise in the House to confirm this.
Mr. Speaker, should you find a prima facie case of breach of my personal privileges or simply a breach of privilege, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a few points to make.
First, as we well know, a question of privilege is only relevant and should only be considered if in fact it impugns or interferes with the MP's ability to do his job. What the member is alleging in no way, in my opinion at least, would have any effect whatsoever on his ability to do his job as a member of Parliament.
Second, I would suggest that it is patently unfair to be raising this point now without the opportunity for the minister in question to respond. 
Third, and even more important, is the question that goes far beyond this. The member in question is the chair of the ethics committee. He has quite clearly stated his prejudice and bias in this matter that may come before his committee by his intervention today. There is absolutely no question that the member, as chair, will have no neutrality or impartiality if this issue ever comes before his committee.
I think the correct procedure for the member as committee chair is to recuse himself. He should admit he has a bias in this matter and to step down as chair. How in the world can any committee operate with a chairperson who has a bias for an issue that comes before that committee? It is absolutely impossible for the democratic process to work and for committees to work and function in such a fashion in which we can respect the rights of all members.
I would strongly suggest that the member give strong consideration, himself, to stepping down as committee chair if and when the issue of the Toronto Port Authority and the minister's fundraiser ever comes up. If he does not, he himself will be pointing out to all members in the House that the impartiality of committees and committee chairs is a joke. The member should take very close heed of my words.
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two points. First, the question of privilege raised by my hon. colleague is in fact serious and merits a serious look and examination by the Speaker. That is the first thing.
Second, the allegation or claim which has now been raised by the Conservative member that the Liberal chair of the ethics committee has demonstrated a bias is completely without foundation.
 The member has raised an issue that there are allegations of transgressions by a certain minister, the Minister of Natural Resources with regard to the code of conduct for public office holders with regard to electoral financing legislation and with regard to the Lobbyists Registration Act.
The government itself, through the Minister of Transport confirmed that in fact there were certain events that took place and that it was completely unacceptable.
For this member to call on the chair of the ethics committee to recuse himself should the matter of the conduct of the Minister of Natural Resources come before that committee is simply without foundation and without grounds.
When one speaks to allegations, that it is not evidence of any prejudice. It is simply a statement of fact that there are allegations, that certain acts did take place which were confirmed by the government Minister of Transport and that there are people who are concerned that these may be violations of certain legislation and certain codes, period.
The Deputy Speaker: I think I have heard all I need to hear on the question of privilege raised by the member for Mississauga South. I am not sure if there is a second point to be made here.
I see the hon. parliamentary secretary is quite keen to make an intervention. I will hear him, but I think it would be wise to move on to the next item before the House.
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I do want to respond to my hon. colleague who was basically challenging my interpretation of why the committee chair of the ethics committee should recuse itself.
I would point out that the member for Mississauga South, who is the chair of the ethics committee, is quoted in the Toronto Star as saying that the minister is clearly in a breach of ethics. In other words, he has made up his mind.
 One cannot be neutral or impartial if one has already been quoted, stating a decision. He has stated that there is a clear breach of ethics in his opinion. How in fact is that impartial?
 Quite frankly, the whole issue of a question of privilege is ludicrous. The freedom of speech of the member has not be curtailed, and that is the key element in determining whether there is a question of privilege. The reason his freedom of speech has not been curtailed is underscored by the fact that he has just made a demonstration that his speech has not been curtailed with his rant in this House.
Beyond the fact that his question of privilege is irrelevant and should be dismissed, the fact is that as chair of the ethics committee he has already been predisposed to an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the member in question.
 How in the world can he stay on as chair? I would suggest that he cannot. I would suspect that if he does not step down himself, committee members should deal with this expeditiously.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank all members for their interventions regarding the question of privilege. I will certainly take it under advisement and examine what evidence there might be from the House, and maybe invite the Minister of Natural Resources to make a comment on it. I think that is probably the best course of action.
I will examine what was argued here today by the hon. parliamentary secretary, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the member for Mississauga South. If necessary, I will come back to the House with a decision on those issues.
Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)Hon. Lawrence Cannon:  moved that Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the second reading of the economic recovery act. This important piece of legislation will implement key portions of budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan, along with other vital measures. There is no doubt that Canada's economy has been profoundly affected by the global economic slowdown, but Canada's economic action plan is getting results, stimulating the economy, protecting and creating new jobs. 
While we are still fighting the recession, one we must always remember was not of our making, we are beginning to see tentative signs of an economic recovery both here and abroad.
As Warren Jestin, chief economist at Scotiabank noted:
 Monthly job losses appear to have crested and confidence surveys suggest that consumers and businesses are becoming less negative about current conditions and cautiously more optimistic... 
 [Canada] was dragged fully into the global recession only when faltering emerging economies triggered a collapse in resource prices and export earnings...[and] the erosion in employment, housing activity and car sales has been less severe than [it has been] south of the border. 
 The bottom line--we will soon begin moving away from one of the most difficult economic setbacks experienced in our lives, but patience will be required because the road to recovery will be a long and winding one. 
Clearly, we must remember there is still more to do. We must stay on course. Doing anything else would be reckless and irresponsible. Indeed the goals of the measures included in the economic recovery act are to stay the course, maintain our competitive economic position today and build on it by laying the groundwork for the necessary stability to grow Canada's economy tomorrow, stability to ensure that when the global recession eases, Canada will exit in a stronger position.
My constituents in North Vancouver are concerned about the global economic slowdown and expect us to act. And we have acted. I am proud of this government's record. 
Later today, my colleague and a new member of the finance committee, the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, will outline a few of the highlights of this act, such as the home renovation tax credit, the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, and the enhancement to the working income tax benefit. These are benefits that I hear about as I speak with my constituents in North Vancouver. I hear how they are enjoying the benefits of the home renovation tax credit. Families as well as small businesses are benefiting.
First-time homebuyers in my riding are excited about the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, and I am proud to be part of the government that is working on behalf of all Canadians. During my speech I will review some of the important initiatives included in this act. Among them is one that will significantly improve government transparency and accountability while also fulfilling a promise that our Prime Minister made during the 2008 election campaign.
Last fall the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party pledged to make government more accountable for the use of taxpayers' money. As laid out on page 25 of our campaign platform, we promised Canadians that a re-elected Conservative government would require all federal departments and agencies to produce detailed quarterly financial statements.
 I am happy to report that through the economic recovery act, we are delivering on that campaign promise.
The act will amend the Financial Administration Act to require federal departments and crown corporations to prepare public quarterly financial reports and more importantly, make them available to the public. Quarterly financial reporting will ensure parliamentarians and Canadians are provided with greatly enhanced information on government spending. This will also help to ensure more timely and better oversight of government expenditures by parliamentarians and taxpayers so that expenditures are subject to regular, ongoing and necessary scrutiny.
Our Conservative government, the government that created the Parliamentary Budget Office and brought in the Accountability Act, believes that taxpayers' dollars are just that--taxpayers' dollars. We believe that respecting taxpayers' money and prudently managing it includes the provision of transparent and timely accounting of how taxpayers' money is spent. Currently, Parliament and Canadians are provided financial statements only several months after the end of each fiscal year.
Unlike the previous Liberal government, we believe that this is just not good enough. That is why passage of this act would require federal departments and crown corporations to provide quarterly financial reports on their activities, ensuring parliamentarians and Canadians have useful, up-to-date financial information that allows them to more quickly and accurately track spending.
One wonders what politician could possibly oppose the kind of transparency and accountability which our economic recovery bill would bring into force. Shockingly, the Liberal leader and his Liberal members, in an effort to force an unnecessary election, have pledged to vote against this bill and this landmark measure.
However, that is not the only key measure the Liberal leader and the Liberal members are voting against for no reason other than to force an election that no Canadian wants. The Liberals are also opposing key reforms to strengthen public pensions in Canada, reforms to the Canada pension plan, or CPP, that will allow increased flexibility in how Canadians live, work and retire, while ensuring CPP remains affordable and fair for future generations.
The Canada pension plan remains one of the most successful pension plans in the world. As Susan Eng of Canada's Association for the Fifty-plus, better known as CARP, recently declared, the CPP was the pension plan that survived the recent global economic downturn almost unscathed.
Through the CPP, Canadians are provided with a secure, indexed and lifelong benefit. The additional measures proposed in the economic recovery bill not only will help maintain the quality of the CPP but also will actually improve it for seniors during these difficult economic times.
I note that these reforms were unanimously agreed to by each and every federal, provincial or territorial government, governments of all political stripes such as the New Democratic government in Manitoba, the Liberal governments of Ontario and New Brunswick, the Progressive Conservative government in Alberta, and the list goes on.
As a point of clarification and for background, I note that the CPP is a jointly managed federal, provincial and territorial plan. Federal or provincial governments cannot unilaterally alter the CPP. Instead a joint review of the plan is required to be undertaken by federal, provincial and territorial governments every three years. The most recent review, concluded in May 2009, recommended the reforms that I will be outlining in my remarks today.
Furthermore, let me note that the recommendations flowing from that review were publicly announced in May. As well, a detailed information paper that explains the proposed changes and their impacts upon workers and employers in Canada is available to Canadians.
As previously mentioned, the reforms proposed in the economic recovery bill are intended to modernize the CPP to better reflect the many different paths people take to retirement today. These reforms will provide greater flexibility for older workers to combine pension and work income if they wish to do so, expand pension coverage and improve fairness in the plan's flexible retirement provisions.
 The reforms specifically include removing the work cessation test in 2012 so that a person may take his or her retirement pension as early as age 60 without the requirement of a work interruption or earnings reduction; increasing the dropout from 15% to 16% in 2012, and to 17% in 2014, a change that would allow a maximum of almost seven and a half years of low or zero earnings to be dropped from the contributory period; and requiring a person under the age of 65 who receives a retirement pension and continues working to contribute to the CPP, thereby creating eligibility for a post-retirement benefit.
As I mentioned earlier, the reforms I have outlined were publicly released in May and have already generated considerable positive feedback. 
An Edmonton Journal editorial from May welcomed the reforms, remarking that they will
 allow Canadians of a certain age to draw on their Canada Pension Plan benefits and still be allowed to work...the prospect that thousands will be able to discern a horizon when they can not only choose to be gainfully employed but also collect on a pension they paid into for years must come as some relief... 
 In fact, upon even the briefest reflection it seems odd that this rather simple case of fair play wasn't in force years ago...After all, what would we think if our private pensions were withheld or clawed back because we decided to pick up a job or two following official retirement? 
 As well, a nation rooted in liberty such as ours should never, ever build in disincentives for those who want to be engaged in productive work. That's simply antithetical to the story of Canadian enterprise. Another positive aspect of the proposed CPP amendments will allow those who are 65 or older and still employed to continue to contribute to the plan. 
 As well, citizens will be permitted to drop an additional low-earning year from the equation that calculates pension benefits. Those who decide to delay the start of their CPP income until age 70 will be further rewarded, with benefits pumped up to 42 per cent versus the current maximum of a 30-per cent increase for working longer. 
The Edmonton Journal editorial concluded by cheering what it labelled an “overdue update”, as it:
 ...reflects contemporary realities. Older Canadians are healthier than ever and getting even fitter. If they want or need to continue to make a material contribution to the nation's productivity, they mustn't be discouraged. 
However, that is not the only positive feedback we have heard. Jack Mintz, public policy professor at the University of Calgary, applauded them by saying, “the more flexibility you build into pension arrangements, the better”.
Finn Poschmann from the C.D. Howe Institute declared that they were: 
 ...an important shift in public pension policy...[t]he proposed adjustments mark an important sea change in government pension policy's approach to dealing with population ageing and, in particular, making it easier for those people who want to work later in life to do so. 
Clearly, the new measures will ensure that the CPP continues to address the needs of Canadians.
I would also note that this is only one example of how our Conservative government has been engaged in the important issue of pensions. Indeed, our Conservative government has been and is working hard on this issue, work that would be derailed should the Liberal scheme to force yet another unnecessary election on Canadians succeed.
Our Conservative government has already been engaged in a discussion with Canadians on pensions. In January we released a major research paper on federally regulated pension plans for comment, after which we conducted cross-country and online public consultations open to all. Based on the feedback we received from Canadians coast to coast, comprehensive regulatory changes to improve the federal pension framework are being drafted and will be released shortly. 
Also, we have long recognized the need to work with our provincial partners to examine the larger pension concerns facing Canadians. That is why we raised this issue at the annual meeting of finance ministers in late 2008, and earlier this year set up a joint federal-provincial research working group, with respected academic Jack Mintz as director of research to conduct an in-depth examination of retirement income adequacy. The  finance minister has already convened a meeting of his provincial and territorial counterparts for this coming December to discuss the findings of this important group.
 If members truly believe the future of Canadian pensions deserves attention, they will recognize our efforts and work with our Conservative government, support the economic recovery bill and not jeopardize it and plunge Canada into yet another election. While I doubt that the Liberal opposition will reconsider their obsession with forcing an election, Canadians should rest assured that our Conservative government stands with hard-working Canadians who want to be able to count on their pension plan for a stable retirement. We will take the steps required to make sure Canada's pension framework is strong.
The economic recovery act, with these important reforms to CPP, is a tangible demonstration of that. There is much more to the economic recovery act such as supporting farmers affected by severe weather as we extend important tax deferrals; ensuring dependability for public broadcasting by increasing the borrowing limit for the CBC, as requested by the CBC board of directors; promoting global growth and cooperation by giving small and low-income countries a bigger voice at the IMF, while strengthening Canada's commitment to debt relief; and resolving the Crown share saga, as our Conservative government, after decades of neglect by previous Liberal governments, is ensuring that Nova Scotia finally benefits from its resources through Crown share adjustment payments in accordance with the landmark agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia.
Yet the Liberal leader would vote a against these measures, not out of principle, not out of some disagreement over the contents of the act, for he has likely never even read it, but for narrow, partisan self-interest. He wants an election, regardless of the consequences, not because he has an economic agenda, but because he wants power. In a period of major economic uncertainty, Canadians deserve better from their elected representatives. As Macleans' magazine trumpeted this past August:
 Almost any way you look at it, Canada is uniquely positioned...Compared to the U.S. and many other countries, Canada has done well and we should be proud. But it's one thing to gloat, and another to exploit our relative lead. 
Let us not exploit our lead, as the Liberals would with a pointless election. Let us work together, keep our focus squarely on the economy through measures like the economic recovery act, and make certain Canada remains in the lead for decades to come. Canadians deserve that.
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has highlighted a particular dilemma for his government, which he has an opportunity now to resolve. His indicated that much work would be stopped if there were election now.
Just recently in Canada's economic action plan, the third report to Canadians, various projects were highlighted as being part of the economic stimulus in direct response to the economic recession that began in the second and third quarters of 2008. A small craft harbour project in Goose Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador was highlighted in particular. 
The economic report indicated that $1.25 million would be provided for additional berthage and improve the functionality of the service area to better meet the needs of harbour users. The economic report says that this is in direct mitigation of the economic downturn of 2008. The bulk of that $1.25 million was actually tendered and spent in 2005 and 2006.
Could the member relay to the House how a $1.25 million project, the bulk of the funding of which was spent not only long before 2008, but in 2005 and 2006, can be related to an actual stimulus measure to the economic recession that we are involved in today?
[Interjection]
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic action plan is implementing infrastructure projects across the country from coast to coast. It is extremely popular. I was door knocking recently in my riding of North Vancouver and it was remarkable to see the number of people who were taking advantage, for example, of our home renovation tax credit.
Let me quote from an Ottawa Citizen editorial, which states the home renovation tax credit:
 —has turned out be effective and smart....Even the quietest streets roar with hammers and saws....This is keeping construction workers employed who, in turn, spend money that keeps others employed. Home centres and hardware stores are humming....helping the construction industry was exactly the right thing to do. Credit where credit is due, when it comes to the reno credit. 
We are taking—
[Interjection]
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would invite the hon. member to answer the question about small craft harbours and money spent in 2005 and 2006.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not quite a point of order. 
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
[Interjection]
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention what others were saying about Canada's economic action plan.
First, the IMF yesterday released its world economic outlook, a report card on the global economy, saying what we have said all along, that our economic action plan is working as Canada is weathering the global economic storm better than almost everyone. Not only does it forecast we will experience one of the smallest drops in 2009, it has declared Canada will be the fastest growing economy in 2010.
The world recognizes that our government is on the right track. Why can the Liberals not do the same?
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke talked about the renovation tax credit. 
I want to go back to the question asked by the Liberal member. There is a wharf in every village and town in Manicouagan and many of these villages depend on the fishing industry. 
A home renovation tax credit is being implemented, but do the member and his government intend to repair their own harbour infrastructure in villages that depend on the fishing industry, like those on the Lower North Shore?
[Interjection]
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, many projects across the country qualify for our infrastructure stimulus plan. To date, 4,700 have already been submitted. We are 90% along the way in implementing these measures and getting money out the door, creating jobs and putting Canadians back to work.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague said that we should not gloat, and I agree with him. We should not gloat about the economy right now. I guess the New Democratic Party should not gloat about the fact that for many years in the nineties we fought against deregulation of the banks so we could be in the position we are in today, with an economy that appears to be doing okay in relation to many others around the world.
I would like my colleague to remember that in the fall of last year his leader and his party had predictions for the economy that were completely out of touch with reality. 
We are heading into winter now with high rates of unemployment. The recovery that we talked about over the summer did not occur. The projections have not gone the way that economists felt.
How can the member stand there and tell Canadians that we are out of the mess that has been caused by the global recession?
