2009-02-27

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: There are 86 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-10.
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows: 
Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 6 and 66 to 86.
Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 7 to 31.
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 32 to 65.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 6 and 66 to 86 in Group No. 1 to the House.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):  moved:
 Motion No. 1 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 6. 
 Motion No. 2 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 295. 
 Motion No. 3 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 296. 
 Motion No. 4 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 297. 
 Motion No. 5 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 298. 
 Motion No. 6 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 299. 

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP): moved:
 Motion No. 66 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 445. 
 Motion No. 67 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 446. 
 Motion No. 68 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 447. 
 Motion No. 69 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 448. 
 Motion No. 70 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 449. 
 Motion No. 71 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 450. 
 Motion No. 72 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 451. 
 Motion No. 73 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 452. 
 Motion No. 74 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 453. 
 Motion No. 75 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 454. 
 Motion No. 76 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 455. 
 Motion No. 77 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 456. 
 Motion No. 78 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 457. 
 Motion No. 79 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 458. 
 Motion No. 80 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 459. 
 Motion No. 81 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 460. 
 Motion No. 82 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 461. 
 Motion No. 83 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 462. 
 Motion No. 84 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 463. 
 Motion No. 85 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 464. 
 Motion No. 86 
 That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 465. 

Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to address the motions in amendment introduced by our party concerning Bill C-10.
Motion No. 1 in particular seeks to delete clause 6, which allows the use of tax havens. While the Conservative budget provides nothing to help the thousands of people who will be losing their jobs, and the industries and regions in difficulty, we have the Minister of Finance allowing Canadian multinational corporations to use tax havens to avoid paying billions in taxes while at the same time encouraging investment and job creation abroad at the expense of our local businesses. Clearly, the Minister of Finance is trying to favour his friends through such generous breaks. This approach has become commonplace since the Conservatives have gained the support of the Liberals who regularly did that sort of thing.
In his 2007 budget, the Minister of Finance said that the government had to make sure that everyone paid their fair share. He complained about how some foreign and Canadian corporations take advantage of the tax rules to avoid paying income tax. He said that every time that happens, workers and small and medium-sized businesses end up having to pay more tax. He concluded by stating that that was unfair. Now, not only is the economic situation even worse, but the government seems to have done everything in its power to exacerbate the unfairness.
Let us not forget that the Minister of Finance has already backed away from the fight against tax havens by giving in to pressure from Toronto financiers. He gave them a five-year grace period before he will implement his plan to fight tax evasion, then he convened an advisory panel whose independence and neutrality are debatable.
The Minister of Finance reneged on his promise to fight tax evasion by blindly accepting the recommendations of the Advisory Panel on Canada’s System of International Taxation. The group was clearly set up to justify the minister's change of heart. Of the six members of the panel, four are from private companies that may have benefited from the strategy and still can.
Let me make it clear that the minister was getting advice from a six-member advisory panel with four members in a position to benefit from tax evasion strategies. This is the Conservatives' new way of doing things, an approach borrowed from the Liberals. It is no accident that they decided to support the latest budget. For example, one of the members is the former CEO of Scotiabank, which has more branches in tax havens than any other Canadian bank. The authors of the report are clearly in conflict of interest. That is why we have asked that clause 6 be deleted.
Motions Nos. 2 to 6 concerning securities call for the deletion of clauses 295 to 299. The goal is to eliminate clauses relating to the creation of a single securities commission. With this bill, the government would establish a Canadian securities regulation regime transition office with a $150 million operating budget. 
The expert panel on securities regulation appointed by the Minister of Finance tabled its final report in January 2009. The panel proposed the creation of a federal securities regulation agency, although this falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. That is a fact. Once again, this is an encroachment into provincial jurisdictions. The report proposes various mechanisms to implement the project without agreement from Quebec and the provinces.
Furthermore, the report also proposes that the federal government use legal recourse to force dissenting provinces to comply with the federal project. This does not fall under federal jurisdiction, yet it wants to impose penalties on the dissenting provinces. The fact that this is being supported by members from Quebec, whether Conservative or Liberal, is appalling. As the saying goes, when it comes to politics, you have to watch where you step. We see what the Liberals and Conservatives are doing in that regard. 
The Bloc Québécois would like to reiterate its opposition to the creation of a national securities commission. Instead, the Bloc Québécois will support a harmonization of the rules governing the financial system through a passport mechanism, like that of the European community, in order to maintain the autonomy and jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. The Bloc Québécois will continue to vigorously argue against the creation of such a commission and will continue to fully support the Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec, which has been doing its job. International experts have said that the existing system for monitoring securities in Canada is among the best in the world. 
We therefore cannot understand why the government is trying to get rid of that whole system today.
When I was elected in 2000, one of the first issues I got involved in was bank mergers. The Bloc Québécois has always been fiercely opposed to bank mergers. At the time, if the Liberals had succeeded in introducing this system of bank mergers with the Conservatives' help, our banks would be in a very bad financial position. The goal was to merge in order to buy other banks, especially American ones. Some American banks are in dire straits today.
Luckily, the Bloc Québécois was here in 2000 to stand up to all the big Bay Street financiers. Once again, the focus is on Toronto. But the fact is that the focus should not be on Toronto, especially when it comes to securities, and the government is trying to impose this new system on Quebec, even though this is not the right way to go.
So every day, we are proud to get up in this House and defend Quebeckers' interests, which is something we do very well. And that is why, election after election, Quebeckers send a large delegation of Bloc Québécois members to represent them in this House.
It is always very interesting to follow politics. People who think politics is always dull and boring just have to listen to what the Prime Minister said yesterday. He talked about creating a secret $3 billion fund and about the possibility of heading to an election. If he wants to engage in patronage and pick up where the Liberals left off, I wish him luck. We will be waiting for him in Quebec. We have no problem with that. We are used to it. After Jean, we took care of Paul, and we will take care of the next one who comes along.
As for the last group of motions the Chair agreed to have debated today—motions 66 to 86 concerning Investment Canada—they are NDP motions. We will support these amendments. As announced during the election campaign, the government is going ahead with liberalizing foreign investment.
The government is gradually raising the threshold for automatic review of foreign investments in Canada from $295 million to $1 billion within three years. All investments below that threshold will no longer have to be approved by the industry department. This will mean that for all investments under $1 billion, the government will no longer have to determine whether or not the transaction is good for Canada's economy.
And there are some very recent examples of this. Think about all the investments and purchases made under the Conservative laissez-faire philosophy. All they want is to no longer have to comment on transactions under one billion dollars. Look at what happened with Rio Tinto, for one. The Conservatives could have protected the interests of Quebeckers, but they did not. They made that choice and, today, we are having these discussions. Unions, employees, communities and cities with Rio Tinto facilities are all worried because they do not know what will come after the company's cuts. When their headquarters is in London, it is easy to see why Quebeckers are far from their minds.
Once again, it is the Conservative's laissez-faire policies that these motions are designed to oppose. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois will support these motions because, in difficult economic times, the members of the public who elected us have the right to know that their representatives are defending their interests. And right now the Conservatives and Liberals are doing everything but defending the interests of Quebeckers. Once again, the Bloc will stand up in this House to defend the interests of Quebeckers. That is what we are doing as we move these motions today.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise to address these proposed amendments to Bill C-10 to implement this year's budget.
The Conservatives stole a page from the American political playbook in the past two years with their budget measures. The first inkling we had of this was in a previous budget when they embedded a provision that would have allowed them to start censoring artistic production in the movie field in Canada, something that we had not seen in 60 years.
They were going to be allowed to decide themselves whether something was against public order and good morales. That had nothing to do with the budget and it had everything to do with the right wing agenda of the Conservative-Liberal alliance party. What we discovered then was that they were going to use this trick because of the fact that the Liberals were supporting them in everything they did.
In the budget bill last year we also saw another attempt to bring in a part of their right wing agenda. That time it had to do with immigration. The current rule on immigration is if people meet all the criteria, they have a right to become an immigrant and a Canadian citizen.
The new rule is, even if one meets all the criteria and has done absolutely everything, it is not aleatory, it is now up to the civil service, controlled by the Conservative-Liberal alliance, to shut the door to immigration. What they have brought in is a tragedy. It will allow them, for example, to exclude on the basis of country of origin.
 That is the right wing agenda. It is well identified by the Conservatives with their Reform base. That is the people who hoot and holler in every question period. They are the ones who support this strong right wing agenda.
This year the Conservatives have gone a step further. Not content to try to muzzle artistic expression by bringing in their world view, not content to exclude whole areas of immigration that have helped build our country, they are now bringing whole sections of their right wing agenda into the budget. The culpable compliance of the official abstention Liberals is allowing them to do so.
We have seen a number of things that are part and parcel of the Conservative-Reform base policies. For example, earlier this week Tom Flanagan wrote an article in The Globe and Mail, which reminds me of General Patton's admonition, would that my enemy write a book.
We have Tom Flanagan expressing himself oh so clearly on the Conservatives' hatred of women's rights. For them it is an anathema. They have gone after a woman's right, enshrined in our human rights documents, to have equal pay for work of equal value. That is in this budget, an attack on that right. They are doing it in the most surreptitious fashion.
They have Mr. Family values himself, the President of the Treasury Board, stand up day after day telling us that it is for women's good. Women's rights are one thing, but family rights are another. We have to take care of both. The Conservatives tell us they are trying to actually accelerate a process that has been going on for far too long, and it should now be attributary of the collective bargaining process.
The problem is very often over the years a category of employment that was mostly male, like a truck driver, versus a category of employment that was mostly female, like a nurse, had nothing to do with an objective analysis of the difficulty of the task being accomplished, the type of training, experience and expertise necessary to accomplish the task, and it had everything to do with the fact that if it was a male dominated category, the individual was paid more and if it was a female dominated category then the individual was paid less.
A lot of people confused this with the debate about equal pay for equal work. That has been decided for a long time. To go back to my examples, a woman driving a truck and a man driving a truck has been settled for 50 years. They will be paid the same thing. A man who works as a nurse and a women who works as a nurse will paid the same thing.
That is not the issue. The issue is what has been done in forward-looking provinces like Manitoba, followed by Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, where we look at the value of the work being performed, and that is what Flanagan's piece helps us understand and decode with the Conservatives. They are almost too happy to snap their suspenders and say that it is a darn good thing the Conservatives are taking away women's rights and that it is about time. This bill is about that.
There is another attack in the bill, this time on the environment. We will see it in the sections that will be looked at a little later today. I give these examples to give context to the current debate.
 The Conservatives will be gutting the Navigable Waters Protection Act. We had dozens of environmental groups present in parliamentary committee the other day. We had a shameful experience where a senior civil servant was brought in to deliver a purely political speech. There is a difference that should be maintained between the upper reaches of the civil service, who should have a certain autonomy and the ability to do their jobs in the application of statutes. If people want to be in politics, let them run for a political office, come into this room and do their job. That is a political speech.
However, the Conservatives and institutions do not respect that sort of barricade. They brigadooned the senior civil servant to come in and explain what a great thing it was, that there was more flexibility and it was a tiered approval system. There is nothing in the bill about a tiered approval systems. There will be tiers, but they will be tears of people who care about our navigable waterways. They are bringing in the ability for the government to exclude whole sections of that bill and all types of waterways. 
It goes in conjunction with something that was released and first reported on by Louis-Gilles Francoeur in Le Devoir and carried by the English papers later. My colleague from Edmonton brought it forward. There is a clear plan to remove environmental assessments. Yesterday, again in the House, the Conservatives had the temerity to say that this had to do with streamlining more than one approval process, which kills jobs. 
When I was the minister of the environment in Quebec, I signed an agreement with the federal government so the federal and provincial assessors would sit together. The only people who were not happy were the consulting engineers who could no longer charge twice for the same work because they would not have two panels. However, it works. That is streamlining. It has nothing to do with removing the federal government's obligation to protect navigable waters. That is a canard.
We are getting the first inklings of the real Conservative agenda. One knows about the holier-than-thou Conservatives who for years have railed against people who stick their money in tax havens. They used to love to talk about Paul Martin. Look at what they are doing now. They had removed the ability to go to certain tax havens and they are bringing it back. They constitute a panel of their buddies to tell them what they want to hear. It will to be very interesting as the UBS, the Union de Banques Suisses case, opens up in the United States. There are 12,000 names on a list. 
Greg McArthur from The Globe and Mail did a very good job on this, mentioning that there was a Canadian desk at UBS. Surreptitiously, billions and billions of dollars were stuffed into those accounts by Canadians. It will be very interesting to find out. Who was in charge of that at the time in Canada? Michael Wilson, come on down. That was in The Globe and Mail, and it has tried to get an interview with Mr. Wilson. It cannot get one. It has tried to find out what is in it from the revenue agency in Canada, but it cannot get an answer. It is going to be interesting to find that out as well.
On the notion of foreign ownership, there can be no greater subject of concern to Canadians in this day and age, as we have seen a series of bubbles in the financial markets burst, that we maintain control as much as possible of key sectors and key industries, especially in the primary sectors of mining, metallurgy and forestry. Alcan, which is now Rio Tinto Alcan, owns the bed of the Saguenay River, one of the most beautiful rivers in Canada. Now that the Chinese government is buying into Rio Tinto, guess what? We are literally selling a riverbed to the Chinese government.
Labatt has just signed a deal. Its Belgian owners are selling off to a fund in New York and they will no longer be allowed to sell their Canadian production into the States. Not only is that a breach of the NAFTA and the Canada-U.S. FTA, which remains in force, it is a breach of common sense. Why should we even allow this? Xstrata, a company that had a written deal with the Canadian government in Sudbury, lost 700 jobs.
If the owners of Air Canada, the 49% shareholders, are a banker in Switzerland or Tokyo, do members think there will be any more planes to Hamilton or Rimouski? Asking the question is to answer it. That is why we want these amendments. That is why we oppose the bill.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for bringing up a very serious subject, the Navigable Waters Act. All of us in the House know that the Fisheries Act is one of the oldest pieces of legislation in the country. It should also be one of the strongest to protect the habitat and integrity of natural water systems in our country. Yet, time after time, my office hears from fishermen, kayakers and everybody else who uses those waterways. They are very concerned about what this act will do to protect the integrity of those waterways.
If possible, could my colleague take another moment to explain the dangers of what the government will do to our natural water systems?
[Interjection]
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question because it goes right to the history of Canada. The waterways are what allowed us to open up our country and their protection has been enshrined in legislation for over 100 years, because we understood the importance.
Canada also has a treaty with the United States on boundary waters protection. We always forget the word “protection” when we talk about these instruments. The Boundary Waters Treaty with the United States is 100 years old. The Navigable Waters Protection Act is over 100 years old. They were models for what became standard in the world. 
The Boundary Waters Treaty Act actually uses the words, written 100 years ago. It says that neither party shall allow pollution into the waterways to the detriment of. I remember going with Gary Doer to Washington with my colleague, Minister Ashton from Manitoba, who might be related to one of my new colleagues from Manitoba. He is her father. We were working to stop the Americans from sending the contents of something called Devils Lake into the Cheyenne River and up the Rouge River and into Lake Winnipeg, where there is a huge commercial fishery.
We know what happens when we do not take care of our waters. That is why so many of the groups involved in environmental protection are so concerned about what the Conservatives are up to. Again, they are profiting from the fact that the Liberals are at their lowest ebb. They have had a series of weak leaders and they have another weak now, who allows himself to be bullied like we saw yesterday in Vancouver when he was told if they did not smarten up, they would have an election. Usually the official opposition dreams of the day when they can get an election. These guys go cowering into the corner, and they are allowing all this stuff to go through.
 That is what the shame is here. It is a good thing the NDP is here to stand up for the rights of Canadians and for the environment.
Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the first issue for which I became the critic after being elected in 2004 was the status of women. I am amazed at how little has been accomplished to date. Yesterday, I heard a colleague call for gender-based analyses to know where gender equality stands department wide.
Now pay equity is being challenged. As I recall, when I was in university, I attended the same classes as men, took the same exams and got the same diploma. It seems to me that those who do the same job should be paid the same.
I would like my hon. colleague to tell the House why women continue to be denied the right to pay equity. Why is it so difficult to achieve gender equity?
[Interjection]
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from Trois-Rivières that we are on exactly the same page in this matter. 
What the Conservatives are doing is devious. It is hypocrisy to the utmost. They rise and state that, on the contrary, it will speed things up. But we have to look at the details. They have made it impossible to apply the rule of pay equity, namely equal pay for work of equal value, by eliminating recourse to the only competent tribunal.
Many people have missed another small detail. Previously, small groups could be considered to be predominantly female if 70% of its members were female. But the general rule applied, within the federal public service, was that the employment group was predominantly female if its membership was 55% female. In the bill, the Conservatives, supported by the Liberals, are about to change the general rule of 55% to 70%. With this threshold, it is virtually impossible to find an employment group that will be able to take action to ensure that women receive equal pay for work of equal value. 
Although I have the greatest of respect for unions after having worked in them for many years, I must say that, historically, collective agreements were not a sure thing. Unfortunately, collective agreements very often reflect the same prejudices held by society in general. Therefore it is not a solution in this situation to say that henceforth, it will be negotiated. If only to—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time provided for questions and comments has expired
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will begin today by recognizing what I thought was a common understanding when one puts his or her name on the ballot to run to be a member of this House.
I committed to my constituents that, if they saw fit to elect me as their member of Parliament, every statement I made in this House and every decision I made would be based on me availing myself of all available information before I made that decision.
The reason I say that is because there was a five hour briefing from about 36 to 38 well-respected public servants who sat with us until almost midnight one night, providing a fulsome briefing that was offered to all members of Parliament and all senators. I am a little ashamed to say that there were only two parties that actually showed up, that being the government and the Liberals. It is reflected today in these false comments that the other parties could have had answered.
 In fact, we had a very broad cross-section of witnesses, respected public servants who are experts in their fields, appear before committee. We offered the broadest opportunity, as we did in the prebudget consultations, which, by the way, the NDP did not take part in, to provide the most information so we would not have this delay. To be very blunt, that is what we have here today.
 Hopefully the report stage debate on the budget implementation bill, Bill C-10, will end soon. We have debated it and have provided an open forum for people to participate. I will keep my comments very brief so as to not prolong this disappointing show of political theatre by both the Bloc and the NDP.
I want it to be clear for the people at home. What we are witnessing here today is nothing more than the Bloc and the NDP using parliamentary procedures to delay a vital piece of legislation from passing, legislation they know will pass. They know this legislation contains vital, time-sensitive measures to help the Canadian economy and many of the most vulnerable. Bill C-10 has vital provisions to extend EI by five weeks, to provide $6 billion for stimulative, job creating investments in housing, infrastructure, regional economic development and health care, to implement measures to ensure financial market stability, and to help flow credit to businesses.
