2012-05-04

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of our government's bold and responsible economic action plan 2012 and, in particular, Bill C-38, also known as the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act.
Budget 2012 sets out a prudent and long-term plan to ensure the future prosperity, health and retirement security of all Canadians. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few of the many provisions of budget 2012 which are particularly important to the people I represent in the city of Mississauga. 
While budget 2012 includes dozens of important new measures to create jobs and growth and ensure long-term prosperity, the budget is also remarkable for what it does not do. What it does not do is raise taxes. Unlike the budgets of many of our largest trading partners, such as the United Kingdom, our government is not raising taxes on hard-working Canadian families, seniors and job creators. We are, in fact, keeping taxes on individuals and job creators to the lowest levels in over 50 years.
Not many years ago, Canada had the unenviable reputation of having some of the highest personal income tax and business tax rates in the industrialized world. Those punishing rates of taxation had the effect of driving business investment and jobs out of Canada and penalizing workers and families.
Since 2006, our government has reduced taxes through measures such as the GST by 2%, targeted tax relief for families, workers and small business people, and introduced income splitting for seniors. By reducing the federal corporate tax rate to 15%, we have made Canada a very attractive place to invest and create jobs. This rate compare favourably to business tax rates in the United States and Europe.
Through these measures, we have reduced the federal tax burden on the average family by $3,100 each and every year. The money saved through these tax reductions is providing Canadians with more choice, enabling them to save more for their children's education and their own retirement, and to care for their families and pursue their dreams.
Our government is committed to keeping taxes low. We know that the world is an increasingly competitive place in which to create jobs and conduct business. In addition to keeping taxes low and ensuring that our workers have the best education and skills, our government understands that in order to succeed, Canadian businesses need to innovate.
Mississauga is home to some of the most technologically advanced and innovative companies in the world. Our government has made significant investments in the University of Toronto, Mississauga campus, and the new Mississauga campus of Sheridan College, through the infrastructure stimulus fund. These investments will ensure that our young people and older workers have the knowledge and skills to create the world-leading technologies, services and innovations of the future.
I am pleased to see that, through budget 2012, the government is taking further action to support innovation in Canada. For example, we are providing $400 million to increase private sector investments in early-stage risk capital and to support the creation of large-scale venture capital funds led by the private sector.
We are providing an additional $100 million to the Business Development Bank of Canada to support its venture capital activities; an additional $110 million to the National Research Council to double support to companies through the industrial research assistance program; $95 million over three years and $40 million per year thereafter to make the Canadian innovation commercialization program permanent; $37 million to the granting councils to enhance their support for industry and academic research partnerships; and $500 million over five years to the Canada Foundation for Innovation to support advanced research infrastructure. These measures will help to foster scientific research, innovation and commercialization.
Our government also understands that most Canadian jobs are created by small and medium-sized enterprises. These businesses are nimble and efficient. They employ millions of young and new Canadians in places like Mississauga.
In addition to reducing small business tax rates to the lowest levels in decades, our government is continuing to support small business in budget 2012, by investing $205 million to extend the hiring credit for small business to help small businesses defray the costs of hiring new workers.
The budget also provides an additional $50 million over two years to the youth employment strategy to assist more young people in gaining tangible skills and experience. Last year alone, this investment helped 70,000 Canadian youth gain valuable work experience and skills training.
One of the most intractable issues for new Canadians is the struggle to have their foreign credentials and work experience recognized in Canada. Our government tackled this issue in 2009 by providing funding to develop the pan-Canadian framework for the assessment and recognition of foreign qualifications. Budget 2012 identifies six more occupations including physicians, dentists, engineering technicians, licensed practical nurses, medical radiation technologists and teachers for inclusion in this process. This process would allow many more foreign-trained doctors to qualify to practise medicine and begin to care for the tens of thousands of Canadians who are searching for a family doctor. I am proud that our government is making real progress on this issue.
Our government has made historic and unprecedented investments in Canadian infrastructure under the building Canada fund, the permanent municipal gas tax fund and the infrastructure stimulus fund. Mississauga has received substantial funding of important infrastructure projects under these funds. Budget 2012 would additionally provide $150 million over two years for a new community infrastructure improvement fund to support repairs and improvements to existing community facilities and $105 million to support VIA Rail Canada's operations and capital projects. People in Mississauga will benefit greatly from the creation of Canada's first national near-urban park in the Rouge Valley in the GTA.
We are all aware of the global concerns regarding the size of sovereign national debts and relative national fiscal capacity. We have witnessed the turmoil in Greece and draconian measures required in many European countries to put their fiscal houses in order. Canadians know that our economic and fiscal fundamentals are relatively strong. They also understand that governments, like households and businesses, must balance the books. That is why our government is committed to returning to balanced budgets at an appropriate rate as the economy continues to recover from the global economic crisis. Our government is not reducing transfers to persons, including those to seniors, children and the unemployed or transfers to other levels of government in support of health care and social services. In my view, the modest reductions in operating expenses set out in the budget are necessary, reasonable and responsible.
As members know, politicians and governments are continually criticized for short-term, myopic thinking. Canadians want us as legislators to foresee future problems and devise plans to protect our prosperity against the negative impact of those long-term liabilities. In budget 2012, our government is looking more than 10 years down the road and putting in place today pragmatic measures to protect the retirement benefits of future generations. These are not easy decisions to make but they are prudent and, in my view, they are the right decisions for Canada. Budget 2012 charts a bold, visionary and safe course for our nation's future. It is the right plan for the people of Mississauga and it is the right plan for Canada.
For all of these reasons, I urge all of my hon. colleagues in this chamber to support Bill C-38.
Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member's speech.
 Obviously I understand that he chose, among the innumerable pages of this bill, the passages that seemed most appropriate to him. However, unfortunately, I am going to have to ask him a question about some of the elements that he did not cover, including the appointment of a unilingual anglophone Auditor General, something we have been disagreeing about for weeks.
What is more, under this new bill, the Auditor General's authority will be diminished considerably. In fact, this bill does away with the obligation to audit the books of at least 12 agencies.
This budget contains what the Conservative members are saying it contains, but there are also many other things hidden throughout this bill that the Conservatives never mention.
I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about the role of the Auditor General and about the duties that he will be relieved of under this bill.
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned official languages. Of course he will know that our government has very strongly supported official languages in Canada. I find it somewhat strange that he would mention that, given that it was his party that elected many unilingual members from the province of Quebec in ridings where the amount of French spoken in many of those ridings was over 98%. Yet there were people elected without having knocked on one door or talked to any voters, and were unable to speak to them in their own language.
However, the member mentions the Auditor General. The Auditor General is important. We are putting extra funding into the Auditor General's role to enhance his ability to audit the operations of government. We take all of his reports very seriously.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs a question.
My comment is that quite often in this debate on Bill C-38 government representatives talk about budget 2012 and confuse it with the bill before us now, which is implementing parts of budget 2012 and a great many other measures that were not part of the budget.
In relation to foreign affairs, I would like to ask the hon. member about the retreat from federal activities under the Kyoto protocol and the repeal of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. Was it considered that it might have been preferable to amend the act to allow reporting requirements to continue, as some reporting will be still be required under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Madam Speaker, the member will know that Canada's participation in the Kyoto accord was very strongly debated in the last federal election. Our government and my party made our position very clear. Bill C-38 is following through on that promise, as it is on many of the other promises that were made in our platform last year.
There are many mechanisms for reporting Canada's improving record in the reduction of greenhouse gases, one that was woefully inadequate under the previous Liberal government, as she well knows. She will know of recent reports which show that Canada is doing very well in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. There are many ways in which that will be reported to the UN and other agencies.
Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Madam Speaker, why was funding not renewed for the eco-energy retrofit program for homes in the budget? The program helped people make their homes more energy efficient, save the environment, create jobs, support local businesses and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Why did the government not continue that very successful program?
[Interjection]
Bob Dechert: Madam Speaker, as the member points out, the eco-energy retrofit program was very successful. It was 100% taken up. Significant taxpayer funds were put into that program. Also, many Canadians made use of the home renovation tax credit a few years ago to do similar kinds of environmental renovations to their homes to reduce energy consumption. They were very successful. We now feel it is time to get back on track and balance budgets. The economy is improving and we are letting the private sector take care of those matters.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak today to Bill C-38.
 I will begin by noting that the bill, according to journalist Don Martin, has everything but the kitchen sink in it, and, believe me, we looked and we found the kitchen sink in Bill C-38.
Frankly, the bill is an end run around accountability and transparency, and an end run around accountability and transparency from the very Conservative government that made commitments to govern better than the Liberals and to be accountable to Canadians.
Rather than the proper scrutiny of so many changes by the proper parliamentary committees, we see in Bill C-38 a budget bill that avoids consultation and review by both MPs and Canadians.
I understand why the Conservative government might want to do this. It finds itself on the defensive, plagued by scandal, secrecy and mismanagement. Instead of focusing on jobs, as promised, the Prime Minister is attacking pensions, cutting health care and gutting environmental protection.
 Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, was introduced in the House last week. The bill would implement certain budget provisions, it is true—for example, the controversial changes to old age security—but the reference to “and other measures” has to be one of the all-time parliamentary understatements.
The bill has more than 420 pages, some 60 acts are amended, another six are repealed and three more are added. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is completely rewritten. This is far more than a budget bill that deals with taxes and spending.
There are sweeping changes here to policy across a number of fields, from immigration where, among other changes, it erases with the stroke of a pen the entire backlog of applications under the skilled workers program, to telecommunications, opening the door to foreign ownership, to land codes on native reservations and more.
I have just completed an assignment as natural resources critic for my party and remain on the natural resources committee. It is obvious to me, from the studies we have done there on pipelines, refineries and northern resources, that the changes the government wants on reviews are the most extraordinary chapters in the bill.
The new bill gives cabinet broader powers to override decisions of the National Energy Board, shortens the list of protected species and abolishes the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, among other measures.
We must remember that we have just tabled in this House the 2011 National Energy Board annual report citing more problems related to accidents and an increased volume of projects that it must review. The government should decide to resource the National Energy Board to do its job better. Instead, it wants to have a veto to manage an end run around those proper and comprehensive reviews that not only should look at bigger and longer-term consequences from these natural resources projects but also assess impacts on future generations.
Our natural resources committee needs to call witnesses and look closely at this proposal. This does not belong to the finance committee, hiding in a budget bill. Frankly, this is an insult to Parliament and to the committee system that we have. How can one committee, in this case finance, properly examine all of these diverse measures, especially in the time allotted to them?
It is clear why the government is doing this. While it claims to be fine managers of the economy, the evidence says otherwise. First, there was the lavish night at the Savoy and the $16 orange juice, and now we learn about $600,000 just in overtime for the Conservatives' chauffeur-driven limos. The Conservatives are slashing vital services like food inspection and border services while blowing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on their outrageous sense of entitlement.
How can the Conservatives tell Canadians to sacrifice food safety and border inspections while they continue to live the high life? The government has lost all credibility when it comes to accountability.
The Conservatives have claimed that their budget is about job creation. However, even they admit that it will lead to 19,200 lost jobs in the public service. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, the same one appointed by the Conservative government, has estimated that the budget will cost 43,000 Canadians their jobs. When combined with previous rounds of cuts, this number is 102,000 lost jobs.
I could be on my feet all day and night to say what is wrong with these proposed changes to the law. The very worst change is raising the age of eligibility for OAS-GIS from 65 to 67, when many experts, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer, have confirmed that the OAS program is sustainable. Yet the Conservatives want to balance the budget on the backs of seniors.
There are some additional measures that will once again reduce the government's transparency and responsibility in the area of health. Bill C-38 weakens the reporting requirements of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research by eliminating all of the requirements regarding the publication of annual reports and analyses by the Auditor General.
Under the pretense of a change designed to reduce the administrative burden and make the approval process more efficient, Bill C-38 amends the Food and Drugs Act in such as way as to give the Minister of Health the authority to establish a list of products that are exempt from the regulatory process. The bill also gives the minister the authority to issue marketing authorizations to exempt a product or the advertising of a product from certain provisions of the law. These measures will give the minster more authority and will reduce regulatory oversight.
With regard to jobs, Bill C-38 repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which was created in the 1930s to set wage standards and a minimum number of hours of work for construction workers hired for projects funded by the federal government. In practice, the elimination of these minimum standards will allow employers to get around the rates set by unions.
Bill C-38 also amends the Employment Equity Act so that it no longer applies to federal contracts. This is a direct attack on women, aboriginal people and visible minorities. In fact, it was recommended 10 years ago that the employment equity provisions for the federal contractors program be strengthened. Instead, this government is weakening these provisions. 
We need to be real on the loss of jobs. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives stated, “In total, federal spending cuts could lead to the elimination of over 70,000 full-time equivalent positions”. These are not only public sector losses; about half of these jobs will be lost in the private sector.
Canadians want real action on the economy. In the fall, the New Democrats tabled a motion that called on the government to take immediate action to grow our economy and create jobs. The Conservatives supported the motion, but the budget does not fit the bill. Instead, it focuses on slashing vital services and gutting environmental regulations.
The New Democrats are focused on addressing the real priorities of Canadian families: jobs, health care, pensions and protecting our environment. The New Democrats have a plan that will improve health services for all Canadians, reward the real job creators, strengthen benefits for seniors and take actions to fight climate change.
I will close by saying that this bill is a massive omnibus bill that goes far beyond the budget. Bill C-38 would enact numerous changes that will limit the ability of Canadians and MPs to hold the government accountable. The Conservatives are trying to ram previously unannounced measures through Parliament without allowing Canadians and their MPs to thoroughly examine it. This is not democracy in action.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nickelback for his speech, but I would like him to explain the NDP math that he is using. He quoted in his speech that we are cutting health care. 
Being the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, I understand that the health care system is important to Canadians. We have consistently increased the transfers to the provinces and territories by 6%. This year is no exception, and we are transferring 6% to the provinces and territories.
In my province, which is also his province, the premier has said that he will be holding health care to a 3% increase. Therefore, he will have an extra 3% of federal transfers to utilize, supposedly, on health care.
How does the member come up with calling a 6% increase a cut? Could explain that math? Also, what will his premier be doing with the extra 3% that we will be allotting him this year for health care?
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: Madam Speaker, first, I will correct two things. I would like to be a member of Nickelback but I prefer to be a member for Nickel Belt. Second, the Premier of Ontario is not my premier. I want nothing to do with him. I want to make that very clear. 
What concerns me with the budget bill, Bill C-38, is the raising of the age for OAS from 65 to 67. This will cause many seniors to have to work two years longer. It will cause them to live in poverty. According to the Conservatives' own Parliamentary Budget Officer, OAS is sustainable. 
The member talked about health care. I can assure him that the health care in Ontario is not the best and that we need more services. For example, in our hospital in Sudbury, the waiting time for emergency services is 19 hours. Therefore, the Conservatives are not doing enough in cutting health care.
Ted Hsu: Madam Speaker, regarding the raising of the qualifying age for old age security, if we look at the lowest tenth, the lowest decile of income earners, and the health adjusted life expectancy for low-income people, we find that it has not really increased very much. It is around 60 years of age to 65 years of age, depending on whether one is male or female. 
I have heard on the other side that people are living longer and that they are healthier. However, if we look at the people who really need old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, the lowest decile of income earners, when they get to around 60 years old or 65 years old, life sucks. They have reached the typical health adjusted life expectancy and their life becomes very difficult around that age. I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on that. 