[Interjection]
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, we are recovering from the worst economic downturn since the Second World War. We are not out of the woods yet. We have to continue to stay the course and that is what we intend to do.
President Obama said:
 —in the midst of this enormous economic crisis, I think Canada has shown itself to be a pretty good manager of the financial system and the economy...And I think that’s important for us to take note of... 
He further said:
 Canada being a good example... they've actually done a good job in managing through what was a pretty risky period in the financial markets. 
Canada's economic action plan has already and will continue to create jobs and provide tax relief. It will assist those who have weathered tough economic times and help build a stronger future for all Canadians.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary and I have listened to some of the questions posed by the opposition. They all want to find little cracks here and there.
We look at world bodies that have passed judgment on this government's ability to navigate through the troubled waters we find ourselves in and are worldwide in scope. As mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank make projections and tell us and the rest of the world that we are on the right track. We have been positioned well for the economic recovery.
During question period, we then listen to questions about the lumber industry and building supplies. Could the parliamentary secretary tell us more about how Canada's economic action plan, and in particular the home renovation tax credit, is helping the people in our lumber industry and home supplies and what Canadians are saying about the type of economic stimulus that is actually happening because of this part of our economic action plan?
[Interjection]
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, that question comes up time and time again in North Vancouver. I have been knocking on doors for the last few weeks. People are telling me that they have been putting off renovations to their kids' bedrooms. They have been putting off renovations to their homes and decks, but they are doing it now because of the home renovation tax credit, which was implemented as part of Canada's economic action plan.
 An editorial in The Globe and Mail said the home renovation “tax credit has proven one of the more successful of the government's stimulus measures, helping create demand for services and supplies”.
I repeat the Home Hardware CEO, who says, “The home renovation tax credit has been a big help to many of the retailers and certainly we have benefited from that”
It is one of the most popular items in budget 2009. It is despicable that members from the Liberal Party are voting against such a popular measure.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, by harmonizing the sales tax throughout the country, particularly in Manitoba, the government is expanding the sales tax to include home renovations, thereby pretty much negating the effect of the tax credit.
How is the government stimulating the economy when on the one hand it offers the tax credit, but on the other hand it takes it away by expanding the sales tax base?
[Interjection]
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the harmonization of taxes is decided at the provincial level, not at the federal government level. That is a decision for the provinces to make.
Several years ago under the previous Liberal government, three provinces decided to harmonize their taxes. Two more provinces have decided to do it now. It is their decision and their decision alone.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party will vote against this bill for one very simple reason: we have lost all confidence in this government not only for economic reasons, but also because of its budget and other budget statements. 
I would like to take my time to go through the history of the budgetary actions of the government over the last year, which have led, in large measure, the Liberal Party to lose confidence in the government. The reason for this loss of confidence involves three aspects of the budgetary performance of the government: first, incompetence; second, dishonesty; and third, a distinct lack of concern for the most vulnerable in Canadian society.
Let us go back to last November. Do members remember when the Conservatives were still telling everybody that things were just fine, that perhaps we would have a technical recession. They tabled an economic update that contained no help for Canadians and it attacked pay equity for women, rather than providing any stimulative measures for the economy. It was an update the ripped back pay increases for the RCMP, which the government had given it just before the election.
The transport minister reminded us in the House yesterday when he stated, “we were the last ones to deal with this global economic downturn”. He is absolutely right. Last November, most other countries had already passed budgets to give fiscal stimulus to their economies. At that very moment, the government was doing the opposite. It was offering cutbacks in that November economic statement, probably at the moment when the recession was at its most severe. That is grossly incompetent.
 The statement is also dishonest. We will recall that the government, at that time, said that we had nothing but surpluses. Not an economist in the land believed that statement, with the possible exception of the Prime Minister. These fictitious surpluses were created partly by cutting government spending at the height of the recession, partly by fictitious non-existent asset sales, which padded the revenue of the government in a manner that was totally against accounting rules. The proof that those asset sales were fraudulent is the fact that in the last budget the government removed them. The government admitted that they should not have been there in the first place.
The November economic statement containing fraudulent surpluses, cuts to government spending at the most inappropriate time, at the depth of a recession, was so bad that it caused three formerly warring parties, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal Party, to unite as one and to threaten to topple the government. It was only for that reason that two months later, in January, the government, under threat of death, was forced to bring in a relatively decent budget.
Had the Conservatives been a majority government, had they not been forced under threat of execution to do this, we would have been left with that November economic statement, with its cuts to government spending at a time of recession. They had no choice. They brought in a budget that was semi-decent, in our opinion. It provided a certain amount of fiscal stimulus through infrastructure and other measures and the Liberal Party supported it. We felt it was in the national interest to get that money out the door as quickly as possible to save or create as many jobs as possible. 
However, that budget failed in the execution. We supported it because we wanted to get the money out the door, to save and create jobs. We now know that the money failed to get out the door.
The government uses weasel words like “commitments” or “announcements”, but what really matters is money out the door, people employed, shovels in the ground, construction workers on sites. This is where the government has utterly failed to execute its budget.
Our information from surveys from many mayors across the country is that only 12% of those funds have actually resulted in jobs being saved or created. If only for that reason, we cannot support the government and its budget anymore. We supported it on the condition that it execute it but it failed to execute it and, therefore, has rightly lost the confidence of the official opposition.
Now we come to the third report card, the one the Prime Minister unveiled this past Monday. We were hoping the government would at least provide Canadians with a glimpse of how much of the stimulus money had been spent and how far along infrastructure projects were. Instead, we got nothing. It is not as though the government does not have this information. 
This is where I come to the dishonesty and lack of transparency. The infrastructure stimulus fund requires all organizations that receive funding to provide the Conservatives with quarterly reports that outline just how far along their projects are and just how much money they have spent. It is item number 10 in the program's guideline.
The government has all this information at its fingertips and could easily make this information public. However, it is deliberately choosing to hide it. Why would that be? The only plausible conclusion that can be drawn is that it is ashamed of the results. Why else would it have those results in its possession and refuse to give them to Canadians? It must be that it is ashamed of the results. It does not want Canadians to see that after talking about all these billions of dollars in projects, the Government of Canada has barely sent out any actual money.
Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an officer the government is doing its best to destroy, has been told that this information is for Conservative eyes only and that he will not be allowed to have a peek. The saddest part is that this information would not be hard to provide. 
Let us consider what is happening south of the border. President Obama also asked each funding recipient to provide similar quarterly reports about how projects are progressing and how much money has been received. The difference in the United States is that on October 15, President Obama will be posting all these reports on recovery.gov so that Americans can actually see how their stimulus plan is working. Canadians will not be so fortunate under their overcontrolling and anti-transparent Prime Minister. 
I cannot understand why Americans deserve to get the real facts from their government in terms of money out the door and jobs created and Canadians do not. Are we second-class to the Americans? Is that the view of the government? I do not understand why the government cannot at least provide the same information to Canadians that the U.S. government is providing to Americans.
The message is clear. The Conservatives know full well that they have failed to get the job done and they are simply trying to hide that fact from the very Canadians that they have failed. 
The Prime Minister himself summed up that failure when he unveiled the third budget card last week. In his assessment of how well his stimulus package has worked, he said, “Far too many Canadians are still out of work. Too many families are suffering hardship”. 
We happen to agree with the Prime Minister on this one. Far too many Canadians are still out of work and far too many families are suffering. The Conservatives have failed to get shovels in the ground, failed to create jobs and failed to protect Canadians, which is why we no longer support this budget. 
While it may have had potential in January when we voted for it, the incompetent implementation of the budget is one of the many factors that has caused us to lose confidence in the government.
I will end with one other example of dishonesty. The government has said over and over again that it will not raise taxes in its quest to balance the budget some years from now. Do the members on the opposite side not understand that an employment insurance premium is a payroll tax? I used to teach economics 100 and the dullest student would grasp that point after about one week in class. An employment insurance premium is a payroll tax. How many times does one need to say this before those people across the aisle get the point?
The finance minister said directly in his report that employment insurance premiums would go up over the next five years. An employment insurance premium is a payroll tax, which means taxes will go up over the next five years and, indeed, C.D. Howe suggests that they will go up substantially, like 35% or 40%. I have asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to give us more precise information on the degree to which the Conservatives are raising payroll taxes, employment insurance premiums.
I do not understand why the Conservatives cannot just admit the obvious. They are raising taxes. They have said so themselves.
I wonder if the finance minister, at his next opportunity, could acknowledge the point that an employment insurance premium is a payroll tax and that the Conservatives will be raising those payroll taxes by 30% to 40% in the coming years?
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member who taught economics 100 if he could answer a question for the House.
 How can the Liberals say on one side that they stand for a 45-day work year, which would cost billions of dollars, $4 billion, and on the other side say that they are concerned about increases in payroll taxes? Where was their concern for the increases in payroll taxes when they were putting forward un-costed, un-budgeted, unaccounted for and enormously expensive proposals for EI last spring? Why are they now concerned about payroll taxes? They cannot have it both ways and the hon. member well knows that. He taught economics 100. Maybe he would like to tell the Canadian people how much their proposals were going to cost Canadians, because we would not have it.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member implicitly acknowledged that his side of the House is raising payroll taxes. I did not hear him say that but neither did I hear him deny it.
His question also indicates my theme of dishonesty. He said that our proposal would cost billions of dollars, $4 billion is what he said. Four billion dollars is utter rubbish and totally dishonest. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the Liberal measure would not cost more than $1.1 billion, not $4 billion.
Once again, we have total dishonesty emanating—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We can continue with questions and comments on the speech from the member for Markham—Unionville after question period.

Statements By Members
Human TraffickingDavid Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has seen some strange sights but it has been a long time since it has seen anything as strange as our vote Wednesday evening.
The member for Kildonan—St. Paul has committed herself to dealing with the issue of human trafficking, especially the repulsive practice of enslaving and trafficking children. She brought forward Bill C-268, a bill that deals directly with trafficking by strengthening the penalties for involvement in this parasitic activity. It touches upon issues of recruiting, kidnapping, controlling, assault, transporting and harbouring involved in the exploitation of children.
Amazingly, the Bloc and some NDPers voted against this bill. For some people, ideology always overrides common sense.
 Thankfully, Bill C-268 has passed third reading in the House of Commons. I call upon the Senate to deal with it expeditiously. The children of our country need it to become law as soon as possible. The Senate should do the right thing and do it now.
Community Crime Awareness DayHon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on September 19, I was pleased to attend and speak at the annual Community Crime Awareness Day at the Living Arts Centre in Mississauga. This event was organized by the Mississauga Chinese Business Association in partnership with Peel Regional Police, Rogers TV and Safe City Mississauga.
Every year for the past seven years, Mississauga has been recognized as the safest city in Canada. As a father, I draw comfort from the fact that my daughter, Nanki, is growing up in such a safe community. As a member of Parliament, I am proud of the hard work and co-operation between the community leaders and the policemen and policewomen who make this environment possible.
Community Crime Awareness Day provides an opportunity for the citizens of Mississauga to get to know the people who keep them safe and build an understanding of what we can do to prevent crime. I would like to thank the Mississauga Chinese Business Association and its partners for organizing this event. Through their efforts, we are building a safer and stronger Mississauga.
Madeleine DroletMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay a well-deserved tribute to a wonderful constituent of mine, Madeleine Drolet, who is leaving municipal politics after five terms with the Coaticook city council. 
A teacher by training, Madeleine Drolet was one of the first women to become a city councillor. She played a pivotal role in developing and promoting culture within the RCM of Coaticook. 
She also played a key part in creating the arts and culture pavilion, and helped develop and promote the Françoise-Maurice library. In 1999, she was received the Mérite estrien award, in the culture category.
Madeleine Drolet will not run for another term on the Coaticook city council on November 1, but we can rest assured that the effects of her tireless work will be felt for many years to come in the Coaticook community.
Tom EagleDennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, northerners are mourning the passing of respected elder Tom Eagle of Yellowknife.
I would like to focus on Tom's hard work on behalf of aboriginal veterans.
For 25 years, Tom served Canada as a proud member of the Canadian Forces in Germany and in Cyprus. In Tom's words, he joined “to serve my country and everything that our democratic principles stand for”.
In the two world wars, more than 7,000 aboriginal people served Canada and 500 gave their lives. These veterans were marginalized, never receiving the services and benefits provided to non-aboriginal veterans. They even lost their treaty status.
Tom worked to right these wrongs as chair of the First Nations Veterans Association, as a member of the National Round Table on First Nations Veterans Issues, as the chair of the NWT/Nunavut Aboriginal Veterans Association, and as an active member of the Royal Canadian Legion. In 2007, he was honoured with the Minister's Commendation.
Tom will be missed by his community, his wife and family, and all his friends across Canada.
HIV-AIDSMr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, recently HIV Edmonton staged its 18th annual AIDS Walk for Life. I was very proud to support this event, as I have done for the past four years.
Over 400 walkers came to show their support and over 100 volunteers helped organize this tremendous event. The walk raised over $120,000. Monies raised will fund local HIV-AIDS charities that provide support, outreach, education and prevention services across the Edmonton region.
We must continue to fund HIV-AIDS research and find a cure for those affected by this disease. Recently, we saw some good news on this front with vaccine trials in Thailand showing promising results. However, there is still much work to be done.
I am proud to be part of a government that has made the largest investment in HIV-AIDS research in Canada's history. I plan on walking every year that I can until this disease is cured.
I congratulate HIV Edmonton and organizers in the many other cities who have taken up this challenge.
World Habitat DayHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1986, the United Nations designated the first Monday of every October as World Habitat Day to reflect on the state of our towns and cities and the basic right of all citizens to adequate shelter.
On Monday, World Habitat Day will focus our attention on the need to improve urban planning to deal with the major challenges of the 21st century. In developed and developing countries, cities and towns are increasingly feeling the effects of climate change, resource depletion, food insecurity, population growth and economic instability.
Sadly, Canada has a Conservative government that continues to ignore all these issues. World Habitat Day should also be a day for all Canadians to rally together to demand that the government stop playing games with infrastructure funding that will help cities and communities meet some of the century's newest challenges.
We all know the problems that exist in helping to keep our communities vibrant and sustainable, and we all must share in the solution. That is why on World Habitat Day, and indeed every day, we must demand more of our federal government.
PatriotismMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in April of this year I challenged my colleagues and their constituents to a contest to determine the most patriotic riding in the country by displaying a Canadian flag at their residences on July 1. Thirty-three of my colleagues accepted the challenge.
I am pleased to report to the House that over 1.4 million Canadian flags were displayed from coast to coast to coast as a result of this contest last July 1. I want to congratulate the members and constituents of the ridings of Huron—Bruce and Brant for placing second and third in our contest.
However, I want to very proudly congratulate the constituents of my riding for again claiming the title of most patriotic riding in this great country of ours. After five years of proudly representing the riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, I can truly confirm that my constituents are definitely the most patriotic of all Canadians. God bless Canada.
Dalai LamaMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the repression and constant violations experienced by the people of Tibet, the Dalai Lama has never strayed from his approach that favours tolerance, peace and non-violence, an approach that earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.
Today, the People's Republic of China celebrates its 60th anniversary, and the Tibetan culture is in danger. It is time for the Chinese government to respond to the Dalai Lama's repeated calls for independence for the people of Tibet, which would be in accordance with the provisions of the Chinese constitution.
In February 2007, the House passed a unanimous motion calling on the Government of Canada to encourage the two parties to continue talks.
The Bloc Québécois, which empathizes strongly with the struggle of the Tibetan people, would like to take the occasion of the Dalai Lama's visit to Montreal tomorrow to welcome him and to tell him that we support his call for dialogue.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama of TibetMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am confident that I am joined by all of my colleagues in Parliament in welcoming His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Canada this week. In 2006, it was my privilege to present a motion in the House to bestow honorary Canadian citizenship upon the Dalai Lama, which was agreed to unanimously.
The Dalai Lama's selfless and tireless work to promote the values of compassion, altruism and universal responsibility is deeply appreciated by millions of Canadians. That is why His Holiness the Dalai Lama will always be welcome in his home of Canada.
The Dalai Lama inspires us to struggle without violence for what is right, to be mindful of the power of love and compassion, to focus on what truly matters to us as human beings and to put others ahead of ourselves. I welcome His Holiness to Canada.
The ConservativesMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not deserve the confidence of Canadians.
They have turned their economic stimulus program into a vehicle for cronyism that is as bad as it was in the darkest, bluest days of the old régime before the Quiet Revolution.
On their watch, the condition of the road in front of one's is once again directly related to whether one voted for the right party during the last election.
In Quebec, Conservative ridings are getting almost three times more infrastructure funding than other ridings.
This kind of cheap cronyism no longer belongs in Quebec. We thought that we had seen the last of it 50 years ago, but half a century later, the Conservatives are reviving all the old skulduggery.
We knew that the Conservatives' social values were outdated by a century or two, but now it is clear that their political values are just as archaic.
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on this Sunday evening's broadcast of Tout le monde en parle, the member for Bourassa will reveal something that those of us in the Conservative Party already know.
Suggested titles include “Sudden Downfall”, “Comedy of Errors”, “Battle of the Egos” and “The Man from Toronto”.
For a long time now, we have known that nobody can trust a Liberal leader. How can anyone trust a man who changes his mind as often as he changes his shirt? How can anyone trust a man who takes his own country hostage by threatening to trigger pointless, opportunistic elections, as we saw last night? How can anyone trust a man who jeopardizes measures to help unemployed workers, their families and our economic recovery? How can anyone trust a man who puts his own interests ahead of the nation's? 