The members of the NDP and the Bloc, I would hope, have by now read the bill and realize that. Why are they doing it? This is not about pay equity. This is not about equalization. Everyone who has actually read and studied this bill realizes these changes are very reasonable and necessary. This is about silly partisanship. They do not care about the content of the budget or this budget bill. They proudly and publicly opposed it weeks before they read it. In fact, the NDP did not submit one written word of suggestion during the prebudget consultations. 
Now those members think that by delaying this bill, they will expose the fact that the government and the official opposition have worked together to ensure this bill's expedited passage. They think by doing this they will somehow gain votes in an election one, two, maybe three years down the road. What escapes them is that any thinking person would realize that this delay is nonsense. 
The reason the government and the official opposition have supported quick passage of the bill is because we collectively realize that we are in a period of economic volatility. The bill's measures are vital and the time to act is now. Now is not the time for endless partisan debates that over 99% of Canadians do not care anything about considering the situations they are in. 
We are acting responsibly and in the best interests of Canadians. That is what we were sent here to do and we are doing it. I strongly encourage the NDP and the Bloc to follow that example. I implore the Senate to follow that example as well. It will have two weeks before we break for our constituency week in March to get the bill passed for royal assent. 
Canadians want this legislation passed, they want an extension to their EI and they want to see the $6 billion that is tied up until we pass the bill. I caution the parties not to delay and to pass Bill C-10. I know the NDP and Bloc members tend not to listen to us, or any rational speaker for that matter, but I ask them to listen to the most vulnerable Canadians who are depending on the bill to pass, which will allow their regular EI to be extended by five weeks.
 All MPs are getting the same calls and emails in their offices. We all have the same stacks of letters from struggling Canadians desperate for this provision to come into effect. I have some with me. I will not divulge any names but I ask members to listen to their words. A woman laid off in Ontario said that she is “worried sick”. A man in B.C. says that he will be “forced to leave the country” if this does not happen soon. Unfortunately, there are thousands more people just like that.
We need to stop the games and start helping Canadians and the economy by passing the bill.
I will not dignify this charade of a debate with further comments so I will end here, as report stage should end here. I again plead with all members of the House to defeat these detrimental amendments to Bill C-10. We need to get this done, move on to third reading and continue to work toward speedy passage of this legislation. That is the responsible course of action and that is what Canadians are depending on.
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was at every minute of that five and a half hour briefing. In fact, I tried to extend it even beyond five and a half hours but was not necessarily successful at that. There were a lot of questions and a lot of fine details about the budget that needed to be analyzed so that is why members of the Liberal Party of Canada were definitely there, including our finance critic. 
One of the key questions that I had at that time was actually not about an element in the budget but rather about an element outside of the budget. The Conservative government announced a home retrofit tax credit. It was a bit of a storefront political move that it hoped would scope a lot of favour among Canadians. What we realize now is that when Bill C-10 was tabled, actual legal standing for the home renovation tax credit, were absent. We found out during the course of the briefing that there was no intention of actually even making legal force to the home renovation tax credit until the fall of 2009. In other words, if a second budget implementation bill were tabled in the fall of 2009, we could expect passage, at the very earliest, around November 2009.
The government has indicated that the program will expire on December 31, 2009. It will not be available after that point in time. In other words, realistically there will only be one month of certainty when the full details of that program are fully exposed to Canadians and yet Canadians are expected to go out and make expenditures toward that program and apply for a tax credit that does not yet have legal force. No details have yet been provided except for the pamphlet that has been administered by the Canada Revenue Agency.
In addition to the home retrofit tax credit, for which we do not actually have details, there is also an ecoENERGY home retrofit grant program. Will Canadians be able to apply for both programs using the same receipts for renovations to their home, yes or no?
[Interjection]
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last question is, yes. I am sorry if the member did not hear that in the answers but maybe it was not a question that day. However, absolutely. That was part of this. We recognized the benefits of the ecoENERGY program and agreed that we should take advantage of that so we stacked the two, one on top of the other.
As to the original question of how this will be implemented, the hon. member has already voted on that. It was in the ways and means motion and it has passed.
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to our colleague who gave a somewhat pretentious speech. For his information, we have received numerous emails from individuals who are not happy with the work done by the Conservatives, and not only from Quebeckers. I would like, if I may, to read short excerpts from what one of them wrote me around noon yesterday. This is a lady from Alberta who expressed great disappointment with what the Conservatives have done. Understandably, I have to read these quotes in English: 
“I wanted you to know that out here in Alberta, I'm so pleased that at least one woman MP has the courage to stand up in Parliament and express these concerns, even though you know that there are many in the Conservative seats who will have the temerity to laugh, as I observed them doing when this came to a vote and they shouted 'no'. I also observed the Speaker actually laughing when he called for the vote in what appeared to be a mocking of the member's bill which your words were addressing”.
That is something to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker. You were not the one in the chair at the time. You are therefore not to blame. 
This lady was also very disappointed with the conduct of female Conservative MPs. She added, and I quote:
“You spoke eloquently, including your chastizing of Conservative female MPs who did not take a stand to defend the rights of women”. 
The member opposite needs to know that not everyone thinks that the Conservatives are right and, not only in Quebec but across Canada, many do not approve of their policies.
[Interjection]
Ted Menzies: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should allow you to answer that question first because it appeared that part of it was directed to you. I am sure that you, in your normal jovial way, were just smiling at the hon. members as they were voting. We certainly would not think you would take sides.
It is wonderful to see a member of the Bloc Québécois recognizing that Albertans matter. Usually those members spend their days bashing Albertans saying that we are huge polluters.
In fact, all Canadians recognize the difficult situation that all Canadians are in.
We stand up for women. In fact, we stand up so firmly for women that we do not think they should have to wait 15 years to get the same wage agreements that men have.
The Speaker: Frankly, the hon. parliamentary knows I do not answer questions in the House, tempting as it is sometimes, but I am pleased that he was able to respond to the comments of the hon. member for Laval.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, the Liberals will support the budget for one simple reason, that Canada is in the midst of an economic crisis with job losses that we have not seen in a very long time. I think that Canadians want Parliament to take action to support the economy, and that has to be our top priority.
That having been said, we realize that there are many problems and flaws in this budget. That is why we said that the government would be under trusteeship, on probation. 
The government is on probation, and it is for that reason that we require quarterly reports from the government: so that we can monitor it and see whether it is implementing the actions promised in the budget and so that we can see the degree to which the government is responding to the five criteria laid out by our leader, those being that the federal government must help the vulnerable, must protect the jobs of today, must support the jobs of tomorrow, must be fair from a regional point of view and must act in such a way as to not create a permanent deficit.
 We will be monitoring the government to ensure the money gets out the door and to ensure that it responds to the five criteria laid out by our leader. We will also monitor the state of the economy. If the economy continues to get worse, it may be necessary for the government to take additional action. That is our overall position. 
Let me comment briefly on a certain number of problems we see in the budget, both in terms of what one might call sins of omission--things we think ought to have been in the budget and are not there--and sins of commission, things that are in the budget that we do not like at all. In both categories the list is potentially endless, but in view of the time, I will select just two items in each area.
First, in terms of helping the vulnerable, if there is one single thing that we believe the government ought to have done, it would have been to ease the conditions of eligibility for employment insurance. Our current employment insurance system has not been recession-tested. I do not think it is right that somebody in my riding should have to work twice as many hours to be eligible for EI as somebody in someone else's riding. This was certainly a sin of omission in terms of helping the vulnerable. 
Second, we can look to the south and compare the government's measures with those of President Obama, which form a vision for the future around the importance of science; the importance of technology; the importance of research, of innovation, of access to venture capital; and the importance of serious measures to create a sustainable economy. If one compares the billions spent in the south to the lip service, or worse, in our country, this is another area in which this visionless budget does not stand up to scrutiny.
Turning now to crimes of commission, I would argue that one of the most egregious is the Conservatives' treatment of pay equity. I believe this is an attack on the rights of women. I believe that the government's claim that it is following the Ontario model or the Manitoba model is demonstrably and patently false.
On the other hand, as I said at the very beginning, the overriding reason for our support for the government is that we must, at this time of economic crisis, provide support to save or protect jobs, and many of those jobs that need either saving or protecting are the jobs of women. The fiscal measures of the budget, providing they do indeed get out the door--and we will be monitoring that--will provide assistance to women, which in a sense is a balance against the attack on women in the area of pay equity.
I will mention a second example of things we do not like in the budget. Competition policy is framework legislation that is generally reviewed approximately once every 20 years. To slip it into a budget implementation bill to ensure that there is virtually no debate in this very important area can certainly be seen as bad process, whatever one's views on the content of the legislation may be.
Some of the colleagues in the Bloc or the NDP might ask me, given this litany of things I do not like about the budget, why I am supporting it. The answer is, as I said at the very beginning, that we are in an economic crisis in this country at this time.
 I do not think any of us in the chamber have seen a crisis of this magnitude in our lifetimes. At least it has the potential to develop into something far worse than what we have seen in our lifetimes. That is why we have to have our focus on this single point, which is that if the government gets the billions of dollars in the budget out the door, that money will provide support for jobs. I think that has to be the number one priority for Canadians at this time. 
My last point relates to a more recent development. It is this attempt by the government to spend an additional $3 billion through the estimates through what can only be described as very unusual means.
Finally, it seems, the government has found religion. It seems it finally acknowledges there is a recession, even though the Prime Minister said during the election campaign that if Canada was going to have a recession, it would have had one now. Finally the government understands the importance of getting the money out the door, which is something we have been saying for weeks and months. Had it really been serious, it would have acted with a fiscal stimulus right after the election, or at least in November, at a time when virtually every other country in the world had already acted. 
The Conservatives were in denial at that point. They did not think there was a need for any stimulus. In fact, their disastrous November statement contained cuts rather than stimulus. Now at least they acknowledge that we are in recession and we need to get the money out. That is the alleged rationale for this unusual practice on the $3 billion.
However, we have not yet given our agreement to this process. Many questions have to be raised. For example, we had a briefing by Treasury Board officials on the $3 billion. At that time we were told the measures to be included in the $3 billion were budget measures specifically from chapter 3 of the budget. They gave examples such as the regional development agency for southern Ontario, and many others.
Now that we see the black and white letters of the proposed bill for the estimates, we see it is far broader than it appears. This is one of the things we will have to look into. It appears that the $3 billion can be anything the government wants to do and is not necessarily limited to measures contained in the budget.
We have been the ones arguing from the very start that it is important to get the money out the door, but we also want to make sure that the process through which the government seeks to do that does not lead to abuse. We now see the possibility that the $3 billion could include measures other than budget measures, and that possibility certainly raises questions on this side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate our position that we support the budget because of the economic crisis in which we find ourselves embroiled, but we are deeply suspicious of the motives and the capacity of the government to deliver, which is why we have set up this monitoring mechanism. We support the budget, but with serious reservations both on what it contains and on what it does not contain. We will certainly have further questions on the mechanics and propriety of this new spending mechanism that the government proposed just yesterday.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the critique that the member gave from the Liberal Party, but my question is about holding the government to account as well as about improving what I would argue is an ill-conceived budget.
It is one thing for the government to say it would provide stimulus. It is another thing to see a slush fund being created, with no real oversight beyond a request to just trust the government.
I am wondering why the member's party is not supporting our party in taking out facets of this budget. This is not about confidence. This is about improving a really bad budget as much as we can. Why will the member not join us in taking out those parts and facets of the budget? That is what we are debating here today. Why will the member not join us in trying to improve something that is really ill-conceived and not put together very well? 
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what my colleague over there has just said, confidence is whatever the government and the Prime Minister say is confidence. The finance minister and the Prime Minister have made it quite clear that from their point of view, any change in the budget is a matter of confidence.
It is all very well for the NDP to behave in an irresponsible way that would likely cause an election and a delay of several months for any support to the economy or any help to those who are unemployed or who are about to become unemployed, but we in the Liberal Party believe our first responsibility is to support the economy, to support the unemployed and to support the potentially unemployed at this moment of economic crisis.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: There are three minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments to the hon. member, but in light of the fact that it is now 11:00, we will proceed, as the rules require, with statements by members.

Statements By Members
Canadian Landmine Awareness WeekMr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 1999, the Ottawa treaty, formally known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, was ratified making it binding international law.
February 23 to March 1 marks the 10 year anniversary of the Ottawa treaty with Canadian Landmine Awareness Week.
Canadian advocacy groups and international organizations alike are taking action this week by once again drawing attention to the horrific effects posed by the indiscriminate use of landmines and cluster munitions.
Canada continues to recognize the grave effects of these inhumane weapons. As one of the original signatory states of the Oslo declaration and later the Convention on Cluster Munitions, I am pleased to say that Canada signed the treaty on December 3, 2008.
I would like to take this opportunity to applaud our government for its continued leadership on this file, as well as congratulate Mines Action Canada for its help in making the world a safer place, one minefield at a time.
May this year's Canadian Landmine Awareness Week be a success.
PensionsHon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have received numerous calls to my office asking what the government plans are for saving the shrinking pensions of Canadians.
Nortel Networks has been based in Brampton for years and employees are concerned that its financial troubles will affect their pensions. Last week the employee's union held a meeting to discuss the fate of their pensions. There are roughly 16,000 Nortel pensioners in Canada, many of whom rely upon the pension and benefits that they have earned over the course of their working lives, in some cases 25 years or more.
Employees are concerned about losing their hard-earned pensions along with their jobs, since the company announced that employees being laid off will not receive any severance payments.
I call upon the Prime Minister and his government to take immediate action and give Canadians the reassurance that their pensions are safe.
Eva Souligny DeschampsMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Eva Souligny Deschamps, a resident in my riding, recently celebrated her 100th birthday. She was born on February 1, 1909, in Saint-Bernardin parish in eastern Ontario. She lives at the Cité Jardin in Gatineau.
Mrs. Deschamps says she was brought up in a loving, patient farming family. She and her late husband, Henri Deschamps, had 10 children together, seven of whom are still alive, and she is proud to have 25 grandchildren and 26 great-grandchildren.
Mrs. Deschamps likes to say that she is as old as the Montreal Canadiens and that, as an ardent hockey fan, she has always cheered for them. But she does admit that she now rather likes the Ottawa Senators.
The Bloc Québécois and I would like to offer Mrs. Deschamps our best wishes, and we hope that she will keep both her health and her sense of humour.
Black History MonthPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, last week, as part of Ottawa's celebration of Black History Month, the Ottawa International Writers Festival hosted Emmanuel Jal, a bright young artist, .
Emmanuel is a survivor of war in Sudan. He was only seven years old when his mother was killed by government soldiers. Emmanuel's story is all too familiar. In an attempt to escape the horrors of war, he joined thousands of other children in seeking refuge, but on his way, he was captured, recruited and turned into a child soldier. After spending seven years as a child soldier, he found refuge with an aid worker.
What is important about his story is Emmanuel refuses to hate. In his work he is full of hope and forgiveness. He is spreading the message of peace and reconciliation. He campaigns tirelessly against gun proliferation and the use of children in war.
Let us heed Emmanuel's call for reconciliation and support for child soldiers. In Emmanuel's own words, “I can't wait for that day when I'll see no more fears, no more tears, no cry”.
Molly Kool CarneyMr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Captain Molly Kool Carney.
Born and raised in the village of Alma in my riding, in 1939 Molly became the first woman sea captain in North America and the second woman sea captain in the world. This achievement made it necessary to rewrite the Canada Shipping Act to reflect the possibility of a woman at the helm of a sea vessel. Captain Molly Kool paved the way for countless other women to proudly assume positions of leadership in our country.
In June 2007, I had the great privilege of presenting Molly a letter on behalf of the Prime Minister recognizing her achievements and her remarkable life. 
On Wednesday of this week, Molly passed away, just two days after her 93rd birthday. 
I think I speak for all of those who knew her and were inspired by her when I say that Molly's life was a life well lived and her memory will live on in the hearts of our nation.
Young HeroesGerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, let this House acknowledge and honour three young heroes from Newfoundland and Labrador. Seven-year-old Dimitri Strangemore and his younger brother, Brendan, last week saved the life of a classmate of theirs, seven-year-old Christa Simms, when Christa found herself trapped and in trouble after falling into a snow hole that had buried her alive.
The two brothers, after realizing what had happened, kept calm and cool-headed under pressure. One boy dug down and held up Christa's head and talked to her constantly to keep her calm while his younger brother ran to get help.
Thanks to them, officers with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the St. Anthony volunteer fire rescue were able to complete the rescue that Dimitri and Brendan had started. Christa was safe.
These two boys are our local heroes, as is young Christa herself, who managed to stay calm in the face of impending danger.
Education week begins next week in Newfoundland and Labrador and the theme this year is “Celebrating our Heroes”. We have to look no further than to Dimitri and to Brendan Strangemore and to young Christa Simms herself, as young heroes we can all be proud of.
Science and TechnologyMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week Brock University received a significant investment from the federal government for three Canada research chairs. This is good news not only for St. Catharines and the Niagara region, but also for the future of science and technology in our country.
Dr. Vincenzo De Luca, Dr. Ping Liang and Dr. Cheryl McCormick are all experts in their fields of study and will no doubt further our knowledge and understanding of the world around us.
Brock University has also proposed the Niagara Health and Biosciences Research Complex. This complex will use biotechnology to advance human health and diversify the economic base of the region. This funding announcement reiterates our government's recognition of the key role of science and technology in our society. 
This is why upon forming government in 2006, we introduced our strategy entitled “Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada's Advantage”. This strategy is promoting and harnessing scientific innovation in our country and is strengthening our competitive advantage.
This government is committed to supporting this industry so that it is good for scientists, good for our economy and good for Canadians.
Private Woodlot Owners in QuebecMr. Claude Guimond (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have been appointed the Bloc Québécois critic for private woodlot owners. With this recent appointment, the Bloc Québécois is recognizing that woodlot owners have their own set of problems to which the federal government is not paying enough attention.
The economic spinoffs from Quebec's 130,000 private woodlot owners are very important to our regions, and for some rural communities they are vital. However, private owners have to deal with the crisis in the forestry industry that has resulted in a significant drop in revenues because of mill closures, fewer buyers, and falling prices. 
I would like to assure private woodlot owners in Quebec that the Bloc Québécois supports their demands and will continue to work for change.
IranMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week in Tehran, over 70 student protesters who had been peacefully protesting the government's plan to rebury fallen soldiers on their campus were arrested and detained by police.
The reburial plan they were protesting is a cynical ploy to turn part of the campus into a war grave, thereby providing the police with a convenient pretext to crush any future political activity at the university. It is appalling that the government is misusing the remains of Iran's heroic war dead as tools with which to crush freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.
This cynical action follows a raid earlier this year on the offices of Iran's Nobel Laureate, the human rights activist, Shirin Ebadi.
All Canadians condemn these actions and call for the immediate release of the detained student protesters. The Canadian government continues to urge Iran's government to respect fundamental human rights and end the crude stifling of dissent.
We stand in solidarity with those in Iran who risk their personal safety to stand up for freedom.
Public SafetyMs. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the recent explosion of gang crime in metro Vancouver. Crime has always been part of human society but that does not excuse government ineffectiveness in controlling and reducing it. On the contrary, we must continuously improve and strengthen the complex network of resources, policies, processes and laws designed to protect citizens. That takes partnership, coordination and progress by politicians at every level of government and all political parties.
We collectively represent each individual citizen, and citizens have a right to expect their representatives to work constructively together on their behalf and to not engage in divisive partisanship and to not hide behind rhetoric about who is and who is not tough on crime. On this issue we cannot afford to play games. On this issue we must find common ground because it is literally a matter of life and death for the innocent victims of drive-by shootings and for the young gang members themselves.
When B.C.'s ministers came to Ottawa to tell us what new crime laws B.C. needs, I met with them not once but twice. I stand here today to confirm that I will work with the province, my colleagues and government to make those laws a reality.
Bloc QuébécoisMr. Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, we were treated to an excellent performance of feigned indignation by the Bloc.
Despite the ill-advised theatrics, the facts are overwhelming. For several years, many Bloc Québécois members have been funding Le Québécois, a newspaper published by Patrick Bourgeois, that unsavoury individual who has encouraged violence and public disorder.
The City of Quebec is suffering as a result today. The Quebec City tourism office estimates that over $3 million will be lost as a result of the cancellation of the re-enactment of the battle of the Plains of Abraham. 
While our government is working to help Quebeckers keep their jobs, the Bloc is doing what it does best, that is, blocking Quebec's progress.
On behalf of my fellow citizens, I have a message for the Bloc. Enough is enough. Quebec wants to move forward. Quebec wants to work. That is what people want in Quebec.
HockeyvilleMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Terrace, B.C. has caught Hockeyville fever as one of the five finalists in CBC's Hockeyville contest. Rarely have we seen such enthusiasm around the community of Terrace. 
No B.C. community has yet won Hockeyville, and I say yet, because that is about to change. In just four days, 328,000 votes came in . I am so confident that Terrace is going to win that I have chosen to challenge the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt to wear the Terrace Hockeyville jersey when his community unfortunately loses in March.
Terrace and the whole of northwestern British Columbia have fallen on some hard times, but they have shown us what the best of our communities are by pulling together and celebrating one another. Good luck to Terrace, B.C.
Bloc QuébécoisMrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the intolerance and violence advocated by the Réseau de résistance du Québec, Patrick Bourgeois and Pierre Falardeau and the massive financial backing provided—with public money—by the Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois for their threats have left many Quebeckers confused and poorer. The losses associated with the re-enactment are estimated at $3 million for the Quebec City area. 
I suppose we should not be surprised, as this comes from a leader who lets his members march in a pro-Hezbollah demonstration and allows a member to send out pro-Hamas emails. What a great coalition. What a wonderful ideology of intolerance.
Our government has put forward a motion condemning these extremists. I hope all my hon. colleagues in this House will support this motion so that it is adopted unanimously.
Community Credit WeekMr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in these tough economic times, the anguish of unemployment and exclusion affects a large segment of our society. Individuals and families in this situation can face inequality, discrimination and prejudice.
Fortunately, there are organizations such as the Association communautaire d'emprunt de la Rive-Sud. ACERS provides loans and advice to the disadvantaged who have the desire and potential to start a business but who cannot get traditional financing to do so.
During the 2009 community credit week, the association wants to demonstrate the fundamental role that economic solidarity and community credit play in fighting poverty and exclusion. Activities culminate this evening with the entrepreneurs' celebration. My warmest congratulations to these businessmen and businesswomen who, because of ACERS, are now leaders in their communities. 
Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating AntisemitismHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, 10 members of this House joined 125 parliamentarians from more than 40 countries to participate in the inaugural conference of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism.
This interparliamentary conference, hosted by the U.K. government under the inspiring leadership of MP John Mann, heard chilling testimony about the new, escalating, global, virulent and even lethal anti-Semitism.
The parliamentarians adopted a landmark document, the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism, which expressed alarm at the resurgence of this oldest and most enduring of hatreds, including that of state-backed anti-Semitism in general and genocidal anti-Semitism in particular, and resolved to act through an action plan to combat this old-new hatred of Jews and a hatred of Israel as a Jewish collectivity.
As we have learned only too well, while it may begin with Jews, it does not end with Jews. This conference not only sounded the alarm, but issued a clarion call to act in the name of our common humanity and shared future.
Tackling Violent CrimeMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa NDP claims it wants to be tough on crime, then returns to its “hug-a-thug” ways.
The NDP is offside and out of touch with working families who work hard and want to be safe in their communities.
The “soft on crime” NDP thinks that house arrest is reasonable punishment for serious repeat property crimes like car theft and arson.
The NDP works to oppose important legislation to protect the security of Canadian communities. That is why the NDP opposed anti-terrorism legislation and house arrest legislation for serious property crimes.
As a gang war rages on the west coast, the NDP wants to have illegal drugs legalized. The NDP opposes registering sex offenders in case those who commit “lower-end” sex crimes suffer from such a registry.
The NDP sees putting criminals in prison as a radical and extreme measure. 
The NDP is--
The Speaker:  Oral questions, the hon. member for Toronto Centre.

Oral Questions
The EconomyHon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. 
It has become very clear on reading the main estimates, which have come out this week, that the government's right hand does not know what its far right hand is doing.
The government talks a good game about how it is important to stimulate the economy and how it is important to increase Canada's international competitiveness, but it is very clear from the main estimates that it is cutting back substantially in areas that makes no sense.
Why is the Government of Canada cutting $150 million from the--
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite get the tail end of that question.
We made a public statement that there will be no cutting in the budget and I will stand by that statement.
The most important part of the economic action plan remains the fact that it has not gone through all of the processes in the House and the other place. We have seen incredible delays this morning by the Bloc and the NDP to slow it up. That is not what Canadians want.
Research and DevelopmentBob Rae: Mr. Speaker, reading from the estimates, we can see that there is a $13 million cut in basic research under Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. There is a further cut of $2 million to attract and retain faculty. There are cuts in all sorts of areas with respect to science and research.
This is an intensely competitive area in the world. It is an area in which Canada has had an advantage over several years because of what governments have done and because of the fact that the Bush administration was not that interested in science. We are now looking at an Obama administration that is interested in science.
Why is the government cutting back on basic research just at the time when we need to be increasing our competitiveness?
Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think the member has his facts wrong. If he were to look at the numbers, he would find that this government is committed to scientific research. He would find that we have been putting unprecedented amounts of money into the scientific research area.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationBob Rae: Mr. Speaker, as the media starts to look at these estimates and the government starts to look at them, everybody will understand that the government is in fact cutting and it is cutting in critical areas.
My final question is for the same minister and it has to do with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Despite the comments of the parliamentary secretary yesterday, the fact remains that the Government of Canada is cutting its transfers to the CBC by over $60 million, which is putting that institution into a crisis.
Why is the government taking away the voice of all Canadians?
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know because of his tenure in politics, this is all part of the budgetary process. I can reassure the hon. member that there will be no funding cuts to the CBC. The CBC will receive $1.1 billion in taxpayers' money this year to support its operations. That is one thousand, one hundred million dollars. There will be no cuts.
Government ExpendituresJohn McCallum: Mr. Speaker, initially we were told that the $3 billion of spending for which the government seeks special approval would consist entirely of budget measures. Now the legislation makes clear that the government seeks authority to spend in virtually any area not limited to budget measures. This certainly gives the appearance of a blank cheque or even a slush fund for use in swing ridings.
Will the government explain why the legislation seems to expand the government's discretion in this unprecedented way?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, the stimulus of $3 billion and the moving up of the expenditure of that money from the June date to the April date is exactly in response to demands from the opposition that money move quickly. Nothing has been done in any way in terms of diminishing the oversight of how money will be spent and the projects determined. 
This will be an appropriate way of ensuring that Canadians see the effects of our budget on a timely basis as requested by the opposition.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, he did not answer the question.
This morning “The Fiscal Monitor” did not come out at its usual time. It is obvious because the government is ashamed to admit that it has been running a deficit for many months.
With the debt clock rearing its ugly head for the first time in well over a decade, each tick of the second hand adding a $1,000 burden to our children, will the Conservatives admit they are planning to release “The Fiscal Monitor” late on a Friday afternoon in order to avoid scrutiny?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, such accusations of something we actually do not have any control over. Those numbers will be coming out in due course.
Let me get back to what is important to Canadians, which is to get on with the $6 billion of stimulus to the Canadian economy that is being held up by the opposition slowing it up.
I spoke earlier this morning about those who are waiting desperately for the extension of their EI benefits. How can any representative of Canadians stand in the House and say they are slowing that up?
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to ram through a budget that includes a $3 billion reserve fund. The government is admitting that mistakes might be made in managing these funds, but it does not feel that it is necessary to put controls in place. In other words, it is asking for a blank cheque.
How can the government justify allocating $3 billion without putting any controls in place?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, what the government is doing is advancing the output of this money from the June date to an April date. The same controls apply to this. The reason why we are putting the money out earlier is so that there can be a stimulus in the economy.
The coalition kept on saying it had a plan to get the money out quicker. The only plan it has is to block Canadians' access to money for infrastructure.
Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives should remember what Justice Gomery said about how the lack of criteria for the funds in the special reserve for Canadian unity was undeniably an error, and that it invited abuse. 
Will the government reconsider and come up with guidelines and criteria to avoid ending up with another outrage like the Liberal sponsorship scandal?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, the member was not listening to the answer I gave earlier. The same controls exist on the $3 billion if it goes out in April or if it goes out in June.
If the member would only read the material that has been put out, if she would attend the briefing sessions that my department and the Department of Finance has provided to members, she would understand that.
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his report, Justice Gomery quoted the former clerk of the Privy Council, Alex Himelfarb, who stated that the lack of criteria was not illegal in and of itself, but that it was dangerous. 
How can this government, which strongly condemned the sponsorship scandal, ignore Justice Gomery when he says, and I quote, “The absence of clear program criteria opens the selection process to dangerous forces and pressures”? 
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the member wrote her question before I gave the last answer, so I will just repeat the last answer. The same criteria are in place. We agree with Judge Gomery that we cannot simply shovel money out without criteria.
What we are doing here is ensuring that the money moves earlier; instead of the June date, the April date. The same criteria are in place. We agree with Judge Gomery.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to reassure people, but nobody is buying it.
This government is about to create a $3 billion slush fund that it can spend between April 1 and June 30 without reporting to Parliament at all. 
Is the government aware that there is a limit to using the economic crisis as an excuse to spend $3 billion without any criteria, controls or safeguards?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, the member could have taken the time to come to the briefings and her questions would have been answered.
I am prepared to assure her that the same criteria are in place to safeguard the expenditure of that money. Plus, the Liberals have put this government on probation. We have to bring a report back to the House. If the Bloc member can rest assured that having a Liberal probation officer is a sufficient criteria, I think we are in good shape here.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Prime Minister is reacting like a school-yard bully to the opposition's request for accountability in the matter of the $3 billion slush fund. This is what the Auditor General said in 2002 about the Liberals' sponsorship fund: “...the basic principle at the root of our concerns is simple: spending by departments must have the prior sanction of Parliament”. 
How can the Conservatives justify using the same methods as the Liberals used in the sponsorship scandal? How can they just ignore the Auditor General's warnings about slush funds?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, the member is entitled to go to the briefings as well. There is a criterion and there is a parliamentary vote that authorizes it. This whole discussion is about a parliamentary vote that will flow the $3 billion on April 1, or soon thereafter, instead of in June so we can meet the demands of that member who said that he wanted the money to flow sooner. He is simply speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He does not want to see the money flow.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, with the help of the so-called Liberal Party, under its new right-wing leader, the Conservative government has rammed through its budget bill faster than any other in the past 10 years.
If the Liberals will not ask the tough questions of the government's budget, then we will and so will Canadians.
Last night, on CTV Newsnet, the parliamentary secretary said that the idea of a website, like recovery.gov proposed by President Obama in the United States, is “a great idea and something that the Minister of Finance is looking into seriously”. 
That is easy to say in an interview but will the government do it, yes or no.
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, we are always open to good ideas but, unfortunately, they do not often come from that side of the House.
While I am on my feet, in answering a previous question I suggested that “The Fiscal Monitor” would be out soon. As a matter of fact, it is. I have it in my hands right now and I would gladly share it with the member for Markham—Unionville because he is so looking forward to it.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, the question was: Was the parliamentary secretary telling the truth when he said yesterday on CTV that we would have the same transparency as the Americans? 
On the Obama recovery.gov website, citizens can track spending “as forecast in legislation”. One problem for the government, though, is there is no such legislation that directs where the $3 billion slush fund will go.
How can Canadians follow a $3 billion discretionary fund that has not even been accounted for in this Parliament?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, in fact, that is what we are having this discussion about. There will be a vote in the House and that there will be regular reporting to Parliament because the Liberals have put our government on probation. So there is a mechanism to assure the member that the expenditures of the money are properly done on a quarterly basis.
If the member wants other briefings, I would be happy to provide those briefings to him.
AgricultureHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board yesterday tried to defend his record of failure at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture meeting, but the facts belie the truth.
At committee, witnesses from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association responded that the minister has not delivered. He insulted P.E.I. producers with 1¢ per pound crop loss, announcing $12 million but delivering $3 million. Now estimates show that the $100 million per year cost of production funding is cancelled, agri-flexibility omitted.
Farmers deserve better. Why do Conservatives make promises and never deliver, especially to farmers?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member knows how much we have done for livestock producers. We can say that we are standing for farmers. In the last two years, we delivered over $1.2 billion to livestock producers through our new business risk management programs and we have provided $550 million in emergency loans with the first $100,000 being interest free.
Fisheries and OceansHon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the main estimates, it was indicated that there was a $40 million cut in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans without any forewarning.
I expect the minister is fully aware of the great need for such things as small craft harbour repairs and science and research, just to name a couple.
Why will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans allow this $40 million cut when she fully understands the demands that are on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know that those estimates include some deferrals. The main reason for that difference is some movement and transfer of moneys from this fiscal year to next the fiscal year to deal with the issue of the mid-shore patrol vessels. 
I would like to add that as of yesterday the industry was notified that we would be continuing with the procurement of the mid-shore patrol vessels.
Arts and CultureMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are aiming at the wrong targets. They are washing their hands of the shortfall at Radio-Canada and CBC. In addition, they are cutting funding for the National Arts Centre.
Experts continue to say that cultural activities create economic activity, but the Conservatives do not care.
What do the Conservatives have against arts and culture?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member to read budget 2009, our economic action plan, a budget that puts more money behind arts and culture than any budget in the history of Canada and any government that certainly she would have been a part of in the past.
 We are standing up for arts and culture in this country and putting more money behind it because we believe in it and we believe it is an economic driver. We believe it is part of the heart and soul of this country.
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives may believe this but the problem is that they do not do anything about it.
The CBC and Radio-Canada are taking a direct hit from the economic crisis. Management does not have the option of borrowing, and the Conservatives do not want to help, in spite of those very nice words. They are considering some desperate solutions to balance its books, such as asset sales and less Canadian programming. Can anyone imagine having more American programs? The list goes on and it is not pretty. 
We, on this side of the House, care about the CBC and Radio-Canada and its future. Why do the Conservatives not care?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I just want to give the member some context. A direct hit would be like what the Liberals did in 1995 when they slashed CBC's funding by 40% in the 1995 budget. That is a direct hit.
However, that is not what we are doing. We are maintaining funding to the CBC. We are providing it with $1.1 billion in funding in this budget, with no cuts to the CBC. We expect that the CBC will still be able to deliver the product that Canadians have come to expect.
Access to InformationMr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the conclusions in the Information Commissioner's report confirm this government's culture of secrecy. Processing times are increasing because the majority of access to information requests have to go through the Prime Minister's Office before being made public.
How can the Prime Minister, who promised transparency, justify putting his interests first and denying those of citizens wishing to have access to information?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, I must correct the member. The decision to release or protect information is not driven by the political people. It is driven by the government department that has a staff of public servants who are trained in the Access to Information Act. In fact, our government increased access to government information. We have seen, in 2007-08, an increase of 38% in requests over five years. 
Serge Ménard: Mr. Speaker, that may be true, but processing times continue to increase.
The commissioner states that the Access to Information Act is in terrible shape because of a lack of leadership at the highest levels of government.
How can the government explain its lack of action after Judge Gomery and four commissioners have denounced Liberal secrecy and this government's lack of transparency?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, it was that member and his party, along with Liberals and New Democrats, who opposed the opening up of the Access to Information Act to include more crown corporations. We opened up access to the Wheat Board, the CBC and dozens of other institutions. The members should have worked with us to ensure that there was access. We got the job done. They refused to do it.
Conservative GovernmentMario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, this week, the Conservatives went to great lengths to try to hide their little family secret. After the access to information commission, they are trying to shove a $3 billion secret slush fund down the Liberals' throats, without any parliamentary control or standardized program. Furthermore, in committee, they did everything they could to prevent the continuation of the investigation into their electoral wrongdoings during the 2006 election.
What is the government trying to hide?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to hide, which is why we have come to the House and asked for $3 billion in order to move it ahead of the June schedule so the money can get into the hands of Canadian companies in order to stimulate the economy. 
It is the members of the Bloc Québécois who are stifling our ability to get the money out. Let them explain to their constituents why their jobs are in jeopardy and why this government is trying to help them.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, in Quebec we will always respect Justice Gomery's recommendations.
By opposing the reopening of the investigation into the in and out scandal, the Conservatives are saying that the Chief Electoral Officer did not have good reason to question the ethics of their party. By refusing to amend the Access to Information Act, they are refusing to listen to the last four commissioners. By creating a $3 billion discretionary fund for the Prime Minister, the Conservative government is refusing to listen to Justice Gomery.