I think it is very important to focus on the people who need old age security, to look at what their life expectancy is and what their health and quality of life is when they get to around 65 years of age.
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. The only seniors who receive OAS are the poorest of the poor. The ones who do not make enough money on CPP are lifted out of poverty through the OAS system. 
Of course, the members on the Conservative front bench do not really care about that. As they would not qualify for OAS because of their massive federal pensions, it is of no concern to them. However, it certainly is a concern to those of us who care about the seniors across the country.
Mr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-38, the budget implementation act, which speaks to economic action plan 2012, Canada's blueprint for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
Economic action plan 2012 is a positive plan that grows our economy today and into the future. It provides support for innovation in research, invests in training and opportunity, families and communities and improves conditions for business investment, while ensuring the long-term sustainability of major social programs. 
This is why residents in my riding of Richmond Hill, Ontario, are pleased that the focus of this budget is on creating jobs, not only for today but for the future, within a growing knowledge-based economy. The budget maintains our consistent, responsible approach to managing the economy and building confidence in our future. Indeed, our solid, pragmatic and predictable approach is building certitude and confidence among Canadian business leaders. 
I was pleased to read a news release from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce last month. It stated:
 Today’s budget presents a plan for economic growth that builds on Canada’s economic and fiscal advantages. The measures announced will help Canadian businesses prosper and compete. 
Budget 2012 supports jobs and growth in many facets. It ensures predictability and stability in the employment insurance rate. The extended hiring credit for small business is a great boost for job creators. This initiative will save up to $205 million in payroll costs for small businesses across the country. Employers can receive a credit of up to $1,000 against an increase in their 2012 EI premiums over those paid in 2011. 
Firms in my riding like Auto Technique that just opened its doors last fall and Sure Print &amp; Design that hired new employees earlier this year are already benefiting from this initiative. Companies planning to expand into Richmond Hill, like Sabouhi Academy of Art &amp; Design, will all benefit from the one-year extension of the hiring credit for small business. Other Richmond Hill businesses, like Cosmo Music, tell me that initiatives like the hiring tax credit for small business and the children's arts tax credit that we brought in last year help their business to expand, creating new jobs and economic activity. 
Economic action plan 2012 charts the course for the future by supporting entrepreneurs, innovators and world-class research. We will do this by increasing funding for research and development by small and medium-sized business, promoting collaboration between the private sector and federal government, refocusing the National Research Council to better help Canadian businesses develop innovative products and services, increasing access to venture capital financing by high growth companies, streamlining the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program and increasing funding for research and training through partnerships with universities, granting councils and leading research institutions. 
We are supporting economic growth by investing $110 million per year into the National Research Council. This will include the doubling of support to small and medium-sized companies through the industrial research assistance program, or as it is commonly known, IRAP. IRAP is a very important program in my riding. It supports innovative companies by helping them to develop technologies and successfully commercialize them in the global marketplace. Many Richmond Hill companies have benefited from IRAP, and I look forward to seeing many more benefits from this added support. 
Budget 2012 announces new investments in training to better utilize Canada's workforce and to remove disincentives that may be discouraging workforce participation. This will be done by investing in young people to help them gain tangible skills and experience, connecting older workers to potential employers and enabling more Canadians with disabilities to obtain work experience by introducing changes to the employment insurance program. 
Deepening Canada's trade and investment relationships in large and fast-growing export markets around the world is key to creating jobs and growth. Under the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister, Canada has shown leadership on the world stage by opposing protectionism and trade restrictive measures.
Since 2007, Canada has concluded trade agreements with 10 countries and is in active negotiations with 10 others. Economic action plan 2012 proposes to intensify Canada's pursuit of new investment opportunities, particularly with large, dynamic and fast-growing economies. I look forward to the benefits these new trade agreements will bring to my riding of Richmond Hill and indeed across our beautiful nation of Canada. 
Canadians know that our government is delivering more than $60 billion of tax relief to job creating businesses over five fiscal years. Key actions that we have taken to help businesses invest and create much-needed jobs for Canadians include reducing the general corporate tax rate from 22% to 15%, reducing the small business tax rate to 11% and increasing the eligibility for this rate, increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption, eliminating the federal capital tax and better aligning capital cost allowance rates.
As a result of our actions, overall business investment in non-residential construction and machinery and equipment in 2011 exceeded the pre-downturn peak of 2008, and 2012 business investment intentions point to even stronger results.
I know small businesses are looking forward to our continued focus to reduce red tape. Red tape hampers economic activity, and our government remains committed to removing bureaucratic obstacles to the efforts of businesses to create jobs and growth for Canadians.
Budget 2012 proposes additional measures to reduce the tax compliance burden for small businesses and announces a number of administrative improvements by the CRA.
Investing in public infrastructure is another high priority in Richmond Hill.
Economic action plan 2012 proposes a $150 million investment over two years for a community infrastructure improvement fund to support repairs and improvements to existing small public infrastructure facilities on a cost-shared basis. This is good news for our municipal partners.
Let us not forget that it was this government that doubled gas tax funding to municipalities, from $1 billion to $2 billion, and made it permanent so municipalities now would have stable, predictable funding on which they could count. In my riding of Richmond Hill this means $5 million is automatically added to its budget each and every year.
This is great news for all Canadians, as was noted by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which said:
 Canada's municipal leaders welcome today's commitment by the federal government to continue working with cities and communities to rebuild the local roads, water systems, community centres and public transit that our families, businesses, and economy depend on. 
During my pre-budget consultations, improving the efficiency of government spending was the number one recommendation I heard from my residents in Richmond Hill. My constituents and all Canadians know the importance of living within their means, and they expect their government to do the same. That is why our government is committed to managing public finances in a sustainable and responsible manner.
Budget 2012 continues the course toward moving to a balanced budget in the medium term at an appropriate pace as the economy continues to recover from the fragile global economic situation. We are doing this by finding operational efficiencies and achieving greater relevance and effectiveness in government programs and services to better align with the spending priorities of Canadians. We are doing this without cutting transfers to other levels of government. On the contrary, major transfers will grow for the provision of health care, education and social services and to individuals for old age security and children's benefits.
As we have heard, federal support to provinces and territories will reach an all-time high of $59 billion, which is $3 billion more than last year. For Ontario, major transfers in the fiscal year ending 2013 will total $19.3 billion. This is $1.8 billion more than last year and $8.3 billion more than when we took office in 2006.
We remain focused on creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. I encourage all members of the House to support the implementation bill, Bill C-38, and Canada's budget 2012.
Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which I listened to closely. I heard him talk about jobs, but he did not talk about health, safety or food, all of which are in the massive budget before us today.
What does he have to say about what is going on? We know that 308 Canadian Food Inspection Agency workers will be laid off because of budget cuts. We also know that veterinarians responsible for inspecting and certifying animals, as well as analysts and agricultural officers, will lose their jobs. What does he have to say about that? And what does he have to say about jobs and keeping Canadians safe?
[Interjection]
Costas Menegakis: Madam Speaker, it is the responsibility of any government to ensure it is very mindful of how it spends taxpayer dollars and at the same time ensure essential services are not compromised in any way. Streamlining operations to better serve the Canadian public does not of necessity mean a lack of interest in providing support for those essential services.
I would urge the hon. member to really read what is in the budget. It actually provides for a faster, quicker, more effective way of providing the very services to which she is referring.
Ted Hsu: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, and I have a question about something in the streamlining of that tax credit that appeared in the budget document. 
The eligibility for capital expenditures, for example, if an individual wanted to buy a big piece of equipment to start to do some work for the company, would be eliminated from the tax credit. 
Why did the government choose to completely eliminate the eligibility of capital expenditures for the scientific research and experimental development tax credit? It seems very strange that one would completely eliminate it when it is so important for many companies in my riding and in the riding of my hon. colleague.
[Interjection]
Costas Menegakis: Madam Speaker, we can pick and choose any segment of the budget we like or do not like, what is in there and what is not in there. The fact is that our government has clearly displayed, since it took office in 2006, a definitive focus on reducing taxes for the large corporations so they can have enough money to invest in their businesses to create jobs and growth and to invest in the infrastructure they need within their operations.
We are also very mindful of what is happening around the world in other economies and in other nations, and it is very important for us to work toward balancing our budget.
There are measures in the budget that are focused on ensuring that we balance Canada's budget in the mid-term. We are projected to do that by the year 2015, possibly 2016. That is our focus. That is the focus of the budget.
 I think the hon. member would agree that reducing the corporate tax rate from 22% to 15% goes a long way in providing the very necessary funds companies need to invest in the infrastructure of their businesses in his riding, in my riding and the ridings across this nation.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I am afforded the opportunity to speak today on this important piece of legislation. 
Allow me to start off by talking about how the government has made the determination to incorporate within the budget debate massive amounts of legislation that should be stand-alone legislation. I say that because Canadians need to be aware that the government is using the back door of budget debate to bring into effect legislative changes that will have a profound impact on issues like our environment. This is, indeed, unprecedented and we need to hold the government accountable for a wide variety of issues.
Today, we are talking about the budget bill. We should actually be talking about budget expenditures. There are many things we could be talking about with regard to the budget, but the government brought in other issues and incorporated them into this budget debate, which I would argue is ultimately undemocratic. This majority mentality of the Conservative government has absolutely no respect for the proper procedures that must be followed to ensure there is some sense of due diligence with regard to legislation. 
If the government wants to do Canadians a service, one thing it should do today is send a very clear message that it did make a mistake and it is going to take out the substantial pieces of legislation that it was going to try to sneak through by putting them in this budget debate. 
Let me put it in perspective. In this budget debate, we are going to be talking about passing legislation that should have been brought in as separate pieces of legislation, bills that will have profound impacts on the environment, as I say. Also, the government has said that not only is it going to bring in all the other legislation through the budget debate but it is also putting limitations on how many days members are going to be able to speak on the bill. It is sneaking legislation in through the back door of the budget and then putting a limit on how long individual members of Parliament are going to be able to contribute to that debate. 
I suggest that if Canadians only knew how the majority government has been behaving since it was awarded the majority, there is no way Canadians would ever give the government another majority. Time will go by relatively quickly, there will be another election and Canadians will be reminded of the attitude and arrogance of the government in dealing with legislation and changing the laws of Canada. Members need to highlight that. 
As I say, there are other things. We are supposed to be debating a budget bill and yet there is a great deal of frustration in terms of the impact that this legislation is going to have on the environment, for which there should have been separate bills that would then have been debated in the House and sent to committee, where witnesses from across Canada would participate on the environmental changes, for example, that this bill would put into place. I say shame on the government for not doing the right thing and introducing separate legislation.
Let me talk about the budget. Canadians from coast to coast were upset when the Prime Minister, from overseas, made his decision that he wants to change our seniors pension programs. There were tens of thousands of seniors and others across this land who signed petitions, emailed, telephoned, made presentations to individual members of Parliament and, I suspect, wrote to the government, who all said what the government was doing was wrong with regard to the whole pension issue. 
Canadians appreciate and feel passionate about the OAS, our CPP and our guaranteed income supplement. Those are the foundations of our pension programs, and I must say these are foundations that were set many years ago from Liberal administrations. However, that aside, I can tell members there are many Canadians who are very suspicious of the current government when it comes to those fundamental social programs that help identify us as Canadians, that help provide support for our seniors in their retirement years. The backlash was significant.
 I believe that ultimately because of that backlash the government did back down on a number of initiatives it was going to take against our senior population here, to the degree that the Conservatives are ultimately pushing one, and there is no backing down on that one. That is, they are going to increase the retirement age from 65 to 67. 
We within the Liberal Party have come out against that policy announcement. In fact, the Liberal Party is committed to reversing that position, because we believe Canadians should have the ability to determine whether or not they want to retire at age 65, and postponing it to age 67 is just wrong. It is not an issue of a crisis situation as the government tries to imply. We know that the Government of Canada, not only today but well into the future, can afford to provide those types of pension programs for our seniors and as people approach the age of 65. 
Those are the types of issues that are important to Canadians. Those are the types of issues we need to be talking about during the budget debate. 
Another important issue for people, not only of Winnipeg North but I would ultimately argue for all Canadians, is the issue of health care. The government has turned a deaf ear to the needs of health care across this country. We have waiting lists for emergency services. When I say waiting lists, I mean we have people who are still in hallways, waiting to be admitted into emergency services. 
A couple of years ago, we had someone who was sitting in emergency in a tertiary health care facility, that is, the number one hospital facility in the province of Manitoba. That person sat in a chair for more than 30 hours, and for a good part of that 30 hours the individual had already passed away. Unfortunately, had that individual been given the attention he needed, he would have been alive today. I am not saying it is because of the current government that the individual passed away; there is a lot of shared responsibility there. 
However, I will suggest that health care is a critically important issue that Canadians want their federal government to address. They expect the federal government to play a leadership role in providing adequate health care and ensuring there is going to be a healthy health care system for the generations to come.
Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien established the health care accord, which guaranteed a base funding level of health and that the base funding of health care would increase. That is important. Let us take the issue of health care dollars flowing to the provinces and look at the Canada Health Act, which was put into place by a Liberal administration but receives all-party support from what I understand. I believe all political parties today inside the House support the Canada Health Act. 
However, let us take a look at the Canada Health Act and the money Ottawa transfers over to the provinces. Between those two, Ottawa does have a role to ensure we have health care standards from coast to coast, to ensure we have adequate health care services provided to all Canadians. I believe that the Conservative government has dropped the ball on the issue. It has turned a blind eye. This health care accord is expiring. The Conservatives have not had discussions or health care meetings to look at ways in which we can improve upon the need to renew the health care accord. There is a sunset to that health care accord.
 Where is the leadership coming from Ottawa? There has been none. We need leadership. We need all political parties to get onside.
One of the New Democratic Party leadership candidates in Quebec talked about how the Province of Quebec should have the ability to administer health care and Ottawa should just hand over the money. I would suggest we need to have that debate, and the budget debate is a good place to have it.
Ottawa has the sole responsibility to ensure that there is a national standard, that there is a national program—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member will have five minutes of questions and comments when we return to the bill.

Statements By Members
TibetMr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Tibetan community in Don Valley East, I rise to highlight the persecution of the Tibetan people.
The Dali Lama was in Ottawa last week and once again spread his great message of peace, calling for a productive and respectful dialogue to address the legitimate grievances of the peaceful people of Tibet.
Since 2009, numbers of Tibetans have sacrificed themselves as a call for the return of peace to their country and for freedom from persecution inside Tibet.
I encourage all members of the House to support the call for leadership regarding the Tibetan issue and to support a multilateral forum in response to Tibet's desire for freedom and justice.
Employment InsuranceMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Madam Speaker, the Conservative budget will be very hard on the unemployed, particularly those who work in seasonal industries. Pilot projects involving best weeks, maximum earnings exemptions and five additional weeks of benefits will be cut back or eliminated entirely to reduce payments to unemployed workers.
I am especially worried about the government's plan to withhold employment insurance from unemployed workers who turn down jobs that do not match their qualifications or their region of residence.
Instead of focusing on job creation, the Conservatives have decided to attack unemployed workers. According to a Segma poll in my riding, half of the people feel that the employment insurance system does not meet the needs of unemployed workers.
The people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles have clearly expressed their opinion: employment insurance must meet workers' needs, just like it used to.
Cystic FibrosisHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Madam Speaker, May is Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month. 