Quite simply, people cannot trust a Liberal leader who has abandoned Quebec.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama of TibetMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today Canada's honorary citizen, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, will be travelling from Calgary to Montreal where thousands of Canadians will hear his message of compassion and peace.
He began his visit to Canada at the Vancouver Peace symposium where he was welcomed by many supporters and friends.
His talks and teachings remind us that there are so many in the world who remain committed to achieving peace through dialogue rather than conflict. We are also reminded of the grim situation in Tibet where millions of Tibetans are denied even the most basic human rights.
I am honoured to welcome His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Canada. I wish to urge the government to do all it can to welcome and support the efforts of our honorary citizen so that one day he may return freely to his place of birth, an occupied homeland he has not seen in more than 50 years.
Liberal Party of CanadaAndrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberals voted to force an unnecessary election that Canadians do not want, an election that would harm our economic recovery and hurt unemployed Canadians.
The Conservative government remains committed to implementing Canada's economic action plan by focusing on the economy, which is our number one priority. Is the economy the Liberal leader's priority? It definitely is not, as his party has opposed every key measure in our government's plan. The Liberals even voted against the recession-fighting home renovation tax credit. They voted against enhancing the working income tax benefit. This week they voted against EI benefits for long-tenured workers, showing they do not care about those hardest hit by the global recession.
Shame on them. While our Conservative government is fighting the recession, the Liberals want to fight an election. 
Yesterday the Liberal leader made it official, that he is not in it for Canadians, he is just in it for himself.
Richard WackidMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that we learned of the passing of Richard Wackid on Monday, following a courageous struggle with ALS.
After 25 years on the Hill serving nine Liberal whips, there is no doubt that Richard Wackid was a fixture in this Parliament. His intimate knowledge of the procedural rules of the House of Commons and his obvious passion for politics made him a master parliamentary strategist.
He will be remembered as more than just a strategist; we will remember the man himself, a man of great integrity for whom keeping one's word was essential, a man who was a master of the art of diplomacy and who was known for his positive disposition.
My colleagues and I want to express our sincere condolences to his wife Danielle, his daughter Stephanie, his family and colleagues.
Conservative Party of CanadaJohn McCallum: Mr. Speaker, Gordon Landon continues to stand up for what is right even after he was dumped as the Conservative candidate in Markham—Unionville.
Mr. Landon revealed in an interview with the Markham Economist &amp; Sun, published on Wednesday, that members of the Prime Minister's Office hastily travelled to Markham to flex their iron-fisted control over Conservative candidates. This is a quote from him:
 I met with the PMO...at the Hilton and I just decided that I couldn't work under their policies because I just decided I couldn't work with the media the way they wanted to work with the media. I'm the type of person (who) likes to respond to issues honestly... 
The real question is who in the Prime Minister's Office, paid by Canadian taxpayers, travelled to Markham in order to muzzle Mr. Landon and his truth-exposing ways.
HMCS KootenayMr. Greg Kerr (West Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the former members of Her Majesty's Canadian Ship Kootenay. 
On October 23, 1969, during a routine NATO naval exercise about 200 miles west of Plymouth, England, a disastrous explosion ripped through the interior of the HMCS Kootenay. Ultimately, nine crew members were killed and over 40 were wounded.
Along with family, friends and several members of the Canadian navy, 36 former Kootenay crewmen are currently making a pilgrimage to Plymouth, England to pay homage to their fallen comrades on the 40th anniversary of the worst peacetime accident in the history of the Canadian navy.
 Kootenay's motto is “We are as one”, and I believe that Canadian people stand as one to remember the sacrifice and heroism that took place aboard that ship in 1969.

Oral Questions
Foreign AffairsHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to internal government documents obtained by the media, it would appear that in the case of Suaad Mohamud, the government made a gross error in labelling her an impostor and then proceeded in a massive cover-up to hide its mistake and have her incarcerated in a Kenyan jail.
Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell Canadians today the exact date when he first learned about this case?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this matter has been before the courts. CBSA has filed documents with the court. The documents are available for the public to view and they do speak for themselves. The information is all public at this time.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, on June 2, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence discussed Suaad Mohamud's situation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. A letter followed on June 18. Detained at the request of the Conservatives, Suaad Mohamud had to submit to DNA testing before the government would agree to bring her back to Canada.
Why did the minister not personally intervene in this case in June? When will his department's investigation be made public?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, documents were recently filed by the CBSA in Federal Court. The documents are available for the public to read and do speak for themselves. The facts are all public knowledge at this time.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, a troubling pattern has developed through several cases where the Conservative government has failed to come to the assistance of Canadian citizens overseas. Canadians need to know how far this attitude extends.
 Who else on the government side was complicit in the case of Suaad Mohamud? Specifically, what was the Prime Minister's role? When did he first become aware of the plight of Suaad Mohamud? What date, exactly, did the Prime Minister know?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, documents were filed by the CBSA in Federal Court. The documents are available for the public to read and do speak for themselves. These facts are all public knowledge at this time.
AfghanistanMarlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, clearly, the government wants to hide when the Prime Minister learned about the case.
The dignity and honour of the men and women who serve under our flag deserve to have any doubts about them treated seriously. If we want the Afghan mission to have any chance of success, it is absolutely crucial that the Canadian Forces accurately reflect the Canadian values of justice and transparency.
Will the government allow Richard Colvin to testify before the Military Police Complaints Commission?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, these complaints are before a tribunal. It is a matter before the courts. The government takes very seriously all these allegations. The government has had confirmed by the Federal Court that the Military Police Complaints Commission is limited to matters of military police investigations.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, if Afghanistan is ever to become a stable and secure state, it is our duty to ensure that the Canadian Forces lead by example. The honour and dignity of the men and women who serve under our flag is at stake. Any doubts raised must be met with just and transparent measures, not stonewalling by the government.
Why will the Conservatives not allow Richard Colvin to testify before the Military Police Complaints Commission? What are they trying to cover up?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, this government has been co-operating with the Military Police Complaints Commission all along, and that is not going to change.
We are, however, committed to co-operating with the commission within its mandate, which the Federal Court has recently confirmed was limited to military police matters. To suggest that the Canadian Forces or this government do not take seriously the type of allegations, allegations only, that have come forward is obnoxious and the member should be ashamed of herself.
Employment InsuranceMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are engaging in a public relations exercise about employment insurance at the expense of the unemployed, with announcements that do not meet their needs or the needs of Quebec. The latest announcement is about introducing parental leave for self-employed workers, which Quebec has had since 2006. Just like Bill C-50, which excludes forestry workers, seasonal workers, vulnerable workers and victims of intermittent layoffs, this bill leaves Quebec in the lurch.
When will the Conservative government understand that what is needed is comprehensive reform that meets the needs of the unemployed and of Quebec?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, clearly it is the Bloc members who are engaging in a public relations exercise. We have a bill before this House to extend the benefit period for long-tenured workers. Having added five weeks of benefits, now we want to extend the benefit period by 20 weeks. This is good news for workers in Quebec, but the Bloc is voting against that.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc voted against it because, unlike the NDP, we cannot sanction the Conservatives' inaction, especially since the solutions are known and widely supported: set a 360-hour eligibility threshold, increase benefits to 60% of insurable earnings, abolish the waiting period and make self-employed workers eligible for regular EI benefits.
Instead of playing petty politics like the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, when will the government proceed with comprehensive reform of employment insurance, something everyone in Quebec is calling for?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, all that is coming from the other side is hot air. We have proposed real reform: extended benefits for long-tenured workers, which they have been waiting for for a long time. It is incredible to hear that.
We have also increased access to training for long-tenured workers, and we are continuing along those lines. What are those people doing? They are supporting the Liberals' attempt to trigger a needless election no one wants. It is shameful. It is time to take care of our economy and our own people. That is what we are doing, while they just blow hot air.
Mrs. Josée Beaudin (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is getting ready to offer parental leave for self-employed workers as part of the EI system. But this will not give Quebec anything more, because the Government of Quebec introduced this sort of leave in 2006.
Will the federal government promise to compensate Quebec, which already offers such leave for self-employed workers?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, once again, I would remind the House that yesterday, the Bloc supported the Liberals in an attempt to bring down the government and plunge the country into an election no one wants. Let us look at the facts. There is a bill before the House to help long-tenured workers who are in distress.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Answer the question.
Christian Paradis:  They are against everything.
The opposition should support this measure to help long-tenured workers. That is what they need to do.
LabourMs. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is confusing the right to refuse to work with preventive withdrawal. Under the Quebec system, women have a 90% salary replacement whereas women working in a federal jurisdiction in Quebec are not entitled to anything. 
Rather than leaving these Quebec women to fend for themselves, will the Conservative government take action and come to an agreement with the Quebec government to allow these women to be covered under the Quebec preventive withdrawal program?
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear.
If the health and safety of a woman's unborn child is at risk because of a health issue, including H1N1, under the law she has the right to refuse to go to work and she will continue to be paid until a decision is made.
Tax HarmonizationLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, next July if an unemployed woman in Vancouver goes to JJ Bean for coffee in the morning, ding, it will cost 7% more. If she needs a haircut for a job interview, add 7%. If her car breaks down and she needs a tow, 7% more. If she takes a taxi to the job interview, 7% more. I could go on.
Will the minister explain to the people of B.C. why they need an unfair tax increase when times are already so tough?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the decision on whether or not to harmonize the sales tax is a decision of the province.
I find it most interesting to see the member for Vancouver East now becoming the newest tax fighter in Canada. We welcome her new-found interest in cutting taxes and keeping taxes low.
Where was she when this government needed her support to cut the GST? She was not just missing in action, she was voting to keep taxes high. That is something she will have to explain to that same woman she spoke about.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, HST started with this government.
And the story continues. After a job interview, if the woman in my riding buys a morning newspaper, it will cost 7% more. Then she opens the paper and reads about yet another $8 billion in corporate tax cuts that the minister has engineered. She feels pretty outraged, just like everybody else in B.C. and Ontario.
Why is the government slapping an unfair tax increase on families while cutting taxes for Canada's most profitable corporations?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the same woman went to fill out her income tax and got some good news, that this government cut her income tax. The member will have to explain to that same constituent, that same woman whom she professes to care so much about, why, if the member had her way, the woman would have to pay higher income taxes.
The woman for the last two years has been paying a lower GST. Why? Because the Prime Minister and this government stood up for that woman so she could pay less tax, so she could invest in her community, so she could provide services and supports for her family.
This government is concerned about that woman. Where has the member for Vancouver East been when we have been trying to help that woman for all of these years?
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the minister that my constituent and thousands of others have already figured out that the government is shifting the tax burden from big businesses to families. 
In B.C. alone, the HST amounts to a $4 billion tax hike. Each year the average B.C. family will pay an estimated $828 more. A senior couple will pay $883 more. A single mom will pay $522 more. Canada's most profitable corporations will be paying $8 billion less.
Again, will the minister explain to British Columbians why they should pay so much more?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia tax freedom day, the day when individuals, British Columbians, start to earn money for themselves, is now some two or three weeks earlier, thanks to the efforts of this government.
If the NDP had its way and if the member for Vancouver East had her way, the woman would be working an extra 21 days to support big government rather than to support her family. Those of us on this side of the House think that is unfair.
Natural ResourcesPaul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I advised the House that the Minister of Natural Resources had used a registered lobbyist as the chief organizer for her political fundraiser on September 24. In response to the minister's apparent conflict of interest and breach of the code of conduct for ministers, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities said, “That practice is wrong. It is totally unacceptable and it is totally inappropriate...”. 
If that is the government's conclusion, what is the Prime Minister going to do about it?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South brought forward allegations with respect to an individual who is employed by the Toronto Port Authority, an arm's-length body of the government, and who was using resources of the port authority for fundraising purposes. I said at the time and I will say again that was wrong and it is unacceptable. I understand the Toronto Port Authority is taking the matter seriously. 
Let me be very clear. Government resources should not be used for political fundraising, period.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, a breach of conduct but no consequences.
Michael McSweeney is a registered lobbyist for the Cement Association of Canada, who has lobbied the government eight times in the past eight months, including lobbying the Minister of Natural Resources. Mr. McSweeney also improperly served as the chief organizer for the minister's political fundraising on September 24. Mr. McSweeney appears to be in violation of rule 8 of the Lobbyists Registration Act and the minister is obviously implicated.
Will the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for that act, immediately call for a full investigation by the Commissioner of Lobbying?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Mississauga South reads the morning papers, he will see that the Ethics Commissioner has been asked to look into it. We will allow the Ethics Commissioner, who is a quasi-judicial agent of this place, to look into the matter and report back to the House.
Government CommunicationsMs. Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the President of the Treasury Board given that he is the minister responsible for the government communications file. It is a very simple question.
Could he tell us what the national colours of Canada are?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has gone from trolling the Internet in the middle of the night on Monday to becoming a couch potato and watching government advertisements on TV on Tuesday, and now she is trying to become a game show host by asking spot questions.
Obviously, we are committed to communicating with Canadians. We are committed to doing our part to ensure that we report back to Canadians on the economic resources and economic prospects for our country. That is an important responsibility and one which we take seriously.
Martha Hall Findlay: Mr. Speaker, apparently the minister could not answer a question so simple that every school kid in this country could answer. Look at the flag. The Canadian national colours are red and white, and I understand that it might be frustrating for the minister that they are not the same as his Conservative political party colours, but covering taxpayer paid, partisan, pat on the back government ads and websites in Conservative Party blue is wrong and it is an abuse of taxpayers' money. When will it stop?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. The hon. Minister of Transport.
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, my friends in the Bloc Québécois remind me that blue is a nice colour too. I appreciate that helpful intervention.
We are working hard to restore jobs and opportunity in this country. Our economic action plan is beginning to show some good signs. I read this morning in the Montreal Gazette: “Canada to lead recovery, IMF says”. Is that not great news?
Taxe HarmonizationClaude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is acting in bad faith in the matter of the harmonization of the GST and Quebec's sales tax. Although his own minister privately acknowledges that the GST and the QST are harmonized, the Prime Minister is now demanding that Ottawa collect the Quebec tax.
By telling us that Quebec will be compensated only if it falls into line with the other provinces, is the Prime Minister admitting that he is axing for good what he calls “open federalism”?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we supported open federalism. It was very welcome, not only in the province of Quebec, but throughout Canada. We respect provincial jurisdictions, which is very important. It is known that Canada has already paid $1.7 billion to Quebec since collaborating on the issue of the GST. That is a very important point in this debate. 
Intergovernmental RelationsClaude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, the minister is misleading the House. Quebec was paid for services rendered. This was not compensation.
It is not just over harmonization of the GST that the Government of Quebec is being treated unfairly by the federal government. In fact, the Conservative government is depriving Quebec of $8 billion, including $800 million for post-secondary education and the billions of dollars in equalization payments.
What is the government waiting for to give Quebeckers the money that is theirs?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that last year we paid $130 million to Quebec in connection with harmonization of the GST and the QST. That is very important to point out in this debate. The Minister of Finance has spoken with his counterpart, Quebec's finance minister about this policy. We will continue to work with the Government of Quebec, not with the Bloc.
The EnvironmentMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not only is this government refusing to take action on the environment, but it does not hesitate to spread misinformation to justify its inaction. Its latest intellectual spin would have us believe that the Canadian standards for reducing greenhouse gases are the same as the North American standards. That is not true. Comparing U.S. absolute targets with Canadian intensity targets is intellectual fraud.
Instead of insulting our intelligence, why does this government not admit that it has decided to protect the oil lobby at Quebec's expense?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we have answered this question over the last two years. Canada's target has been a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and those are absolute reductions. That is what we just heard that the Senate is doing. Those are the toughest targets in Canadian history and one of the toughest targets in the world. The member needs to get on track.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, Canada is behaving so poorly that it has just received a fossil award in Bangkok for blocking an agreement to establish 1990 as the reference year.
Instead of looking for ways to cover up the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, what is Canada waiting for to adopt a responsible approach to combating greenhouse gases, namely absolute targets and 1990 as the reference year?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and President Obama recently met and reaffirmed that, given the high degree of the integration between the Canadian and U.S. economies and energy markets, we will cooperate closely as we develop respective approaches to climate change.
They also reiterated the urgency of taking aggressive action to combat climate change and to reaffirm their commitment toward a comprehensive and effective international agreement that puts the world on a clean energy path. After 13 dark years of Liberals doing nothing, we are getting it done.
Royal Canadian MintMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been almost a year since over $15 million of gold vanished from the Mint and nearly four months since the government called in the police, but it is still not clear whether or not the Mounties have launched any kind of criminal investigation.
Could the minister tell us if he no longer suspects that the missing gold has been stolen? If so, how does he account for the whereabouts of nearly half a tonne of riches from one of Canada's most heavily guarded buildings?
Hon. Rob Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that I take very seriously and so do Canadians. We brought in the RCMP for an investigation. We have an ongoing investigation.
We have made sure that no bonuses are going to be paid out until this matter is done. I will expect an answer very soon and I will hold the Mint management accountable. That is what Canadians want and that is what will happen.
Canadian HeritageRodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, first $15 million vanishes without any explanation and then the government has to come up with $100,000 to buy back antiques that it sold on the Internet for $2,000. It tried to sell off royal portraits. Speculators are out there watching eBay to see when the Peace Tower is going to be listed.
What is really missing is competence and accountability. Why do taxpayers have to continue to pay for the embarrassments of the government?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that this was not a decision made by the government. This is was a decision made by the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General and our government was outraged by this decision.
We are reforming the process through which these unique and attractive items are dealt with by making appraisals mandatory. We are outraged by what happened.