Why does the Prime Minister stubbornly refuse to listen to those who are asking for greater transparency?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to invite that member to any briefing that he wants about what this $3 billion actually means. It does not remove any of the criteria. It removes none of the criteria and the reporting that this government needs to make to the Parliament of Canada, as requested by the Leader of the Opposition, will be done and it will include the $3 billion. 
I would invite that member to get on board so that we can help his constituents, even if he does not want to help them.
Airport SecurityGurbax Malhi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport made the decision to cut $33 million in security subsidy to Canada's airports and an additional $15 million in yesterday's main estimates. 
Pearson International Airport, which is in my riding, receives $3.2 million to offset security costs that will now likely be thrust onto air travellers in the form of new charges, only adding to the cost of flying and doing business.
Why is the Minister of Transport purposely trying to limit commerce and increase the financial difficulty for businesses?
Hon. Rob Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is true that we take security very seriously in this country. We are reviewing all security measures to ensure that when passengers get on planes they are secure and safe when they travel in this country. We will to continue to do that. 
Security is our commitment to the Canadian public and we will ensure it is funded appropriately. We look forward to secure and safe travel in this country.
Tackling Violent CrimeHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP and the Canadian Border Services Agency play critical roles in regard to the safety of Canadians. 
Violent crime is increasing in the streets of our major cities like Vancouver, meanwhile the government cuts $29 million from the RCMP budget. These crimes are being committed with illegal arms coming across the border, meanwhile the government cuts $12 million from the CBSA budget. 
Canadians feel less safe than they did three years ago. Is this the Conservative version of tough on crime? 
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, the RCMP have added almost 1,600 officers to the street in the last year. We have also added funds to the provinces and municipalities to add police officers to the street. We are starting to see the results of that in many places. 
As the hon. colleague will know, we introduced legislation yesterday to put additional tools into the hands of police officers and the courts.
Municipal AffairsMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April could turn out the be the cruellest month of all for the Minister of Transport. That is when Ottawa's mayor goes on trial to defend himself against criminal allegations that he negotiated an offer of a parole board appointment with the minister. The appointment was allegedly for Terry Kilrea, a former mayoral candidate. Other Conservatives operatives are also alleged to have discussed the appointment.
The minister has now been subpoenaed. Could he confirm that he will not use his parliamentary privilege to avoid testifying?
Hon. Jay Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has always been apparent that there would be a number of witnesses who would be called in this case. I am pleased that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, has always been fully co-operative with the authorities about this issue. He will continue to do so in the future.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, a Crown witness has said that Mr. O'Brien and the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities met at Hy's restaurant on July 26, 2006, and that they discussed an appointment for Terry Kilrea. The investigators said that the restaurant manager confirmed this information.
Can the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities clearly tell us if he had a conversation with Larry O'Brien at Hy's on July 26, 2006, yes or no?
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, it is important for the House to note and realize that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, is not accused of anything. He is one of many witnesses. He has been fully co-operative with this case from the very beginning. He will continue to do so in the future.
If my hon. colleague across the way has any specific allegations concerning my colleague, make them outside.
JusticeMs. Dona Cadman (Surrey North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, every day we hear of a new drive-by shooting or drug bust related to criminal organizations. While we were hard at work during the last Parliament cracking down on crime, the opposition parties were busy opposing, obstructing and playing partisan political games. Now those same parties have finally opened their eyes to the problem.
 As usual our, government is ahead of the opposition by introducing important legislation to crack down on gangs and organized crime. Would the parliamentary secretary tell the House exactly what we have done to protect Canadians from organized crime?
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the member for her dedication to improving Canada's justice system. As my hon. colleague stated, the Minister of Justice introduced a bill yesterday, which specifically targets gangs and organized crime activity in our country.
Murder, drive-by shootings, aggravated assault against police officers and assaulting a police officer with a weapon will all carry significant penalties. We will ensure that the criminal enterprise is effectively disrupted. Every minute a gang member is behind bars is a minute that he or she is not creating more innocent victims in our communities.
Let us not be fooled. When it comes to fighting crime, Canadians know they can count on members on this side of the House.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week, while the Conservative government has been playing defence on the international stage over its handling of the tar sands, another report was issued, outlining how their out of control development is damaging the Athabasca-Slave-Mackenzie watersheds.
 This latest report adds to the mounting evidence that toxic chemicals from tar sands development are the cause of increased cancer rates in Aboriginal communities situated downstream, but the government does nothing.
 When will the government take action to protect Canadians who are dying of cancer from tar sands pollution in our waterways?
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, those are irrational allegations. We have put $1.6 billion into infrastructure spending for first nations. We are putting that money into necessary things like water and waste water. We are ensuring that every community has safe drinking water.
 Health and safety is our first and main concern. I think the member should rest assured that the government is looking after this circumstance.
Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government just does not get it. Water problems are not only in the Northwest Territories but across Canada. The government promised proper and meaningful consultation and accommodation with first nations on the issue of safe drinking water. This is not happening.
The government is ignoring Supreme Court rulings and precondition recommendations by the expert panel on safe drinking water.
 Why is the government proceeding with the guise of consultation with first nations when it has apparently already decided the remedy, without any real consultation?
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we inherited, in the transition from the last administration, 180 high-risk water systems. That number is now less than 60, and we have an action plan to reduce that number.
 Once again we are getting the job done. The NDP and the opposition parties are erecting blockades.
EducationMr. Nicolas Dufour (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the budget, the government provides $17.5 million in additional credits for humanities research. Because of its ideology, the government is establishing national priorities and focusing its scholarships in one area—business.
Does the government realize that, by choosing this approach, it will have disastrous consequences for knowledge and that by accepting applications for merit scholarships solely in one area— business—it is attacking freedom of thought for our students, our future researchers and our universities?
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has increased funding for scholarships at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada by 50%, or $75 million. More scholarships are available to more graduate students from all areas of study.
Stakeholders asked us to make more scholarships available to business students, and we have done that. Canada graduate scholarships will continue to fund social sciences and humanities studies and also support business and finance research.
Nicolas Dufour: Mr. Speaker, there must be a problem with interpretation. He did not understand the question. I will ask another.
By focusing only on economics in the research sector rather than on academic quality, is the Conservative government not showing that it is narrow-minded, ideologically stubborn and prone to partisan meddling?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc likes to talk about the use of the state's financial resources. However, it used taxpayers' money to buy advertising in a newspaper that spread racist messages, made threats of violence against Quebeckers and racist comments about U.S. President Obama. The Bloc should be explaining what it does with taxpayers' money.
Canada Revenue AgencyMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the latest news from gang violence in Vancouver is very troubling. Police in British Columbia have indicated that an employee with the Canada Revenue Agency was leaking information on behalf of rivals of the notorious United Nations gang.
Canadians would like to know, when did the government become aware of the leak and what actions has it taken to protect the integrity of CRA?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency has a very strict code of ethics for all its employees. Any allegation of wrongdoing is taken very seriously and thoroughly investigated. We have a very rigorous process in place. 
Yasmin Ratansi: Mr. Speaker, that is not a very reassuring response.
The parliamentary secretary has probably not read the Auditor General's report. Canadians want to know that their personal information is being properly protected by the government and not falling into the hands of organized crime.
 When was the government aware of this very serious breach of security and what steps have been taken to protect the vital information of Canadians?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency's priority is to protect taxpayers' privacy and keep their information confidential. Under the terms of the Privacy Act, we cannot release any personal information about employees of the Canada Revenue Agency, including information about disciplinary action.
Access to InformationMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was the culture of secrecy that allowed corruption to flourish under 13 years of Liberal government, but the Conservative government is even worse. It is obsessed with secrecy. In 2006, in the federal election campaign, the Conservatives explicitly promised they would implement all of John Reid's open government act. Nothing has happened.
I have now introduced a private member's bill that is chapter and verse the same as John Reid's bill. I urge the Conservatives to steal it, no charge. I have done all the heavy lifting. They can have it.
Will they or will they not fulfill their campaign promise and implement all of the John Reid's, former information commissioner, open government act, yes or no?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, that is another prime example of the member of the NDP speaking out of both sides of his mouth. The member consistently fought against access to information for crown corporations. Consistently he voted against it. Now he says to open it up.
 I am surprised that he has not seen what our legislation has done. In fact, it brought 69 new institutions under the access to information regime.
 It is about time he woke up, read the act and co-operated with the government on economic measures that will assist his constituents.
Canada PostMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a strategic review of Canada Post was delivered to the minister last year, but now, more than two months later, it still has not been made public. What is the big fear? The report or the public reaction?
This report deals with the future of our profit making Canada Post and Canadians deserve to see it. Why has the minister not tabled this report and will he do so today?
Rob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, the review has taken place. It was on my desk earlier, just before Christmas. I will be allowing it to go public as soon as we have the appropriate response. We are reviewing and analyzing it. We will make the appropriate response at the appropriate time and allow it to go public very soon.
Government ContractsMr. Rodney Weston (Saint John, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that over 90% of companies in Canada are small and medium-sized enterprises. That represents 2.3 million companies. The Government of Canada does a lot of business with small and medium-sized enterprises, however, many companies have complained of the barriers to government procurement.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services explain what this government is doing to help small businesses?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question and for the work he has done in New Brunswick for small and medium-sized enterprises. 
Over the past three years, our government has worked to provide better services and better access to Canadian government contracts for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Through our efforts, more than 40,000 small and medium-sized companies have received assistance from the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises, and the value of contracts awarded by the department to Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises increased by 43% in 2005-06, 46% in 2006-07 and 49% this year. 
In addition, procurement rules have been simplified so as not to pose barriers to small and medium-sized enterprises.
HealthHon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December 5, 2006, every member of the House, including the Prime Minister, supported Motion No. 172. The motion directed the minister of health to convene a meeting of the provincial health ministers with the objective of developing a national strategy on the treatment and support of Canadians with autism. Unfortunately, the previous minister of health and the present Minister of Health have totally ignored this motion. 
My question is for the present Minister of Health. This is a very important question and Canadians are looking for an answer. How long does the government intend to ignore Canadian families dealing with autism? 
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I recognize that autism is an important health and social issue that represents challenges to many Canadian families. I can assure the House that the government is showing leadership by focusing attention on building the autism evidence base that future actions by our partners will be well informed.
We are delivering results. In 2007 we announced the funding for a chair of autism research and innovation at Simon Fraser University and, over the last seven years, more than $27 million have been spent on related research by CIHR.
Durban Review ConferenceMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has welcomed the United States decision to send a delegation to take part in the preliminary negotiations to finalize the draft outcome document of the Durban Review Conference scheduled for April 20 to 24, in Geneva. 
Will Canada finally abandon its empty chair policy and, like the U.S., participate in that conference?
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
The EnvironmentMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Americans are spending millions of dollars on a feasibility study to build a hydroelectric dam at Shanker's Bend on the Similkameen River. An 80 metre dam, if built, would flood 7,200 hectares in Canada.
The Okanagan Alliance of First Nations and the Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen have stated their opposition as has the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.
Will the minister notify the U.S. government that Canada is opposed to this project and will he insist that the government of British Columbia do the same?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, this government is committed to a cleaner environment. We have invested $1 billion in green infrastructure, $300 million for eco-energy retrofits, and $1 billion for clean energy projects and carbon capture and storage.
Wherever we look this government is taking action on the environment. I encourage the member to support the budget.
National DefenceMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today we learned that Russian aircraft attempted to fly over Canadian airspace on the eve of President Obama's visit.
Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House what Canada is doing to ensure our sovereignty is protected?
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as a former CF-18 pilot, I am well aware of Russian tactics.
Canada will continue to defend its sovereignty on land, on the sea and in the air. The Russians never entered Canadian airspace. Our fighter pilots met them and turned them around. 
As a proud partner in Norad, we have stood up to Russians and others in the defence of North America with our allies, the United States, for over 50 years. The House and Canadians can be assured that we will continue to defend our sovereignty. 
As I might have said personally to the Russians a number of years ago:
 [Member spoke in Russian]
Access to InformationMr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Information Commissioner reported that our access to information system is seriously flawed, thereby creating a major information management crisis throughout the government. Six out of ten departments received failing grades, and four are red alert.
The 25-year-old act is hopelessly out of date in this digital age. 
Will the Minister of Justice advise if he agrees with the commissioner? Will he commit to bringing in a bill to fix the act and the culture of secrecy in which it operates?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, as the House is well aware, this government is committed to openness and transparency with respect to government operations. 
We brought in the FAA, which contains the most extensive amendments to the Access to Information Act since its introduction in 1983.
We are the ones who fought for the rights of Canadians to know how their government operates, opening up numerous institutions to the access to information system, and we will continue to ensure that ours is the best system in the world.
Bashir MakhtalPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, Canadian citizen Bashir Makhtal continues to face harsh prison conditions in Ethiopia, unclear charges, and lack of access to legal representation.
The government's record on this file is one of inaction. It has not treated the file seriously. The best the government has come up with is to ask Ethiopia not to impose a death penalty on Mr. Makhtal. This is unacceptable. 
The Minister of Transport and the Minister of Immigration declared that Mr. Makhtal is guilty of no wrongdoing. 
It is time for Canada to request Ethiopia to drop all charges and to bring Mr. Makhtal home now.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Makhtal's trial has already started and he has received access to legal counsel. We have received assurances that Mr. Makhtal will be granted due process under Ethiopian law.
Canada has repeatedly made its concerns regarding Mr. Makhtal's case clear to the Government of Ethiopia. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has made strong representations to the Ethiopian authorities. Furthermore, I myself have made two visits to Ethiopia to make representation on this file.
SecuritiesMr. Jean Dorion (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is using the economic crisis—whose existence he was still denying a mere three months ago in his economic update—to justify establishing a Canada-wide securities commission.The minister's excuse does not hold water. Budget 2006 already contained plans for a common securities regulator.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that he is using the current crisis as an excuse to invade Quebec's jurisdictions?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, first I should point out that participation in the commission would be completely voluntary. No province will be required to participate if it does not want to.
The Bloc is just trying to distract from its ideology. We heard earlier today a member of the Bloc demand that we attend the Durban hatefest, the anti-Israel conference. That is the same member who sent around emails with Hamas propaganda in them.
This kind of ideology is totally out of touch with the values of Quebeckers and all Canadians.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: That will conclude our question period for today. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry is rising on a point of order.
Points of OrderMike Lake: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Bourassa sank to a new low with his question regarding the Minister of Industry's chief of staff. 
If we wanted to go down the same road, we could point to the fact that there is a staffer in the office of the Leader of the Opposition who is currently on secondment from Hill and Knowlton.
The accusations from the member for Bourassa are unfounded and not based on any facts, but we have come to expect that from the member, who continues to throw mud against the wall hoping that something will eventually stick.
This has no place in the House. He must take responsibility for his actions. We would like to see him retract his statements and immediately send an apology to the minister's office addressed to his chief of staff.

Routine Proceedings
Promoting Mobility of Young CitizensDeepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, under section 32(2) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “An Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Poland Concerning the Promotion of Mobility of Young Citizens”.
An explanatory memorandum is included with this paper.
Canada PostRob Merrifield: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, corporate plan summaries for Canada Post, years 2007 to 2011 and 2008 to 2012.
Poultry Rejection ProgramPierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, I have the honour of tabling correspondence and documents regarding the poultry rejection program.
These documents prove that despite what the member for Malpeque has repeatedly stated in the House, the poultry rejection program did indeed begin under the previous Liberal government in 2004.
The documents include a letter to the chicken farmers of Canada, dated May 17, 2004, that discusses the origins of the project, a letter to the provincial veterinarian association--
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on tabling of documents, not statements. He is making a statement. I can see he has documents, but he is supposed to table them, not make a statement. This is what I am trying to suggest to the parliamentary secretary, so perhaps he would get on with the tabling promptly.
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to list the other documents contained here. I will take me but a moment. 
There is a letter on the CFIA letterhead, which is dated April 5, 2005, and an internal CFIA memo, dated April 11, 2005, which refers to the next steps forward for the project. I am also tabling three recent internal reports on the project, as well as a timeline summarizing the poultry rejection projection program.
It is all right here, Mr. Speaker. 
Controlled Drugs and Substances ActJay Hill:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. 
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-329, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Cariboo--Prince George.
Mr. Speaker, my riding of Cariboo--Prince George is located in the beautiful central interior British Columbia. The current riding name, Cariboo--Prince George, reflects the vibrant city of Prince George, which holds a growing population of 72,000 and is the hub for trade and travel in all four directions outward from that city. 
Mentioned in my riding name also is the Cariboo region. The Cariboo region, once called the land of dreams and instant riches because of the famed gold rush days, has an unmatched rugged beauty. It hosts towering coastal mountains, valleys, ranges and pristine rivers that attract tourists of all stripes from all around the globe to its unique splendour.
Still, there is something missing. There is a vital part of my riding that the current name fails to recognize, and that is the Nechako Valley, with the mighty Nechako River running through it, which has shaped much of riding. The Nechako Valley indeed has been there longer than the communities--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The introduction is simply meant to be an introduction to the bill. 
I would ask that we now move on.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
[Interjection]
Dick Harris:  Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the House gives its consent, following the introduction of my bill to change the name of my riding, I would like to move that notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House that Bill C-329, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Cariboo--Prince George be deemed read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred at the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  No.
PetitionsAlex Atamanenko: Madam Speaker, I present a petition. There is a scientific consensus and public acknowledgment that animals can feel pain and that all efforts should be made to prevent animal cruelty. A billion people around the world rely on animals for their livelihood. Animals are significantly affected by natural disasters and yet are seldom considered during relief efforts and emergency planning. 0ver 100 folks in my riding have signed this petition to ask the Government of Canada to support the universal declaration on animal welfare.
Mr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and as certified by the Clerk of Petitions, I have two petitions to table.
First, I rise to present a petition calling for changes to employment insurance, including the elimination of the two-week waiting period and an increase in benefits to 50 weeks. This petition is signed by a large number of my constituents in Port Hope Simpson, Charlottetown and Pinsent's Arm on the south coast of Labrador. 
These individuals understand that the EI changes are necessary to help them and their families cope with the economic downturn and the lack of employment opportunities. They petition the government for this help.
Todd Russell: Madam Speaker, I have here a petition signed by a large number of my constituents from Red Bay and Forteau in the Labrador Straits and from Charlottetown on the south coast. Their petition concerns the unfair differential tax treatment of those taxpayers who received lump sum payments under the Atlantic groundfish licence retirement program. This is a long-standing issue, and the petitioners call for a full review by the Minister of National Revenue, with a view toward ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all those affected by this tax interpretation mistake.