Cystic fibrosis is the most common fatal genetic disease affecting Canadian children and young adults. Today approximately 4,000 Canadians are living with the disease, and people are living longer than ever with cystic fibrosis.
I am pleased to celebrate the extraordinary work of Cystic Fibrosis Canada, a national health charity with 51 volunteer chapters. The organization has its sights set squarely on finding a cure and on helping people and families affected by cystic fibrosis cope with their daily fight and realize their full potential in Canadian life.
In spite of advances in cystic fibrosis research and care, there is no treatment. Every week in Canada, another two children are diagnosed with the disease.
I ask my colleagues in this House to join me and the thousands of Canadians fighting this devastating disease by learning more about cystic fibrosis and by raising awareness at the grassroots level, in our communities and online. I invite members to visit cysticfibrosis.ca.
Heart and Stroke FundraisingMr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is $58,109 and counting. I am proud to say that the residents of Moose Jaw are taking part in a 36-hour fundraising mission to “Give in a Heartbeat”.
I am talking about the sixth annual CHAB Family First Radiothon, which aims to raise more than $200,000 to purchase life-saving equipment for heart and stroke patients at the Moose Jaw Union Hospital. This equipment will not only be more portable but will also provide more data and better emergent care. Better care for cardiac and stroke patients is welcome, as heart disease costs the Canadian economy more than $20 billion every year.
I am proud to be part of a community that unites behind a common goal to give in a heartbeat for friends, family or neighbours who may need heart or stroke care.
Calgary ZooMs. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Madam Speaker, for more than 75 years the Calgary Zoo has offered visitors from around the world the opportunity to experience and interact with wildlife right in the heart of our city.
Recently I had the pleasure to meet with Clement Lanthier, Rick Harland and Dr. Malu Celli and visit the newest exhibit at the Calgary Zoo, the penguin plunge. This wonderful exhibit allows visitors to experience multiple penguin species up close and in their natural habitats, which include massive diving pools and natural rock formations.
The Calgary Zoo has created an environmentally sustainable ecosystem, continually recycling fresh water, removing deposits and ensuring the penguins have the safest of homes.
The penguin plunge will be a main attraction for the zoo's 1.2 million annual visitors and will raise awareness of polar regions and this magnificent and really cute species.
I encourage all Canadians to visit this world-class exhibit and take the penguin plunge.
National Volunteer WeekDjaouida Sellah: Madam Speaker, April 15 to 21 was National Volunteer Week. I would like to commend the dedication of two people in particular from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
For the past 20 years, Alice Daigle has been a dedicated volunteer at the Laflèche seniors' club in Saint-Hubert. She began spending time there before she was even a senior herself, as she went with her husband.
Also, for over 34 years, Roger Jolin has been volunteering at the Saint-Bruno horticultural and ecological society, and for over 18 years as a member of the Saint-Bruno beautification committee and at the Charles LeMoyne Hospital.
I would like to thank Ms. Daigle and Mr. Jolin for their commitment. I would also like to congratulate all volunteers in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert on their efforts to make the world a better place.
Netherlands Liberation DayMr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC): Madam Speaker, May 5 is celebrated every year in the Netherlands as Liberation Day, and each year they honour the more than 7,600 Canadians who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of what matters most to our great country: peace, freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
These brave men and women served with pride and conviction to help liberate the Netherlands 67 years ago. Their courage and sacrifice not only helped liberate the Netherlands but also led to victory in Europe.
Today we remember not only the brave individuals who served during the Second World War; we also pay tribute to the men and women who are serving our country today.
 We honour those who sacrificed so that we can live in peace and freedom today. We honour those who are currently serving our country to help build a better future for countries around the world.
Let us pay tribute to their bravery, their service and their commitment to our great country.
Diamond Jubilee MedalMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Madam Speaker, this year Canadians celebrate the 60th year of our Queen's reign.
The Diamond Jubilee is an historic event for our generations to reflect on the past and to set a vision for the future.
As part of this year's celebration, the Governor General, joined by our government, announced the creation of the Diamond Jubilee medal. This award will honour the Queen's service to all Canadians by honouring Canadians who serve. Canadians from coast to coast will be honoured for their contributions to our communities and to our country.
 I am proud to represent some of the Canadians most deserving of this award. Peace Country residents serve their neighbours, communities and country without any expectation of recognition. This selfless giving has done a great deal to build our communities into great places where we can live, work and raise our families.
I call on Peace Country residents to reflect on the people who have transformed our communities by their selfless giving and nominate them for this prestigious award. Let us celebrate this exciting year by thanking those who have contributed so much to the Peace Country's past, present and future.
Organ DonationMr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Madam Speaker, 1,264 Quebeckers, including 16 children, are waiting for an organ transplant. In Quebec, the child who has lived the longest with an artificial heart is a courageous young man in my riding of Brossard—La Prairie. His name is Vincent Lambert and he is 15.
Last week, during National Organ Donor Week, Vincent and his family urged Quebeckers to simply sign the back of their health insurance card and to talk to their loved ones about organ donation. By signing our cards, we all have the power to save lives.
Organ donation is an incredible gift that can change lives and give hope to many people who, like Vincent, are waiting for a transplant.
I urge all Canadians to sign their donor card and to spread the word.
I invite you to tweet #AHeart4Vincent. 
Vincent, we all hope you will get a new heart as soon as possible.
Russell District Women's InstituteMr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to honour women across my riding who unite to serve their communities in many different ways.
In particular I would like to highlight the Russell District Women's Institute, which celebrates its 80th anniversary this year, and its member districts.
Over the years, the local districts have introduced educational programming and social events that unite and inform our residents. Their ROSE program is well known for engaging the public on topics relevant to rural life.
Tomorrow I will join members of the Russell Village district as they celebrate their own anniversary of 75 years. This marks years of community support and efforts to promote personal growth.
I would like to congratulate three special members, Mrs. Staal, Mrs. Bols, and Mrs. Hueweyer, for their great achievement of having been members for 50 years. These women are leaders in our community who are setting an example for future generations, and I wish them every success.
Employment InsuranceMrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Madam Speaker, with thousands of jobs about to disappear because of the Conservatives' deep cuts, thousands of Canadians will need the social safety net to which they are entitled, employment insurance.
These workers have contributed all their working lives, with the help of their employer and without the help of the government, in order to have some security in difficult times. However, this government is looking for every conceivable way to reduce access to employment insurance, which is already at a record low.
Fewer than four in ten unemployed persons currently have access to employment insurance, even though all workers contribute to the fund. Unwarranted changes to boards of referees, reduced wages for temporary foreign workers, and the outrageous appropriation of the authority to define the notion of suitable employment point to one thing: the Conservatives' professed contempt for the workers of this country and their rights.
The Conservatives must amend Bill C-38 to give Canadians the support they need when they most need it.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Madam Speaker, Canadians need to know more about the NDP shadow cabinet. 
The member for Burnaby—New Westminster, the caucus chair and critic for energy and natural resources, has some strong views against free trade. He has opposed nearly every trade treaty that has come before the House of Commons during his time as an MP. He has argued that Canada should renegotiate or withdraw from NAFTA. He has opposed open trade with the European Free Trade Association, the EU and even the idea of a deal with South Korea.
 His commitment to opposing free trade goes as far as actually supporting the Americans, who are proposing the buy America policy, which unfairly discriminates against Canadians exporters. He called that a perfectly logical policy.
Canada's future prosperity is dependent on open markets. That is why our Conservative government has been working to open doors for Canadian exporters around the world. The NDP wants to shut those doors. The NDP team's trade policy is just something Canadians cannot afford.
TD Scholarship for Community LeadershipMs. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is with immense pride that I congratulate Vancouver Quadra student Leah Bae, from my alma mater of Lord Byng Secondary School, for receiving the prestigious TD Scholarship for Community Leadership. 
Worth up to $70,000 each, the scholarships recognize Canada's 20 most promising students who have demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to their communities.
I am deeply impressed by Leah's fierce devotion to youth engagement and social activism. As president of the Vancouver District Students' Council, she represents 58,000 students. She organized a youth forum to respond to the Stanley Cup riot and to offer the city a critical youth perspective in its report.
That is not all. Through the YWCA, Leah has mentored girls to guide them through their transition to high school. She is also principal violinist in Lord Byng's orchestra and an advocate for the rights of minority groups.
If anyone bemoans the lack of youth and women leadership, they should pay attention to Leah Bae. She is going to make us proud.
Liberation of the NetherlandsMr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC): Madam Speaker, the liberation of the Netherlands was a milestone in the battle for Europe during the Second World War.
 Canadians played a crucial role in liberating the people of the Netherlands from enemy forces and brought peace and freedom after five years of Nazi occupation. 
Canadian Forces displayed courage, valour and honour as they fought an enemy that had no understanding of these values. From the Battle of the Scheldt to Nijmegen to Arnhem, Canada was represented. In the final phases of the war, the First Canadian Army in northwestern Europe was the largest army that had ever been under the control of a Canadian general. 
The liberation of the Netherlands forged a strong bond between Canada and the Netherlands, and over the course of 67 years, this friendship has only grown stronger.
Today we remember the brave men and women who fought to liberate the Netherlands, including my Uncle Joe Calkins from Rocky Mountain House. We also remember the thousands of Canadians who made the ultimate sacrifice during the nine-month campaign.
We will remember them.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Madam Speaker, this government likes to strut about claiming to be tough on crime, but in reality, it is all just a sham. The Conservatives have been found guilty of an in and out scandal, and when we talk to them about the biggest electoral fraud in the history of the country, they shrug their shoulders as if to say, “Why worry about it when we are the ones benefiting?”
Now, a British offender who has just been released from an American prison is being allowed entry into Canada as though nothing ever happened. And the government is washing its hands of the situation. Clearly, it is much easier to keep peaceful protestors, separated families and real refugees out of the country than a lord who spent years using his newspapers to help the Conservative cause.
This government can claim to be tough on crime all it likes, but the fact is that criminals have a pretty nice life if they are Conservatives. 
Member for PapineauMr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC):  Madam Speaker, the member for Papineau, who is the former chair of Katimivik, has some kingly tastes. 
QMI reports that the member opposite billed double the rate of other Katimivik officials while staying at the “posh 4 Diamond Loews Concorde hotel”. He billed more for two nights than the group's president billed for his three-night stay. He expensed a $127 lunch for two that included “fine brandies”, as well as a $93 sushi lunch for two. Other receipts included expensing Grey Goose vodka.
In 2005, he charged taxpayers $350 for a steak dinner on another occasion.
This group was a taxpayer-funded organization. It is clear that he enjoyed a few nice lunches on the public dime.
This behaviour is completely inappropriate for someone who aspires to be more than just a dauphin.

Oral Questions
National DefenceMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, yesterday at the public accounts committee, Industry Canada testified that benefits from the F-35 deal would be less than $10 billion. The government has been claiming benefits of over $12 billion and the defence department has been claiming benefits of over $15 billion. 
Here we go again. What is the real number? Why can the government not get its stories straight?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Madam Speaker, we are in the process of working to find replacements for Canada's current fighter jets for the future. As part of that, we are implementing a seven-point plan following on the Auditor General's report to do exactly that. One of those seven points involves continuing to identify opportunities for Canadian industry to participate in the joint strike fighter global supply chain. 
Already, as part of the development stage of this plane, together with many other international partners, a lot of Canadian companies do have substantial contracts, and that has been able to help our industry. We will continue to look for more opportunities for that in the future to create jobs.
David Christopherson: Madam Speaker, that is all well and fine, but the government is forgetting that there are no guarantees of any industrial regional benefits, none whatsoever.
The government's plan is to spend tens of billions of dollars in the hope that Canadian industry will benefit. Past major procurement deals have had clear guarantees, usually $1 in industrial benefits for every $1 spent by Canada.
My question for the government is straightforward. Why is the government not negotiating a deal that would guarantee benefits and jobs in our communities?
Peter Van Loan: Madam Speaker, jobs and economic growth for Canadians are an important priority for this government, which is why we are moving on economic action plan 2012, which I know the opposition opposes. That is why we are also exploring replacements for our existing fighter jets while at the same time looking for opportunities for Canadian industry to participate, many of which already exist.
The one thing that is clear, though, is that if the NDP were in government, there would be no replacement fighter jets, there would be no jobs and we probably would no longer have any aeronautics industry in Canada and no aeronautics jobs. We are ensuring that will continue. The NDP would wipe it out.
David Christopherson: Madam Speaker, the minister left out that there would not be any food, there would not be any water, no land, no moon and no sun.
The deputy minister of National Defence testified that he gave the government all the numbers, “$5.7 billion for sustainment, $9 billion for acquisition, $10 billion for operating”. That is $24.7 billion. 
In February, the Minister of National Defence claimed there was only one figure, $14.7 billion, saying, “I have no idea where these other figures are coming from. They are simply made up or they are guessing”. 
Who is right, the deputy or the minister?
Peter Van Loan: Madam Speaker, members should listen carefully to the deputy's words, because the hon. member opposite has put a very different characterization on them. 
The deputy said:
 The government decided to communicate exactly the same way they have communicated since 2004 on the acquisition of major airframe assets—acquisition costs and sustainment costs. 
That is since 2004. That is before even this government. That is the way it was done under previous governments. That is the way I understand it has always been done, and we continue to do that. That is according to the deputy minister. That is what he said, not what that hon. member is suggesting he said. 
Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are promising more transparency, but when we ask them a straightforward question about the total cost of the F-35s, they are unable to give us a single figure.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer was clear: the Conservatives deliberately lowered the price of the F-35s to make it easier for Canadians to swallow. We have been saying that for a long time, the Auditor General has said so and yesterday the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed it.
When will the government be more transparent and accept its responsibilities?
Mr. Chris Alexander (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is clear that my hon. colleague's statements are absolutely not true.
Let us be transparent right here and now: funding for the program to replace our CF-18 fighter jets has been frozen. That is part of a seven step plan we have been talking about at length in this House, but I can repeat once again that the estimated replacement cost and lifespan of the CF-18s will be presented to this House under a new secretariat. The costs will be independently verified by the Treasury Board, and we will— 
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
Christine Moore: Madam Speaker, taxpayers are no fools. Between the Conservatives' version of the story and the Parliamentary Budget Officer's objective facts, the taxpayers will figure out what is going on. The Deputy Minister of National Defence confirmed that the figure given to cabinet was $25 billion. However, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer said yesterday, unfortunately that is the not the figure the Conservatives communicated to the public.
Lies and confusion reign in this file.
Who, in this government, made the decision to communicate false figures to the taxpayers?
Chris Alexander: Madam Speaker, this government assumes all of its responsibilities. We presented the costs in accordance with Canadian procurement practices. We have never hidden the operational costs of the CF-18s.
What is more, the absolutely final costs for the entire life cycle of a plane to replace the CF-18s will be presented to this House in the coming years. They will be confirmed independently by an authority chosen by the Treasury Board.
DemocracyMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Conservatives forced time allocation for the 18th time on a massive omnibus budget implementation plan. What a legacy; 18 time allocations in their first year as a majority.
This is an incredible standard they are setting for this House of Commons. They are trying to prevent members from debating a 420-page document that amends or kills 70 acts of Parliament.
My question is for the backbenchers on that side of the House who surely campaigned in the last election to fight for democracy. Why are they so silent now? Why are they-- 
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. government House leader.
Peter Van Loan: Madam Speaker, the priority of this government is job creation and economic growth and that is what economic action plan 2012 delivers.