Tobacco ProductsMr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after Philip Morris threatened to shut down its facilities in Quebec City, the Conservatives proposed an amendment to allow flavoured cigarettes targeting young people to be manufactured. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the member for Beauce have advocated for the manufacturer, in the name of protecting the freedom of choice of adult smokers, they argued. 
Why is protecting the freedom of choice of those adult smokers more important to them than protecting our children's health? 
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during the last election we committed to take real action to protect our young people from tobacco marketing practices. We recently announced that our government will crack down on the marketing strategies used by tobacco companies to entice our youth.
Promises were made and promises were kept. This will include setting a minimum package size for cigarillos and blunts that is less affordable for children, prohibiting flavour and additives that would appeal to children, and banning all tobacco advertising and promotion that may be viewed by youth.
Thanks to the action of this Conservative government, Canada is a world leader in tobacco control and we are very proud of that.
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, they have defended the interests of tobacco companies instead of those of our children and young teens.
The executive director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, Cynthia Callard, stated that the Conservatives tried to water down the legislation simply to please cigarette manufacturers.
The only reason they are backing down now is because we have forced them to, not out of conviction.
Knowing the devastating effects of tobacco, is it normal en 2009 to have to fight the government in order to protect our children's health? 
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, the member is being totally ridiculous. After 13 years of doing absolutely nothing to protect our children, it was this Conservative government that put this bill forward. I would like to remind him that this bill passed through the House and passed through the Senate without amendment. He has to get his facts right.
International AidMr. Phil McColeman (Brant, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the opposition is always quick to quote rock stars like Bono and Geldof, and have often determined their policies on foreign aid by mimicking celebrities. Time and time again they drop the ball. In contrast to the Liberal opposition, our government honoured Canada's commitment and doubled aid to Africa. The opposition is constantly spewing rhetoric and pretending that Canada is not performing up to standard.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation tell the House what Bob Geldof had to say about this government's performance when it comes to foreign aid?
Hon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bob Geldof had this to say on national television this week, “It's almost a cliché now, but it's true. You do exactly what you say you do”. What was he talking about? The fact that our government doubled aid to Africa. He went on to say, “Canada was the first of the countries to achieve what was agreed to at Gleneagles in 2005. Canada almost predictably and gloriously was the first country to get there”.
 Let us set the record straight. Contrary to the opposition rhetoric, we are moving Canada forward.
AfghanistanMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are keeping mum about Canada's future in Afghanistan. At the same time, they are making things difficult for the Military Police Complaints Commission. In fact, the government has successfully stalled the investigation.
Why all the obstruction? What is the government trying to hide? Why are they preventing Richard Colvin from testifying?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the Liberals should get together on their questions. There are a number of procedural matters before the tribunal. It is ongoing. It is not appropriate to comment on day-to-day proceedings. 
We are committed to fully cooperating with the MPCC. We have been doing that from the start. When it is operating within its mandate, which the Federal Court has recently confirmed, it is limited to military policing matters.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the Military Police Complaints Commission is being blocked in its attempt to uncover the truth about torture in Afghanistan and the government's knowledge of it. This systematic obstruction has got to stop. 
Federal lawyers are blocking the testimony of key witnesses, human rights and security expert Richard Colvin, for example. He has information relevant to the commission's investigation.
Could the foreign affairs minister  explain why he wants to prevent Mr. Colvin from testifying, and while he is at it, could the minister tell us if his department has passed on that testimony, that evidence, to the MPCC? I ask the minister that question, not someone else.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. friend for not being the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but the answer will be the same, whether it comes from me or the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
We have been cooperating with the MPCC from day one. We will continue to do that. It needs to operate within its mandate. The Federal Court has clarified its mandate. We are not obstructing anything. 
We are making sure that things are carried out in accordance with the law, in the best interests of Canada, and in the best interests of the people we serve around the world, which is why people like members of the Canadian Forces who, as the member knows well, are doing their job in an extremely good way. Any allegations are simply allegations and to impugn guilt is, frankly again, obnoxious.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Military Police Complaints Commission is being held up by stalling tactics while it tries to deal with the issue of Afghan prisoners. By bombarding the agency with motions, the Conservative government's lawyers are trying to derail an investigation that could show that the government allowed the transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities, even though they might be tortured.
Why is the government trying to hide the truth and prevent Richard Colvin from testifying?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, it must be teamwork over there, a true coalition in question period.
Nothing has changed. The answer will not change. There have been a number of investigations ongoing. They are all proceeding. They are all independent. They are all at arm's-length from the government and the answers will be made available. 
We will make sure it is done according to the process of law, according to the process that we in the House are bound to uphold. 
These are allegations only. The allegations of prisoner abuse have already been proven to be incorrect and wrong. We will continue along this path of following the course of the law in all these matters.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in addition to holding up proceedings, the Department of National Defence is refusing to cooperate with the investigation by trying to prevent the testimony of the director of the Canadian-run Afghanistan reconstruction base in Kandahar at the time the Canadian army started transferring prisoners to the Afghan secret service. We have been following this.
Why did they do so little to protect Afghan prisoners from torture, and so much to hide the truth?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, this is really getting boring. We are doing everything in our power to protect everybody, whether it is--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker:  Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
[Interjection]
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, we continue to do everything in our power to protect people who depend on us for support, whether they are our own Canadian Forces members, whether they are prisoners, or anybody we deal with around the world.
This government has a very good grip on Canadian values, our attention to the rule of law and the things that are just simply right. We will continue to operate in that manner despite any allegations from across the floor. 
The EconomyMr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, mills across Canada are closing their doors, and our communities are suffering.
That is what happened to the Tembec mill in Smooth Rock Falls, which closed three years ago. The city, the province and the community development agency are working together to revive their local industry. The Conservative government is not working with them.
How can people in northern Ontario trust a Conservative government that does not care about our rural towns?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. 
Through our economic action plan, our government is taking unprecedented steps to support forestry workers and their communities. I could go through a whole list of them but it would take a lot longer than the 30 seconds I have. 
We have provided $170 million under the economic action plan to help companies develop new products and opportunities. We have put $1 billion over two years into the community adjustment fund. 
The economic action plan is supporting workers and communities with $8.3 billion going into that. We have moved to reduce costs for forestry companies and have improved access to credit for the forestry sector.
We are working with forestry communities. We are proud of the action plan that we have put in place.
Anthony Rota: Mr. Speaker, maybe that is why Smooth Rock Falls is on the verge of losing everything this week, everything the people have worked for over the years, because the government probably does not even care where Smooth Rock Falls is.
The people of Smooth Rock Falls have been abandoned by those cons. When the Conservatives promised us peace in the forest industry, what they really meant was rest in peace. Communities across northern Ontario in rural Canada deserve a government that gives them the tools and the help they need to rebuild shattered local economies.
Why has the government abandoned communities like Smooth Rock Falls? What kind of con game is the Prime Minister playing with rural Canada?
David Anderson: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, that riding needs a better MP who would stand up and represent his constituents rather than try to cause a useless and unnecessary election. 
Perhaps that member should support us as we bring forward the $1 billion pulp and paper green transformation program. Instead, he is trying to fight us and cause an election. We need those folks to work with us but they have chosen not to. 
We will work with Canadian forestry companies across this country.
Employment InsuranceMr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is very nice of the government to say that it will protect self-employed workers, but now it has to do something about it. This week, I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development two questions. When will self-employed workers have access to the employment insurance system? The minister said that she would make this happen, but she did not say when.
This morning, the Globe and Mail reported that the government plans to introduce a bill this fall. The NDP has been asking for these changes for years. Now we want to see a timeline and a detailed plan.
What does the minister have to say?
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what we say we will do, we will do. 
Our campaign commitment from the last election was that we would provide for maternity and parental benefits and we will do so. We will keep our commitments. We will bring forward legislation in the very near future. 
Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, 2.7 million self-employed workers in Canada have no access to a social safety net even though the labour market is changing dramatically. This trend has been developing over the past few years. Last year alone, the number of self-employed workers rose by 3.5%, while the number of salaried workers fell by 2.7%.
Will those 2.7 million self-employed workers be getting any help by the end of the year? 
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, we have done a number of things to help the unemployed, some of which those members have supported and some of which they have not. 
We will continue to analyze what is necessary for the unemployed. We will take steps going forward. We will be bringing in legislation in the near future. 
National DefenceMr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 13 years of neglect of the Canadian Forces by the former Liberal government, often referred to as the decade of darkness, left our military service men and women with rusting equipment and crumbling infrastructure on our national defence bases.
Under our government's first defence strategy, we are replacing and refurbishing 25% of our existing military infrastructure over 10 years.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence tell us what infrastructure investments have been made in our military facilities across our country and how this is helping to stimulate the economy as well as protect jobs?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, finally, a good question. I thank the member for his tremendous support of the Canadian Forces.
In line with the Canada first defence strategy, we are improving the work and housing environments by improving base infrastructure and putting people to work. This year we have announced almost $2 billion in construction projects. This illustrates our government's ongoing commitment to the Canadian Forces and solid contribution to Canada's economic well-being.
Here is a partial list of our infrastructure spending: $334 million at Trenton; $135 million at Cold Lake; $109 million in Montreal, Valcartier and Bagotville; $266 million for Esquimalt; and $66 million for 14 Wing Greenwood.
We are getting the job done for the Canadian Forces and Canada.
2010 Winter Olympic GamesHon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, VANOC unveiled the athlete's logo for the 2010 games. Media—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.
[Interjection]
Hedy Fry: --immediately flagged its striking resemblance to the Conservative Party logo. Asked about this in the House, the minister said that there was no one in the government involved in any way, shape or form.
Well, he is the minister responsible for the 2010 Olympics. The buck stops with him. Why was there no oversight to prevent this embarrassment to VANOC, Hudson's Bay Company and the athletes?
Why was the minister not aware and, what else does he not know about his portfolio?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, the government was not involved in any way, shape or form in the design of Olympic clothing. The clothing was designed by the Hudson's Bay Company in consultation with the Canadian Olympic committee and with an athletes panel.
I would just reference, for example, Suzanne Timmins, fashion director at Hudson's Bay Company. This is good to remind the opposition. She says, “Canada starts with a C, and yes there’s a leaf” in our flag. 
Steve Yzerman, former captain of the Peterborough Petes and Canada's men's hockey team executive, says that our new Olympic uniforms are “very stylish, comfortable and easy to wear”. 
Now that is a great—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Manicouagan. 
National DefenceGérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has confirmed that the Bagotville base will not be selected as the home of the new Chinook helicopters, under the pathetic pretext that Bagotville did not meet the requirements to accommodate this kind of aircraft, which is completely false.
By excluding Bagotville, is the Conservative government not demonstrating once again its disregard for Quebec's economic interests?
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, the Chinook fleets will be able to operate anywhere in Canada or around the world. Procuring those aircraft will generate economic spinoffs for Canada and will create jobs. The most efficient and cost-effective way to support the Chinook operations will be to consolidate their operations on one main operational base.
The Department of National Defence is currently studying various options regarding the best possible location of the base to accommodate the aircraft, so they can effectively meet the changing needs of the Canadian Forces.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a new Amnesty International report says that the government's efforts to stop violence against native women is feeble.
Young first nations women are five times more likely than other women to die as a result of violence. In Saskatchewan, indigenous women make up 60% of missing and murdered women though they make up only 6% of the population.
The government urgently needs a national action plan to end violence and discrimination against indigenous women. Will the minister take this issue seriously and declare violence against indigenous women a public safety emergency?
Mr. John Duncan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government does take the issue of family violence in native communities very seriously, which is why we invest $18.5 million annually in prevention programs and in services.
Furthermore, we are investing over $55 million to support existing shelters and we created five new ones. These keys for economic development and education for healthy communities are why the government is investing more money in these priority areas.
If the opposition members really cared about these issues, they would support—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a front page exposé in today's National Post reveals the Liberal Party's plans to make Canada's borders even more porous to immigration from rapists, murders and foreign spies.
The member for Parkdale—High Park has introduced Bill C-440 that would force the government to give all military deserters exemption from criminal inadmissibility and national security sections of our immigration laws.
Would the government please give its position regarding the Liberal Party's hide the foreign thug policy and proposed legislation?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as it is currently written, sections in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allow the government to deny violent foreign criminals entry to Canada. The Liberal Party wants to rewrite the immigration act to weaken those sections.
Here is what the bill says:
 ...shall be exempted by the Minister from any legal obligation applicable to that foreign national...that would prevent them from being allowed to remain in Canada. 
 A foreign officer who has supervised or participated in war crimes or, for that matter, people who are fleeing prosecution for serious violent crimes would be exempted from all legal obligations in Canada
Fisheries and OceansMr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stood in this House and stated, “for the information of the House, science has not been cut at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans”.
Obviously this will be news to the minister but fishers in 3JKL are wondering why their department cut the otter trawl science survey after 10 years and did not expand the program, as the minister claimed. What happened? Did the minister just forget about that one? 
Will the minister immediately put the otter trawl science survey back in place?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that we invest in science in a number of different areas. We balance the needs of science through regions across the whole country. We consider what is necessary to be done to get the biggest bang for the buck, and we will be considering that in this case as well.
Labour RelationsMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 420 employees of the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum, members of the Public Service Alliance, have been on strike since September 21. I met with them on the picket line. These employees want only one thing: to go back to work with a fair collective agreement. Ninety-two per cent of these employees voted to strike. I believe that is significant. 
What is the minister waiting for to instruct the employer to go back to the bargaining table?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, this is a legal work stoppage. It is the responsibility of the parties to work together to find a solution to the issues and to negotiate a collective agreement. My officials are monitoring the situation closely and our mediator remains in contact with both parties.
Marine SafetyDennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, a 41,000 tonne bulk carrier suffered severe damage in an accident in the Douglas Channel on the B.C. coast. Luckily, none of its cargo spilled, but how long can we count on luck?
The government is currently pushing for a pipeline from the Alberta tar sands to the Pacific Ocean that would see hundreds of oil tankers a year coming and going from the B.C. coast. The people of B.C. need to know the full danger of these oil tankers in these coastal waters. 
Will the government commit to a full public inquiry into all the environmental impacts of this project?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada treats marine safety to be of paramount importance. The safety of the crew and of the travelling public is something that is tremendously important, but so too is environmental protection, and that is why we have brought in several measures and increased enforcement to assist in this regard.
 We will fully accept our responsibilities to ensure that our marine environment is fully protected as we move forward.

Routine Proceedings
PetitionsDavid Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three separate petitions that have been signed by several hundred concerned citizens.
The petitioners state that Canada is a country which respects human rights and includes in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that everyone has the right to life, that it has been 40 years since May 14, 1969, when Parliament changed the law to permit abortion, and that since January 28, 1988, Canada has had no law to protect the lives of unborn children.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death. 
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. 
The first petition has to do with public safety officers.
The petitioners from my riding of Mississauga South would like to bring to the attention of the House that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk during the execution of their duties on a daily basis and that the employee benefits of police officers and firefighters often do not provide sufficient compensation for the families of those who are killed in the line of duty and that the public also mourns the loss when one loses his or her life in the line of duty.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to establish a fund known as the “public safety officers compensation fund” for the benefit of families of public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the second petition, also from my riding of Mississauga South, has to do with the protection of human life.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that Canada is a country which respects human rights and includes in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that everyone has the right to life, that it has been 40 years since May 14, 1969, when Parliament changed the law to permit abortion, and that since January 28, 1988, Canada has had no law to protect the lives of unborn children.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.
Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, both with over 200 signatures.
The petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following facts: that people who experience depression and mental illness need to be protected by the law; that youth in Canada are just as vulnerable as youth from around the world; and that predators are both encouraging and counselling suicide without penalty, through the Internet, and can do that without fear of prosecution due to the anonymity the Internet can provide and the antiquity of Canadian laws.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House to enable prosecution of those who encourage or counsel someone to commit suicide by updating the Criminal Code to reflect the new realities of the 21st century broadband access, as well as fund education programs to empower people who experience depression and mental illness in Canada's vulnerable youth to protect themselves from online predators.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a couple of petitions to present.
In the first petition, the petitioners state that it has been 40 years since Parliament changed the law to permit abortion and that Canada has no law to protect the lives of unborn children.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with health care.
The petitioners state that the parent or caregiver of a child who has a life-threatening or serious illness, like cancer, must take care of the child full time when the child falls ill and undergoes treatment for surgery.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to enact legislation to provide additional benefits at least equal to maternity EI benefits to help parents or caregiver.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by constituents of mine and others elsewhere in the Lower Mainland. 
The petitioners bring to the attention of the government that ruminants, cattle, sheep and goats, can be legally transported for 52 hours without access to water, food or rest and monogastric animals such as pigs, poultry and horses can be transported for 36 hours without water, food or rest.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the government to change the animal transport regulations under the Health of Animals Act to be consistent with the findings of the EU scientific committee on animal health, which is 8 hours and 12 hours, respectively. 
The Deputy Speaker: I see the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands is rising again to present a petition. Is it the pleasure of the House to allow him to present another petition?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the House for that generous opportunity.
This petition is from the folks in Macrorie, Saskatchewan who are concerned about their postal service.
 The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to maintain the moratorium on post office closures and to withdraw the legislation to legalize remailers. They also call upon the government to instruct Canada Post to maintain, expand and to improve postal services.
Scott Andrews: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many residents of St. Mary's Bay, Riverhead and Colliers.
The petitioners call upon the government not to end the moratorium on closing post offices. There are rumours circulating that these offices will close. These post offices are essential services. They play a key role and it is also the economic life of rural Canada.