This petition affects some 800 fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador and 50 in Quebec and, sadly, some of them have passed away.
Ted Menzies: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Macleod. The petition states that Canadians voted on October 14, 2008, which resulted in a strengthened mandate for a Conservative minority government. However, the unelected Liberal-NDP-separatist coalition would like to overturn the results of that democratic vote and choose their own prime minister through an unseemly and undemocratic backroom deal.
The signatories of this petition clearly oppose any political arrangement that would replace the democratically elected Conservative government without first consulting Canadians in an open and democratic election. On behalf of my constituents, I am honoured to present this petition.
Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I have a petition here signed by literally thousands of Canadians who call the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known, that more Canadians die from asbestos than all other industrial causes combined, and yet Canada continues to be the second or third largest producer and exporter of asbestos in the world.
Therefore, these many thousands of Canadians are calling upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms, institute a just transition program for the asbestos workers, and end all government subsidies of asbestos in both Canada and abroad. They call it corporate welfare for corporate serial killers and they are opposed to it. They are calling on us to stop blocking international health and safety conventions, such as the Rotterdam convention, that are designed to protect workers from asbestos.
Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC): Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by 190 people of my riding of Red Deer, Alberta. The petitioners believe that, with the recent federal election results, Canadians provided the present government with a clear and strengthened mandate. They also believe that Canadians have the democratic right to choose who will govern them. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to oppose any political arrangement that would replace Her Majesty's democratically elected government.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and as certified by the clerk of petitions, I am pleased to present, yet another, what I think is about the 100th petition related to the broken income trust promise. It was forwarded to me by a Mr. Armstrong from Peterborough, Ontario, who remembers the Prime Minister boasting about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said that the greatest fraud is a promise not kept.
The petitioners remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts. He recklessly broke that promise and imposed a 31.5% punitive tax, which permanently wiped out over $25 billion of the hard-earned retirement savings of over 2 million Canadians, particularly seniors. 
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Conservative minority government to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions; second, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise; and finally, to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Madam Speaker, today I would like to present to the House seven petitions that have come from all across our nation, signed by people who are asking Parliament to be very vigilant and stop the human trafficking crime that is occurring here on our Canadian soil.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker:  Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Budget Implementation Act, 2009[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): We are on questions and comments, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
John McKay: Madam Speaker, I would be interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to the curious spectacle of the Prime Minister yesterday responding to reporters by saying that unless the opposition gives him $3 billion to play with as he sees fit, without parliamentary scrutiny, we will all go to an election.
That was preceded the previous day by an equally curious comment by the Minister of Finance to the effect that the government is going to make some mistakes, it is likely that a few million dollars might go missing here or there, and that we should not expect too high a standard of the government in getting this stimulus package out.
I would be interested in the hon. member's comments, given those two statements in sequence, and the juxtaposition of those statements as to whether he thinks that the government has actually learned anything about a minority government in the last few weeks and months.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very good question. I would like to answer it with a focus on the Prime Minister's alleged reputation as a strategic genius.
I think all members of the House would agree that that reputation took a huge hit last November with his ill-fated November statement. I think that yesterday too, with the super-aggressive behaviour, it took another hit.
 I would not ask colleagues to believe me, necessarily. I will just read a very brief comment by Strategic Counsel pollster Peter Donolo in The Globe and Mail today. He says:
 I don't think you should be threatening an election when you're dropping in the polls. It's difficult for a combative politician to always mind his Ps and Qs...[but] sometimes they can't help themselves. 
That is an independent pollster on our brilliant tactician, our Prime Minister. That is a good message for the government.
Thomas Mulcair: Madam Speaker, is this, by chance, the same Peter Donolo, key Liberal strategist, pollster and communications genius who, just last week, released a poll showing that the Green Party sits at 26% in Quebec? Is it that same Peter Donolo?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Just because one has been a Liberal for many years does not necessarily mean that one is not highly intelligent, which Mr. Donolo is.
Luc Malo: Madam Speaker, I would like to rise in this House this afternoon to speak with my colleagues about Bill C-10 and, more specifically, the Group No. 1 amendments put forward by the Bloc Québécois. First of all, we would like to see clause 6 deleted as it permits the use of tax havens.
In a situation as critical as the one we are facing today, it is important to focus government intervention on the poorest among us, the people who truly need a helping hand in the economic sectors that are flagging and urgently in need of financial aid to make it through the current situation. Take, for instance, the forestry sector. These workers and businesses have been trying to make ends meet, trying to get on stable financial footing, for four years now.
As well, the Conservatives are not helping those who are newly unemployed. The Bloc Québécois proposed a simple measure to eliminate the two week waiting period for people who fall victim to unemployment so that they can immediately benefit from government support, a support system which they paid into when they were working.
Yesterday, here in this House, my colleague from Laval  wanted to hold a debate on the status of women. In her speech, she said that eliminating the two-week waiting period could help many women. Yesterday, the new Liberal-Conservative alliance prevented that debate from taking place. I say “new alliance”, but as everyone knows and the Bloc Québécois has always said, Liberals and Conservatives are cut from the same cloth. We can really see this as we debate the budget. The Liberals decided to support the budget, without reading it, I imagine. Now, there is some criticism coming from the Liberal benches, but the damage is done. They decided to support this budget blindly.
It is clear that the Liberals and the Conservatives do not want to tackle the problems head-on and put in place all these measures to benefit unemployed workers and industries hard hit by the economic crisis. Instead, the finance minister is keeping all the systems that allow companies to use tax havens, depriving government coffers of tax money that would have come in handy at this time of crisis. 
The minister is clearly trying to benefit his friends at the expense of our local businesses. Those friends are companies that benefit from this financial assistance and these tax havens. He wants to benefit people who likely asked him to. I will come back to that later. Members will be surprised to learn who was on the expert panel in charge of justifying this about-face by the minister.
I say “about-face”, because in his 2007 budget, the minister had said that everyone should pay their fair share of tax. Every time an individual or a company does not pay applicable tax, other taxpayers have to pony up. It is therefore clear that he had to come up with an excellent alibi to go back on what he had so rightly said in 2007. So he set up an advisory panel to review Canada's international tax system. Four of the people on the panel were from the private sector, including a former CEO of Scotiabank.
Need we say more? Scotiabank is the Canadian bank with the most branches in tax havens. If that is not a conflict of interest, it is definitely an apparent conflict of interest. As I was saying earlier, I find it at the very least peculiar that in this time of crisis, businesses are still being encouraged to use these strategies to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. We know very well that, especially now, any money that can be added to the federal coffers will be very important to support those who are most vulnerable in our society. 
As a final point, I would like to talk about the older workers who are losing their jobs right now. How long have we been calling for a program for older worker adjustment? These people have worked their entire lives and cannot be retrained within a few years of their retirement. They have an urgent need for immediate help from the government through the insurance they have been paying into their entire working lives. 
We would like another set of provisions to be eliminated: clauses 295 to 299. These clauses deal with the establishment of a single securities commission. At this point, it is unfortunate to hear the minister and members opposite tell us that the economic crisis dictates that we establish, from coast to coast, a single securities commission when we know very well that the Minister of Finance has been dreaming of this for a number of years, ever since his Toronto cronies asked him to concentrate Canadian economic activities in the Ontario metropolis. And once again, they decided to create a committee to examine this possibility. It is clear, since that was the minister's wish, that they had to come up with what is now in the bill: the establishment of a transition office.
The National Assembly of Quebec is unanimous on this issue: there must be no interference in Quebec's jurisdiction. Throughout the world, groups responsible for evaluating the performance of securities regulators have told us that Canada's system is above reproach and that it is one of the best in the world.
Why change what works? Why decide to turn upside down a system that works well and to initiate—that is the spirit of the bill—lawsuits if the provinces do not co-operate. It makes no sense to use the courts to voluntarily meddle in areas that are clearly the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.
It is clear to the Bloc that clauses 6 and 295 through 299 must be struck from BillC-10. In this regard, I hope my colleagues have the foresight demonstrated by the Bloc since it arrived in this House.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we are debating amendments to Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill. I want to discuss these amendments both in a general and a particular context. I will break my remarks into three parts. 
First, in relation to the bill and these amendments which on the face of it attempt to make the bill better in the view of those proposing the amendments, as a matter of fact they probably would slow down the passage of the bill.
While I, too, have seen problems in the bill, the fact is the government very much wants to get the bill passed and I with the Liberal opposition very much want to get the stimulus package passed as well. When people pass legislation in haste, that sometimes gives rise to errors. We do make mistakes from time to time and in the view of many in the House, this bill has some mistakes.
If there is one single item that keeps the government alive, it is the stimulus package. Without the stimulus package, as I said before, the Conservative government would be what I referred to as a dead man walking. The government has twice in the last year come to the brink with the realization that the House is not working. The government does not have the support of the House.
We went to an election once, we came back. We had an economic statement and we were on the edge of another election. I do not see that a lot has changed except for that one thing: the stimulus package. The economy is in trouble and my party is determined to serve Canadians first and get the stimulus package passed, get the money out the door to stimulate the economy.
My party has insisted on report cards from the government on a periodic basis so that we can see what is happening, so that there will be some transparency from a parliamentary point of view and we can see some real things happening rather than just being announced into submission. The government is really good at making announcements. In my view it is less good at actually doing the deal, walking the walk. I refuse to be announced into submission. 
I was surprised yesterday to see the government introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code that appeared on the face of it to provide protection to gang members that were being killed by other gang members. 
The government is so desperate to be seen to be doing something, it will do anything. If the roof leaks, the government will want to pass a bill to fix the roof. The Conservatives just want to be seen to be doing things. They will announce a bill that prohibits roof leaks 100 times before they stop the roof leak.
My party and I are supporting the bill to make sure the stimulus package gets through as soon as we can get it there.
I had prepared some amendments. I drafted them, submitted them and then I withdrew the amendments. The amendments did not have to do with substantive measures from the budget point of view, but they did have to do with elements in the bill. As everyone knows, the bill, to the extent that it is an ambulance bringing economic first-aid and help to the country, it has a bit of contraband in the back of the ambulance. It has amendments to the Competition Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and a half dozen other statutes.
One of the things it does is the Department of Justice in drafting the bill has put in a phrase that these regulatory provisions, these regulatory empowerments in the bill, are not statutory instruments under the Statutory Instruments Act. While that does get rid of the problem of having to pre-publish and consult before the regulation and order of exemption has passed, what it does also is preclude Parliament from reviewing these things after they are put in place. That is a huge mistake and it runs contrary to everything I have seen Parliament do around here for the last 30 to 40 years.
My amendments were intended to correct that. I have discussed it with members around the House, and I think there may be an opportunity to propose amendments that will reverse the impact of these provisions in the stimulus package bill. There is a risk that if we do not do it here, the members in the other place may do it. I do not know what they will do. I hope they subscribe to the same ethic that we do and want to get this bill passed quickly.
On the issue of stimulus itself and the amendments here, I do know that in the current fiscal year, which will end on March 31, 2009, the government had 12 months to get out the infrastructure spending that was contained in last year's budget. There are hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in that budget. I have not read this with my own eyes, I have not actually followed the government accounts, but I am informed the government has only managed to get 5% or 10% of that money out the door. Even as it admits the economy needs the stimulus investment, it appears as though the government has been unable to get this money out and invested in infrastructure projects across the country. That is very strange.
 Even as we look at the upcoming estimates and the stimulus package moneys referred to in Bill C-10, to be authorized by the House soon in the main estimates and supply votes I see there is a $3 billion chunk of money which has been placed at the disposal of Treasury Board. That is a departure from how the government normally spends money, because when it does it that way, we in Parliament do not actually get a chance to see it project by project in the supplementary estimates.
In this House, and I am quite sure this will happen, one or more of the committees will have to construct a protocol, a mechanism, a procedure which will meticulously review both the process and the decision making for this stimulus spending, the investment in infrastructure. That is going to happen. It may be uncomfortable for some ministers, but that is what the House is going to have to do because of the way this stimulus package money is put in the estimates and the way it has been proposed in Bill C-10.
I will close with two issues. I note that the Minister of Finance has said that in moving to get this money out quickly, there is always the possibility of a mistake. It would not be the government, but it would be governmental officials who would do the work, the calculations, check on these projects to ensure that they are good projects, and there might be a mistake. There could even be fraud. There is $3 billion sitting out there, and I am sure there is a crook out there somewhere who is going to try to get his hands on it.
I want to make sure that in the process of letting contracts, the government checks with its partners, the provincial governments and the municipal governments, for the presence of organized crime in the whole array of contractors out there. I want the government to check for crime and organized crime as this money is spent.
Last, I would only ask the question, if we are asking the auto workers to freeze their pay and benefits or take a cut, should we not be looking to organized labour in the construction industry to perhaps cap and freeze their wages and benefits during the currency of these investment projects? What is good enough for the auto workers should be good enough for the construction industry. I have asked the question, and the answers will be forthcoming in due course.
Paul Dewar: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. We are all very concerned about how this money is going to be spent, the oversight, the accountability and of course the transparency.
The NDP has a proposal, and in fact in question period today our finance critic was very clear on the proposal to the government about what should be done.
I want to ask the member if he would agree with us that this is the way to go, that every single solitary nickel and penny that is being spent in the stimulus package should be accessible on the web so that any citizen can see where the money is being spent, who is spending it, to make sure we have oversight. It is good for us to have reports every once in a while, but why not have Canadians hold our government to account as well as Parliament.
Would he agree with us to have the government do what has been done in Washington and have all moneys that are being spent on a website for all to see?
[Interjection]
Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, we, in opposition, and I presume government members feel the same way, are all in favour of transparency. I wish Parliament could track every nickel the government spends both in the stimulus package and on everything, but the fact is that we cannot. We do not have enough time, it is just too much. 
However, I do agree fully that it is possible in this case to have transparency with respect to each project: the amounts, the potential for overruns, under budget, over budget, accountability during and after, an eye on the process itself and who makes the decision. I would not want the process to materially slow down the spending of the money but I would want the process to scrutinize it sufficiently so that we get the best bang for our buck and that we avoid the kinds of mistakes the finance minister referred to.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam Speaker, more often than not, since the budget was brought down in this House, the NDP has been accused of opposing the budget before even reading it. As for the Liberal Party, it said it would support the budget, then proceeded to vote for it. Questions were asked after the fact.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether it is possible that the Liberal Party of Canada voted for the budget without even having read it.
[Interjection]
Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that most of us on this side read it. I can certainly confirm that my party knew what was in the budget before we decided to support it. The one overriding component of the budget and the budget bill that we support is the stimulus package. 
Does the bill have its deficiencies? Yes,and I have already mentioned a couple of them. Are there things in the bill we might rather deal with in greater depth at a later time? Of course, but the government has chosen this route. I personally regretted the bundling of all these things in Bill C-10 but we firmly support the stimulus package. There is nothing else more important to Canadians at this time and that is why we are proceeding on this basis.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, the member talked briefly about infrastructure and yesterday we had a full debate. One of the facts given was that of the $1.9 billion promised by the government, only 9% of it actually was delivered, a 96% failure rate. Over the last two years, some $2 billion of infrastructure spending has not been made.
Since the major component of the stimulus package is infrastructure and given the fact that we could not trust the government to approve money out, why are the Conservatives now saying that they need approval so they can get it out when clearly they have shown historically that even when they get the approvals they do not spend it?
[Interjection]
Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, this is a very significant issue and I do not think the government has responded meaningfully to this. Why has the government been unable to get out over $1 billion in stimulus spending in this fiscal year? The money is there. I am sure there are projects there. The government will need to convince Canadians that it is able to get the new stimulus money out more quickly than the last stimulus money where it conspicuously failed.
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I rise with anticipation of what may be a lively debate in the future. We are talking about the expenditure of billions of dollars. Although it has not been mentioned a lot lately, the deficit and the continuing debt will be passed on to our children.
It only stands to reason that opposition members would hope for accountability and transparency from Conservative members in these discussions. I can just see the Auditor General and her staff working overtime in years to come analyzing these expenditures to ensure that taxpayers receive value for their money. We simply do not know.
This is not a question of the NDP wishing to delay assistance to workers and their families in this country. I remind the House that not long ago it was the Conservative government that prorogued Parliament. We did not throw out Parliament. Before that, it was the Conservative government that quit in the middle of governing, It said that it was tired and did not want to govern anymore so it called an election. Nobody asked the Conservatives to do that. They Conservatives spent $300 million, money that could have helped a lot of autism cases in Canada, helped a lot of veterans, helped a lot of students with the cost of their education, helped a lot of seniors and could have cleaned up the environment. Instead of using that money for important issues, the Conservatives called an election.
After the election, the Conservatives painted a picture of no worries. I can hear that song in the background. They said that Canada would not go into deficit, that there would be no recession in Canada, even though everybody else in the world was having financial troubles. In fact, they said that they had provided a stimulus package with their GST cuts and everything else. They said that Canada was in great shape, that no one needed to worry because we were in great shape. They told everyone to sit back and relax. 
The Prime Minister told everyone that this was a good buying opportunity. Thank goodness he is not a stockbroker because a lot of people would have lost their shirt and their underwear if they had listened to him.
However, the idea of a coalition scared the living daylights out of the government and all of a sudden Canada had a $34 billion deficit. The Conservatives said that the money needed to go out to Canadians right away, even yesterday, but it would go out without any accountability. That is what amazes me. 
I had the privilege of sitting in this place with Preston Manning. Preston Manning and I may have disagreed on a lot of issues but the one thing he and I agreed on was the fact that accountability was important to the taxpayer. 
 I have heard a countless number of Conservatives over the years say that people should never vote for the NDP because we are a reckless bunch and have no idea how to handle the economy. Who were the top three, most fiscally responsible premiers in the history of this country? They were Allan Blakeney, Roy Romanow and Tommy Douglas. I am taking this information from a Conservative Party report. Who were the three worst premiers of all time? They were Joey Smallwood, Grant Devine--and where did half of his cabinet go--and John Buchanan of Nova Scotia. We are still paying off the debts of those premiers.
We now have a Conservative bunch of people over there and they are not bad folks really. I have said many times that there is not one Conservative, Liberal or Bloc member who I would not want as my neighbour. However, the Conservatives are twisting themselves into pretzels that we cannot even eat because they have completely reversed every one of their principles. It is incredible to think that those members can sit in the House and try to bully us into what they think we must do. When they were in opposition they were very good at attacking the Liberals. 