We are proud that we have set aside more time for the debate on this bill than any other budget implementation bill in the last two decades, probably longer, but that is as far back as we went in our research. It is certainly a contrast with the party that the hon. member was part of when it was in government. The Liberals passed one budget implementation bill and sent it to committee, limiting debate to three hours.
We are happy to have this bill debated for the longest time in this House because for once we want to hear members from that side talk about the economy. That is our priority.
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, let us compare the facts and talk about the reality of the situation.
Under the Liberals, budget implementation bills were rarely over 100 pages long. With this government, they have been 420 pages, 528 pages and 644 pages long—all huge documents.
Why does this government pretend to allocate enough time to talk about democracy, when really, its utter contempt for democracy is clear?
Peter Van Loan: Madam Speaker, as I said, the time set aside for debate on this budget bill is much longer than the average amount of time set aside by any Liberal government.
This is the longest debate on a budget implementation bill in at least the past two decades, perhaps the longest ever, but the Liberals are against it. Why? It is because that party is led by someone who does not recognize this kind of budget because it does not increase taxes, something his party did 32 times when he was premier of Ontario. It does not result in a massive deficit. It works, in fact, to balance the budget, which is something he never did when he was in--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.
Foreign AffairsHon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is killing the understanding Canada program, throwing away 30 years of Canadian study. 
With little means, this program generated Canadian study centres globally, thousands of articles, books, Ph.D.s and M.A.s on Canada.
The government will not save money. For each dollar invested, $14 are spent in Canada by the international Canadian studies community.
Will the minister keep open this world window on Canada?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Madam Speaker, we are making some decisions to ensure that we live within our means and that we return to balanced budgets and fiscal sanity in this country.
We have made decisions in the Department of Foreign Affairs on how we can best spend our valuable taxpayer dollars and we believe this is the right decision toward that end.
Budget ImplementationMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Madam Speaker, when the government wants Canadians to accept unpopular measures, it always ends up ramming these measures down their throats.
Yesterday, the government invoked closure for the 18th time, in this case on the budget implementation bill, which is full of measures that Canadians did not vote for.
Why are the Conservatives so set on cutting short any debate on their controversial measures? Is it because their budget does not add up?
Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC): Madam Speaker, that was very much a fact-free question. I do recall campaigning on jobs, the economy and long-term prosperity for the country. That is exactly what we on this side of the House campaigned on. This is the opposite of the NDP members, who were campaigning on higher taxes to kill jobs.
In the budget we extended the hiring credit for new hires and a benefit for young people. The youth employment strategy, raised in the House many times, is funded in this budget. 
Guy Caron: Madam Speaker, if the Conservatives like to approve 425-page bills without reading or analyzing them, where is their rigour?
We know that the devil is in the details, and Bill C-38 has many details that are perplexing, such as amendments to the Bank Act that will infringe on provincial powers. This is not at all acceptable to the Government of Quebec.
Why is the government insisting on interfering in provincial jurisdictions?
Ted Menzies: Madam Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to point out the strength in Canada's financial sector. Four years in a row the World Economic Forum has said that Canada's banking system is the best in the world. That is something to be proud of. 
We do need to make sure that these rules that are under federal jurisdiction are enforced all across the provinces. That is why we continue to make sure that the banks follow the regulations that we put in place, so we can maintain that incredible record that is the envy of the world. 
Mrs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Madam Speaker, this is the 18th time that the Conservatives have invoked closure, a record that this government should be ashamed of.
The government is ramming a 425-page monster bill down Canadians' throats, a bill that is replete with measures that will set us back dozens of years, measures that will endanger our environment, harm our health system and make Canadians' lives more precarious.
What does the government want to hide from Canadians by preventing this debate? What are the Conservatives afraid of?
Ted Menzies: Madam Speaker, we are trying to highlight what we are trying to provide to Canadians. 
The NDP members stood barely moments after the budget was tabled in the House and said they would be voting against it. They have had somewhere up to five weeks to discuss and debate that. However, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster stood in the House and took away the privilege of every other member in the House to publicly and openly debate the budget. I believe he is an NDP member? 
Nycole Turmel: Madam Speaker, despite everything that has happened, it is clear that the Conservatives do not like debates.
All too often, their arguments fall apart upon close scrutiny, as in the case of the census, the F-35 jets and the eligibility age for old age security. 
Canadians deserve better.
If this government were serious and had an iota of rigour, we would study each element of the budget in the appropriate committee.
Why is the government not taking this seriously? Is it because their budget cannot be justified?
Peter Van Loan: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons we have set aside a record amount of time for this budget to be debated is because we want to know who really speaks for the NDP. Is it this member, the party whip, who says that moving to balance the budget by reducing the size of the bureaucracy is bad for the economy? Or is it their leader who said that one of the ways that we will succeed is by reducing the size of the bureaucracy? That is what he said when he was in government. Canadians have a right to know who really speaks for the NDP. That is why we want a lengthy budget debate.
National ParksClaude Gravelle: Madam Speaker, they are stuffing these changes into the budget bill to avoid accountability. However, it will not work. New Democrats will hold them to account. 
We created national parks to protect our natural heritage. Conservative changes will mean fewer reviews of park management plans and will reduce the ability to keep up with changing conditions. On top of this, the minister is sending layoff notices to hundreds of parks staff. Why is the minister ignoring his duty to protect Canada's natural spaces?
Michelle Rempel: Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite is quite right. Our government has done more to protect Canada's natural heritage and park space than any other government in history. We have protected over 150,000 square kilometres of parkland. We have funded these measures to ensure that they are sustainable. These are budget measures my colleagues opposite voted against.
We will continue to ensure that front-line services are provided and that visitors across this country can enjoy Canada's great natural heritage.
Claude Gravelle: Madam Speaker, what the Conservatives are ensuring is less access for Canadians and a decline of tourism dollars. Communities across Canada are slowly learning the details of the changes hidden in the Conservative budget bill: no more interpreters to connect visitors with our natural heritage, shorter park seasons and hours slashed, less ecological management and fewer tourist dollars for local businesses. 
Why is the minister cutting access to our public spaces and pulling money out of our local economies?
Michelle Rempel: Madam Speaker, tourism is certainly an important part of Canada's economy. Members of the tourism industry will say that during peak demand, staff is ramped up. What we are trying to do with Canada's parks is ensure that during peak demand times Canada parks are staffed by front-line services. Those services will continue to exist under our well-funded parks plan. I would ask my colleague opposite to actually look at the budget bill and examine these changes in detail. This will continue to ensure that our parks are well serviced and that Canadians can enjoy them for years to come.
EmploymentAnne-Marie Day: Madam Speaker, the budget bill that the Conservatives are afraid to debate with the opposition proposes repealing the provision under which a worker who is looking for a job is not obligated to accept one where the working conditions, including the rate of pay, are less favourable than those offered by good employers. In short, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development wants to lower both salaries and purchasing power in this country.
Why are the Conservatives attacking the workers who are the lifeblood of our economy?
Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Madam Speaker, the government's top priority is job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity. The government is making improvements to employment insurance to ensure that it is fair, continues to meet the needs of Canadians and is responsive to local labour market demands. As we face unprecedented skills shortages across the country, it will be critical that we work directly to help Canadians find available work more quickly. We are looking to make sure that Canadians have jobs and are able to keep them. Why is the NDP not interested in supporting that direction?
Anne-Marie Day: Madam Speaker, lower salaries mean that people will be spending less money in local businesses. Less spending means less income for business owners. Everyone will pay the price if the Conservatives continue to race to the bottom.
Why did the Conservatives decide to hide these changes in an omnibus bill? Why do they not address the real problems in the employment insurance system, such as wait lists that are too long, instead of risking slowing down our economic growth?
Kellie Leitch: Madam Speaker, as I mentioned before, we are focused on job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity. We want to make sure that every Canadian has access to a job. 
We are facing unprecedented skills shortages across this country. We want to make sure that the employment insurance program focuses on making sure that Canadians have access to jobs in their local labour markets. That is why we are making sure we have fair changes that are focused on making sure Canadians have access to jobs.
Canada Revenue AgencyHoang Mai: Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Revenue rose to speak about an unacceptable video that was produced by the Canada Revenue Agency. I sent a letter to the minister about this several months ago.
My question is simple: was the minister aware of this video before I sent her the letter or is she unaware of what is happening in her own department?
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Madam Speaker, as soon as the minister was made aware of these videos, she took action and stood in the House to inform Canadians. These videos are disrespectful to Canadian taxpayers. This is not how CRA officials are trained. The minister has asked senior officials to investigate and take appropriate disciplinary measures. She has asked the Taxpayers' Ombudsman to review all CRA training videos to ensure they respect taxpayers' rights.
National ParksMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Madam Speaker, perhaps my question should be directed to the Minister of Health, as the actions of the government really carve the heart out of the community in my riding.
 In the cuts by Parks Canada to Louisbourg, St. Peter's and the Canso area, it is not only the 170 people who lost their jobs and their families. It is also those who depend on the tourism industry. This will cripple the tourism industry. Hotel owners, campground owners and restaurant owners will feel the pain.
 These are reckless, senseless, stupid cuts. Why has the Conservative government turned its back on the national parks system?
Michelle Rempel: Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague opposite that his government did not protect as much park space as we have done in the last six years. There are 150,000 square kilometres of parkland protected under our government.
Furthermore, we provide support to Canada's parks through things like the My Parks Pass system, and tourism support systems for marketing and promotion. We are going to ensure that front-line services continue to be provided in a very robust way during peak times. I certainly hope my colleague opposite will support these measures.
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, she pats herself on the back. The Conservatives opened up a new park and provided no new money for it. They have to take funds for the operation of that park out of existing programs, which will further impact negatively on the current park inventory.
Where are the Tory backbenchers when there are cuts made to their communities? Where is the minister from P.E.I. who has jobs leaving the island like rats leaving a ship? Where is the member for Peterborough who is losing jobs? What about Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. I am sure we all want to hear the answer.
Michelle Rempel: Madam Speaker, I believe it is unparliamentary to talk about where backbenchers are, so I will not mention where the backbenchers are in the Liberal Party today.
I believe that our parks system will continue—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to ask for a little order in the House while the parliamentary secretary—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
The Deputy Speaker:  The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.
[Interjection]
Michelle Rempel: Madam Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that our parks are well promoted and well visited. They are part of Canada's national brand. They are respected around the world. What we have put forward in the budget will ensure that the parks are well staffed during peak seasons for years to come.
ImmigrationJoyce Murray: Madam Speaker, tens of thousands of international students flock to British Columbia every year, bringing in over $0.5 billion of direct revenues for our communities and our small businesses. Canada-wide, this industry is worth $8 billion. However, the government is eliminating visa services in some of the most important countries that are the source of these students. Now those students will likely go to other countries to learn English.
Why would the government attack the international education industry, one of the engines of our economy, at the very time that this economy is sputtering?
Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC): Madam Speaker, we are doing no such thing. We are not removing visa services from any country. We are doing things more efficiently than in the past, which means that students can apply online. They can also go to visa application centres, which provide professional service.
I know the Liberals do not like to hear the facts. The fact is that there is a huge increase in the number of student visas issued over five years ago. More foreign students are coming to Canada and benefiting from our educational experience.
Ministerial ExpendituresMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, yesterday the President of the Treasury Board alleged that his government's wasteful use of drivers and limos is par for the course for government. He assumed the Manitoba NDP government uses drivers and cars as wastefully as his government, yet in Manitoba none of the ministers have cars and only the premier has an assistant whose duties include driving. 
I have a very basic question. Will the President of the Treasury Board get up and apologize and clear the record and clear his name and the reputation of the NDP government?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Madam Speaker, we are always looking for ways to run the government at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. Ministers work long hours and drivers frequently have to work the hours that their ministers are working. Salaries and overtime for drivers employed by the public service are based on collective agreements with the unions.
Paul Dewar: Madam Speaker, hard-working Canadians expect their elected officials to be prudent and sensible with their money.
There is no excuse for racking up $600,000 in overtime fees alone, yet the President of the Treasury Board decided to point fingers at an NDP government, which is more fiscally responsible and prudent than the Conservatives are.
Will the Conservatives pledge to learn something about financial wisdom and manners from the NDP government in Manitoba?
Andrew Saxton: Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, we are always looking for ways to run the government at a reasonable cost to taxpayers.
I will tell the House what we have done. We have frozen the salaries of MPs and senators, reduced ministers' office spending, reduced the cost of travel and reduced hospitality spending. This government has taken real action to reduce the cost to taxpayers.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Madam Speaker, yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board also chose to single out Nova Scotia's NDP government. He accused the members of that government of the same thing he is doing: making excessive use of their drivers and limousines, which are paid for with taxpayers' money.
The facts are clear: the Dexter government ministers do not even have drivers. The NDP government is fiscally responsible.
Perhaps the minister can take one of the limousines he has on standby and go apologize.
Andrew Saxton: Madam Speaker, I said it once and I will say it again: we are always looking for ways to run the government at a more reasonable cost to taxpayers.
Ministers work long hours, and drivers frequently have to work the hours the ministers work. Salaries and overtime for drivers employed by the public service are based on collective agreements with unions.
Mathieu Ravignat: Madam Speaker, taxpayers do not want excuses, they want action.
Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board accused two provincial governments of using chauffeur services, but the facts are clear. In Nova Scotia ministers in Darrell Dexter's cabinet do not even use limos. They did away with their driver service after they took power. To do what? To save money.
 Perhaps the minister could send his standby driver out to Nova Scotia and Manitoba to learn how responsible ministers respect taxpayer dollars.
Andrew Saxton: Madam Speaker, this is like Groundhog Day all over again. We are always looking for ways to run the government at a reasonable cost to taxpayers.
I will tell the House what we have done. We have frozen the salaries of MPs, including the salary of the member opposite. We have frozen the salaries of senators. We have reduced ministers' office spending, reduced the cost of travel and reduced hospitality spending.
 This government is taking real action to reduce the cost to taxpayers.
HealthMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Madam Speaker, yesterday the hon. Minister of Health made a most important announcement of funding that would go a long way to helping Canadians facing neurological disorders. This is yet another example of this government's commitment to helping Canadians maintain and improve their health.
 Would the hon. minister please share this good news with the members of the House?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC): Madam Speaker, one in three Canadians face a neurological disorder or related problems at some point in life.
Yesterday I was happy to announce funding to the Brain Canada Foundation to establish a research fund that would support the understanding and treatment of brain disorders. This investment will strengthen Canada's position as a world leader in research and in the identification and treatment of brain disorders.
 This funding and the research it will support are central to our government's commitment to help Canadians maintain and improve their health.
International CooperationMr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Madam Speaker, the true impact of the Conservatives' decision to cut international aid is becoming clear.
As expected, not only are the employees feeling the effects, but so are programs and services. While the minister is drinking $16 glasses of orange juice, Canada is cutting its funding to the fight against TB by $10 million.
How did this government come up with these ridiculous priorities? Will it reverse its decision on these reckless cuts?
Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Madam Speaker, budget 2012 has confirmed that Canada's international development assistance will continue our commitment to make international assistance focused, effective, accountable and transparent.
Canadian tax dollars will continue to deliver value for money and make a real difference in the lives of the people they are intended to help. We will continue our efforts in this direction and build on the steps that we have taken so far.
Romeo Saganash: Madam Speaker, while the minister is living high on the hog, Canada is ending aid to Rwanda, Nepal, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Niger and Cambodia. Canada is delivering less and less aid where the need is greatest.