 The petitioners pray that the government maintain the moratorium on the closing of post offices and withdraw legislation to legalize remailers.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 106 and 183 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours:  With regard to funding applications submitted to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2008-2009: (a) which projects were submitted under each Agency program; (b) which project were approved; (c) what amount was allocated to each of these projects; and (d) which projects were not processed?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Joe Comartin:  What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2004-2005 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Windsor—Tecumseh, listing each department or agency, initiative, and amount?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus)[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Before question period started, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville had just started the question and comment period, so he has eight minutes left for questions and comments.
The hon. member for Drummond has the floor. 
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Markham—Unionville before question period. He pointed out fundamental flaws in the measures proposed by the Conservatives with regard to the current economic crisis. 
For example, he noted that when the Conservatives tabled their first budget, they announced cuts in government spending, when massive investments were needed because of the crisis. It makes sense. Without the threat of a Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc, there would have been no backtracking on the part of the government and we would probably have nothing in place today to face the crisis.
He also reminded us that when it comes to infrastructure programs, the government has developed the practice of announcing figures that are never correct. In reality, about 12% of the funding announced has been invested. I found on the Internet a list announcing five projects for my riding of Drummond. But I do not see anything happening right now in Drummond, so the figure for my riding is a lot closer to 0% than 12%. Moreover, when it comes to job creation, the government throws around figures that have no real basis. This is a fundamental flaw. 
I understand why my colleague has lost confidence in this government and why he is voting against its measures. We are doing exactly the same thing as the Liberal Party and are saying no to the Conservative government for its performance as a whole.
However, we are talking today about a measure that will give effect to the government's proposed investments in renovation, and that seems good to us.
Can my colleague tell me why he is voting against this particular measure?
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with all that my colleague from the Bloc Québécois said before putting his question.
To answer his question, we will be voting against this bill because we have no confidence in this government.
However, the Leader of the Opposition has said repeatedly that we would fully honour the home renovation tax credit program.
Canadians can therefore rest assured that they will receive their credits, regardless of who is in government. 
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Markham—Unionville as he spoke at length and often used the word “dishonest”. I do not like to make statements using strong words like that. I am loathe to do that even though they are quite often used.
He went on to say that Canada's system and government are second class and Mr. Obama's is first class. I do not think it is second class when our government puts on websites the exact number of projects that are going ahead and the ones actually in the ground.
He talks about taxes. What is dishonest is when a person tries to portray this government's record as something else when the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and our own world-class financial institutions say that we have done many of the right things, that we are on the road to recovery, that our taxes will soon be the lowest in the G8 with the reduction of the GST, pension splitting for seniors and the guaranteed income supplement not being affected. When we took office, the GIS was $500 and it has gone to $3,500.
Was Mayor Frank Scarpitti wrong when he said, “I want to applaud this government for making budget 2009 so comprehensive when it comes to job creation” and “I think it's great news for Markham. The federal government has come forward with an ambitious stimulus package”. That was in the Georgina Advocate on January 31 of this year.
Again, the same mayor said, “Congratulations to you and your government for budget 2009. Your government stimulus funding comes at an opportune time for us”. He said that in a letter to the finance minister.
When his own mayor is saying those good things about us, how can he contradict him?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, that seemed more like a stream of consciousness than a question. The member does not like the term “dishonest”, so he can use whatever term he wishes. 
However, what adjective would he apply to a government that says it will not increase taxes to balance the books, but has a massive increase in EI premiums? What adjective would he apply to a government that says that it will not tax income trusts and then does precisely the opposite? What adjective would he apply to a government that raises the lowest income tax rate, as it did in 2006, while claiming that it actually cut it? He can choose his own adjective. I would suggest that is not the height of honesty.
In terms of the mayor of Markham, while the government has such a punitive, vindictive attitude to any mayor who says anything bad, I think the mayor of Markham is wishing to protect such contributions that he may one day receive from the government.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, does the member realize that by causing an election, we would be starting the whole legislative process over again? In fact, we would end up freezing the flow of funds to the projects that we all want to see take place in the country.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the member might want to check his facts before he stands. What he says is entirely false. The legislation has been passed, the authorities exist and so the infrastructure funds could keep flowing whether there were an election or not. 
That is not the problem. The problem is the government simply does not have its act together and, as a consequence, has only flowed some 12% of the money in terms of actually creating or saving jobs.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.
The hon. member for Markham—Unionville answered a question by my colleague from Drummond who wanted to know whether he supported this bill or not. His answer was no, because the Liberals have no confidence in the government. They do, however, intend to implement the measures contained in that bill once they are “in government”.
We in the Bloc Québécois, who voted for the ways and means motion on the same matters, which no more than Bill C-51 contained a poison pill, will be voting in favour of this bill.
We maintain that the aspects affecting the people of Canada and Quebec are very important for our constituents, whose needs and aspirations we have been monitoring on an ongoing basis, but even more actively during the campaign before the election one year ago already, on October 14.
We are capable of rising in support of things we had sought previously for the people of Quebec and which can certainly benefit the people of Canada as well.
Bill C-51 implements the home renovation tax credit. I should point out that this measure was inspired by the proposals made in the Bloc's two recovery plans. The first plan was presented around November 24, 2008, and the second around April 30, 2009.
I remember as though it were yesterday when the Minister of Finance was very appreciative that the Bloc Québécois was the only party to make proposals for the budget the government was preparing. He said something very similar when the budget was introduced. In the same sentence, or at least very close, he said that the Bloc Québécois was the only responsible party. Those may not have been his exact words, but that is what he meant: a responsible party that had submitted budget proposals with some very important points.
At the same time, he told us that he promised he would take them into account. The Bloc Québécois is a party that accepts its responsibility for the mandate it has been given by the people of Quebec. It is committed to the interests of Quebec, and submitted proposals that further the needs and aspirations of Quebec. If I may say candidly, he quite simply told us that they would take them into account, but the budget had already been tabled at that point.
In Bill C-51, the second point introduces a first time homebuyers' tax credit, a measure inspired by the Bloc's last platform. This is yet more proof that the Bloc made good proposals, always based on the needs and aspirations of Quebec, which I will repeat over and over.
It needs to be said, because Quebeckers want the Bloc Québécois to defend their interests and to promote Quebec sovereignty. We know that a lot of things can be accomplished through the sovereignty of Quebec, that is, the political freedom of Quebec.
Bill C-51 will also implement Canada's international commitments to the IMF, which were signed in 2008. It will also amend the Canada Pension Plan, from which Quebec is excluded, based on consultations with the provinces involved. It will also act on the findings of a joint expert panel made up of representatives of Nova Scotia and the federal government to resolve litigation between the parties that has been outstanding since 1984. The first two of these provisions affect Quebeckers more directly. That is why the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. 
We agree with these two provisions, but I must emphasize that our support for the measures in this bill does not mean that we have confidence in the government. Clearly, we do not. Once again yesterday, we rose to express our lack of confidence in this government. The federal government's comprehensive plan to fight the recession is not good enough. It is also poorly targeted. That is why we oppose it.
However, because Quebec does not object to the measures in Bill C-51, we, the Bloc Québécois, will remain true to our values and do the responsible thing and support this bill. We are always working to advance Quebec's interests. The measures in this bill may be a step forward, but the Conservative government still does not have an environmental plan with a 21st century vision, and its record on economic issues is terrible. 
Now that I have covered the two most important measures in this bill, I would like to talk about the government's disastrous record on economic issues and the Bloc Québécois' recommendations for dealing with the crisis. I would also like to discuss the Bloc Québécois' green strategy and the federal government's bad faith and deplorable attitude when it comes to this issue.
Let us begin with the home renovation tax credit. In April 2008, during the presentation of the first phase of the stimulus package, the Bloc Québécois proposed implementing a home renovation tax credit for converting oil furnaces to energy efficient models. We felt that such a measure, in addition to reducing our dependence on oil, would help inject money into the economy quickly. 
Although the Conservatives' measure does not target energy retrofits, it is nonetheless an effective way to stimulate the economy quickly. That is why we support this measure. Nevertheless, we still feel that the government lacked vision in introducing this tax credit. It could have gone much further and presented a real environmental plan that would have stimulated the economy while reducing greenhouse gases and decreasing our dependence on oil.
It is imperative. We know more and more—not only because we hear it so much, but also because we are experiencing it and seeing it every day—that the economy and the environment are inseparable and that we have to put as much energy into the one as the other.
In our 2008 election platform, we also proposed a tax credit for first time homebuyers. Although the measure introduced by the Conservatives is less generous than the one proposed by the Bloc Québécois, we feel it is a step in the right direction. That is another reason we are supporting this measure. 
Buying a home is big step for many families. It allows the homeowner to build equity and benefit from the appreciated value of their home. Quebec is significantly behind the rest of Canada in that area. I do not want to focus on strictly economic aspects, but in terms of family life, it is very important to own a home in order to have a life that is not necessarily more comfortable, but has all the elements to be more pleasant. There is nothing like being at home with your children for living life to the fullest. Owning a home is very important and many families, unfortunately, often have a hard time saving for a down payment to purchase their first home.
In addition, since most people who are active in the workforce see their income increase over time, they often have to wait a while before they can purchase a property, so they end up in the rental market for many years. We in the Bloc Québécois are aware of this problem and planned—in fact, we still plan to—bring forward a program to make it easier for first time homebuyers. That is why we are proposing that the government give interest free loans for up to $10,000 for first time homebuyers. If this measure is introduced, it will complement the tax credit proposed by the Conservatives and will make it easier for people to buy their first home. However, the Bloc Québécois will continue to press the federal government to offer a comprehensive first time homebuyers' plan.
In light of these two elements, we support the bill, but of course we still have some criticisms of it. A good, self-respecting Conservative government must always make a few missteps that arouse criticism, and people need to hear about them.
While denying the economic crisis during the last election campaign, the Conservatives came in empty-handed at the time of the economic statement last November. When pressured to introduce a stimulus package, the Conservatives preferred instead to propose measures meant to reinforce an ideology rather than stimulate the economy. The Bloc Québécois, however, brought forward responsible proposals for economic recovery. Let me remind the House. The Bloc Québécois' recovery plan had four objectives: tighten the social safety net and restore confidence; stimulate employment and investment; support Quebec and the provinces; and stimulate strategic spending and reduce oil dependency.
The OECD suggested that countries with the means to do so should provide income support for workers who lose their jobs, and the best way to do that is through the employment insurance system. We therefore proposed that the system be thoroughly improved in order to facilitate access for everyone who loses their jobs. We estimated that, with these changes, 148,000 more people would have access every year. Furthermore, with the elimination of the waiting period, cheques could have been sent in under 14 days.
I would like to elaborate on this point. Rather than abolishing the waiting period, the Conservative government added five weeks at the end. Five weeks at the end is not the same as two weeks at the beginning. According to the Conservatives, two weeks at the beginning could create huge problems. The approach that the Conservatives have always preferred and continue to embrace is to launch programs and what they call improvements knowing very well that they will probably not be used very much, if at all. Most people never get to those last five weeks. Once again, they have missed the mark. Immediate assistance for workers who lose their jobs has never been and is still not in place.That continues to be one of the Bloc Québécois' demands.
We also proposed to help the most vulnerable with investments of $6 billion, starting with seniors, by increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $110 per month. For middle-class families, we proposed to double the GST tax credit for 2009.
We also proposed a series of measures to support and stimulate employment and investment. Furthermore, we proposed investments to help Quebec and the provinces maintain essential services to the public. It is never a good idea to make cuts, but this is the worst time to cut Quebec's funding. And yet, that is what the Conservatives are doing by tinkering with the equalization formula to favour Ontario and by adding even more inequities, such as refusing to compensate Quebec for the harmonization of sales taxes.
We asked that education transfers be restored to their 1994 levels both to stimulate the economy and to help Quebec and the provinces prepare for the future. 
Finally, we proposed strategic investments to reduce both our dependence on oil and our greenhouse gas emissions. The Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals, on the contrary, have abandoned Quebec industries and workers in favour of those in Ontario and the West.
The federal government's bias in favour of Ontario and its auto industry is striking, as evidenced in the third progress report on the action plan. Whereas 100% of the $9.7 billion in direct federal spending for the auto industry have been spent, only 80% of the $70 billion for the development of new markets for the forest industry have been spent. In total, the government will have used only $2.1 billion from Vote 35 concurred in last spring. Yet the June report already indicated $1.85 billion in spending through this vote, which means that the government has spent only $250 million more through this vote since the last report.
I believe it is important to go back to a key point. A crisis requires quick and immediate action, particularly when jobs are lost. I may be repeating myself, but something has to be done to fix our employment insurance system. The Liberals gutted the system and the Conservatives followed in their footsteps. It is exactly because of all those things that we have no confidence in this government.
With regard to EI, what needs to be done is to reduce the eligibility threshold to 360 hours for everybody, to eliminate the waiting period, to increase benefits from 55% to 60% of earnings, to increase insurable earnings to $42,500 and to base the benefit calculation on the best 12 weeks.
Even if we support this bill, we still have no confidence in this government. 
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member from the Bloc. I am a little confused about his lack of understanding of what we have been trying to do in the economic stimulus package. Surely he must know that this is the most massive stimulus package in political history. We need it to get through these very difficult challenges coming to us from a global point of view.
As the member for Markham—Unionville pointed out earlier, Canada was the last one into the recession. It is because of the way this government has been run by our current Prime Minister and the ministers. They have been watching the financial companies. The banks have been in good shape. Canada is going to be the first one out of this economic challenge because of they way we have handled it.
We have made some significant changes to the EI program. We have made five week extensions for workers who are collecting EI. We have had a one year extension to the work plan. We are now introducing extensions, again based on the tenure people have had with their employer, which will benefit employees all across the country. It will mean that tens of thousands of people will get assistance they would not have received before.
These are all new measures that are being introduced by this Conservative government that were never dreamed of by the previous Liberals. We would appreciate if the members opposite would recognize that. 
As far as the stimulus package, one has to understand that this government does not give out money in brown paper bags and cash like the Liberals did. There is a lot of due diligence by the federal and provincial governments and the municipalities' regional districts that goes into distributing these funds . That all has to be done. It is being done, and the money is flowing in amounts that will look after the challenges of the current global economic problems we have.
[Interjection]
Serge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, not only does the Bloc Québécois not have confidence in this government, but it does not have confidence in the government's economic forecasts.
As recently as a year ago, the economic crisis did not even exist as far as the Conservatives were concerned, and they said they would not run a deficit. Today, the deficit is $56 billion or $57 billion. What is strange is that this is roughly the same amount of money that was stolen from the employment insurance fund. This year's deficit did not go toward EI to really help workers. In fact, I do not believe the government has helped the unemployed.
The Minister of National Revenue says that employment insurance programs must have a beginning, a middle and an end. With his additional five weeks of benefits, it would seem that the minister started at the end. He should have started at the beginning. He cannot even follow his own logic.
All I can say is that he had a beginning a few years ago, he has more than past the middle and he is now approaching his end. The future former Minister of National Revenue and future former member will understand that the necessary work on employment insurance has not been done and that people still have huge problems.
It is clear that the new employment insurance program, with additional weeks of benefits, was designed for people who are lucky enough to keep the same job for a very long time, but that it represents a trap for the NDP, because it targets Ontario specifically and does nothing to help forestry workers in Quebec.
We therefore do not have confidence in this government or its policies. This government needs to be a bit more open to Quebec, practise open federalism and listen a bit more to what the opposition is saying. It is acting like a majority government, when it knows it is not. Moreover, it knows full well how that sort of behaviour affects support for this government in Quebec, because almost no one there has confidence in the government anymore.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, clearly the government was woefully unprepared for what happened last fall. The Conservatives went through the election basically running a campaign based on the land being strong, similar to Trudeau in 1972. When the markets fell during the campaign, the Prime Minister said it was a buying opportunity. He was not even aware of what was actually happening in the economy.
In fact it was the opposition parties that forced the government to take action. The government never would have brought in the stimulus package on its own. Who would believe that for a moment? We have had to drag the government through the various processes it has gone through to get where it is right now.
 I do not understand how the member can all of a sudden have this new-found knowledge when these people were in the dark through this whole process. 
[Interjection]
Serge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member from the NDP, I am not sure that the government's understanding is all that good yet. I think that the Conservatives are not quite there yet. The only thing they seem to understand is electioneering. At some point, they throw crumbs here and there and claim to be delivering, telling us that this actually meets the needs and aspirations of the people of both Quebec and Canada. While some money does end up in the right places, I do not think that they have even the faintest glimmer of understanding of what really happened. They have spread so much around that they actually hit the target now and then. I do not think that they have any real understanding, because theirs is truly a conservative ideology.
Shortly after they were elected for the first time, they were lagging behind the United States. What did they do? They lowered taxes, as President Bush had done in the U.S. They increased military spending and took other similar steps, almost exactly as President Bush had done, and, as a result, they found themselves in a rather precarious economic position. There are things that they cannot undo. They have cut taxes. This certainly helps some people, but they would have done much better with a more targeted measure, even if that meant forgetting this 2% cut and targeting those with the greatest needs. I do not think that they really understood anything. Ultimately, the best way to prove that the people think the same way would be to hold an election as soon as possible; then, they would see that the people understood.
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Sherbrooke, who is not only my seatmate in the House but also my neighbour in terms of the ridings we represent.