I well remember the HRDC boondoggle. I do give the member for Calgary—Nose Hill a lot of credit for her excellent attacks on the human resources minister when she said that accountability was paramount. Now we have a government saying no, that we need to get it out right now. It is asking us to forget about accountability, forget about transparency and to trust it. 
I wonder what the investors of those trust agreements thought. I wonder what those veterans, when Mr. Harper, on September 9, 2008, promised those allied veterans that we would--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The member, I am sure, is aware that he cannot use the name of a sitting Prime Minister.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, you are correct and I regret having said it in that sort of exuberant tone. I will try and tone it down a touch.
On September 9, 2008, the Prime Minister told a group of Polish veterans, who are allied and Commonwealth veterans, that when the Conservatives got elected, they would institute the veteran's war allowance, which was ripped away from them in 1995 by Paul Martin and the Liberals.
We applauded that. In fact, we wrote a letter to the Prime Minister the next day asking him to get a special warrant from the Governor General to issue those funds immediately. These veterans, on average, are 86 years old. Some of them have already passed away since that September promise. Where was that in the budget? There was not a single word.
We have already seen what they did to the VIP and agent orange. Today in the papers, a group of veterans who had to clean up the Chalk River site are suing the government, the fourth lawsuit by veterans against the government in three short years.
However, that promise was something we were excited about and we congratulated the Prime Minister for making that promise, but it is not in the budget. We heard from the veterans affairs minister that the government was committed to this. When? They are 86 years old on average. What in heaven's name is this Parliament waiting for?
There is not one member of Parliament or one senator from any party who would say to the government, “No, do not do that”. We would do it immediately, in a heartbeat. If I had a motion that I could pass to get the government to agree and get it done tonight, I would do it, but the government completely ignored that. 
There are all kinds of other things we are concerned about, navigable waters being one. The Conservatives are asking us to trust them when it comes to the protection of the environment, on our most precious system , our water. Many people from across the country have written me and written the MPs on both sides and have asked us what the heck the government was about to do to our rivers, lakes and ponds. What is it doing?”
I know I only have a minute left and I know that the audience in this room will be disappointed that I have to be quiet now, but where are the true Conservatives in this House who wanted fiscal accountability and fiscal responsibility? Where are those things?
I will say this much. We know that a stimulus package needs to be there to help those workers and families in those businesses and we know that credit needs to get flowing out fairly quickly, but we just cannot open up the vault and tell them to help themselves. There needs to be accountability because somebody must pay for this. 
As an aside, it is my daughter's birthday tomorrow and I just want to wish her a happy birthday. One of my children is 21 and the other one is 18. They will be handling this debt. They will be paying for this and my mom's pension and her concerns are going to be looked at as well.
We need to be accountable and honest and help the people who truly are in need. Before the Conservatives get up, I did read the budget. I read it very carefully and I did send my submissions to the finance minister. The parliamentary secretary should not be saying that they did not get any submissions. One of the submissions I made was for us to show leadership by freezing our salaries for the duration of this Parliament. I asked the government to do that and I did not get any response. If we were to take a zero per cent increase that would show leadership.
As well, on law and order, the RCMP personnel are the ones who maintain that law and order. What did the government do? It ripped up a contract with them and flattened out their wages to 1.5% when they agreed to 3.5%. How can it do that to the brave men and women who wear the red serge and protect our citizens on a daily basis?
Rick Norlock: Madam Speaker, it was great oratory. Obviously the member has gone to the NDP school of better acting, hyperbole and all those other things. Those members speak very loudly.
I want to tell the hon. member this and then ask him a question. There are a whack of questions I could ask, but when it comes to the RCMP, I happen to know a fair amount about policing.
Let me educate the member. We have increased the numbers of the RCMP by upward of about 1,500 members in the few short years we have been here. We have added to the municipal and provincial police forces of our country. We have opened up and expanded their ability to better train officers so they can go on the streets and do the job we want them to do.
The hon. member said that he sent some suggestions to the minister. He talks about the Conservatives having done this, that and the other thing, but those members always voted against our budgets and would have plunged our country into election after election.
Why does the member choose the RCMP when this party was one that built it up?
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, first, I thank the hon. member for his service as a police officer to our country.
I assume by his comments that he will support my Bill C-201, which would end the clawback of the military and RCMP pensions. Debate on the bill at second reading starts on March 25. I look forward to that gentleman's support.
It was not the NDP that issued confidence votes; it was the Conservatives. What government tells our most honoured citizens of the RCMP, in an email prior to Christmas and without any consultation, that they will get an increase of only 1.5%. That was after six months of negotiations that ended in an agreed collective contract of a 3.5% increase. What a slap in the face to the men and women who serve our country.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, as the member and all hon. members know, the infrastructure strategy in terms of stimulus is the most significant part of the package.
It is only the end of February. We still have one month to go in the current fiscal period. Over the last two years about $2 billion of approved infrastructure spending have lapsed or will be reverted to the coffers.
If it takes a long time to get approval, if the government really wants to be serious about this, what it should do allocate and appropriate right now additional funds in the last fiscal month of this fiscal year so we can not only create jobs, but also save some of those jobs that are currently in jeopardy.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, the hon. member was here when the NDP re-wrote the federal budget of 2005 and put in $4.8 billion of a stimulus for public transit and everything else. We re-wrote the federal Liberal budget, which the Liberals accepted, and yet the Conservatives ripped that up and told us we were irresponsible. The government was still in surplus for a time after that and paid down the debt, as that hon. member knows, and he is a great member of Parliament.
I wish to tell the House that I learned by oratory skills from working in the airline industry for many years.
The hon. member knows that 96% of packages promised in 2006 and 2007 were never delivered.
Gérard Asselin: Madam Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament since 1993. I too, as the hon. member correctly indicated, was here when Preston Manning sat in this House. Mr. Manning was the leader of the Reform Party of Canada.
The current Prime Minister was a Reform MP under Preston Manning, and a majority of members, including the ministers in this House were with the Reform Party. In Quebec, support for the Reform Party was a mere 1%.
Now, they have changed party banner and colour. They have failed to deliver the packages for infrastructure and do not even maintain their own infrastructures. In the regions, wharves are in an advanced state of decay, yet the government is not maintaining— 
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I would like to give the hon. member a few seconds to reply. The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.
[Interjection]
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, we know what the Conservatives are doing, but the sad thing in all of it is they are being propped up by the Liberals. It is completely unbelievable why they would do that when they had an opportunity to make serious amendments to change some of the budget for the betterment of all Canada.
John McKay: Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. friend on his speech. Who knew that people could learn oratory skills in the airline industry. When someone loses baggage somewhere, someone else probably has to say something to the customer.
Here we are at the end of a budgetary process that started on January 27. By parliamentary standards, this is lightening speed to have a budgetary implementation bill implemented by the end of February.
The budget was presented much sooner than the Prime Minister wished because of a parliamentary crisis entirely initiated by the Prime Minister. His economic statement was so inflammatory that the three opposition parties gave serious consideration to a coalition. Panicked, the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament. It was an extraordinary spectacle by anyone's standards. After the two month cool down period, he hastily introduced the budget with the undertaking of the official opposition to not defeat him for now.
The budget was allowed to pass on the condition that the implementation of the stimulus package would be reviewed on fixed supply dates, and that is where we stand now.
The Bloc has been largely responsible, recognizing the overall wisdom of the official opposition that what Canada needs now is economic stimulus, not an election. The NDP members have been doing their usual pro forma, “We're against everything even before we've read it”. They are so irritated by the withdrawal of the official opposition from the coalition that they have decided to attack the official opposition rather than the government.
All the while the Prime Minister has been playing nice with the official opposition because he has to have Bill C-10 if he has any credibility as a prime minister.
What do we make of the Prime Minister's outburst yesterday when he said, “Give me $3 billion of play money, free from parliamentary scrutiny, or we're off to another election”. He just cannot help himself.
Even the mildest forms of opposition send him into paroxysms of towering rage, metaphorically kicking the furniture around the room and hurling curses upon those who oppose him and upon their children and their children's children. It is quite a spectacle really.
The NDP does its pro forma, “This is an abuse of Parliament” rant and the Prime Minister just loses it. Meanwhile the Leader of the Opposition serenely watches this spectacle of adults acting as children.
He has said in the past that Canadians need another election like they need a hole in the head. That was last month. What has changed? Due to the level-headedness of the Leader of the Opposition, we are on the cusp of having a budget far earlier than the government wanted, with the opportunity to inject fiscal stimulus into the economy much earlier in the economic cycle. That was not the government's plan.
The government wanted to wait for the economic crisis to deepen before being in a position to do something. In retrospect, that was not very wise. One only has to look at today's newspapers. Even Wal-Mart is closing stores and GM has lost something in the order of $9.6 billion in the last quarter and is literally on the cusp of declaring bankruptcy.
In my judgment Canadians prefer a less partisan atmosphere. In fact, last night's CBC political panel talked about a post-partisan Parliament. In my view the panel members are being overly optimistic. One can see from the atmosphere here today that possibly the idea of a post-partisan Parliament is just wishful thinking, especially in light of the fact that, in the mildest circumstances, the Prime Minister seems so easily provoked and he loses it in front of reporters.
The day before the Prime Minister's little rant, the Minister of Finance said that mistakes would be made in the allocation and delivery of infrastructure funding, that the government was rushing the bureaucrats through the normal checks and balances process, so we could expect some problems, possibly even some boondoggles. 
What a curious juxtaposition. On the one hand, the Minister of Finance is saying that the government is going to make some mistakes with the money it has, that it has just gone through several layers of parliamentary scrutiny and that, with the amendment of the official opposition, it will have more layers of official opposition scrutiny. Simultaneously, the Prime Minister is asking for $3 billion of play money to do with as he sees fit with no scrutiny whatsoever.
This is from the same Prime Minister who saw no need for an early budgetary process, did not anticipate the drastic effect of the economic crisis and precipitated a political crisis that almost cost him his government.
 The contrast between the Prime Minister and President Obama could not be more obvious. President Obama has repeatedly reached out to the opposition so he can make his response to the economic crisis a non-partisan event. He has addressed some systemic and structural flaws in the American process that has brought this mighty American colossus to its economic knees. He is moving with assurance and confidence into very difficult areas with a boldness and verve seldom seen.
What do we have? A chirping NDP opposition that reacts to every provocation and a Prime Minister whose default position on every issue is “let's go to an election, right now”.
 Canadians can thank the Liberal Party for C-10. We are very aware that it is an imperfect document. It is full of political provocations. It lacks coherence. It has within it many items of no relevance to a budgetary document such as navigable waters, pay equity and jamming certain public sector employees. It is an obnoxious document. There is no doubt about it.
 Many of these items deserve far greater scrutiny than the finance committee was able to provide in the context of trying to get this budget moved along. However, it seems to be in the DNA of the Prime Minister to load up every obnoxious element he can think of in a bill and try to jam the opposition.
 In an era when Canadians crave leadership, they get a partisan bully. However, in the judgment of the official opposition, the potential good of an early stimulus package, as amended with the built-in review periods, outweighs the obnoxious elements of C-10. Therefore, we will be supporting it.
Ms. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Madam Speaker, I thought it was the responsibility in the House for members of Parliament to uphold the institutions of our great country with some reverence.
Could the member opposite advise the House how his cutting remarks about the Prime Minister will instill in the children of Canada respect for the office that the man holds.
[Interjection]
John McKay: Madam Speaker, it is very curious. The Prime Minister holds the most significant political office that the country can offer. It is an enormously powerful office. He gets to appoint the justices of the Supreme Court. He has just loaded up the Senate with 18 new appointments. He basically tells his caucus how to vote.
It is an enormously powerful position. Yet, faced with the mildest form of opposition, even on a pro forma rant that the NDP does out of its sleeve, he goes off the edge. He does a great disservice to the office that he holds and that Canadians have now given to him twice. I seriously fear the Prime Minister will continue to abuse the institutions that we hold dear.
Gérard Asselin: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member just explained and I noted earlier, the Prime Minister often accuses the NDP of opposing the budget before even reading it. The problem with the members from the Liberal Party is that, in their case, they voted for the budget without reading it. Since the economic update was tabled in this House, I have not seen a single member rise to say anything positive about this budget. 
We are talking about a $3 billion envelope to be administered by the Treasury Board. This is not a casino where the Prime Minister can play blackjack with taxpayers' money. Let us be serious here. We have responsibilities. We have to account to the people. How could we let the Prime Minister use this money? Chances are we would see history repeat itself. Members no doubt recall the sponsorship scandal. The House of Commons is accountable to the people. The budget has to be approved and spending reported to Parliament. 
[Interjection]
John McKay: Madam Speaker, unlike the Bloc and the NDP, the Liberal Party, the official opposition, actually has to exercise judgment. In our judgment, the obnoxious elements of Bill C-10, of which there are many, and the provocations that are actually built into Bill C-10, were not of such sufficient magnitude that we would defeat the government at this time.
We have, to speak to the hon. gentleman's specific question, built in three review elements, March, June and December, on the stimulus package itself to see that in fact it is impacting on the economy. I respectfully submit that is a responsible official opposition holding a government to account in very difficult circumstances.
Paul Dewar: Madam Speaker, my colleague, by the way, seems to be a frustrated playwright. Maybe he has another career; I do not know. “Obnoxious” might not be the word, but “noxious”, I think, is the right word.
Why will he and the Liberals not support amendments, responsible amendments like taking out the navigable waters out of this budget, support us, and quite frankly do their job?
[Interjection]
John McKay: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, those are all elements of confidence. We have made the decision to support the government, on a review basis. As the President of the Treasury Board said today in question period, the government is on probation. The Conservatives know it and we know it.
Dean Del Mastro: Madam Speaker, I want to commend this member for his efforts in making sure that the stimulus package came through the finance committee very quickly. I have worked with him and I know we do not agree on everything, but we do agree on a lot of things.
He talked about the judgment that the official opposition has to use. I wonder if he thinks that judgment will help ridings in Quebec and obviously ones represented by the NDP members because they do not seem to care much about them.
[Interjection]
John McKay: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is correct that we do not agree on everything, and there are days when I wonder whether we agree on anything. Having said that, I do not think it is within the purview of analysis whether we do or do not support the budget based upon on whether it is good for a Bloc riding, good for a Conservative riding, good for an NDP riding, or otherwise. We are doing what we think is in the best interests of--
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
Mr. Luc Desnoyers (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-10 on the Bloc Québécois' behalf.
I feel that I have to briefly review the situation. Last fall, we were given a throne speech and economic statement that were ideological, empty, antisocial, anti-union, anti-women and anti-youth. The Conservatives often question the opposition's usefulness. At the time, had we not created a coalition, we would not have had a budget, and the Prime Minister would be doing whatever he pleased today and would have used the money however he liked.
So we formed a coalition. The Bloc Québécois was one of the only ones to recommend a stimulus package addressing several demands from Quebec to the government. I have to emphasize that because Quebec is important to the Bloc Québécois. There was a lot of pressure. The Conservatives were afraid of losing their limousines and their privileges, so the Prime Minister rushed over to Michaëlle Jean's place to ask for prorogation. That slowed things down considerably, and now they are trying to say that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois are preventing this budget from passing, even though the Conservatives themselves are the ones who engineered this situation in the first place.
I want to emphasize, once again, that Quebeckers gave all of the Bloc Québécois members sizeable majorities in their ridings so that we could work for Quebec.
From Quebec's perspective, this budget will take away a billion dollars this year, and a billion dollars next year because of equalization. That is $2 billion. That is a lot of money to Quebec. That money would have been spent on health and education, and we all know how important having an educated and healthy population is to a province, to a nation. A healthy, educated population is an important factor in economic development. 
When investors are figuring out where to invest, they look for places with educated people and good health systems. To them, those are indicators that they should invest in Quebec. The Canadian divisions of GM, Ford and Chrysler have always said that health and education systems are among their primary criteria when investing.
I have no doubt that the Bloc will continue to fight hard for justice in terms of the fiscal imbalance. For years, we have been asking for the money Quebec is entitled to, and we will continue to do so. Unfortunately, this year's budget includes some serious cuts.
Giving $170 million to Canada's manufacturing and forestry industries is a joke. That barely represents 22% for Quebec. It is nothing in terms of a major economic investment. These industries are in crisis and need financial assistance more than ever. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is refusing to give them the help they need in order to develop.
We are seeing layoffs in Quebec at Pratt &amp; Whitney, Bombardier, Kenworth and Prévost Car. We are also seeing the attitude of this Conservative government and the Liberals who are supporting this budget. Who got the contracts for the latest military trucks? An American company. Six to eight hundred jobs could have been saved in Quebec and Canada at other truck manufacturing plants, yet they refused to award the contracts to Canadian workers. Military buses could have been built by Prévost Car, Nova Bus or New Flyer, in Winnipeg. These companies could have made the buses, but the contract was awarded to a German company. The contracts for new rescue planes will be awarded to American companies, but that significant economic boost should have been given to Quebec. As usual, we got nothing but crumbs.
The Bloc is always accused of asking questions. They are good questions. It is an intelligent way of demanding things for Quebec instead of being content to blather on about newspapers or laughing from the other side of the House about the work the Bloc has been doing for many years. That is why we are re-elected in election after election.
The same is true in the parts sector. Every riding in Quebec has seen major layoffs, including the ridings in which Conservative members were elected. They are not concerned about it, though, because they only care about their own interests. But there have been major layoffs in that sector. The Bloc Québécois has been making serious demands from this side of the House, and clearly, we will continue to do so.
The aerospace industry is one of the motors of Quebec's industrial sector in terms of economic development. It is being gradually shut down by the lack of proper support. Immediate investments must be made in this sector in order to ensure the industry's future in Quebec over the next 15 years. The current government is doing nothing to help it.
As for employment insurance, tens of thousands of workers have been laid off and they need to receive money right away, without the two week waiting period. Over 40% of these workers have access to employment insurance. The Conservative government and the Liberals prefer to add five weeks to the end of the benefits period, although we know that this will affect very few people.
The Bloc Québécois introduced a bill recently, Bill C-308, to improve the employment insurance system. In a crisis situation, the employment insurance fund becomes an important economic tool. We must allow workers to benefit from it, whether through an assistance program for older workers or through work sharing. We would like to extend the latter by more than a year, in order to keep the expertise in the factories and allow employers to have it when work resumes. Unfortunately, it was decided to extend it for only a short time.
A number of factories in Quebec and the Quebec City region have major problems, and they do not have access to work sharing. In the short term, the most recent improvement does nothing to help the workers in that sector.