When will the government stop backsliding on foreign aid and focus on the world's poor instead of the minister's comfort?
Lois Brown: Madam Speaker, as I said, our government remains committed to focused, effective, accountable and transparent development that makes a real difference in the lives of the people in Africa.
The African continent continues to be Canada's largest recipient of international assistance. We are focusing 80% of the $1.1 billion in funding for maternal, newborn and child health through the Muskoka initiative in sub-Saharan Africa.
Agri-FoodMr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP): Madam Speaker, the closure of the Frelighsburg experimental farm is a slap in the face to Quebec fruit farmers. The Eastern Townships region has many apple producers, grape growers and berry producers.
The Government of Quebec has promised to protect the experimental farms and the work done there, but the Conservative government is completely abandoning small-scale farmers and the regions of Quebec.
My question is simple: why are the Conservatives abandoning our farmers once again?
Pierre Lemieux: Madam Speaker, this government is focused on food safety. This government is focused on our agricultural sector. We have had nothing but success, which farmers all across the country know.
When it comes to different facilities and the recent budget, combining labs and expertise will ensure that this important work is carried out in better-equipped facilities with better resources.
InfrastructureMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Madam Speaker, recently the House stood for a moment of silence to commemorate the day of mourning for those killed and injured at work. People from all across Canada were shocked to hear about the recent tragedy on Alberta's Highway 63. Our hearts go out to those families who lost loved ones.
All Canadians benefit from the development of our natural resources and they want these industries, above all else, to be safe. The twinning of Highway 63 is needed, and the people in Fort McMurray and Alberta are rightly frustrated.
Is the government willing to offer whatever support is needed to prevent this type of tragedy from ever happening again?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to echo my colleague's comments. All the tragedies and all the accidents that take place on our highways are very sad, and we fully support all victims and their families.
Our government has invested in infrastructure and is achieving results. In fact, the average age of a piece of infrastructure in Canada is lower than it has been in the past 30 years.
National DefenceCarolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, the facts are clear. The number of suicides among Canadian Forces personnel increased from 12 in 2010 to 20 lives lost last year.
An internal report describes the mental health treatment system in crisis. Despite this, the department is slashing, and 60% of the civilian health workers are losing their jobs, including PTSD specialists and suicide prevention specialists. Why?
Chris Alexander: Madam Speaker, all of us in the House have always believed that the death by suicide of even one Canadian Forces member, of even one Canadian, is too many. 
However, the member has her facts wrong. The suicide rate within the Canadian Forces remains lower than that in the Canadian population in general. It has not risen, even over the course of 10 years in Afghanistan.
 Our support for the mental health of our Canadian Forces has improved dramatically under this government. We have almost doubled the number of professional front-line health care workers, and they will remain in place. We have the highest ratio of professional health care workers to soldiers of any country in NATO.
Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has to admit that the demand for mental health services is climbing. Families are being destroyed and lives lost, yet his minister is cutting.
The Minister of National Defence has claimed that the mental health of the members of the Canadian Forces is a priority, yet again the government says one thing and does the opposite.
When will the Minister of National Defence support our troops and reverse these life-threatening cuts?
Chris Alexander: Madam Speaker, the member opposite may be insisting on these unfactual statements because her party has voted against every one of the dramatic improvements that we have made to the care of the mental health of our Canadian Forces members, the care of the ill and injured of the Canadian Forces. We have doubled the number of professionals. We set up 24 integrated centres with our Veterans Affairs colleagues across the country to look after these needs. Those front line services will not be cut. They are stronger than ever and her party voted against them.
TransportRobert Aubin: Madam Speaker, 15 years have passed since the Mirabel airport was closed and airport traffic was reassigned to Dorval, yet there is still no fast shuttle between Dorval and the airport.
Yesterday we learned that negotiations with Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, which own the route that the shuttle would use, appear to be stalled. As a result, the bill will be delayed and costs will surely go up.
Will the federal government take the lead and facilitate negotiations?
Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, this is an example of the NDP's centralist approach. They want the federal government to take over local decisions that are within the purview of Montrealers and Quebeckers.
We respect the work that municipalities and provinces do in making local decisions about public transportation. I suggest that the NDP show a little respect for local authorities too. 
Robert Aubin: Madam Speaker, the difference is that we in the NDP know how to fulfill our responsibilities.
Lands owned by CN and CP are under federal jurisdiction. The government has the power and the responsibility to take action to help the parties reach an agreement. A direct shuttle from the airport to the downtown core would help reduce congestion and greenhouse gases. It would be good for the environment and Montreal's economy.
My question is simple: will the federal government get involved in the negotiations so that the project costs do not go up?
Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, local decisions are—of course—within the purview of municipalities, the airport and the Province of Quebec. We will respect their decision about transportation between the airport and downtown Montreal.
I suggest that the NDP forget about its centralist agenda and respect Montrealers and Quebeckers.
International TradeMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Madam Speaker, the NDP and its activist union supporters continue to promote failed anti-trade policies that stifle economic activity. Yesterday the Canadian Union of Postal Workers condemned Canada's free trade agreement with Colombia, the same agreement the NDP consistently has opposed.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade please share with the House why our strong pro-free trade agenda will create jobs, hope and growth in this economy for Canadians and for our trading partners around the world?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley is right. When it comes to trade, the NDP just does not get it. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster even claims that free trade has cost Canadians dearly. The fact is one in five Canadian jobs is linked to trade.
 While the NDP and its special interest friends would go to isolation of silos, Canadians know that our government's pro-trade plan is creating jobs, growth and economic prosperity both here at home and abroad.
Citizenship and ImmigrationKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to immigration, the Conservative government says that parents are no longer welcome. With regard to the economic immigrants in the backlogs, the minister hits the delete button, thereby affecting tens of thousands of people around the world. He says not to worry, “We're going to give you back your landing fees and your processing fees”.
What about the other costs that those people who had a hope in coming to Canada would have incurred? What is the minister prepared to do for those individuals?
Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, I think we can see how seriously the Liberal Party takes immigration. The only time it gives the critic a question is at noon on Friday. We can see that also in the fact that, when the Liberals were in government, they admitted 17,000 parents and grandparents a year. We have increased that by 60%, to 25,000, in order to cut in half the Liberal backlog in family reunification that they left behind.
Speaking of backlogs, the Liberals left behind a backlog of 840,000 people waiting for up to seven and eight years. Yes, we have to take some difficult decisions—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry
The EnvironmentMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Madam Speaker, first the government withdrew from Kyoto, and now it is attacking environmental protection measures. The craziest part is that they want the Standing Committee on Finance to study changes to environmental assessment. That is just irresponsible.
Bill C-38 will have a direct impact on approval for major oil projects: they will be accelerated to the detriment of the environment.
Why are the Conservatives cutting the budget debate short rather than asking the Standing Committee on the Environment to study the changes?
Michelle Rempel: Madam Speaker, in a survey commissioned by Ipsos Reid, two-thirds of Canadians agreed that it is possible to increase oil and gas production while protecting the environment, at the same time. Balance between protecting the environment and creating economic growth is a principle the NDP is absolutely not conscious of.
 With our budget bill this year, we are going to ensure one project, one review: streamlined environmental assessments. We also increased funding to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I encourage my colleague opposite to read the budget.
Public SafetyCostas Menegakis: Madam Speaker, during an emergency it is important that our first responders are able to communicate with each other. Clear communication channels can often be the difference between a safe resolution to a dangerous situation and the unthinkable. Currently, there are often problems with having dedicated communication channels during an emergency.
 Can the hard-working Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety please update the House on what our Conservative government is doing to help give our front-line personnel the tools they need to keep Canadians safe? 
Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Richmond Hill for the hard work he has been doing on behalf of his constituents.
Our government has consistently taken strong action for our front-line first responders, to give them the tools they need to keep Canadians safe. I am very pleased that yesterday the Minister of Public Safety announced a dedicated portion of prime 700 MHz bandwidth for use by emergency first responders. Benefits to our front-line workers include the ability to carry large amounts of data at high speeds over long distances and through buildings, and the ability to overcome communications infrastructure failure during emergency peak times. This is good news. 
PensionsMs. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP): Madam Speaker, I agree that their answers are just a sham.
There are relatively few people with disabilities on the job market, and even fewer of them are physically able to work until they turn 65. Raising the retirement age to 67 for no real economic reason will penalize the most vulnerable members of our society. As the experts tell us, the system is sustainable.
Did the government really give much thought to how later retirement will affect people with disabilities?
Kellie Leitch: Madam Speaker, there will be no reductions to seniors' pensions, and that includes individuals with disabilities. 
In order to ensure the sustainability of old age security, we are increasing the eligibility age to 67, and this will begin in 2023. Our government is committed to sustainable social programs and a secure retirement for all Canadians. 
In addition, this government is taking decisive action to aid individuals with disabilities, putting in place a special panel to make sure those individuals can be incorporated into the workplace and have meaningful jobs, so they actually are not eligible for OAS because they have meaningful employment, because they have a job.
Government PrioritiesMr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): Madam Speaker, while on the one hand this government blatantly scoffs at our democratic processes—particularly by imposing closure on a bill that is over 400 pages long and will kill the Kyoto protocol, for one thing, and exclude banks from the application of the Quebec consumer protection act, leaving consumers at the mercy of questionable business practices—on the other hand, it is also spending millions of dollars on useless things such as promoting the monarchy and the Queen's jubilee. What an undemocratic regime.
Instead of kissing up to the Queen, why do the Conservatives not show some respect towards Quebec consumers?
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Madam Speaker, we are very proud to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the ascension of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth to the Throne. This celebration will mark the beginning of five years of celebrations in this county, including commemorating the War of 1812 and the 200th anniversary of the birth of Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald.
It culminates in the 150th celebration of the best country in the world in which to live, this country, and we will do everything in our power to make sure Canadians from all regions of this country can join us in the celebration of not only Her Majesty's 60th anniversary but the 150th celebration of this country.
Presence in GalleryThe Deputy Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of two ministers from Saskatchewan, the Hon. Rob Norris, Minister of Advanced Education, Employment and Immigration, and the Hon. Dustin Duncan, Minister of Environment, or I guess not.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  He just left. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
Points of OrderRodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, understanding and respecting the Standing Orders and traditions of the chamber, I know it is not proper and not accepted to make any reference to the whereabouts or absence of a particular member in the House. I would ask the Speaker to check Hansard on this. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment had referenced that I was commenting on the absence of a member from the House. When I spoke about the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry and the regional minister from P.E.I., it was about their absence on the file and the fact that people in their ridings were losing jobs, not any reference to their absence or physical whereabouts in the House.
Michelle Rempel: Madam Speaker, to respond to my colleague's point, perhaps he should be more careful when he questions where the backbenchers are on a Friday.
Elizabeth May: Madam Speaker, of course, it will be for you as Speaker to conclude on the point of order by the member for Cape Breton—Canso and his question in question period. However, any plain understanding of his question at the time was that it was a rhetorical point asking where they are in speaking out for their constituents. It was never at all reasonable for the parliamentary secretary to think he was pointing out whether people were physically present in the House. It was, in fact, an absurd distortion of the member's question.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. members for their comments. We will review Hansard and, if need be, we will come back to the House on this matter.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsMr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation to the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region held in Stockholm, Sweden, February 14, 2012.
First Nations Elections ActPeter Van Loan:  moved for leave to introduce Bill S-6, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsLaurin Liu: Madam Speaker, I will present two petitions today.
The first petition concerns environmental hypersensitivity. The petitioners are from the Montreal area, which includes Mirabel and Saint-Eustache, and also from Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac and other towns.
The petitioners are asking the House of Commons to designate the month of May as environmental hypersensitivity awareness and education month in Canada, thus joining a number of other countries that provide social and health services to their citizens who suffer from this medical condition.
Laurin Liu: Madam Speaker, my second petition concerns action on climate change and is also signed by people from the Montreal area. 
They are calling on Parliament to implement the following political measures: take the necessary action by signing and implementing a binding international agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol; demonstrate national responsibility by undertaking to set national carbon emissions targets; and take action on climate change by playing a constructive role in the design of a green climate plan.
Blaine Calkins: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to table before the House today. The first is from several of my constituents and it deals with the national action plan to combat human trafficking. The signatories to the petition want to draw attention to the terrible circumstances that arise and result from human trafficking. 
I am more than happy to table this on their behalf and just draw attention to the fact that my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, is doing a great job on this file.
Blaine Calkins: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by quite a number of constituents from the central Alberta area who are very concerned about the number of traffic accidents caused by negligent driving, which result in death and serious harm to individuals, for which the penalty only seems to be traffic violations. They feel that is inadequate and is lacking in the sense of justice. 
The petitioners are requesting that Parliament change section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code to better define “dangerous to the public” to enable police officers to lay charges when a motor vehicle is operating improperly causing death. 
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first one calls on the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to pass Bill C-358, an act respecting a national strategy for dementia. 
Canada is the only G7 country that does not have a national dementia strategy. These petitioners from my riding, from points like Hanmer, Val Caron, Blezard Valley, Chelmsford, Azilda and points right across my riding, are asking the government to support this bill that would introduce a national Alzheimer's strategy. 
As we know, our citizens are getting older and there is an increase in Alzheimer's. The government should do more to help prevent Alzheimer's and help support workers who are looking after Alzheimer's patients. 
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is again from many constituents right across my riding who are calling on the government to eliminate poverty in Canada. 
With the introduction of the government's budget bill, which raises the eligibility age for OAS-GIS to 67 from 65, more and more Canadians will be living in poverty. These citizens in Nickel Belt are asking the government to help prevent poverty. 
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first one is primarily from petitioners living in the area of Kitchener—Waterloo and a few from Toronto. They want the House to take seriously the incredibly significant role played by our national public broadcaster, the CBC. They are urging the House to ensure that stable, predictable funding is provided to the CBC.
Unfortunately, as we know, budget 2012 cuts funding to CBC by about 10% but the petitioners, obviously, wish it were otherwise. 
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to the privatization through stealth, the commercialization of parts of our national parks service. The petition is primarily from residents of the Courtenay and Nanaimo areas of British Columbia who are concerned about the Glacier—Discovery Park walkway that was approved within Jasper. We have now heard that there will be a hot springs commercialized within the Banff and Jasper parks. 
The petitioners want to ensure that the national parks remain primarily for ecological integrity.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition regarding our seniors and the pension issue. 
Many of my constituents are greatly concerned in terms of the direction the government is taking on the whole pension front. They state that people should be able to continue to have the option to retire at the age of 65, and request that the government not in any way diminish the importance and value of Canada's three major senior programs: OAS, GIS and CPP. 
It is with pleasure that I am able to table this petition here today. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Question Nos. 535 and 539 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:  With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' (DFO) cuts to the Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program (ACRDP): (a) how many jobs will be lost due to these cuts and in what region will any and all job losses occur; (b) what similar resources, if any, are available to small and medium-sized businesses in the aquaculture industry for research and development; (c) what has been the total budget allocated for the ACRDP in each of the past ten years; (d) what is the breakdown of all money spent by the DFO on the ACRDP over the past ten years; (e) with what companies has the ACRDP worked and where are they located; (f) what tangible benefits have been generated by research done by the ACRDP; and (g) is there a rise in correlated risks to the aquaculture industry that can be anticipated as money available for research is decreased? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Hedy Fry:  With respect to the possible detection of Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) Virus in the Pacific coast fish population: (a) since 2001, how many times have fish originating from the Pacific coast, both farmed and wild, been tested by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) for the presence of ISA; (b) what were the results of these tests; (c) at which laboratory (or laboratories) were these tests conducted; (d) what diagnostic tools were or are used by DFO to determine whether or not ISA is present in fish samples; and (e) is a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) used or are other tools used?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): When we last left this matter, the hon. member for Winnipeg North had five minutes remaining for questions and comments.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, if we look at all the acts that would be affected by the budget implementation bill, and with maybe one or two days set aside for debate on each one, how many days of debate would the member come up with as a reasonable number for the bill?