I will quickly mention the fact that my colleague has a university in his riding, the University of Sherbrooke. Among all the budget measures put forward by the Conservative government when it became aware of this economic crisis, one of them was to cut funding for university research and try to direct that research. We also have a minister, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, as our neighbour, and he was very unhappy about the cuts to research made by his government. I am talking, of course, about the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who had to fight to save the Mont Mégantic observatory in his own riding. I would like the member to tell us this story to show how the ideology of this government has nothing to do with Quebec values. 
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sherbrooke has only 30 seconds left.
[Interjection]
Serge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, some research grants have been diverted directly to business research, leaving nothing for humanities. As for the Mont Mégantic observatory, I believe it is the best place in Canada. At one point, the government wanted to cut its funding. Had that happened, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services would certainly have become the future ex-member and future ex-minister of public works, but he succeeded in— 
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to have to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. 
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak today to Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures. When we are talking about Bill C-51, I want to talk about a couple of the points that are covered under this particular piece of legislation.
There was a ways and means motion tabled in the House last week and this bill would implement what was in that ways and means motion. It covers things such as the home renovation tax credit, the first-time homebuyers tax credit, the working income tax benefit, and some changes to both loan provisions for the CBC and Canada pension plan. I am going to focus on a couple of items in this piece of legislation, specifically on the CBC, the Canada pension plan changes, and on the home renovation tax credit.
When we come to the CBC, of course we know that New Democrats have been calling for some changes to the loan provisions for the CBC. I want to go back to a question that was raised in the House by the member for Timmins—James Bay. Within the context of his question, he said:
 Mr. Speaker, we are now seeing crippling losses at CBC in Windsor, Sudbury and Thunder Bay. While we are talking about pink slips, he should be giving them to the Conservative MPs from Quebec who will pay for his decision to blow 260 jobs yesterday in Montreal alone. These job losses were completely avoidable. All it required was his signature so that they could get a bank loan or bridge financing, and it would not have cost the taxpayer a cent. 
What we now see is that the Conservatives have responded by increasing the amount of money that the CBC can borrow in order to bridge that financing that the NDP called for. I know that in many of our communities from coast to coast to coast, the CBC is a vital part of the communication link.
 I know on Vancouver Island, we have people who are friends of the CBC and continuously work with their members of Parliament who are sympathetic in terms of ensuring that CBC remains a vital part of our communications network in Canada. We are pleased to see that there is going to be this additional resource available to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I want to turn now to the proposed changes to the Canada pension plan. Last spring, we saw in the original budget proposal that there were some benefits and some downturns. What we saw as being positive was an improved averaging formula that would boost pensions below the maximum currently payable and that voluntary contributions for post-65 claimants would allow for secure pension enhancement to the age of 70.
However, in that legislation last spring, there were some flaws. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP), said that those recommendations were still inadequate and that 30% of Canadians were without retirement savings. As well, those proposed changes did not amount to a significant increase in income security for many seniors and did not address the need for old age security and guaranteed income supplement enhancement, which we know is critical.
The other key piece, of course, is the fact that there is no retroactive claim beyond 11 months. We know that many seniors, for whatever reason, do not apply for their benefits in a timely fashion and by the time they do apply, they are only able to go retroactive for 11 months. I know this has been a matter raised by many constituents in my own riding.
The member for Hamilton Mountain had raised in previous sessions that it would be a simple matter for the government to make some changes to the income tax system with the Canada Revenue Agency that would allow for the automatic application at the age of 65, based on income tax records. That would be a simple matter to resolve so that we would not have to rely upon seniors to ferret out information on government websites.
If we were truly concerned about ensuring that seniors got what they were entitled to, it would be a simple amendment to ensure that when seniors are eligible for their Canada pension or old age security, it would be a matter of course when they turn 65.
One constituent in my riding, who has been attempting to find out exactly how much he would be entitled to at the age of retirement so he could do some forward planning, has simply not been able to get accurate and reliable figures from the department. That makes it very difficult for seniors who are on limited incomes to plan financially for their retirement years. 
I would urge the government to look for ways to ensure that seniors who anticipate retiring at age 65 get accurate and timely information.
New Democrats proposed a motion in the House of Commons last June to look at some of the difficulties with the current CPP-OAS system. That motion was passed unanimously. The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek put forward a motion, and I will not read the whole motion, but I do want to raise a couple of points because we have not seen any kind of movement. 
Although there are some changes in Bill C-51 that would help out some seniors, they simply do not go far enough. The bill would implement the ways and means motion and so we would need a separate piece of legislation, but it is important that we look at that.
The motion put forward by the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek said that we need to expand and increase the CPP, QPP, OAS and GIS to ensure all Canadians can count on a dignified retirement. Item (b) was about establishing a self-financing pension insurance program to ensure the viability of workplace-sponsored plans in tough economic times.
The motion went on to talk about some of the challenges that we have had with the CPP Investment Board and the kind of bonuses that were paid to investment board managers in the very quarter where results were announced about losses in the investment income.
The second piece that I want to touch on is the home renovation tax credit. The home renovation tax credit is such that it would allow people who have significant income to spend up to $10,000 on their homes and receive a tax credit. Although this would certainly benefit some Canadians, a significant number of Canadians would be left out of the picture. The other challenge with the tax credit is the fact that there was no focus for it.
 New Democrats have often called for a tax credit or programs for retrofitting houses that would actually have a green energy focus. This home renovation tax credit simply does not have that. Almost anything could be done with this tax credit, including things like paving a driveway. 
Many Canadians would welcome having their driveway paved, but we know from some environmental assessments of home building that we need to reduce things like hardscaping because it impacts on storm runoff as it goes into storm drains, and things get into rivers and lakes and streams as a result of that. There was no green kind of focus to the home renovation tax credit.
The David Suzuki Foundation issued a press release that talked about energy efficiency not being just for those who can afford it. Although this information is from 2005 it is still relevant today. I am going to read some of the elements raised in the press release because this is exactly the kind of thing that New Democrats have been talking about for years. The press release stated:
 Low-income housing has become synonymous with low-quality housing. Canada's poorest, often the elderly or single parents with young children, are forced to live in homes that lack adequate insulation and have outdated furnaces and inefficient appliances. Not only are these homes less comfortable, they also waste tremendous amounts of energy--which is bad for the environment and our health. 
 Since more energy is required to operate these homes, more fossil fuels like oil and gas often need to be burned. And that leads to more air pollution and more climate-disrupting gases emitted into the atmosphere—the same gases the Canadian government has promised to reduce under the Kyoto Protocol. 
 Low-quality housing is essentially a double-whammy. It drives up heating bills for people who can't afford it and leads to more pollution for all of us. With the price of fossil fuels, like oil and gas, so high, many Canadians are even forced to sacrifice necessities to pay their monthly heat and hydro bills. 
 For many homeowners, living in a drafty house is an expense annoyance that they can fix by adding insulation, blocking air leaks, updating windows or investing in a high-efficiency furnace. 
 Making low-income homes more energy-efficient would reduce climate-disrupting emissions while improving the living conditions for Canada's poorest citizens. It would also create construction jobs in cities and towns across the country. And the most vulnerable of our citizens would see lower hydro and heating bills and live in more comfortable homes. 
That seems to make absolute, practical common sense. What we have here, and this article talked about it, is seniors living in older housing which has not had the retrofit that is necessary to make it more energy efficient. On one hand we are talking about the fact that the Canada pension plan and old age security are not meeting the needs of many seniors who rely on them and on the other hand we have seniors who simply cannot afford to do the kinds of retrofits in their homes to save the money and reduce the impact on the environment. 
In that context, it would seem to make good practical sense to develop a retrofit program that would ensure that everybody has access to funds to help with the services, perhaps a tax credit that would ensure those kinds of retrofits take place.
The home renovation tax credit is simply not usable by many of these seniors because first, many of them do not have much taxable income, and second, they simply cannot afford the cost of doing those kinds of retrofits. I would argue that the home renovation tax credit, although it was a good step and will benefit some Canadians and will add some money to the economy because it creates construction jobs, will simply not go far enough.
In the same line of looking at the kinds of programs and services that could be available that not only contribute to creating jobs in communities but also reduce the impact on the environment, the Suzuki Foundation put out a paper called “Cool Solutions to Global Warming”. Although this is outside of retrofits, I want to quote from this document because this House has been concerned with economic stimulus around creating jobs in communities and around ensuring that we are contributing to local economies. In its analysis, the foundation said, “Investments in energy efficiency have been found to produce four times more jobs than equivalent spending in new supplies of conventional energy”.
If we wanted to look at ways of creating jobs in our communities, one of the ways that we could do it is to look at jobs in energy efficiency. The same article does an analysis on a number of different aspects, whether it is vehicles, whether it is alternative or renewable energy sources, but it also talks about residential buildings, and I want to talk about this again in the context of the home renovation tax credit and how this tax credit actually fell short.
This article not only identified some of the problems, but also proposed concrete solutions. Many times in my riding when I have done forums on climate change and the environment, many people have understood the problems. What they want are concrete solutions that they can take away and do something about in their own homes and in their own communities. This article did address some of those solutions. 
With regard to taking action, which is specifically to do with residential buildings, there are some frightening numbers. It talks about the fact that in 1995 the energy for space heating, water heating and electrical appliances in Canadian homes created about 80 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. If we do nothing, this will balloon to 107 million tonnes in 2030. That is a significant increase and we know that Canada is falling far short of the commitments made under the Kyoto protocol to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
These solutions, if we had governments that would actually be willing to put concrete measures in place to contribute to Canada's reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, proposed by the Suzuki Foundation would go a long way to contribute to Canada's responsibility.
Some of these things talk about retrofitting existing homes and apartments. They indicate that if we undertook a massive program over the next 30 years to refit 80% of Canada's housing stock, it would provide about a million person-years of skilled employment. This is over a number of years, but we can see the significant impact that would have if we had this kind of massive retrofit program in place. We would create significant amounts of employment in communities from coast to coast to coast. 
This program includes upgrading attic and basement insulation to achieve double air tightness, replacing doors with steel polyurethane core doors, replacing windows with triple low-e argon-filled pipes, and replacing furnaces and wood stoves with highly efficient models. 
We are talking about the renovation tax credit, but the pamphlet also goes on to talk about new homes and apartments that need to be built to the current R-2000 standards. It states that it is an easily achievable improvement over today's average new home and that new apartments also need to be built to energy efficient standards.
It talks about appliances, such as hot water tanks or conserver tank models and that no oil-fired tanks would exist by 2030. This is the plan. Solar water heaters would replace between 30% and 40% of natural gas requirements and it goes on to talk about the need to replace lighting so that we would be using fluorescent bulbs.
With respect to space heating, improved energy efficiency of housing results in huge reductions in energy requirements, with additional emission reductions from fuel switching and use of solar water heaters.
These are concrete solutions that could have been included in a home tax renovation program where we would actually reward the kind of behaviour that we think is important. We all know that tax policy does shape behaviour, so that kind of tax policy and tax credits for this kind of action, would make a significant contribution to Canada's role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
We should not leave out commercial buildings. We could cut existing space heating requirements by 50% through improved energy efficient computerized control systems and increased use of solar energy. We could also use heat recovery ventilators and windows that are highly efficient that are low-e argon filled.
There are a number of initiatives that could have been included to frame that home tax renovation credit. It is very important for Canada to demonstrate some leadership by putting in place programs that would contribute to Canada becoming a leader in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions instead of a sad laggard, as it currently is.
When we are talking about the need to create jobs with respect to the economic stimulus package I need to touch very briefly on the harmonized sales tax, HST. Of course we have heard much fury in the House over the harmonized sales tax. The Conservatives claim that it is a provincial responsibility, yet in the budget document on page 166 the Conservatives have indicated money, and there are many things we could call it, but let us call it an inducement, for the provincial governments to put in place a harmonized sales tax. 
In British Columbia the harmonized sales tax will significantly affect consumers and businesses. The Canadian Food and Restaurant Association website indicates that B.C. restaurant owners lost 9.5% of their business when the GST was introduced in 1991. It estimates that British Columbians will pay an additional $694 million on restaurant meals alone if the HST is introduced. That will certainly hurt restaurants.
In each and every one of our communities there are hairdressers, restaurants, home heating fuel deliverers. Those kinds of businesses are often the heart and soul of our communities. The HST will directly impact on their ability to continue to function.
We are talking about an economic stimulus package. We are talking about an economic downturn. We are talking about the need to create jobs and to make sure that communities have continuing viability. Then we have a tax shift. Taxes are being shifted from large profitable corporations onto people who live in our ridings, onto hard-working families. That simply does not make any sense.
If the government truly were interested in job creation, if it were truly interested in economic stimulus, it would not put in place a shift that--
Rick Dykstra:  You can't even say that with a straight face.
Jean Crowder:  Mr. Speaker, there is heckling on the other side.
--shifts the tax from businesses to the consumers.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration wishes to ask questions, I would be happy to recognize him when the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan's last minute for her remarks has expired.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Thank you for that intervention, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, the harmonized sales tax will hurt businesses. It will hurt hard-working families in our communities. I call on the government to remove its inducement to have provinces implement that.
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not mean to cause you the grief of having to rise from the chair, but it was my response only because of the incredulous words I was hearing from the member. I certainly appreciate the eloquent way in which she presented her facts, but those facts are completely untrue, as she knows. 
There is no other government that has worked harder with the economic development statement that we designed. Implementation began in January of this year. Work has gone into it, and 90% of it has been implemented already or is in the process of being implemented. There are 4,000 of 7,500 projects announced by this government that either have a shovel in the ground, are in process, or are nearing completion.
I would like the hon. member to clarify. In her own riding I am sure she has projects under way as we speak. I would ask her to clarify that jobs have not been lost, but jobs have been created. That work is under way. It is true. This government has done more to stimulate this economy than has any of the other G7 nations.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I was not talking about infrastructure projects. I was talking about the home renovation tax credit, which is what is actually contained in Bill C-51, not infrastructure. What I was talking about in terms of impact on jobs was the harmonized sales tax, which is not in Bill C-51 either. It was in the original budget bill, on page 166.
When we talk about the harmonized sales tax, we are talking about goods and services that are not currently taxed under the provincial tax system, such as vitamins, newspapers and magazines, movie and theatre tickets, haircuts, dry cleaning, adult clothing, funeral costs, food, restaurant meals, housing, bicycles, safety equipment, airplane tickets, and on and on.
When we look at that list, in my community most of the service deliverers are people in small business. Local hairdressers are wondering how they are going to explain the extra 7% to their customers. They expect that their customers will reduce the number of haircuts they get. We often talk about seniors on fixed incomes, single mothers, or fathers who have lost their jobs in forestry. 
We are talking about a 7% hit. The government will argue that prices will go down, but we know that in Atlantic Canada it took several years for that to happen. In an economic downturn, why would the government be encouraging the provincial government in British Columbia to add an additional 7% to the cost of many small businesses' goods and services?
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, in this bill is a provision with respect to a change in the Canada pension plan. As the Canada pension plan is presently constituted, if people take their pensions early, there is a 0.5% discount per month for every month the pension is taken early. Similarly, if people take it after 65, there is a bonus, so to speak, of 0.5%.
This bill proposes that the numbers be changed, that if people take the pension early, instead of the discount being 0.5%, it would be 0.6%. People could take their pensions somewhere in the order of five years early, which is 60 months, which would represent a fairly significant cut in people's pensions. Similarly, if people take it after age 65, instead of getting a 0.5% bonus, they would get a 0.7% bonus.
I am wondering how the hon. member feels about that, with the provinces and the federal government apparently having negotiated all of this. If people are in need of their pensions early, there is going to be a bigger discount and if they want to postpone collecting their pensions, there is going to be a bigger bonus. I would be interested in knowing how she feels about that particular provision in this bill.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of changes proposed in Bill C-51 to the Canada pension plan. My understanding is that some of these changes are, for example, to remove the work cessation test in 2012 so that a person may take his or her retirement pension as early as age 60 without the requirement of a work interruption or earnings reduction, and to increase the general drop-out from 15% to 16% in 2012, allowing a maximum of almost 7.5 years of low or zero earnings to be dropped from the contributory period and to 17% in 2014, allowing a maximum of eight years, and so on.
The member referred to a couple of very technical aspects. New Democrats have called for taking a step back and having a much broader look at CPP and OAS. We know that many seniors are living in poverty and simply do not have the kinds of funds that lead to a dignified retirement.
We will be examining this bill in much further detail and making some recommendations.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, on the topic of the home renovation tax credit, last month I had the opportunity to travel through Nova Scotia. I saw a rather large sign outside a hot tub emporium, which said that hot tubs are available under the home renovation tax credit. If people buy hot tubs and install them in their homes, they will get the home renovation tax credit.
Hot tubs, along with other things, actually increase energy use in people's homes. They are a great example of how a policy should have direction. Governments are there to provide direction. They are not there simply to enable more consumerism, but to assist Canadians in making good choices.
What we see here is a tax credit ostensibly needed to stimulate the economy this year, but in years to come the idea is obviously not good. We need to have a new direction for a tax credit. Does the member not agree?
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, that is a valid comment in that tax policy does shape behaviour in any country. The member correctly identified that there were no green guidelines attached to the home renovation tax credit.
There are many members in this House who did not support the Kyoto protocol. Canada is falling behind in its obligations to meet Kyoto. Kyoto in itself did not set the limits high enough for Canada to contribute meaningfully.
The New Democrats have put forward a climate change accountability bill, Bill C-311. It sets out some meaningful targets. We developed that bill with other environmental partners.
The member is absolutely correct that we need to have some green filters on things like the home renovation tax credit.
[Interjection]
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a follow-up question on the response by the hon. member during which she read a note and then she said it is time to take a step back and review CPP and OAS.