The new coalition of the Liberals and the Conservatives continues to make its mark by attacking workers. Consider the federal government's position with regard to its own employees. The Conservatives and the Liberals decided to legislate to take away their right to strike and to bargain. More than 100,000 public service workers have already approved a collective agreement in good faith. Others had negotiated a collective agreement with a 2.5% salary increase. The government decided to take money out of their pockets retroactively to stimulate the economy. This government is creating a climate of insecurity in the federal bureaucracy, and workers are neither happy nor satisfied. A private sector employer or multinational would never dare do such a thing, because it would lose important expertise.
I could talk about pay equity, but my colleague spoke at length about it. It is completely unacceptable to attack women in this way. This is being felt in Quebec and all across Canada.
Having made cuts in this area, the government is handing out tax breaks. Many economists are saying that it is a huge mistake to make tax reductions that will do nothing. People are saving much more than they are spending at present. Workers who have lost their jobs need money. The billions of dollars in tax reductions should be invested to save jobs and build an economy.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will keep on fighting for Quebec as it has always done. It is the only party that fights for Quebec in this House. The other members from Quebec, who sit opposite, do not do anything. They support a budget like this one, which hurts Quebec. We will keep on building Quebec.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Madam Speaker, the budget provides a total of $60 million over three years, a total of $50 million per year for older workers, something this member has been advocating for for a long time. It includes five extra weeks of EI benefits that this member has been advocating for and an extension of work-sharing. There is $500 million for long-tenured workers that will give up to 10,000 long-tenured workers additional time and financial support. We will provide training for those who need it in the amount of $500 million, and those who are not on EI, there will be extended training and skills upgrading for $1 billion.
How can this member say that he will not support this budget? How can this member face people from his own region, from his own province, and say he voted against these billions of dollars of assistance that are in this budget implementation bill that should be passed?
[Interjection]
Luc Desnoyers: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question and comments.
As you know, in Quebec we are different and our claims are different. Perhaps you have not often visited Quebec. You have not spoken to people in Quebec and you unfortunately have few MPs—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Order, please. I would ask the member to address the chair rather than talking directly to the member.
[Interjection]
Luc Desnoyers: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, POWA is a program that was cut by the Liberals; the Conservatives have restored very little of it. In the current crisis, many older workers are being hit hard because of huge layoffs. These workers cannot yet apply for their pensions. This type of program would allow them to retain their dignity until they begin receiving the pension normally provided by their company.
Unfortunately, POWA, as it stands, gives absolutely nothing to older workers. With regard to employment insurance, workers not only in Quebec but also in Canada have been asking for some time for 360 hour eligibility rules, easier access, increased benefits—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Order, please. I would like to give other members the opportunity to ask questions.
I will now give the floor to the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
Nathan Cullen: Madam Speaker, I have a brief question for my colleague about employment insurance.
The government has said it is improving the program but it is ignoring the facts. The fact is, the majority of workers do not have access to the program. In our region, northwest British Columbia, 60% of workers do not qualify.
How can the government even talk about a benefit?
[Interjection]
Luc Desnoyers: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is clear when we look at what the Conservatives and Liberals have been proposing with this budget for the past number a weeks, there is nothing there to help workers. Absolutely nothing.
The waiting period plays an important role and, as he mentioned, accessibility is a significant issue. Currently, only approximately 40% of workers can access employment insurance. Unfortunately, the members from the opposite side of the House are telling us that by impoverishing workers we are helping both the workers and the economy. In my opinion, we will not manage to do anything by impoverishing the unemployed. We will do something when we help them.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member for Mississauga South has one minute to ask a brief question.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, my question has to do with the arts community. The member mentioned it briefly. I think this really goes to the heart of integrity and trust. The Prime Minister referred to those in the arts community as being subsidized whiners. I wonder if the member would care to comment on whether or not this is a way in which he has demonstrated to Quebeckers and the rest of Canadians that he really cares about them.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles has 30 seconds to respond.
[Interjection]
Luc Desnoyers: Madam Speaker, I believe that culture played an important role in the last election campaign. Unfortunately, the Conservatives denied, and continue to deny, how important culture is.
Economically, it represents 300,000 jobs in Quebec, which is a significant number. Unfortunately, the Conservative government at the time, just like the Liberals today, are brushing artists aside with the budget for various reasons—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Order. 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 CodeJoy Smith:  moved that Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).
I ask members to take a moment to imagine a beautiful Ontario spring day in June 2008. Imagine a courtroom here in the province of Ontario where a young girl, no older than 15 years when her exploitation began, head bowed, eyes down, quietly relates a story so shocking that we as parents relive the images in our minds over and over again and pray it never happens to our daughters.
I am speaking of a young Canadian girl who lives not far from the nation's capital, telling of the horror she endured from the man who trafficked and sold her for sex for two and a half years, a man who made in excess of $360,000 off this innocent young victim by threatening her, beating her, and forcing her to have sex with strangers.
As a result, this man was able to buy himself a BMW and an expensive house in Niagara Falls. Even though he was eventually caught and convicted, he spent less time in jail than he did exploiting this young girl and destroying her life. Often he would tell her that if she got out of line, he would beat her. He would threaten to kidnap her brother or do harm to her parents.
This man, Imani Nakpangi, was caught and convicted as the first child trafficker in Canada. To get a glimpse of the ongoing trauma this young girl endured from her trafficker, I would like us to imagine our own daughters, granddaughters, or sons, telling this story in this Ontario courtroom last June. 
I will quote from this young girl's impact statement so we as parliamentarians can catch a glimpse of what this little girl went through. She said, “I am constantly looking over my shoulder, afraid that either Imani or his friends are going to come after me for putting him in jail. I don't feel safe at home. He knows where I live, and what my family looks like, and where they live. I have nightmares about him. I have low self esteem. Feel like I am only good for one thing...sex. I don't see why someone, a man would be interested in me, and try to get to know me, because I feel unworthy, dirty, tainted, nothing." 
In Canada today child sex slavery is alive and well. Traffickers make a great deal of money off innocent child victims. They prefer young children because young children are impressionable, easy to control and easy to intimidate. The criminal intelligence service of Canada's strategic intelligence brief entitled “Organized Crime and Domestic Trafficking in Persons in Canada” has reported that organized crime networks right here in Canada are actively trafficking Canadian born women and underage girls interprovincially and in some instances to the U.S. These women and girls are destined for the sex trade.
I would like to speak about the legal necessity of Bill C-268. Canada's first human trafficking offences were added to the Criminal Code at the end of 2005 through the work of the hon. member for Mount Royal, the justice minister at that time. Section 279.01 of the Criminal Code carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years and up to life imprisonment if the victim is kidnapped, subject to aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault, or killed during the commission of the offence.
Now there are some who will argue this amendment is unnecessary. They will suggest that individuals convicted of trafficking in Canada already face up to 14 years, even life in certain circumstances, and therefore, there is no need for mandatory minimums.
Let me be clear. This view is naive and ignorant of the reality of human trafficking convictions in Canada. Over the past year Peel Regional Police and Montreal Police Service have rescued the first child victims of sex trafficking in Canada and secured convictions against their traffickers. Imani Nakpangi, who I mentioned earlier, was convicted last June of trafficking a 15-year-old girl. He sexually exploited her daily over two years. For the offence of human trafficking, he received only three years and was credited 13 months for the pre-trial time he served.
This past November in Montreal, Michael Lennox Mark was convicted of human trafficking. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for trafficking a 17-year-old girl and selling her for sex. He served only a single week in prison after being convicted because he was given a two-for-one credit for his one year of pretrial custody.
 In light of the incredulous sentences these men received, I cannot imagine what one would have to do to receive a full 14 years. These are our Canadian children.
I want to take this opportunity to commend the wonderful police officers in the Peel and Montreal police forces for their dedication to combatting this horrific crime. I can tell members they are shocked at the exceedingly inadequate sentences that have been handed down by sentencing judges in Canada's first set of convictions for human trafficking involving children.
I would like my hon. colleagues to know that Bill C-268 arose directly from consultations with these officers and victims organizations across Canada who are concerned about the safety of our children. These convictions set an alarming precedent for all future cases involving trafficking of children. With almost a dozen similar cases before Canadian courts today involving the trafficking of minors, it is imperative that Parliament send a clear message that the trafficking of minors will not be tolerated.
It is important to note that the Criminal Code already recognizes that certain serious crimes involving child victims require more stringent penalties. Section 212(2.1) of the Criminal Code imposes a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the aggravated offence of living on the avails of prostitution of a person under the age of 18 years. Pimps can theoretically be put behind bars for doing this. However, Canada's Criminal Code has no serious penalties for victims of trafficking who are children.
With regard to constitutional concerns, lawyer and criminal law professor Benjamin Perrin has reviewed Bill C-268 and found that it is fully compliant with relevant constitutional standards. Professor Perrin points out that the Supreme Court of Canada has recently affirmed the test for when a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment will constitute cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the unanimous reasons for judgment in R. v. Ferguson, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin stated:
 The test for whether a particular sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is whether the sentence is grossly disproportionate.... As this Court has repeatedly held, to be considered grossly disproportionate, the sentence must be more than merely excessive. 
The only thing that is grossly disproportionate in these cases I have referred to is the inadequate sentences handed out. Let me be clear. There is no reasonable hypothetical scenario that would result in a mandatory minimum term of five years for child trafficking being grossly disproportionate.
As I mentioned earlier, section 212(2.1) imposes a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the aggravated offence of living on the avails of prostitution of a person under the age of 18 years. This provision has routinely been applied by the courts and was endorsed by the federal, provincial and territorial working group on prostitution in its report and recommendations in respect of legislation, policy and practices concerning prostitution-related activities. The report states:
 --it is difficult to imagine a case in which the minimum sentence would not be suitable.... [I]t definitely signals the community's abhorrence of such a crime by imposing a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Both public protection and the expression of public revulsion for such conduct require that the minimum time served in a correctional system be the subject of legislative rather than judicial or administrative control. 
These arguments apply with equal, or even greater, force to Bill C-268 in respect of a mandatory minimum sentence for a child trafficker.
Bill C-268 would also bring much needed parity between the trafficking in persons sentencing structure and section 212(2.1) with respect to child victims.
Canada has ratified the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. As a result, Canada has significant international obligations to ensure the safety and protection of our children. Article 3.3 states:
 Each State Party shall make such offences punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account their grave nature. 
Our current Criminal Code does not meet this international obligation when it comes to the trafficking of children.
 Bill C-268 would ensure that Canadian courts handed out sentences that reflect the gravity of child trafficking and sexual exploitation and also reflect the sentences handed out to child traffickers in other countries.
I would also note that in October 2008, the report of the Canada-U.S. Consultation in Preparation for the World Congress III against Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents recommended that Canada enact a mandatory minimum penalty for child trafficking. This report was prepared by Canadian and American NGOs and federal government representatives, including Steve Sullivan, Canada's Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.
Other countries have taken significant steps to denounce the trafficking of children. The United States and Australia have separate offences for the trafficking of a child. Trafficking a child under age 14 in the United States will result in a minimum penalty of 15 years and a minimum of 10 for children between the ages of 14 and 16.
The plague of human trafficking that threatens our youth has galvanized Canadians across our country. In the past few weeks I have received countless letters, emails and petitions supporting my bill. I trust many hon. members in the House have experienced a similar outcry. Most notably, support for the bill has come from major stakeholders in the fight against child trafficking. Law enforcement, victims services, first nations, and non-governmental organizations have all expressed the need for mandatory minimum sentences for child trafficking.
Canadian Police Association President Charles Momy has said:
 The United Nations has identified human trafficking as a serious concern and Canada is not an exception. This is very real crime in this country. We applaud [the member for Kildonan--St. Paul] for raising this issue in the House of Commons-- 
--I am sure he applauds everyone for it--
 --and welcome this bill as a means for Parliament to address this problem in Canada. 
Grand Chief Ron Evans of the Manitoba Assembly of Chiefs has said:
 On behalf of First Nations people, I am pleased to support...Bill C-268. Both US and Canadian government reports have shown that Aboriginal women and children are at greater risk of becoming victims of human trafficking than any other group in Canada.... Bill C-268 is one step forward for the First Nations women and children of Canada. 
Rosalind Prober, executive director of Beyond Borders, has said:
 In terms of sentencing in Canada for crimes against children in general, they are very, very, very lenient....Traffickers of human beings, especially children, are not individuals that should get a slap on the wrist. A message should be sent from the courtroom -- and that's what [the member for Kildonan--St. Paul] is trying to do. 
I know all members in the House are trying to do the same thing.
There are many more. What is clear is that Canadians are calling for Parliament to act. After all, we have been elected to ensure the safety of our communities.
The trafficking of children is not a Conservative, Liberal, Bloc or NDP issue. It is not a partisan issue. I have worked diligently to gain support from all parties for this bill.
In the past our parties worked together to pass legislation put forward by the hon. member for Mount Royal to bring in Canada's first human trafficking offences. 
Our current government has taken important steps to provide much needed assistance and residence to international victims of human trafficking.
Our government has also introduced an annual $6 million in funding to combat trafficking of persons and child exploitation.
In 2007, members from all parties on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, including the hon. member for Laval and the hon. member for Beaches—East York, who are here in the House today, worked hard to produce a comprehensive report on human trafficking. They both remember the heart-wrenching stories of victims whose lives have been destroyed by this vicious crime.
I am grateful for the overwhelming support I have received from all parties for Bill C-268. It is vital that all Canadians and the international community witness all members of Canada's Parliament standing unified against this horrific abuse of human rights. 
We must act to end the trafficking of children here in Canada and abroad. We can and we will.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on introducing Bill C-268. 
I will be speaking next so I do not want to get into details, but just for the information of the House, the new clause that is proposed to be added to the Criminal Code has some very sweeping language in it. Could the member indicate who developed the language? Is it modelled on some other jurisdictional language? Is there some assurance that we have it right?
[Interjection]
Joy Smith: Madam Speaker, it has been a two year process on this bill. I have been waiting for the opportunity to present this bill here in Parliament.
There are precedents with the same wording in the United States and Australia that are very tight. Those two countries have mandatory minimum sentences for child trafficking. They have been used as a model. In addition, Professor Perrin, who is very well versed in human trafficking, is one of the lawyers who have been a part of that.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Madam Speaker, I share the hon. member's feelings on the issue of human trafficking. Human trafficking is unacceptable. I have a question for her.
In May 2006, the justice and public safety ministers were forced to admit that there were no Canadian studies showing that the new minimum sentencing measures are of any help in the fight against crime.
I would like her to tell us what the basis is for questioning or not trusting judges because, in our opinion, they are in the best position to determine what sentence is the most appropriate in light of all the facts of the case. 
[Interjection]
Joy Smith: Madam Speaker, I outlined in my speech the reason that I do not have confidence. A 15-year-old girl was exploited for two and a half years and the person who did that received a very light sentence. The precedents set in Australia and the U.S. set forth the mandatory minimum sentencing as a prototype in front of us. The October 28 report recommended that Canada should set in the mandatory minimum sentencing. It is very important. That is the criteria.
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Madam Speaker, I just want to commend the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for bringing forward this bill. It is something she has been very passionate about since before she was elected.
I also know the member is the mother of a large number of children and has a unique perspective, because one of her children is in the police service.
Could the member explain the impact the bill would have not only on the victims, but also on their families? Perhaps she could explain the punishment factor as well, because that is very important when it comes to justice.
[Interjection]
Joy Smith: Madam Speaker, I am the mother of six wonderful children, and yes, my eldest son is a member of the RCMP. He is my role model. He was in the ICE unit and I saw his hair turn grey in less than two years because he was rescuing child victims.
Mandatory minimums will give hope to the families who have had children who were taken. For example, the daughter of the mother of a police officer in Edmonton was taken, and the daughter of a teacher was taken. Those families have in their hearts the fact that we, as parliamentarians, need to say very strongly that we will not stand for child trafficking on Canadian soil.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on what I consider to be a very important bill brought forward by the hon. member, Bill C-268, an act to amend the Criminal Code to include a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of 18 years.
One of the reasons that I believe this bill is very important is because it mirrors something that I was involved in early in my career as a parliamentarian. Prior to becoming a politician, I had been on the board of directors of Interim Place, the shelter for battered women and children. I was a director and treasurer for five years and got to know the issue in a way that most men do not because very few men actually get into shelters to see and to meet some of the women and children involved.
Abuse tears at the heartstrings of those who wish they could help. One of the first things I had some success in as a parliamentarian, almost 15 years ago, was to amend the Criminal Code to provide stiffer sentences to those convicted of spousal or child abuse, and it is in the Criminal Code today.
If nothing else happens in my career, that gives me shivers when I think that I was able to draw on my experience, from my family and from my personal life before becoming an MP, to be able to actually leave a fingerprint somewhere in the system, in the laws of Canada, to show that there is a common bond of association with the people from the legislators that these things are important.
I feel very close to the member in terms of how she feels about championing this issue. She knows that there will be some detractors from it, but I sense from her speaking that she is ready to defend the bill that she has presented to us through all stages of its legislative process.
Some people may not be aware of what specifically would be involved, so I want to take the time actually to read the clause that she wants to put into the Criminal Code. It is a brand new clause. Subclause (1) states:
 Every person who recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person under the age of eighteen years, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offence and liable 
 (a) to imprisonment for life if they kidnap, commit an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or cause death to, the victim during the commission of the offence; or 
 (b) to imprisonment for not more than fourteen years and not less than five years in any other case. 
Subclause (2) states:
 No consent to the activity that forms the subject-matter of a charge under subsection (1) is valid. 
That is the language that ultimately, we hope, will appear in the Criminal Code.
Private members' bills sometimes are successful when they are targeted and focused, and I think this one is. I have seen some bills that try and do a little too much, provide a little too many tentacles out there where somebody could find one reason why they might not support it. I think this one is clean.
The member did herself a great service by including the letter from Professor Benjamin Perrin from the University of British Columbia who laid out some of the elements that really helped to communicate. I think all hon. members have received this and I hope they take a chance to read it. When we get that third party validation, when they look at things, such as the need for the bill that he covers here and his comments on the consistency with international obligations, which is extremely important, as well as the constitutionality of it.
Those are very important things for members to do. This is a great model for all other hon. members who are championing private members' business to use for their private members' bills or motions because it covers the fundamentals.
We cannot be experts in all these things but we should get that third party validation, with good sound arguments and good examples. As a member of Parliament from the region of Peel, I do know how the Peel Regional Police worked with the Montreal police services on the case that was referred to.