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, this particular budget has hundreds of pages, many of which have little if anything to do with implementing the budget. The government is using the budget in an attempt to introduce new legislation through the back door, legislation that should be stand-alone legislation. 
By doing that, the government is disallowing possibly thousands of hours of debate, whether inside the House or in committee. It is also denying hundreds of witnesses from across the country the opportunity to participate in decisions on important legislation that will pass as a direct result of the government using this back door. It is unprecedented. Canadians need to be aware that this is more than just a typical budget debate. It is unacceptable behaviour by the Government of Canada. 
We call upon the Government of Canada to recognize the importance of democracy and the role that this chamber plays by taking out the 70-plus acts that would be changed by using the back door. 
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, there are many parts of the budget that are troublesome to me. 
I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question about the changes to the environmental assessment and review processes that are proposed in what the government is calling a budget bill. Why is the government calling this a budget bill? Does the member think the government is trying to hide the huge changes that would be made to the environmental assessment process?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the critic for that member's party and the Liberal Party critic have talked about how devastating the bill would be on the environment. The bill would change legislation with respect to the environment which t would ultimately have a negative impact on Canada's environment. 
That is the point I am trying to make when I say that this is supposed to be a budget debate. We should be talking about priorities. The government is cutting over 15,000 civil servants in the same year that it made the decision to increase the number of politicians. We will have more MPs, more political spin doctors. At the same time the government is telling Canadians that 10,000-plus jobs will be cut from the very important and vulnerable services that Canadians need. 
This debate should be about those kinds of priorities. That is what the bill is supposed to be about. Unfortunately, because of the 70-plus acts, we have to talk about many other issues, such as the bill's impact on environmental legislation, which is a great case in point. 
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House but it is a particularly big honour to rise and talk about the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.
It is also important for us to give some thought to how we came about this next phase of the economic action plan. We were elected on a promise to focus on jobs and the economy. We were elected on the promise to bring our budget back into balance. 
Since we were elected, members on this side of the House have been engaging in their local communities. We have talked to members of the Chambers of Commerce. We have talked to our neighbours and our friends. We have held round tables, not only in our ridings but in ridings across this country. We asked Canadians how they thought the government should proceed toward guaranteeing the future economic stability and prosperity of this country and how we should bring our budget back into balance to guarantee that long-term stability and economic growth.
Canadians were very clear in saying that they wanted the government to look at ways of reducing waste. They wanted government to continue to look at ways of reducing duplication. They wanted to ensure their government kept in mind that they wanted their taxes lower and that the government offered hope and opportunity for future generations of Canadians, and that is what the next phase of Canada's economic action plan offers.
However, it is also important for us to look back to see how we came to this particular point. When this government was elected, it began almost immediately to focus on renewing and restoring faith and pride in the institutions of this country. It began to focus exclusively on how we could improve the economy, not just on that day but for future generations of Canadians. We also knew at that time that there would be some difficult times and difficult choices that would need to be made in the years ahead.
I remember an interview that the Prime Minister gave in, I believe, 2007, in which he talked about the years ahead and that there would be some difficult choices that would need to be made and that there were some troubling signs that the global economy was headed for some difficult waters. Therefore, we made some very clear choices back then to ensure that the Canadian economy had all the tools it needed to continue long-term growth and prosperity. We campaigned on that.
That is why, after we were elected, we immediately set out to stimulate the Canadian economy and to leave more money in the hands of Canadians. How did we do that? We did that by reducing taxes for families. We cut the GST from 7% to 6% and then down to 5% because we recognized that the way we could stimulate the economy was by leaving more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians so that they could invest in themselves, in their families and in their businesses.
However, then we did more. We introduced the national infrastructure program at the time, which was one of the largest infrastructure programs in Canadian history. The building Canada fund, which went across this country to reinvest in our infrastructure, be it roads or bridges. We started down that road. 
We looked at our small businesses to see how we could help them to succeed, not only locally but so they could compete and succeed internationally. That is why we reduced taxes for our small businesses. We reduced taxes for our manufacturers. We set out a very aggressive agenda to open up new markets for our small businesses, our medium-sized businesses and our large businesses. We set out to create and open new markets so that those people who generate wealth and create jobs in this country had every opportunity to do that going forward.
In advance of the global economic downturn, we paid down some $40 billion worth of debt, recognizing that there could be some troubled waters ahead.
 I remember the time when that discussion was taking place. I had not yet been elected but I remember being at home and listening to how some of the other parties suggested that the $40 billion that had been used to pay down the debt should have been spent in other areas of government. However, we resisted that because we knew that the best thing for the Canadians economy and for Canadians was to start to pay down our debt. 
When the global economy did eventually turn, as it did in late 2008 and in 2009, we were in an extraordinary position to meet that challenge and to actually succeed in ensuring that Canadian prosperity and Canadian families could enjoy future economic opportunities.
What did we do in 2008 and 2009 when the global economy started to shift? We started to invest. We again sought the advice of Canadians. We asked Canadian businesses, Canadian families and our partners at the provincial and municipal levels what we needed to do to make sure that hope that opportunity continued in this country. We asked what we needed to do to guarantee that our health care system and the social programs that Canadians rely on could be guaranteed for future generations.
That is when we brought forward Canada's first economic action plan. It was an incredible document that sought advice from all kinds of Canadians. In the first phase of that economic action plan, we set out a very aggressive agenda to reinvest in our country, to make a very large investment with our provincial and municipal partners in roads, sewers and hospitals, as well as massive investments in our colleges and universities and in our recreation and sporting facilities.
We did all of the things that we needed to do in order to give the economy and our small businesses—our wealth generators, and the people who create jobs—the opportunity to succeed as we came out of the global economic downturn. 
The results are quite clear. Despite the global economic downturn, this government has created over 700,000 net new jobs. These are predominantly full-time jobs and very well-paying jobs. Canada is leading the G7 in terms of economic prosperity. It is leading the G7 in terms of economic growth.
We know that the first phase of Canada's economic action plan was an incredible and resounding success, and through the last election we said that it was now time for us to move forward. It is time for us to move forward to continue to guarantee long-term growth in this country.
We asked what we needed to do that, and Canadians told us to continue to move forward by reducing taxes but to also start to bring the budget back into balance. That is what this government has been doing for the last year, after consulting Canadians.
The economic action plan introduced by the award-winning Minister of Finance outlines a clear course, a clear path to a balanced budget, but it does even more than that. It continues to reduce taxes for Canadians. It continues to reduce taxes for our small businesses. It gets out of the way of people who want to create wealth and jobs and opportunity.
As part of the consultations for the economic action plan, the red tape commission was formed. That red tape commission criss-crossed this country and asked people how government could assist them and how government could get out of the way.
 Part of the economic action plan going forward is a recognition that when government brings in a regulation, another regulation should be removed, so that we do not handcuff the people who want to create jobs in this country. I think that is an extraordinarily important initiative.
The Minister of Finance, along with the Minister of Health, announced a long-term strategy to guarantee that we have sufficient resources and some record funding for health care in this country. We have said to our provincial partners and to our friends at the municipal level that we will continue to work with them and not against them, that the days of unilateral cuts, as we saw from previous Liberal governments, are over, and that this government was going to work with them in the best interests of all Canadians.
We have moved forward with trade agreements with the European Union. We are expanding markets for our manufacturers. We are doing more with respect to environmental assessment to make sure that we not only protect Canadian jobs but also open up new markets. For the manufacturers in southern Ontario, this is an extraordinary benefit. It is the manufacturers of southern Ontario that support the wealth that is being created in the west through our oil and natural resources, so they are very excited by the opportunity.
When we look more closely at the department that I have the honour of working with, Canadian Heritage, we can see the opportunities we are creating there by protecting the investments we have made. This government, throughout the global economic downturn, was one of the only governments that did not just maintain funding for arts and culture but actually increased funding for arts and culture. We did that because we understand that arts and culture are very important to the Canadian economy. They are the source of thousands of jobs and the source of an incredible amount of revenue generated across the country.
We have guaranteed and maintained the highest level of funding for the Canada Council for the Arts in this budget. When we came to office, our museums were struggling; this government increased funding to our national museums. We have created two new national museums in Halifax and Winnipeg and we have guaranteed the funding to those national museums. We are investing record amounts in youth programs across the country.
The future is very bright indeed for this country. Through the continued efforts of the Minister of Finance and all of the members on this side of the House to guarantee that future through this economic action plan by voting with it, we can ensure a very prosperous and happy future for Canadians for generations to come.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary talks about future generations, and that is one of our primary concerns in looking at this legislation: the failure to look to future generations, to think about what we owe future generations, both in terms of our fiscal performance and in terms of the ecological deficit we will leave.
One of the pieces of legislation repealed in this act spoke specifically to the question of intergenerational equity through the concept of sustainable development. The Minister of the Environment has put forward the idea that we can eliminate the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy because we now have the Internet.
I would like to tell the hon. parliamentary secretary that no technological gizmo can replace getting CEOs of Canada's leading industries in the same room with trade union leaders, in the same room with environmental experts and in the same room with first nations to come to better decisions for future generations.
[Interjection]
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, of course the environment is extraordinarily important to the members on this side of the House. My family was one of the first families to donate a conservation easement across 60 acres of 100 acres of land that we owned just north of Markham. That easement was given to the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust to preserve significant amounts of natural heritage.
This government has continued to do that. Before I was elected and before that member was elected, we worked with our partners, the Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ducks Unlimited, and put significant investments into securing our natural heritage across this country. I know that in my riding we have announced the creation of a new park, the Rouge Park. We are doing a lot of things. 
Some can talk about environmental protection; we chose a different path. What we chose to do is to actually act on protecting our environment. That is why greenhouse gases are coming down. That is why we are creating new parks. That is why this government has decided to get out of programs and services that do not work and to focus on those that actually do work for the environment and the Canadian economy.
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to say that the environment is being protected when regulations are being dismantled and scientists are being fired.
My colleague said that the government is very careful not to spend too much on politicians and to protect services to people. In fact, the Conservatives are cutting 55,000 jobs in the public service, but they will increase the size of this House by 10%. They will increase the number of seats to 338 when there is no need to do that. We are able to address the imbalance between the provinces by keeping this House at the caucus it has today with 308 seats.
What kind of scandal is this, when politicians are thinking about themselves and cutting people?
[Interjection]
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member does not know that I actually represent the largest riding in the country. There are 228,000 people who call my riding home. Why should the vote of the people in my riding count for significantly less than the vote of people in the ridings of other members of the House? I represent more people than Prince Edward Island.
I think that the good, hard-working people of Oak Ridges—Markham deserve equal representation. That is why the minister of democratic reform has finally sought to balance that representation here in the House. I am very proud of what the minister has done. I am very proud that this government has actually had the courage to look at how we are represented. I am extraordinarily excited for the people of my region, because their vote will finally equal the votes of people in other parts of this country.
I know that I represent the 228,000 people in my riding very well, but they deserve to have their vote count as much as anybody else's does.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, the member for Oak Ridges—Markham talked a bit about the history of the economic action plan, how we had to stimulate the economy and where we are going now.
 Of course the focus in terms of where we are going now is on having jobs available for our workforce, having a responsible government that spends within its means and moving back toward a balanced budget.
I would ask the member this: if we were not making this very important move to return to a balanced budget, what would be the long-term future for Canada and Canadians?
[Interjection]
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. We can see what the result is if we look at other jurisdictions around the world that did not focus on the economy and on balancing their budget. We are seeing extraordinary turmoil in Europe. We are seeing the difficulties that our friends to the south are having. That is why, in this country, we have talked to Canadians, and they have told us that it is very important that we return our budget back into balance. They understand that what we had to do through economic action plan one was to stimulate the economy. 
However, the hon. member is quite correct. Canadians want us to return this budget back to balance because they know that through a balanced budget we can guarantee funding for health care, for social programs and for all of those programs and services that Canadians depend on and all the things that make this country the best place in the world in which to live.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38 is a rather crafty bill. It is another one of the Conservatives' strategies to ram things down Canadians' throats. It is a frontal attack on government accountability measures. As the Treasury Board critic, the thing that concerns me the most is how this bill would make our government and our democracy even less transparent and accountable.
A major theme of Bill C-38 was not even in budget 2012, namely the reduction of the Auditor General's oversight powers. This bill eliminates the requirements for a mandatory audit by the Auditor General of the financial statements of 12 agencies. It is important for Canadians to know that. 
The 12 agencies are Northern Pipeline Agency Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Canada Revenue Agency, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, the Exchange Fund Account established under the Currency Act, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Polar Commission, the Yukon Surface Rights Board, and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 
What is more, Bill C-38 dissolves the Public Appointments Commission. Doing away with this commission will significantly reduce the transparency of the public appointment process and will open the door to more political interference.
For these reasons alone, I am against this bill, and I think that most Canadians are as well.
Democracy is a fragile thing, and it must be protected. We cannot allow a procedural strategy of this government to undermine it.
This bill contains yet more pills that are hard for Canadians to swallow. For example, Bill C-38 will also weaken reporting requirements in the area of environmental protection by limiting the scope of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and increasing the minister's discretionary power. Once again, we see the theme of concentrating authority in the offices of the minister and the Prime Minister.
Bill C-38 reduces transparency with regard to the evaluation of large pipeline projects and allows cabinet to overrule the National Energy Board's decisions about such projects. This is another measure that lacks transparency.
Bill C-38 also reduces the government's transparency with regard to fisheries and oceans. It reduces transparency with regard to the protection of fish habitats and does away with the obligation to examine the possible effects of proposed projects. The bill also attacks the health of at-risk Canadians by reducing government transparency with regard to food safety and by giving the minister the authority to ignore the Food and Drugs Act and arbitrarily exempt certain foods and drugs from the regulations designed to protect Canadians against harmful substances.
That is not all. Bill C-38 does away with the position of Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Why? Because he has been very critical of the agency and the government.
The bill also dissolves the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, thereby reducing the available sources of independent scientific advice that can help to guide the development of government and parliamentary policies. In short, it eliminates any criticism of the government.
Bill C-38  also does away with the First Nations Statistical Institute, once again eliminating an independent source of statistics on first nations that is essential to the development of transparent and effective policies on the issues faced by the first nations of this country.
The bill increases the minister's discretionary power on immigration and refugee measures and—I repeat—it does so at the expense of an independent and transparent decision-making process.
Canadians listening today will no doubt be surprised about all of this and they would be right to wonder why all of these unrelated measures are included in this bill. Are we not talking about a budget implementation bill? Then again, they probably have not seen a budget bill like this, consisting of 420-plus pages. As they can see, Bill C-38, which is meant to implement budget 2012, actually goes much further than the budget document. This massive-paged bill not only contains measures outlined in the budget but, as I pointed out, includes many previously unannounced changes that could potentially change Canada forever. It is a full frontal assault on the principle of transparency.