I would respectfully suggest that maybe this is the time. We are not going to postpone this forever. Maybe this is the time that we come to ground on whether we are comfortable with reducing pensions for people who have to take their pensions early and increasing the benefit of pensions for people who do not have to take pensions until after the age of 65.
[Interjection]
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member that it is time for a comprehensive review of CPP and OAS. In fact, in June, the New Democrats proposed that very thing in a motion in the House of Commons and it was passed unanimously.
Typically in this House we do things piecemeal. We tinker with things at the margins. Instead of doing the kind of work we should to ensure that the Canada pension plan and old age security provide a dignified retirement income for seniors who have worked hard all their lives, we do exactly as the member suggested, we look at 0.5% here and something else there. We need to take that overall look to ensure that seniors do have that income.
Mrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present at the second reading of Canada's economic recovery act, an act that would implement key parts from budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan and other important initiatives.
Earlier this year, we were in the midst of an unprecedented economic uncertainty, both here and, more intensely, abroad. As the President of the United States soberly noted in January, “all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression,”.
A little over eight months later, nearly everyone would concede that because of our economic action plan and our work with our international partners, great progress has been made in combatting this unprecedented global recession here in Canada and around the world.
However, while the Canadian and global economies are entering a period of fragile and tentative economic recovery, there is more to be done. Now, more than ever, our government must stay focused. We must stay on course.
As the G20 leaders declared in their recent joint statement:
 A sense of normalcy should not lead to complacency. 
 The process of recovery and repair remains incomplete. ... We cannot rest until the global economy is restored to full health, and hard-working families the world over can find decent jobs. 
While the Liberal opposition is playing political games and is obsessed with forcing yet another election, our government recognizes that Canadians expect more of their elected representatives, especially now. That is why we are focusing on the economy. That is why we are bringing forward legislation like the economic recovery act, legislation that would help to promote the economic stability needed for a sustained recovery and legislation that Parliament should support.
We have been clear that our Conservative government is ready to do whatever is necessary during these tough times to protect Canadians. That is why we introduced the economic action plan, a plan that will provide the largest fiscal stimulus boost in the G7 as a percentage of our economy and among the largest in the G20.
Our plan is helping to ensure that Canada handles the fallout as well as any country. Our plan is building our economy, maintaining and creating jobs, lowering taxes and much more. Our plan is working, keeping Canada in among the strongest economic positions in the world. It is not only our government saying it. Non-partisan, independent and well-respected global institutions are also saying it.
These institutions include the IMF, which, in its recent fall World Economic Outlook, proclaimed, “Not only will Canada experience one of the smallest drops in all of the G7 in 2009, Canada will be the fastest growing economy among G7 countries in 2010”.
The OECD praised our plan declaring:
 Canada's fiscal stimulus package should have a relatively large effect in stemming job losses. ...because the size of the fiscal package was reasonably large.... 
The economic recovery act is an extension of this plan, as it includes many of its key provisions as well as many other important measures. Among the key provisions legislated through the economic recovery act is the home renovation tax credit, which a recent Globe and Mail editorial called “one of the more successful of the government's stimulus measures, helping create demand for services and supplies”.
Through this temporary tax credit, we are providing an estimated 4.6 million Canadian families with up to $1,350 dollars in tax relief on eligible renovation projects undertaken before 2010. The home renovation tax credit's popularity is driven by its effectiveness as everyone from the home renovation and construction industry, to retailers, home hardware stores and lumber producers, to manufacturers, suppliers, carpenters and roofers are benefiting as a result, helping protect and create jobs and helping fuel the economic recovery.
Canadians from all regions are seeing first-hand that the home renovation tax credit is working. I would like to take a moment to share with the House a small sample of the feedback we are hearing and what this has meant for communities and businesses across our country. Hopefully Liberal members who voted against the home renovation tax credit will listen to these words and reconsider their opposition shown toward the economic recovery act.
In British Columbia, listen to a recent Richmond Review column:
 Spend a few minutes marching up and down the aisles of Home Depot, and you'll notice it's not easy. 
 Customers have been clogging the store, pushing around orange shopping carts as they pick up everything from hot water boilers to light fixtures to new tools to air conditioners and sheets of plywood, and renting equipment for do-it-yourself home renovation projects. 
 It's a sign the economy is recovering. 
 Peter Simpson, chief executive officer of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders' Association, said there's no question that the federal government home improvement tax credit has been a huge success. 
 Simpson said that the home renovation industry has been booming of late.... 
 The good news has spilled over from big box retailers like RONA and Revy to shopping malls, were consumers are purchasing accessories like towels, curtains and furniture as a facelift to their homes. 
Listen to what we have heard from retailers, industry associations and economists, retailers who employ thousands across Canada.
Home Hardware has heralded the credit, noting: 
 What we are hearing from our dealers right across the country is that people are definitely taking advantage of this opportunity to invest in their homes. 
Home Depot Canada remarked:
 Since the HRTC was announced, we have seen an increase in interest from our customers, specifically in regards to smaller home improvement projects. 
 Indeed, as CIBC World Markets economist, Krishen Rangasamy, observed, the home renovation tax credit is having a measurable positive impact on retail sales, noting:
 That [credit] definitely is having an effect. Since this home renovation tax relief became available, you've seen sales in that particular category increase.... 
What about industry associations? Listen to the Building, Industry and Land Development Association. They have also applauded the home renovation credit, pronouncing: 
 There's no question that the renovation tax credit has been the most effective stimulus spending initiative the federal government brought forward last January. The tax credit is spurring economic activity while helping to combat the underground economy.... 
I am hopeful that our Liberal colleagues listened to that small sampling of words of those Canadians in support of this important tax credit. Words they have likely heard time and time again from their own constituents in the past months. I hope my Liberal colleagues will listen to what it has done to fuel our economy and reconsider their decision to vote against it and against the economic recovery act.
If not the home renovation tax credit, what about other measures in this important bill they would be voting against? What about the first-time homebuyers tax credit? This credit would provide up to $750 in tax relief to help first-time homebuyers with the costs associated with the purchase of a first home, a move announced in our economic action plan that the Canadian Home Builders' Association welcomed as it would help employment and give Canadians greater confidence in their economic prospects, remarking, “the first-time buyers tax credit is a practical measure that will help first-time buyers with their closing costs”.
A move that is getting results as demonstrated in the continuing strength in existing home sales, sales that largely reflect the entrance of first-time homebuyers into the market, spurred on by the first-time homebuyers tax credit as well as another important aspect of our economic action plan. Specifically, an increase to $25,000 in the amount first-time homebuyers can withdraw from their RRSPs to purchase or build a home. This was the first increase in this limit since 1992. Taken together, as previously mentioned, these measures are getting results.
The following is a National Post article from April. It reads:
 Rock-bottom interest rates combined with some relief from Ottawa to pull the housing market out of its tailspin, industry experts said Wednesday.... 
 “Interest rates and government stimulus are what's helping right now” said Ron Lawby, president of Century 21 Canada LP. 
 Specifically, two measures introduced within the federal budget's stimulus plans are bringing buyers around; an increase in the allowable withdrawal from registered savings plans for first-time buyers to $25,000 from $20,000; and a tax credit of $5,000 home buyers may count against their incomes. 
 “It really is first-time buyers," Mr. Lawby said. 
Or more recently—

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member still has time in her speech but it is 1:30, so she will need to conclude the second half of her speech the next time this bill is before the House.
 It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. 

Private Members' Business
Criminal CodeFrancine Lalonde:  moved that Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I first introduced a private member's bill on the right to die with dignity in June 2005, because I felt confident that Quebeckers and Canadians needed Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to recognize that every person, subject to certain specific conditions, had the right to an end of life that is consistent with the values of dignity and freedom they have always espoused and so that an individual's wish regarding his or her death would be respected. In fact, I introduced this bill so that people would have a choice, the same right to choose that people in other countries have.
My conviction has grown stronger, and that is why I am introducing an amended bill on the right to die with dignity, Bill C-384. Briefly, it amends the Criminal code so that a medical practitioner does not commit homicide just by helping a person to die with dignity if—I am coming to the conditions—the person is at least 18 years of age, continues to experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief or suffers from a terminal illness. The person must have provided a medical practitioner with two written requests more than 10 days apart expressly stating the person's free and informed consent to opt to die.
The medical practitioner must have requested and received written confirmation of the diagnosis from another medical practitioner. The other practitioner must be independent and have no personal interest in the death of the person. The medical practitioner must have no reasonable grounds—this is important—to believe that the person's written requests were made under duress or while the person was not lucid. The practitioner must have informed the person of the consequences of his or her requests and of the alternatives available to him or her and must act in the manner indicated by the person, it being understood that the person may, at any time, revoke the requests made under subparagraph (a)(iii) of clause 2 of the bill.
The patient is free to change his mind. The doctor must constantly remind him of that. If he does not change his mind, the doctor must submit a copy of the confirmation referred to in subparagraph (i) to the coroner.
Mr. Speaker, would you please let me know when I have two minutes left?
As we all know, the right to receive medical assistance to die exists in other countries. The Netherlands was the first to make it a right. In that country, before the law existed, doctors who helped patients die were tolerated by the legal system, as long as they complied with medical directives from the country's equivalent of a college of physicians and surgeons. Then the law was changed to reflect what people had been thinking about and doing for all that time.
In the Netherlands, euthanasia is when a doctor, acting on behalf of a patient and in accordance with the patient's strict instructions, deliberately puts an end to the patient's life. I want to emphasize that, in the Netherlands, palliative care is excellent and euthanasia is one of the care options.
Belgium also passed a law after senators from different parties worked together to hold nationwide consultations and agree on a piece of legislation in which euthanasia is defined as an action by a party intentionally ending the life of a person at that person's request. The law has been in place for six years, and there is oversight in place as well. This year, there was a report on the application of the law. For those who fear that permitting people at the end of their lives to choose how they wish to die might result in a huge number of people seeking help to die, the incidence over the past six years in Belgium has been 4 per 1,000. I repeat: 4 per 1,000 deaths. 
In Quebec, the debate is ongoing. The Collège des médecins has asked its ethics committee to consider the matter of euthanasia. After three years of study, the committee should soon be making recommendations. As Dr. Yves Robert, the college's secretary, told L'Actualité médicale,
 Doctors do not want to abdicate their responsibilities when it comes to euthanasia, but we must determine the scope of those responsibilities and how they are to be carried out. 
At its annual meeting on April 16 and 17, 2009, the Association des soins palliatifs broached the topic with a presentation by Dr. Yvon Beauchamp, who began his introduction with the following:
 I have found that over the years in Canada, palliative care has been championed as the anti-euthanasia and the universal alternative to an act punishable under the laws of God, the laws of man and the laws of the college of physicians. 
He added:
 There are people who believe that “increased development of palliative care means there is no longer a need for suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.” 
I could go on. On August 11, 2009, an Angus Reid survey of 804 adults in Quebec was published with the title, Strong Support in Quebec for Legalizing Euthanasia. The subtitle read, “Most Quebecers believe that laws governing euthanasia should be provincial responsibility.” The survey showed the following figures: 77% of Quebeckers believe euthanasia should be allowed, and 75% think it is a good idea to re-open the debate on euthanasia. On August 22, the Association féminine d'éducation et d'affaires sociales, the AFEAS, well-known in all ridings of Quebec, voted in favour of euthanasia at its convention. Members of the AFEAS took the position that Quebeckers should be allowed to die with dignity.
Palliative care and assisted suicide are not mutually exclusive; they complement each other. I am saying this right off the bat, because I know that I will hear that argument. How many times have I heard, “As long as some people do not have access to palliative care, we cannot consider medical assistance in dying”? Why? That has nothing to do with the issue. Everyone needs access to quality palliative care.
It should also be known that palliative care does not relieve all pain and especially not all the suffering that comes with the end of life, aging and the difficulty of a lengthy hospital stay.
I will read from a text by Dr. Boisvert, a long-time palliative care doctor at the Royal Victoria Hospital:
 Caregivers, whose own health is relative, are not equipped to experience the throes of progressive decline (a teaspoon at a time, wrote one patient); the indignity of urinary or fecal (rectal, or worse, vaginal) incontinence—we do not often hear that in Parliament; of constant breathlessness; the throbbing acute pain caused by a collapsing cancerous vertebra, causing the patient to cry out at the slightest movement; the gauntness and extreme weakness that result in total dependence, even for the simplest things such as turning over in bed just slightly or lifting half a glass of water to one's parched lips. 
Dr. Boisvert continued:
 That is why I do not subscribe to the idea that people should find the strength to suffer to the end or the idea that people should be so compassionate as to suffer with their loved one, when it is the loved one that is truly suffering. 
I would add that I do not understand why people prefer to wash their hands of this suffering that cannot be relieved, that can only be relieved by death, because the time that passes is a kind of torture. Do we here have the right not to hear or think about it? Again, palliative care cannot end all pain and suffering.
My colleagues may have received the document from five doctors who oppose my bill. They may have the support of a hundred or so others. What do they have to say? I read this document carefully and it acknowledges that palliative care cannot relieve all pain and suffering and certainly not the suffering described by Dr. Boisvert. Then why are they against my bill?
They say, “These people have to be heard and helped as much as possible, but their request remains absolutely unacceptable to us”.
Why? To me there is a disconnect here. Their position is unacceptable, especially when they admit:
 The line between palliation and euthanasia may seem tenuous to some, since the distinction between them lies in the intention of the act and not in what it involves. 
They wrote that because palliative care also uses what is known as terminal sedation, which plunges patients into a coma when their suffering cannot otherwise be eased. In such a coma, they cannot eat or drink, but they are still alive and, in the end, they die of lethal complications. This can take a short while or a very long time, and this terminal sedation basically amounts to an act of euthanasia. They claim it is not the same thing. Even the Catholic church says that when any action is taken that has a double effect, such as the positive effect of easing the suffering, and the negative effect, which leads to death, one is not responsible for the negative effect, because it was the positive effect that was sought. This was one of the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
When we consider that, not as followers of any religion, but as people who are responsible for the well being of our citizens, do we have the right to refuse to look at all the possibilities?
I would like to see the broadest possible committee hear from as many citizens as possible in order to be able to provide end of life medical assistance to people who are suffering greatly, who can no longer endure the suffering and want to end their lives. We should help them die with dignity. 
I await your comments and hope to have your support, not for me, but for the people we may one day become. The lottery of death offers no guarantees.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, there were so many failures of logic, and so much misinformation and misguided information there that I hardly know where to start, and I only have a minute or so.
I would like to make the point that we need to understand that allowing people to die is a far cry from causing their death. That is one of the things that the member opposite seems to have completely misunderstood.
She made a number of comments and I would like to mention a couple of them.
She said that according to her bill, physicians are required to provide information and alternatives. The problem with that is that these physicians are basically always advocates, and we have seen in other countries that this does not work. This would not provide the necessary safeguards for patients. It would not protect patients and it would not protect Canadians.
She talked about the fact that choice exists in other countries. While that is true, many of those countries have developed death tourism, so that people go there to die. That is not in line with what we want either the heritage or the future of this country to be about.
It is ironic that she claims that an association for palliative care champions euthanasia. Is this not a complete twisting of the commitment that so many palliative care providers across this country believe in? They believe they are doing good work. They do not believe in euthanasia. Is the member not twisting this in a way that they would abhor?
[Interjection]
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I read in Dr. Boisvert's writings that, in the course of the debate, whether one was for or against euthanasia, there were interventions such as these.
Nevertheless, we must ask what is good for the patients. That is the question. It is not about what we personally want. It is about determining whether or not we should, by changing the Criminal Code, allow doctors who so wish—only those who wish to do so—to medically end the life of someone who wants to die, who has made that choice, who is at the end of life and who is suffering. That is the only question. We are trying to help and that is what the College of Physicians and Surgeons, AFEAS and others are trying to do.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult subject. The end of life is difficult for us all. 
The essential core of this legislation is that it would engage society in the ending of a life. It would engage the doctor and it would engage us as a society.
I will give a small but imperfect analogy.
 Many years ago our Canadian society decided that we would not have capital punishment. We had found over time that in capital crimes our justice system had made mistakes. We have one of the best justice systems in the world but we make mistakes. Had we had capital punishment in this society, Mr. Marshall would have been executed. Mr. Milgaard would have been executed, and a number of other people would have been executed. 
It does not much matter what systems the hon. member proposes in her bill, mistakes will be made. It is inevitable. People's lives will be ended prematurely and they will be ended without full and informed consent. Inevitably, we as a society will bear that shame and that guilt.
I would request that the hon. member respond to the inevitable, the absolute certainty that errors will be made and that therefore she and I and all the rest of us will bear that guilt.
[Interjection]
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
I studied the Belgian report. I could make a copy available. Because of the way it was drafted and applied, the Belgian legislation makes it clear that the persons who have asked to die and who have been helped to die were truly at the end of their lives, suffered terribly and could not have been helped by other means—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Francine Lalonde:  I would ask my colleagues to please listen.
Could a mistake be made? Could the life of someone who did not truly wish to die be brought to an end? The person is asked the question repeatedly and there is not one doctor who would want to help someone die if they did not want to. However, if we consider—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works now has the floor.
Jacques Gourde:  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to BillC-384 that was introduced on May 13, 2009, by the member from La Pointe-de-l'Île. Two previous bills on this subject were introduced by the same member in past sessions of Parliament. One of them was debated in 2005, but did not come to a vote.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to state at the outset that I do not support Bill C-384 which proposes the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia under specified conditions. This bill raises a number of serious concerns and I propose to outline the ones I consider to be most important. 