I mentioned at the beginning that there will probably be some detractors to this and probably will talk about mandatory sentencing. It is a debate that has been going on. However, the Supreme Court has been pretty clear that there are cases. I must admit that I myself have spoken against mandatory minimums in certain cases but they had to do with fetal alcohol syndrome. I was on the argument about people who do not know the difference between right and wrong. It appeared that the courts were not giving enough identification to the fact that there are some people in our society who do not know the difference between right and wrong and that the incarceration of someone who has a mental disability would not be a good thing to do because rehabilitation is not possible. We need institutionalization to deal with the lifelong disability. That is going to be one area.
The other area I recall with regard to challenging matters such as this has to do with alleviating the judge with the discretion and the latitude because cases are complex. Sometimes there are exacerbating or mitigating circumstances. When we look at the clause that is being proposed here, there are so many different elements that might be reflective of this offence but they are subject to interpretation. That is one of the reasons I asked the member where the language came from and whether it had tested. We do not need a false start. However, I am sure we will get a chance at committee to vent these kinds of questions and I know the member will be well prepared to deal with them.
I know a lot of other members would like to speak to this. I simply wanted I thank the member for the bill. I will be supporting Bill C-268 and I will be recommending that my colleagues support it.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Madam Speaker, on January 29 the Conservative member for Kildonan—St. Paul introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-268, for first reading in the House of Commons.
This bill would add a new offence to the Criminal Code. It would distinguish offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of 18 years from those involving adults.
The goal of this bill is to impose a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years for anyone found guilty of trafficking a person under the age of 18.
This bill is simple enough. There are eight clauses, but the heart of the bill is in the second clause, in its creation of a new offence in the Criminal Code, namely, section 279.011. The wording in this provision is exactly the same as section 279.01, regarding the trafficking of a person, but adds the distinction “under the age of eighteen years” to the definition of an exploited person. With this addition, a separate offence would be created when the trafficking involves a minor.
Although we are well aware of the worldwide scourge that is human trafficking, the Bloc Québécois cannot support this bill. Allow me to explain the reasons for its decision. 
In 2005, the Bloc Québécois voted in support of Bill C-49. Creating an offence to specifically condemn human trafficking was necessary, and we willingly cooperated to see it passed. The amendment to the Criminal Code gave law enforcement authorities the legal tools they need to prosecute and convict anyone who unfortunately engages in these horrible practices that show no respect for human dignity.
Bill C-268, however, we believe is a step in the wrong direction. By automatically imposing a minimum sentence of five years on anyone convicted of the trafficking of persons under 18, the government is not solving anything. I will explain why. 
First of all, many experts have established that minimum sentences have negative effects and dubious value when it comes to fighting crime.
For instance, criminal lawyer Julian Roberts, from the University of Ottawa, conducted a study in 1997 for the Department of Justice of Canada in which he concluded:
 Although mandatory sentences of imprisonment have been introduced in a number of western nations... the studies that have examined the impact of these laws reported variable effects on prison populations and no discernible effect on crime rates. 
In early May 2006, during a press conference on the controversial passing of Bill C-10, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety at the time were forced to acknowledge that no Canadian study has demonstrated that new measures to introduce minimum penalties are effective in fighting crime.
Minimum sentences can also have a negative impact. According to André Normandeau, a criminologist at the Université de Montréal, minimum sentences can encourage plea bargaining by lawyers wanting to have their clients charged with offences that do not have minimum sentences. Minimum sentences can also force judges to acquit an individual, rather than be forced to sentence that individual to a penalty the judge considers excessive under the circumstances. 
When it comes to sentencing, the first consideration must be individualization. The justification of this individualized approach lies in the principle of proportionality. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. This is because no two crimes are identical, no two offenders are exactly alike and no two sets of circumstances are exactly the same. For all those reasons, the Bloc Québécois believes in the importance of maintaining judicial discretion.
When judges sentence an offender to prison, they take into account the offender's degree of responsibility, the seriousness of the offence and the best way to serve justice while maximizing the likelihood of rehabilitation.
People who know only the offence and the sentence often do not realize that there are other important factors that must be taken into account in sentencing.
Moreover, studies have shown that when people have the chance to go beyond what is reported in the media, the body of evidence and the factors considered by the judge, most conclude that they would have handed down a similar sentence.
The Bloc Québécois is therefore opposed to mandatory minimum sentences because it believes in the justice system and the importance of maintaining judicial discretion. We believe that judges, who are best able to assess the information presented in court, have to be free to decide.
In addition, Bill C-268 is not consistent. It does not provide for a minimum sentence when an offender found guilty of trafficking of a minor kidnaps, commits an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against or causes death to the victim during the commission of the offence. The bill does not change the subsection that covers this.
We are having a hard time understanding the logic behind Bill C-268. On the one hand, they say that they want to prevent serious offences involving the trafficking of minors by imposing minimum sentences, but on the other, they are not changing sentences for offenders who use extreme violence in committing the crime. 
To ensure the most appropriate court rulings possible, we would be wise to look at recommendation 33 of the House Standing Committee on the Status of Women's report on human trafficking. Judges and prosecutors should be informed of, educated about, and made aware of the Criminal Code provisions concerning human trafficking and the disastrous impact of this crime on its victims.
When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the most effective approach is still, and will always be, prevention. We have to attack crime at the root. That being said, the Bloc is aware that the existing legal system needs considerable improvement, and that some changes to the Criminal Code are necessary. The government's duty is to intervene and use the tools at its disposal to make sure that people can live peacefully and safely.
On June 15, 2007, in response to the Conservatives' ideological approach, the Bloc Québécois recommended a number of measures. The party proposed a series of recommendations for major changes to Canada's justice system. Unlike the Conservatives' measures, which lacked nuance, the Bloc's measures reflected the concerns of Quebeckers, who want a more balanced system, one that is consistent with modern realities and will have a real impact on crime, but that avoids the pitfalls inherent in the repression-based American model, whose negative effects are manifest.
The Bloc Québécois proposed measures that are in line with Quebeckers' values, measures based on prevention, rehabilitation, social and economic integration, and better distribution of wealth. Our proposals included the following: streamlining the parole system, stepping up the fight against organized crime, eliminating double credit for time served before sentencing—which British Columbia's Minister of Justice supports—and more funding for the national crime prevention strategy.
The Bloc Québécois does not support the bill because we believe its approach is harmful and ineffective and we are convinced that it will do nothing to improve the safety of citizens. The Bloc defends a model of justice based on a process tailored to each case and founded on the principle of rehabilitation. Any measure seeking to automate the nature of the sentence given to the offender represents, in our opinion, a dangerous approach. Minimum sentences unnecessarily tie the hands of judges who, we believe, remain in the best position to determine what sentence is the most appropriate in light of all the facts of the case. 
In closing, experts tell us that minimum sentences do not lower crime rates or the rate of recidivism. 
Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I am grateful the hon. member brought this very sensitive and serious subject to the House of Commons where it should be.
Whether we agree with the bill or disagree with the it does not matter. The hon. member is absolutely correct that this is a serious Canadian and worldwide problem, and she has every right to bring it to the forefront to explain to us her motivations, her experiences and how we can move forward in order to tackle the problem that is before us.
It is obvious to some that the intent of the bill is to add mandatory minimum sentences, strong deterrents and penalties for those who commit this heinous act.
I wish to go into some personal stories of my upbringing in my family
. When we came to Canada, one of the things my parents did in Richmond, B.C. and in Burnaby, as part of the Christian Reformed Church, was run a group home. In over 20 years, my parents had 300 to 400 children come through our doors. Some came for a few hours in the middle of the night, some stayed for a weekend, some stayed for months and some stayed for a couple of years.
I will share the experience of one young lady who was 12 years old and who was in a house fire in British Columbia. She was severely burned from the waist down and could never have children. For whatever reasons, her parents abandoned her to the British Columbia government.
 She ended up in our group home. When she turned 16, my mother suggested she send her mother a Mother's Day card to see if she could rekindle whatever there was. My mother always believed that a mother could never totally abandon her child.
This girl made a beautiful hand-made Mother's Day card and mailed it to her mother. It came back a month later. She opened up the envelope and inside was the card she had made, ripped up in a 100 pieces, and a note saying, “Don't ever try to contact me again”.
The problem is a lot of these children do not have love in their lives. They have been abandoned by the state, by their families and by brothers and sisters. They are easily exploited by the first person who comes along and tells them their life can improve, that they will receive this or receive that.
The movie Slumdog Millionaire was a fabulous movie. It showed how these children were easily exploited by the first kind person to give them a bottle of Coke on a hot day, or give them a nice meal and a place to stay. How quickly they were exploited. That happened in India, but this kind of activity happens around the world.
I have had a private member's bill for years, by my former colleague, Chris Axworthy, a long-time member of Parliament and former Attorney General of Saskatchewan, on child Internet pornography. I have asked the Conservative government, and I asked the previous government, to take the bill and run with it in order to stop the effects of the Internet on vulnerable children. They are easily exploited. They can meet at a ballpark, or a school or somewhere else. The next thing we know, they are in the clutches of these pedophiles and exploiters of children.
I appreciate the fact that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul came to my office. We had a very heart to heart discussion on this issue. I pledged her my personal support for the bill.
Now there are concerns with the bill, and she is aware of this, such as, is it absolutely fundamental that judges have that power taken away when we put in mandatory minimums? Is that the most effective way?
The bill should go to committee to have that frank and thorough discussion, to get it out in the open. Bring in the experts from the legal side, from the child services side and others so we can have that concrete debate.
If the way to go is mandatory minimums, that means additional costs for correctional services. I would hope the government would back up the legislation, if it goes through, with the financial resources to the provinces, et cetera, so they could have the funds in order to carry out the intent of the bill. 
There is a deeper-rooted problem, and I believe the hon. member from Quebec mentioned this. It is a societal problem. There is more to this than just the end. We have to get at the roots and the beginning of what happens.
Are we ever going to root out pedophilia in the country or exploitation of children completely? No. Can we reduce it greatly? Absolutely. Members of Parliament and Senators are here for that.
The first priority of government and the opposition is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, not just in terms of military and policing but also, most important, that they have shelter, a good job, the ability to drink the water in their community, good food to eat, entertainment and freedom and security in their lives for themselves and their families. Regardless of whether they live on an aboriginal reserve or if they live in a small community, of if French or English or if they live in our larger urban centres, it does not matter. From coast to coast to coast citizens should be allowed to be free, to express their opinions and to live their lives in a normal democratic way, or what we call a social democratic way.
For many families that just is not the case. Usually what happens is when parents or the communities have difficulties, the children end up suffering. Children will very easily turn to the first kind face or the first warm person who pays them any kind of attention. We all know how it works. These people work with them in kindness and end up exploiting them in the end. It is society that has to deal with it at the end.
I would encourage the hon. member, and I am sure she would be more than welcome to do this, to also open up the discussion to get at the root problem of why children are so acceptable to this. What expertise do these mostly men, but there are women who do it as well, have to exploit these vulnerable children? What is the role of the family and the provinces and everyone else?
I honestly believe we have the capability to understand this issue. We have the capability to move this issue forward. The end goal is not necessarily incarceration of the criminal. That will happen one way or the other. The main goal is to ensure that we get at the root of this problem, to understand this issue and to see what we can do in education in our schools, our churches, our mosques and our synagogues, working with the provinces and aboriginal groups and all sectors of society so they have a clear understanding of the dangers out there.
I am one of Canada's biggest supporters by saying this is one hell of a country. It is a great country. However, there are many faults within our society where the most vulnerable are either left alone, abandoned or exploited for a variety of reasons.
That is why I rose to speak to this. Not only did my parents want to thank the Canadian people for their liberation, but they also wanted to serve their community in the Lower Mainland. That is why they ran their group home. 
I know my fellow Dutch colleague over there knows of other Dutch families in the Lower Mainland that did the exact same thing as did many other families across the country. They did that because they loved those children. They had nine of their own and they had hundreds more come through the door.
The common thread through all of them was the lack of love in their lives. Anyone can listen to George Chuvalo, the great heavyweight champion of Canada who lost three children and his wife in various circumstances. He goes around to schools and across the country and he says one thing: love. If we love one another and care for one another, regardless of our differences, then we will not be so easily tempted by the experts out there in terms of exploitation or whatever it is.
Sri Chinmoy once wrote, “World peace can be achieved when the love of power is replaced by the power of love”. I like that saying. I have it at home and I understand it. This is at the root of what the hon. member is trying to do. 
I welcome sending the bill to committee to have that thorough analysis. My hon. colleague from the Bloc had questions and I am sure others will as well. There are concerns, but this is the type of debate that we should have in the country. At the end of the day, whenever it happens, if we can protect one child, then it would be a good thing to do.
Lois Brown: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Private Members' Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). I, too, am a mother of two wonderful daughters and I am appalled that any mother in Canada might have to deal with the horror of having her child taken and used in human trafficking.
Trafficking in persons is sometimes described as the new global slave trade. No country has been left untouched by this terrible scourge. It is a serious issue that warrants attention from all levels of government. 
The private members' bill introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul would amend the Criminal Code to impose a mandatory minimum penalty of five years imprisonment for the offence of trafficking a person under the age of 18 years and for which the maximum penalty is currently fourteen years imprisonment.
Bill C-268 would create a new, separate offence of trafficking a person under the age of 18 years, which would mirror the existing offence of trafficking in persons found in section 279.01 of the Criminal Code and which protects all victims, adult and child. The current section 279.01, trafficking in persons offence, was added to the Criminal Code in 2005. It prohibits anyone from engaging in specified acts such as recruiting, transporting, harbouring or controlling the movements of another person for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person. This offence is punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment where it involves the kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault or death of the victim and 14 years in all other cases.
In effect, Bill C-268 is saying that this penalty is not enough, at least with respect to the child victims of human trafficking. I am sure we can all agree that all countries, including Canada, must remain vigilant to ensure that our criminal law responses to human trafficking remain effective and treat it as the serious issue it is.
A report released on February 12, 2009 by the United Nations' Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking reported that over 24,000 victims of trafficking were identified by 111 countries in the year 2006. According to the report, the most common form of human trafficking is trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The second most common form of human trafficking is for the purpose of forced labour, although the real number may be higher as forced labour is less frequently detected and reported than trafficking for sexual exploitation.
Although anyone can be a victim of trafficking, victims are predominantly women and children. Worldwide, almost 20% of all trafficking victims are children. However, in some parts of Africa and the Mekong region, children are the majority: up to 100% in parts of West Africa. UNICEF estimates that 1.2 million children are trafficked around the world each year. 
We know that trafficking in persons also occurs within Canada. As in other countries, it is difficult to estimate the full extent of human trafficking within Canada due, in large part, to the clandestine nature of the activity. It can also be difficult to track offenders through reported cases, as they may be charged under any number of offences that may not always easily identify the case as a trafficking cases.
The experience of Canadian law enforcement reflects the international experience insomuch as the majority of known victims are women and children. These victims are often forced into situations of horrible exploitation, their rights abused and their freedom taken away. Trafficking in persons often involves organized criminal networks that profit from this abuse. The 2006 Canada-U.S. Binational Threat Assessment on Human Trafficking reported that from spring 2004 to February 2006, there were at least 25 convictions under various Criminal Code provisions for trafficking activity. A recent United Nations report identified that between March 2004 and February 2007 there were 30 trafficking-related convictions in Canada under various Criminal Code offences.
We also know that the 2005 Criminal Code trafficking offences are now being used by our police. These numbers reflect the minimum number of cases, as many decisions go unreported. To date, there have been three reported convictions in Canada under the 2005 specific offence of trafficking in persons, which Bill C-268 proposes to amend.
When the specific trafficking in persons offences were enacted in 2005, they were meant to give police and crown prosecutors another tool to combat trafficking. These offences supplemented existing offences such as kidnapping, forcible confinement, assault and the prostitution-related provisions.
The police and Crown now have the ability to charge the offence or offences that best meet the circumstances of a given case, and this is what we are seeing in these early cases under the recent trafficking offences. 
For example, Canada's first conviction under section 279.01 involved two victims under the age of 18. In that case, the defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in persons and living off the avails of prostitution of a minor, and received a sentence of five years imprisonment, three years for trafficking and the mandatory minimum of two years for living off the avails of child prostitution, to be served consecutively.
The remaining two convictions under the trafficking-specific offences involved both adult and child victims, and in both cases the accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in persons and prostitution-related offences. The sentences imposed ranged from two to three years imprisonment.
This government's commitment to combating human trafficking is reflected in its response to the 2007 report by the House of Commons standing committee, “Turning Outrage Into Action to Address Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation in Canada”.
The government's response reiterated the importance of a multidisciplinary response to trafficking in persons and outlined our approach. This approach also clearly reflects the framework established by the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and its supplemental protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, by focusing on the four Ps: prevention of trafficking, protection of its victims, prosecution of offenders, and the building of partnerships both domestically and internationally.
Canadians are rightfully concerned about this horrible crime. The issue of human trafficking has received significant attention in this House and in the other place. I think we all understand and appreciate the seriousness of the issue being addressed by Bill C-268. Its proposed reform really raises a key question: Are our existing penalties for the trafficking of children adequate, and if not, would Bill C-268 provide the needed enhancement?
If this bill is referred to committee for study, I hope that the committee will consider the bill by looking as well at how the existing Criminal Code penalties addressing child victims are working.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Resuming debate. The Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages now has the floor.
I will have to interrupt her after two or three minutes, so she will be able to continue at the next opportunity.
Shelly Glover: Madam Speaker, I rise today as a recently elected member of Parliament and as a veteran police officer with almost 19 years of experience in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I join in the second reading debate on private member's Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). I am very pleased to speak to the bill and I thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her dedicated efforts to combat human trafficking in Canada.
Bill C-268 proposes to build upon our existing Criminal Code protections by specifically recognizing that the trafficking of children is a crime which must be treated seriously by the justice system. Human traffickers of course prey upon the vulnerable and trafficking victims suffer physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including threats of violence or actual harm to their loved ones. This abuse is compounded by their living and working conditions.
I spent four years investigating sexual and physical abuse of children as a detective in the Winnipeg Police Service Child Abuse Unit. With this in mind, I know firsthand that strong responses are required to address this horrific crime of exploitation and abuse.
I am sure that we can all agree that human trafficking is a horrible crime which inflicts serious damage on its victims. Hon. members may recall that in 2006 the House unanimously supported Motion No. 153, which was also introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. It condemned the crime of trafficking in persons and called for a national strategy to combat the trafficking of persons worldwide. The unanimous support that motion received reflects the shared support of all members to ensure we continue to strongly condemn the act of trafficking in persons. 
I implore all members of the House--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I apologize for interrupting. The time provided for 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 next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)