 A full one-third of the 420-plus pages of Bill C-38 is not even dedicated to budget implementation, but rather to gutting one regulation after another, things that are in place to protect Canadians, to inform Canadians. No doubt, my colleagues on the other side of the benches will say that this is about freedom. In addition, the bill includes a series of previously unannounced measures that would contribute to a more secretive environment and government. 
Unlike Conservatives, New Democrats believe in a respectful and open Parliament. We believe that it is inappropriate to try to sneak measures through parliamentary procedures and particularly by legislation that would only make government less accountable.
It is even more regrettable, and I cannot believe I am actually saying this yet again, that the government wants to silence Parliament and the people of Canada by passing a time allocation motion on the bill. I am beginning to wonder how many democrats are still left on the other side of the benches. There may be several, but they are probably silenced by the Prime Minister and their caucus, a Prime Minister who unfortunately seems to be more and more obsessed with secrecy and control.
The different provisions affecting regulations in the bill must be debated in the House and in the committees that are responsible for their legislation. Canadians have a right to know these things are being changed. Sneaking them through a budget implementation bill is a total lack of democratic process. Canadians deserve better than secrecy and the government.
What is the solution? Separate the bills and bring out the regulations that are specifically related to the environment, food security and oceans and fisheries. Separate these elements so they can be brought to Parliament for debate. Send them to the committees so they can hear from independent experts who can tell us what effect they will have on our future and on the futures of our children.
I can stand here and take offence to the fact that these measures have been introduced in an omnibus bill, but ultimately the decision is the government's. I hope the government and my colleagues on the other side, particularly those who I know are dedicated with heart and soul to the democratic process, will change this bill.
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. When he talked about debate, was he aware that last month his colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster spent 13 hours filibustering by reading tweets in the House. It prevented literally dozens of MPs from getting in on the debate. 
The truth is there is a democratically-elected government in our country and no matter what we bring forward, the NDP will be against it. It wants to put forth policies like those in Europe, where countries, whether it is Greece, Portugal or Spain. New Democrats want to bring Canada down to that level. We are trying to support jobs. 
Could the member stand in the House and name any policies by the NDP that are consistent with creating jobs, because New Democrats have voted against every one that we have put forward?
[Interjection]
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, clearly promoting a greener economy creates jobs. Every expert understands that. If we look at examples in Europe, whether it be Sweden, France or Germany, the green economy is booming and we could do the same.
On the first point the member made about a lack of debate, the reality is we are now at 18 time allocations on bills, the most in history. I do not think the member needs to be congratulating himself.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is worth repeating, as the member has pointed out, that we have consistently said throughout this debate that Canadians need to be aware and concerned about what the government is doing with this bill. 
Today we are supposed to be debating a budget bill, a bill that deals with the priorities of government. We can see the priorities of the budget when we hear the government of the day saying that is going to increase the number of members of Parliament while at the same time reducing the number of civil servants.
 We see a bill that incorporates legislation that would have a profound impact on issues like the environment. By incorporating the two, we are preventing people from having input into a substantial policy initiative. It should have been a stand-alone bill along with numerous other bills that are all being incorporated into this bill. 
I wonder if the member might want to add further comment to that issue.
[Interjection]
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the government's strategy is to make Canadians swallow pills that are hard to swallow by hiding certain measures like this one in omnibus bills.
The NDP is calling for a separate debate regarding the regulations that are to be modified, which could change things for Canada and for our children's future.
Jean-François Fortin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to add my voice to that of my distinguished colleague to condemn how this budget is being passed—through force and closure. As hon. members know, this is a completely undemocratic measure, especially since this budget contains a huge number of bills that should be debated outside the budget process.
The budget bill also includes a provision to exclude banks from the application of Quebec laws.
I would like to hear more of my colleague's thoughts on this. For instance, Quebec legislation currently sets a limit on interest rates, a usurious rate, which has been established at 35% by case law, while the federal Criminal Code establishes it at 60%. 
What does the member think of that?
[Interjection]
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for the question.
That is another example that illustrates how this government operates and how it likes to interfere in provincial areas of jurisdiction. The Conservatives bragged about having consulted Canadians regarding the budget and this bill. Clearly, they did not consult Quebec. The federal government has a duty to respect the measures that are in place to protect consumers and Quebeckers. 
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. 
This act would take important steps toward addressing current challenges and helping to take advantage of opportunities in the global economy. At the same time, this legislation would ensure that Canada's social programs would be sustainable and our public finances would remain sound for future generations.
Indeed, with the economic action plan 2012, our government is looking ahead, not only over the next few years but for years to come. The measures presented in the bill are substantial, responsible and necessary. They will ensure that across the government we are focused on enabling and sustaining Canada's long-term economic growth.
 Included within these measures is our government's plan for responsible resource development. I would like to take this time to focus on the plan and why it is so important to my riding of Prince George—Peace River and our national economy.
Canada's abundant natural resources have always been an important part of our economy. Few countries are as blessed with natural resources as we are. Canada ranks first in the production of potash, second in uranium production and third in natural gas, hydroelectricity production and proven oil reserves. We are also among the top five producers in the world of more than 10 minerals and metals, including nickel, aluminum and diamonds.
In 2010 Canada's natural resource sectors employed more than 760,000 workers across the country. In fact, the mining and energy sectors alone represent 10% of the Canadian economy and 40% of our exports. In the next 10 years, more than 500 new projects, representing over $500 billion in new investments, will be proposed for Canada. The potential for job growth is absolutely huge.
In my riding, where natural resources continue to drive the local economy, I have heard from many constituents about the need to grab on to these opportunities.
Currently, companies undertaking major projects must navigate a complex maze of regulatory requirements and processes and approval processes are long and unpredictable.
If we are to compete with other resource-rich countries for those vital job-creating investment dollars, we need to put in place a world-class regulatory system to review major projects. We need a system that ensures timely, efficient and effective reviews, a system that promotes business confidence and investment, while strengthening our world-class environmental standards.
As Pierre Gratton, president and CEO of Mining Association of Canada, said following the tabling of budget 2012:
 Canada is in a global competition for mining investment and an effective and efficient regulatory regime can provide a competitive advantage over other jurisdictions. 
Since 2006, our government has been working to streamline the review process for major economic projects.
 These efforts have made a difference without having a negative environmental impact. However, more work needs to be done.
That is why our government is taking action, in budget 2012, with our plan for responsible resource development. The plan would streamline the review process for major economic projects by providing predictable timelines for project approvals. It would prevent long delays that kill potential jobs and stall economic growth by putting value investment at risk. Most important, responsible resource development would create good, skilled and well-paying jobs in cities and communities across the country, while maintaining the highest possible standards for protecting the environment.
The plan's guiding principle is simple and straightforward. In protecting the environment, our sense of common good should be matched by our good common sense: common sense to clear up the clutter and confusion that comes with having more than 40 federal departments and agencies involved in environmental assessments; common sense in addressing the delays and unpredictability of the current system with its open-ended reviews that often require, not only several months, but several years to complete; common sense in eliminating unnecessary duplication within the federal government itself and between the federal government and the provincial governments; and common sense in making our efforts to protect the environment as effective as possible.
Common good and commons sense, the two pillars of good public policy, are front and centre in our plan to modernize the regulatory system.
As it stands now, Canada's review process has become bogged in procedures delays, jurisdictional overlaps and unpredictable timelines. Major projects are subject to long and potentially endless delays because of needlessly complex and duplicative review process. This tangled web of rules and procedures now jeopardizes the timely and responsible development of our natural resources.
 In order to move toward a more efficient and effective regulatory system, we need to make changes.
The goal of responsible resource development is one project, one review, in a clearly defined period of time. That is simple. To accomplish this goal, measures introduced in Bill C-38 would focus federal assessment efforts on major projects that could have a significant effect on the environment. Under the current system, thousands of small projects that pose little or no risk to the environment still get reviewed. This bill would consolidate federal responsibilities for environmental assessments in three agencies: the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. It would reduce unnecessary duplication by better integrating federal and provincial requirements for major economic projects and establish fixed timelines for government activities associated with reviews. They are: 24 months for review panels under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and 18 months for projects under the National Energy Board Act. 
These are just a few of the ways our government would make the system more efficient. At the same time, these proposed measures would continue to make the regulatory system more effective in protecting the environment by taking real, concrete and substantive action. We would introduce enforceable environmental assessment decision statements to ensure project proponents comply with mitigation measures, as well as new penalties for violations. We would enhance pipeline and marine safety through initiatives such as a strengthened tanker safety regime and a substantial increase in the number of inspections for oil and gas pipelines. We would strengthen compliance by authorizing the use of administrative monetary penalties for violations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the National Energy Board Act.
In co-operation with provincial governments, we would allow the greater use of regional environmental assessments to identify and address potential regional and cumulative effects of projects, especially in areas experiencing large-scale developments.
Despite what some may suggest, with natural resource development we do not have to choose between the economy or the environment. The two can, and must, go together. It will, however, take a lot of hard work that would require a comprehensive approach to ensure that we are doing things right. 
We Canadians have a wonderful new opportunity before us. The global economy's appetite for the kinds of resources we have is bigger than it ever has been, and it even continues to grow. There is no better time to act than right now. We have to give ourselves every chance possible to compete for the job-creating investment dollars in fast-growing markets in Asia and elsewhere.
I know that it is not only possible but absolutely necessary to develop our natural resources in a responsible way. That means maintaining, and in fact strengthening, our protection of the environment. In resource-rich regions, like that of my riding in northeastern B.C, the future of our local economies will ultimately be decided by the way in which we approach development of our natural resources. I believe in our government's approach to responsible resource development. That is why I am encouraging all members of the House to support the bill. 
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech on the budget. I did not hear him speak about raising the age of OAS eligibility from 65 to 67. Why did the government not campaign on the fact that it would raise the OAS eligibility age? 
A few minutes ago, after question period, I presented a petition asking the government to eliminate poverty in Canada. It was signed by dozens and dozens of people from across my riding. Why is the government raising the age from 65 to 67, which will, unfortunately, cause more poverty for seniors in Canada? 
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the member's question, even though it has little relevance to what I had just spoken about. What he needs to understand is that in order to have an affordable pension system we need to increase that age. That is the negative part. Also we need to develop our natural resources to be able to provide for social programs like that. We need to do it responsibly, but we absolutely need to do it. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member will acknowledge that the budget debate and this bill are very important. The bill establishes the priorities of the Conservative government. I will stay away from how the Conservatives have bundled in other legislation that should have stood alone.
The question I would like to ask the member is in regard to priorities of expenditures. How would the member justify to his own constituents that on the one hand the Conservatives are cutting back thousands of civil servant spots while on the other hand they are increasing the number of politicians inside the House of Commons and the staff that would accompany that increase?
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, once again it has little relevance to what I just spoke about but I will answer his question.
 One of our members who just stood up in the House represents a riding of 228,000 people. I represent a riding of approximately 105,000 people. There is clearly a disparity there and something needs to be done about that. That is why our Minister of State for Democratic Reform has introduced the expansion of seats, to address that democratic deficiency.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague more about what this budget means for the development of our resources, both in western Canada and right across this country of ours. He talked about the—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. I hate to interrupt the hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West. There is too much noise in the chamber. When an hon. member is speaking, we ask that other members keep their conversations low enough out of respect for the hon. member who has the floor.
The hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West.
[Interjection]
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to expand on what it means to debate the issue of proper environmental assessment. How is this going to help increase investment in our country so that we are able to export to the rest of the world and create jobs right here in Canada? 
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing right now, especially in northeastern B.C., is projects that are literally being timed out. By the time a project has been finally approved there is no longer even a desire to use that natural resource because somebody else has beaten us to the market.
What the member asked is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to expedite those assessments so we can get to those markets in a timely fashion. We want to develop our natural resources responsibly so once again we can add to the 760,000 jobs that we already produced in Canada and make Canada a better place because people have jobs.
Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-38. Unfortunately, not everyone in the House will have that opportunity because, once again, the Conservatives have moved a time allocation motion. This is the 18th closure motion we have had this year. It is truly scandalous and shameful of the Conservatives to prevent us from exercising our democratic right.
The incredibly massive Bill C-38 will completely change Canada's environmental laws, among others. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, of which I am a member, studied the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act quickly, without bothering to properly assess all the necessary situations or hear from the witnesses it needed to hear from in order to do this report justice. The report was rushed and clumsily written. Yet the changes in the bill are based on this report. These changes, as we see very clearly, will hinder development. My hon. colleague says it is common sense, but I beg to differ. It is dangerous. Putting all our efforts into oil, gas, industries and pipelines will not protect the environment. That makes no sense.
In his speech, my hon. colleague said that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will benefit industry. I am sorry, but an environmental assessment act is there to protect the environment, not to invest in industry. What he said earlier is far from common sense.
This bill is truly worrisome. The cornerstone of federal environmental protection will be totally shattered. It will break. This is all happening quickly without any opportunity for study.
In the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, we pleaded for the chance to study this bill that will truly change things and turn Canada on its head when it comes to environmental protection. Do you know what we were told? That this would be debated and reviewed in the Standing Committee on Finance. That is not where this work should be done. This bill should be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. 
I know that the report on the Environmental Assessment Act has been read. The NDP presented a dissenting report. I must point out that, when the report was studied, we did not hear witnesses from the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development or Parks Canada. Parks Canada was not even invited. We have learned that many jobs at Parks Canada are being eliminated. Does anyone realize that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development is currently studying a national conservation plan? We want to protect biodiversity. Canada is the country that is doing the least to protect biodiversity.
Furthermore, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy will be shut down by this budget. We are going to abandon a forum that brought the economy and the environment together. Is that common sense? The round table will be eliminated even though the report clearly shows that marine biodiversity is endangered. We have to do something. We have signed an international agreement that says we must protect 10% of marine habitats. How many of our marine habitats are protected at present? Only 1%. We want to develop a great national conservation plan but cuts are being made to Parks Canada. That is truly shameful. 
I could provide many more examples. I urge my colleagues to read the NDP's dissenting report on the Environmental Assessment Act. It clearly shows all the work that was not done and makes it clear that this bill is an attempt to hide the problem.
 I really want to talk about the fact that they are also going to get rid of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. Right now, are my colleagues in this House aware of the position we are taking and what work is being done on addressing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions?
 In terms of the fight against climate change, in 2009, Canada ranked eighth and last among G8 countries and 59th out of 60 major countries in the world, just ahead of Saudi Arabia. That is really bad.
 Recently, Inuit representatives appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. They told us that some people want development in the north and want to build pipelines, even though the north is suffering the effects of climate change and polar bears have become a threat to northern residents because the ice is melting and they do not have any place to fish.
 Do people know that, right now, the permafrost is almost all gone and all the infrastructure in the north is going to have to be rebuilt? Climate change is not just something that is going to happen in 10 or 15 years; it is something that is happening right now. We absolutely must fight climate change. But this budget contains no concrete measures or efforts to do that.
 In fact, the Conservative government has eliminated a great program that worked really well, the eco-energy home retrofit program, which allowed all Canadians to do their part. It was the only program that made sense; the only program that existed to fight climate change.
 And what is being done in this budget to fight climate change? More industries are being created and more oil is being produced from the oil sands. They want to increase our production of oil from the oil sands, not to meet our needs here in Canada, but to meet the needs of China and Asia. Is that what Canada's natural resources plan involves? Is that our plan for a diversified economy?
 The minister wrote in the budget that this is a long-term budget. No, it is not. It is a short-term budget that aims solely at making money in the short term with the oil from the oil sands, and then they will take the money and run. I am sorry, but they will not be able to go anywhere else, because the issue of global warming is a priority for the whole planet, right now.