First, Bill C-384 is too broad in terms of its scope. Mr. Speaker, Bill C-384 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to provide an exemption not only to the offence of assisted suicide, but also to the offence of murder. These amendments would represent a substantial change to the current state of the law on a matter that touches on life and death.
The proposed legalization of medical euthanasia and assisted suicide would not only apply to terminally-ill patients, but also to persons who suffer from severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief. Therefore, under this bill, persons who suffer from depression could request that a doctor help them to commit suicide. They could also request that the doctor carry out the act itself that would cause their death. 
Diane Bourgeois:  That is false.
Jacques Gourde:  Therefore, when I articulated earlier that Bill C-384 is too broad in its scope, this concern applies to both the fact that it would permit physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, and to the fact that it would allow a vast array of persons to make a request to a doctor for assisted death.
The second important concern I wish to raise with respect to this bill is how it does not encompass sufficient safeguards.
The subject of safeguards, like the subject of the scope, also has two aspects in the context of this bill. 
The first deals with ensuring that the eligibility requirements and the terms used are properly circumscribed. In this respect, Bill C-384 contains a number of vague and undefined terms that could lead to interpretation problems and, therefore, potentially to misunderstandings or abuses.
For example, terms such as “while appearing to be lucid”, “appropriate treatment”, “severe physical or mental pain”, “without any prospect of relief” have the potential to be interpreted very subjectively. 
Also, the 10-day “cooling off” period, if you will, is too short to ensure that a person’s wish to die was settled. 
The other element of ensuring appropriate safeguards deals with putting in place an effective oversight mechanism. In this respect, it is my view that Bill C-384 contains a woefully insufficient oversight mechanism. 
Under Bill C-384, the doctor who would assist in a suicide or terminate someone’s life would only have to provide a copy of the diagnosis to the coroner after the fact. This bill would give a doctor the authority to terminate life on the apparent consent of the patient. 
Under the terms of C-384, people as young as 18, diagnosed with depression and not wanting treatment, could ask to have their life terminated by a doctor. 
Parliament should not consider such profound changes to the law without prior input from Canadians. Many different stakeholder groups should be consulted in advance of specific reforms being considered. These amendments would have serious implications for the medical profession in particular.
Surely, the medical profession should be consulted in advance of such significant changes being made to current medical ethics and practice.
I know that other countries have struggled with this difficult issue over the years, both in their legislatures and in the courts. While some countries have amended their laws to permit physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia, others have not supported such changes. In any event, regardless of what other countries have done, we have to consider what is right for our society. It is not clear to me that the legal regime proposed in this bill is right for Canada. 
In closing, I would like to reiterate that I do not support this bill. Bill C-384 would represent a substantial change to the current policy on the criminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. It raises a number of significant legal and policy concerns and, in my view, would not adequately protect human life. Bill C-384 would also have a major impact on current medical ethics and practice. Such substantial changes to the law should not be considered without extensive advance consultations.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, please remind me when I have two minutes left.
I would like to announce to my colleagues in the House of Commons that the Liberal critic will not be voting in favour of this private member's bill by the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. I would like to thank her for raising this important issue. I personally think it is such an important and complex matter that a private member's bill is not the right vehicle to engage the public debate that this issue deserves. I would like to read a letter that the Canadian Medical Association addressed to my colleague, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. A copy of this letter was sent to all hon. members. It sums up my concerns about this issue. The letter reads,
 Madame, 
 The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has been very interested in and concerned about the progress of Bill C-384 in the House of Commons. The House is at third reading of a bill that would, in some circumstances, allow a physician to aid a person to die with dignity if that person has provided free and informed consent. The CMA's policy is clear. “Canadian physicians should not participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide.” 
 As the attached policy notes, euthanasia and assisted suicide must be distinguished from the withholding or withdrawal of inappropriate, futile or unwanted medical treatment or the provision of compassionate palliative care, even when these practices shorten life. The CMA does not support euthanasia or assisted suicide and urges its members to uphold the principles of palliative care. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are opposed by almost every national medical association and prohibited by the law codes of almost all countries. 
 Our policies also clearly state that “the CMA recognizes that it is the prerogative of society to decide whether the laws dealing with euthanasia and assisted suicide should be changed”, but that there are some concerns that must be addressed before any changes are made. These include: 
 1. Adequate palliative-care services must be made available to all Canadians. In 1994, our members approved a motion that Canadian physicians should uphold the principles of palliative care. The public has clearly demonstrated its concern with our care of the dying. The provision of palliative care for all who are in need is a mandatory precondition to the contemplation of permissive legislative change. Efforts to broaden the availability of palliative care in Canada should be intensified. 
 2. Suicide-prevention programs should be maintained and strengthened where necessary. Although attempted suicide is not illegal, it is often the result of temporary depression or unhappiness. Society rightly supports efforts to prevent suicide, and physicians are expected to provide life-support measures to people who have attempted suicide. In any debate about providing assistance in suicide to relieve the suffering of persons with incurable diseases, the interests of those at risk of attempting suicide for other reasons must be safeguarded. 
 3. A Canadian study of medical decision-making during dying should be undertaken. We know relatively little about the frequency of various medical decisions made near the end of life, how these decisions are made and the satisfaction of patients, families, physicians and other caregivers with the decision-making process and outcomes. 
 Hence, a study of medical decision making during dying is needed to evaluate the current state of Canadian practice. This evaluation would help determine the possible need for change and identify what those changes should be. If physicians participating in such a study were offered immunity from prosecution based on information collected, as was done during the Remmelink commission in the Netherlands, the study could substantiate or refute the repeated allegations that euthanasia and assisted suicide take place. 
 4. Consideration should be given to whether any proposed legislation can restrict euthanasia and assisted suicide to the indications intended. Research from the Netherlands and Oregon demonstrate that a large percentage of patients who request aid in dying do so in order to maintain their dignity and autonomy. 
 If euthanasia or assisted suicide or both are permitted for competent, suffering, terminally ill patients, there may be legal challenges, based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to extend these practices to others who are not competent, suffering or terminally ill. Such extension is the “slippery slope” that many fear. 
 This statement has been developed to help physicians, the public and politicians participate in any re-examination of the current legal prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide and arrive at a solution in the best interests of Canadians. The CMA is in favour of improving access to palliative care and suicide prevention programs, undertaking a study on how medical decisions are made near the end of life and having a comprehensive public debate on the matter, but we cannot support Bill C-384. 
 Sincerely, 
 Anne Doig, MD, CCFP, FCFP, 
 President 
As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, I understand and deeply respect the desire of the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île to bring this matter forth in the House of Commons, and I sympathize with her. I think this is a debate that we should have, but it should be initiated by the government.
I am critical, however, of this government and previous governments of my political stripe for not having had the moral fortitude to take the necessary steps to allow such a debate to take place and not undertaking such a study, as suggested and recommended by the Canadian Medical Association. 
I truly believe that it is an issue that many Canadians, many families are grappling with and an idea that they are finding very painful to think about. Government has a responsibility to help Canadians deal with this issue, to see what the actual state is and whether or not this issue can be dealt with in a way that provides dignity and serenity, and also to provide a sense of security that there will not be mistakes made if legislative measures are in fact taken.
As I have said, I blame the government but I also blame my own political party, which formed government for several terms, for not having had the moral courage to deal with this.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, like other members who have risen to address this issue, I think it is a very painful one for all of us. It is certainly a very emotional one, and it is one to which there is no clear solution.
I will start off by saying, as I have regarding the previous incarnations of the bill, that I am opposed to the bill, and I am opposed to introducing into Canada assisted suicide at this time. I want to say that philosophically I understand the arguments. I have to say I may even be inclined in extreme cases to agree that we need, in those rare cases, an assisted-suicide system. However, that is not where we are at as a society now. I believe it would be a tragedy and a major mistake if we moved to assisted suicide in this country at this time. 
I must admit I deliberated quite extensively over whether I should support the bill to get it through second reading and to committee, and ultimately I decided that I was philosophically opposed to it at this time, but more important, I decided that the debate we would have around the bill is not the debate that we need in the country.
The misinformation that we have around assisted suicides and around end-of-life decisions is quite grotesque. We heard from my colleague the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. 
Surveys showed that 70% to 80% of Canadians support euthanasia, but when people are provided with an informed amount of information, that changes dramatically.
 I am going to make these two points with regard to the information that is needed. One, the reality is that we do not train our doctors. I have been told to be careful about being overly critical of them, but it is the reality of our medical training. We do not train our doctors anywhere near sufficiently in pain control: pain control techniques and mechanisms and pharmacology.
I come from a community that has a hospice, which I believe is the best in the country. It has been in place for almost 25 years. It has gone out of its way to train local doctors by mentoring. Unfortunately, there was a pain specialist who recently retired. It has been training its doctors in this area, but it is an exception to the rest of the country.
There are all sorts of doctors, including some specialists I think should know better, who believe sincerely that there are a large number of cases in which they cannot control the pain and provide people with dignity at the end of their lives.
I want to quote from a statement made by Dr. Balfour Mount, whose name I think everybody in the country would recognize as being the leading doctor in palliative care. He started palliative care. He teaches at McGill University in Montreal. 
We know from what has gone on this past summer in Quebec that physicians' associations there are looking at whether they are going to come onside the euthanasia position. This is what Dr. Mount said:
 --the debate should be about the doctor's role in accompanying a terminally ill patient towards the inevitability of death, offering as much dignity and medical assistance as possible. 
That is not the same as saying that we should kill people.
 Mount said he is profoundly against euthanasia because it is simply not needed... 
What he was saying is that it is not needed in the kind of care he is able to provide and that he has provided for the better part of 30 years, as is the case in my community.
I have spoken to Carol Derbyshire, who is the head of the hospice. She said the hospice does not get requests for assisted suicide. They provide the care, not just to the patient but to the family. She was very clear on that. She has seen any number of surveys that say one of the major reasons, aside from pain, that people want assisted suicide in their regime is that they do not want to be a burden on their family, their society, their community. If we can build that system to make sure they do not have to be concerned about that, we take away any desire to terminate their lives arbitrarily and at an earlier date than would be natural.
We need to look at our system right now. Like the previous speaker, I want to be somewhat critical of prior governments. At this point, approximately 20% of our population is covered by meaningful palliative care, hospice and a home care system. That is all we have in the country. Then there is another 15% or maybe 17% who are covered by partial assistance at the end of life.
As an aside, one of the other things Carol said to me is that we have to shift the debate from dying to living out our lives. She is trying to come up with a phraseology that I may be able to use.
However, that is what it is about. It is about providing that system, and we are not doing it. In the last few months the government has cut more funding, the last of the funding it was providing for palliative care. It was mostly for research and helping the provinces set up standards. That is the second cut. Now all funds at the federal level have been eliminated to aid the provinces in establishing educational standards and training standards for palliative care in hospices. The government has cut it all. 
The other thing the government has not done, which is another area we need to be working on, is expanding EI benefits for family members who are caring for their parents or a sibling or spouse in need of that kind of assistance. 
 We have so severely restricted those funds as to make them almost meaningless. That is another area where we could be doing something that would take away the need for this kind of legislation.
We need to train our doctors much better, and we need to build the system. Until we do that, we should not be looking at this kind of legislation. I say that because I have also studied the situation in the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon fairly extensively. Although they all have different systems of determining when doctors can assist suicide or an individual can get assistance for suicide, the same result is true in all those communities.
 I know there are disputes over this, but it is the analysis that I have brought to bear, and I think it is an accurate one. In spite of how we build that system, and I say that about the legislation my colleague has brought here, that is not what actually happens. Should we make the mistake of passing this kind of legislation, we are in effect giving our approval to doctors who are willing to do this, to family members who want it and to those individuals who are still capable of making a decision. They will simply figure out ways of working around the legislation.
I respect my colleague from the Bloc extensively. The work she has done on foreign affairs and human rights in this country is almost beyond compare. I do not know if anybody's work is superior to the work she has done. However, I think she is wrong on this one.
I say this as a practising lawyer. I look at the terminology that she used, in particular where we are assessing the patient. She has set out a standard in this legislation about apparent lucidity. That is the terminology. That does not exist anywhere else in the law that I am aware of. If this test were to be applied, it would be easier for a person to commit suicide than it would be for somebody to take over control of their finances. That is simply wrong.
I am running out of time. I think we do need a fuller debate on this, but not in this context. It has to be in the context of people living out their natural lives, and what we, as a society and legislators, have to do to ensure that can happen.
Serge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate and thank my colleague, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who, for a third time, is introducing this bill concerning the right to die with dignity. We could call it the freedom to die with dignity. Clearly, for many people, when they hear that, they hear “suicide”, “assisted suicide” or “euthanasia”, and yes, it makes us shiver, because we have probably all known, every one of the 308 members have probably known someone directly or indirectly who has committed suicide, although no one expected it. We are always surprised. That person was probably suffering, suffering more than anyone can imagine.
We now have resources to help these people, but we have to find them and help them, for they will continue to suffer until we help them. Getting to the point of assisted suicide, this means that the someone is suffering, and there are situations in which there is nothing we can do. That person is suffering, and is becoming something that he or she never thought possible, bent over in pain, or often not bent over, but bedridden and suffering for weeks and months on end, which to that person seems like an eternity. This bill does not seek to eliminate people who are suffering. That is not what we are asking for; rather, we are seeking a right for these people, people who have all their faculties about them, who are suffering, who are aware of their suffering and who want to escape it. These people could commit suicide on their own and no one could stop them. However, some people have philosophical or religious considerations. Philosophy and religion eventually cross paths.
I can say that in ancient times, the Greeks and the Romans were able to bring the issue of suicide out into the open and ensure that it was part of public discourse and debate. That was in ancient times. They decided to discuss it honestly and openly, to debate the matter. Intolerance of suicide began to take root in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and was heightened under the influence of Christianity. Naturally we do not wish to go against people's beliefs. However, we are talking about the right to die with dignity. Some people fear that we are confusing palliative care with assisted suicide, that we are taking sides.
I have experienced this suffering. Who among us has not gone through the experience of watching a loved one die of cancer? Who has not experienced that? If I look at some of the reactions, what is happening now is not any better than what we are asking for. What we are asking for is to allow people to make a free and informed choice. You have probably all seen a loved one go through cancer. At a certain point, the suffering is intolerable. Of course the person is given morphine. At first things are better, but in the long run it is not enough. What to do? How long do we let them lie there unconscious? Are the doctors not somehow assisting them? Some people have a strong heart and their life, which they are no longer conscious of, will continue for as long as their heart beats. 
My father, who died at age 68, started having strokes at age 63, shortly after he retired.
He had various handicaps in addition to Alzheimer's disease. Of course there came a time when he had to be hospitalized. He was bedridden and unconscious for weeks, months. My father was strong and he had a healthy heart despite the fact that he was unconscious. It is normal for a human body to want to continue living.
We say that we want what is best for society, yet the fact that we refuse to speak openly and honestly about this issue raises a question. How can we be thinking of what is best for society when confronted with an individual in the final stages of a terminal illness who knows that they will die sooner or later and asks to die with dignity, thereby minimizing their own suffering and that of the people close to them?
I went through a second experience because I was also there when my father-in-law died in my home. He had been receiving palliative care. CLSC staff came to take care of him regularly. The same thing happened: doctors said that they might be able to help the end come sooner. In that case, the patient did not make a request.
This bill covers requests by lucid individuals. If a sick but lucid person decides to end their life with dignity—and everyone knows that they are going to die anyway—who am I to refuse?
We know that such pacts are becoming more and more common. When people know that they cannot end their own lives, they ask another person to help them in the event it becomes necessary. It is not very nice to be asked to do this kind of thing. How heartbreaking. But if there is a legal framework and people can make an informed choice, what right do we have to refuse them? Who am I to decide whether a human being should live or die? I believe that only the dying person has the right to decide whether they want to live or die.
I am certain that if we do not have this debate, more and more cases will come before the courts. People will be faced with such situations and, out of compassion, will decide that they cannot continue to watch loved ones suffer and that they must help them because their loved ones have asked for their help. Who am I to decide that someone will continue to suffer, continue to be bedridden, continue to decline, continue to no longer be the person they once were and no longer know where they are, even though that person asked me to do something for them if this sort of situation should occur?
In my opinion, we, the 308 members of this House, have a duty to consider this issue. I am not trying to convince the members to say yes so that this bill becomes law tomorrow morning. What I am trying to do is convince them to consider, discuss, debate and improve this bill. In the end, it is not up to us to choose. It is up to the person to say lucidly that, in the event something should happen, they want to have control over their life and, ideally, their death as well.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I thought I would outline some of the subjects that I will deal with in my closing statements in the remainder of my speech.
I spent nine years on the board of the Mississauga Hospital, five years of which were on the ethics committee of the board of directors. During that period of time, I headed up a group that looked at the subject matter of no CPR orders, non-resuscitation policies.
The issues of informed consent and mental competency, whether the person had all the medical information, or were aware of all the options or there was coercion by family members or friends, are important issues to take into consideration.
The bill goes under the moniker of right to die with dignity, but the amendment to the Criminal Code would give a person the right to terminate a life before natural death. It would not give the right to die with dignity to someone. It would give the right of someone to take a life. That is a subtle difference.
I hope as many members as possible will get an opportunity to address this. Palliative care workers are concerned about this. Organizations and hospices are doing their very best to give the best possible care in terrible situations. Disabled in our society are obviously concerned about whether their lives are at risk because someone decides they do not live in dignity.
All human life is dignified life.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have eight minutes to conclude his remarks the next time the bill is before the House.
The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)