 We have a target to meet: not more than 2% of global warming over the next few years, or else we are headed for disaster. 
 The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which our dear friends the Conservatives are unfortunately going to abolish in this budget, has stated that the longer we wait to invest in the fight against climate change, the more it will cost Canadians.
 The Conservatives think that sitting back and doing nothing will bring down taxes. That is not true. The Conservatives have told us many times that it is the NDP that wants to increase taxes, but the only program that is really going to increase taxes is the budget. It will lead to higher taxes for Canadians. That is what is going to happen.
 If we do not start fighting climate change immediately, it will cost us more in the long run. And this is in the reports of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Unfortunately, they are going to get rid of the round table, which was fair and which brought together business people, people from industry, environmentalists and the first nations; all these groups were invited to sit at the same table to draft completely impartial reports.
 How can we fight climate change and improve the environment when we are cutting back on science? That is serious now. We do not think that science is the be-all and end-all, but science makes it possible to make the right decisions.
 In conclusion, I would like to urge the Conservatives to make an effort and allow the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the other appropriate committees to examine the laws that are being amended.
 I have not talked about the Fisheries Act, even though dangerous changes can be foreseen in fish habitat. This is very serious and it absolutely must be studied by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, some of that absolutely defied logic.
We introduced this budget on March 29, which was five weeks ago. We had some incredible support from economists across Canada. Avery Shenfeld from CIBC World Markets, Tina Kremmidas from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Craig Alexander from TD Economics and Doug Porter from BMO Capital Markets want us to get this job done and get this budget passed.
We had a member from the opposition who stood in this House for 13 hours taking up time that would have been given to members of Parliament to debate this budget and yet the member who just stood here in the House said that there has not been enough time. I wonder if he has spoken to his colleague and asked why he used that time that was so ineffective and not give other members of the House the opportunity to debate.
[Interjection]
François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I can quote people too. According to a group of some 100 scientists—I said 100 scientists—the proposed repeal of habitat protection measures under the Fisheries Act would be an extremely ill-advised action that would endanger some very significant fish stocks, as well as the lakes, estuaries and rivers where they live. The weakening of habitat protection measures, consistent with the description in section 35 of the Fisheries Act, will have a highly negative impact on the quality of water resources and fisheries across the country.
It is impossible to chip away at the Fisheries Act, saying that we will protect only one fish species, but not its habitat or the ecosystem in which it feeds. That will not work.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I will continue on with what my colleague on my left made reference to.
 We have a substantial piece of legislation that would have a profound impact, not only on budgetary items. It talks about the fishing industry and the environment. I believe there are some 70 pieces of legislation. One could argue that this in itself is almost four years of legislation that is tied into this one bill. 
I wonder if the member could provide comment as to how democracy has been served a huge blow because the Conservative government does not seem to prioritize democracy as something that is important to Canadians.
[Interjection]
François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
 I entirely agree with his analysis. We are currently witnessing a flagrant lack of democracy. We have asked, are asking and will continue to ask the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to analyze the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. As I mentioned earlier, that act is the cornerstone of environmental protection at the federal level.
 Unfortunately, they want to weaken the act to the point where my Conservative colleagues claim there will be more industry and pipelines as a result of this legislation. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is supposed to protect the environment, but the Conservatives tell us it will make it possible to have more industry and more pipelines. That makes no sense.
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday we learned that the president of Taseko Mines had sent the Minister of the Environment a letter requesting three things: that no aboriginals be appointed to the committee assessing his project; that the hearings not start with an aboriginal drum and prayer ceremony; and that spirituality not be considered an aboriginal right.
 I would like my colleague to tell me whether the measures proposed by this government will help in meeting that kind of request.
[Interjection]
François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for his question.
It is one of the federal government’s fundamental duties to sit down with the first nations, with the aboriginal communities, to ensure that their rights are respected. That is one of the important points in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. People must be allowed to speak and to be consulted. Their rights, which are international rights, must be respected.
Unfortunately, no one has taken the time to conduct proper consultations on all these measures, all these changes. A lot of people have not been met, and the job has unfortunately been botched. The Conservatives have botched their job.
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak in the House today in support of the government’s economic action plan 2012.
It is an excellent budget that keeps taxes low, creates jobs and ensures growth and long-term prosperity. It is a solid plan that will help my constituents to benefit from a firm economic foundation for Canada and to prosper from low tax and deficit eliminating policies that will benefit our country.
What are we trying to accomplish through our budget? We are focusing on strengthening our Canadian economy, on creating jobs, on streamlining government operations and on ending wasteful spending in order to move Canada to balanced budgets, all without raising taxes and without cutting important transfers to the provinces. I simply must emphasize that we are the only party in the House that advocates for lower taxes and that defends lower taxes.
 The economic action plan is important for Canadians, as it is for the people of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell who gave the government a clear mandate to focus on the important issues: jobs and economic growth.
 I have assured the people of my constituency that our strong, stable Conservative majority government will not rest until it has led Canada onto the road to certain economic prosperity, and when that has been done, there will still be much more to do.
 I therefore hope that the NDP members will join me in supporting the budget this year, a budget that, I have to say, Canadians are satisfied with.
In terms of specifics, our economic budget is one that will bring back the hiring credit for small business. I know how important that is to the business owners in my riding. This hiring credit will help them create jobs and hire new employees, skilled people who will move their businesses to increased prosperity. This and other job creation initiatives will allow businesses to take advantage of economic and market opportunities when they present themselves. Our latest budget extends this valuable hiring credit for another year.
It is also heartening to see the return of the youth employment strategy in this year's budget. This program, which enables businesses to hire skilled youth over the summer, will allow our youth access to mentorship in their own communities, and the skills they help develop within our youth will have long-lasting value. 
 It is clear to me that federal employment initiatives like this one produce good results in the communities and benefit both students and businesses.
 The government will also make a generous $30 million investment over three years in the opportunities fund and will create a special group on job opportunities for persons with disabilities.
 These are excellent employment strategies and, again, they will contribute to job creation. These strategies will ensure that persons with disabilities, who sometimes have considerable difficulty finding jobs, will not be left by the wayside.
Our economic action plan does not end here. In fact, there is more.
For example, we have studied employment insurance carefully and we are committed to improving this program so that it better serves Canadians. Our budget, therefore, includes important measures to connect unemployed Canadians with available jobs without penalizing them.
Our economic action plan 2012 proposes introducing a new national working while on claim EI pilot project. It is my hope that my colleagues within the opposition parties will have a careful look at this initiative. The proposed initiatives would remove disincentives to work by ensuring that EI claimants benefit from available work, particularly part-time employment, and are not penalized by EI as they seek a full-time position.
I would like to make a few comments on agriculture as agriculture is a crucial sector for my riding and accounts for approximately two million jobs nationwide.
Our budget continues to focus on establishing and strengthening the right conditions for farmers to succeed, and our farmers are succeeding. Agriculture contributes enormously to our country's economy, with nearly $35.5 billion in exports, which makes Canada the world's fifth largest exporter of agriculture and food products.
 To be prosperous, farmers have to have access to the resources they need to remain competitive and meet the increased needs and demands placed on them. Our budget demonstrates our ongoing objective of helping farmers to penetrate foreign markets.
 Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the government has achieved significant victories in this regard, as witnessed by our agriculture sector, which is more vigorous and dynamic as a result of exporting top quality Canadian products around the world.
We have put in place nine free trade agreements already, and we are working on many more. In addition, we are opening markets for our Canadian beef, pork, canola, pulse crops, wheat and the list goes on. Our efforts and our successes have been well recognized by the agricultural sector, by industry and by our opposition colleagues themselves.
Our economic action plan states clearly that we will continue our work to expand market opportunities for our farmers. We will continue to work on their behalf to ensure that people in other countries have access to our high-quality Canadian food.
 I would like to say a few words about food safety. Canadians know that the government takes this issue seriously and that here in Canada, food is safe. I know that my opposition colleagues are concerned about food safety. In fact, in both the House and committee, I have heard opposition members ask questions that would suggest that funding for this has been reduced.
I have good news for my opposition colleagues, news that will ensure they do indeed vote for our budget implementation act. The news is that this year's budget includes an additional $51 million for food safety initiatives. I saw some opposition eyebrows raise when I said this, but I invite opposition members to read page 168 of the budget.
I know they secretly support this great initiative, and I would say to them that even if there is not one other thing they can support in this budget, at least vote in favour of increased funding for food safety. It is the right thing to do.
I just do not know how they could possibly vote against food safety, but they will likely find a way.
I know what you are thinking, Mr. Speaker: “Do not despair, have courage; it is increased funding for food safety, which is what they have been asking for”, but let us remember that in the last budget, we increased funding for food safety by $100 million. However, the Liberal and NDP MPs all voted against it. They asked for increased funding for food safety and we gave them increased funding for food safety, but they still voted against it.
Despite this pattern, it is my hope that the opposition will indeed vote in favour of this budget.
Canadians have long awaited the tabling of our economic action plan, and since the budget was tabled it has become apparent that Canadians like our budget and that they support our budget.
Our economic action plan focuses on what is most important to Canadians in these difficult economic times: strengthening our economy, creating new jobs, reducing government expenditures, eliminating waste and eliminating our deficit, all without raising taxes.
 I listen to Canadians, as do my Conservative colleagues, and we will be voting for this budget. I sincerely hope that the opposition members, and particularly the New Democrats and Liberals, will also listen to Canadians and vote for this budget, as Canadians want them to do.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. parliamentary secretary will have five minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the motion.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Housing[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 28 consideration of the motion.
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the motion before the House today. 
First, let me state that our government supports the motion, as it provides a great opportunity for the government to share the unprecedented federal investments that have been made and continue to be made in housing initiatives. I am sure the hon. member for Shefford would agree that important progress is being made to prevent and reduce homelessness and to ensure Canadians have access to affordable housing. Our government has already made investments to improve access to affordable housing and to address the issue of homelessness in communities across the country. We have funded more than 16,500 projects to do just that.
Motion No. 331 calls on the government to ensure that federal housing programs provide economic benefit to local housing construction businesses. I would like to focus my remarks today on this particular aspect of the motion. Specifically, I want to explain how federal housing initiatives and investments under Canada's economic action plan help create jobs for Canadians while expanding and improving the stock of social housing across the country.
As I am sure the member opposite is aware, our economic action plan invested record amounts in social housing, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs across more than 10,000 projects. Our government responded decisively in January of 2009 to the global economic crisis with a plan to stabilize the economy and put Canadians back to work. Over the past few years, we made important investments that have helped Canadians weather the global recession and provide the solutions needed to secure our long-term growth and prosperity.
Our government mobilized all its resources and engaged with all its partners to deliver a $60 billion shot in the arm to the economy, and the plan worked. Budget 2012 reported that more than 30,000 projects were completed under the stimulus phase of the economic action plan, while projects have contributed to a strong labour market recovery with more than 693,000 net new jobs created since July of 2009. 
A good number of those jobs have been in the housing sector. Thanks to targeted government investments in housing and the industry's ability to quickly ramp up construction and renovation activities, housing was a source of economic strength and stability in Canada throughout the recession. This was no accident. Our government recognized that housing is a great job creator. Housing construction and renovation employs a large number of Canadians with good wages, and people were put to work quickly. We know that most of the materials used are Canadian-made, and this generates even more jobs and economic activity.
There are other good reasons to invest in housing. Benefits flow to communities all across the country. Certainly not the least of all, investments in housing provide permanent benefits in the form of improving housing and living conditions for Canadians. This is why Canada's economic action plan provided a total of $7.8 billion to build quality housing, encourage home ownership and enhance home energy efficiency. This resulted in more than 15,000 individual projects, which is truly a testament to our strong, decisive action to support Canadians during the downturn. It included everything from tax breaks for first-time homebuyers to a temporary home renovation credit that millions of families took advantage of. These investments encouraged Canadians to improve their homes, generating business for renovation contractors, building product manufacturers and retailers across the country.
Even though the party across the way voted against all of these initiatives, I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to know that we continue to invest heavily in housing. The economic action plan also included more than $2 billion over two years to renovate existing and build new social housing, which has resulted in more than 1,300 social housing projects. To ensure that these funds flowed as quickly and effectively as possible, the majority of these investments were delivered by provinces and territories through amendments to existing housing agreements.
These initiatives in social housing targeted some of the most vulnerable groups in society. Over two years, our government provided $400 million to build more housing for low-income seniors, which created 21,000 projects, and $75 million to build housing for people with disabilities, which created more than 400 projects. A further $200 million was set aside to create more than 200 projects for Canadians living in the north, and $400 million was invested in housing on reserve.
Our Conservative government also invested $1 billion to renovate and retrofit existing social housing, to help vulnerable Canadians with needed improvements to their homes. 
This funding supported energy retrofits, such as upgrades to heating, electrical and ventilation systems, as well as improvements to structural elements and other building components so that these units could continue to provide safe, affordable housing for years to come.
Thanks to these economic action plan investments, budget 2012 reported that an estimated 16,500 social housing units and first nations housing projects had been completed or were under way across Canada. In addition to expanding and improving the stock of social housing, these projects created jobs and helped protect Canada's economy from the deepest global economic downturn since the 1930s.
Hon. members will recall that Canada's economic action plan also included $2 billion in low-cost loans to municipalities for housing-related infrastructure projects in new or existing residential areas. These loans were intended to help municipalities undertake a wide range of projects, everything from upgrading or expanding water, waste water or solid waste systems to building or repairing roads, bridges, sidewalks or green spaces.
As we would expect, the interest from municipalities was strong. More than 270 loans were approved under this program for the full $2 billion that was available. The municipal infrastructure lending program not only allowed municipalities to undertake needed projects earlier and at a lower cost than expected, but it also freed up municipal tax dollars for other important purposes.
What this means for Canada is communities that are better able to meet the needs of current residents and better positioned to manage growth in the future. It also meant jobs, a lot of jobs, more jobs for Canadians.
The Canadian economic recovery is under way, reflecting the extraordinary measures in our government's economic action plan and Canada's strong economic fundamentals.
Canada's economic action plan is now in its next phase, a low-tax plan for jobs and growth. Economic action plan 2012 focuses on the drivers of growth and job creation: innovation, investment, education, skills and communities.
Our government continues to invest in housing. We know from past experience that these investments will provide economic benefits to local housing construction businesses as called for in the motion by the hon. member for Shefford.
We also know that they will expand the stock of affordable rental housing. They will improve quality of life for low-income Canadians, seniors, people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups in society, and they will contribute to stronger communities and a stronger economy.
Let me again thank the hon. member for his motion. Ensuring safe, affordable housing for Canadians is a matter of interest for everyone in this House. We have no hesitation in supporting the motion by the hon. member for Shefford because we have delivered on housing initiatives for Canadians.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on affordable housing. This is a major issue in British Columbia. In fact, it is a major challenge. Many B.C. families do not have adequate housing. The high cost of housing is undermining the social and economic structure of our rural and urban communities.
This issue of affordable housing is not going away and it is really not improving. It is an issue that affects about 15% of all Canadian families, families that are essentially in a situation of not having stable, suitable and affordable shelter. That is known as “core housing need”. Can members imagine that, in a country like Canada?
Actually, I will correct my number; it was 13% in 2006, but my guess is that the statistics are higher now.
There are that many Canadian families not able to focus on the other important aspects of their lives, such as raising strong, responsible children. They are distracted by wondering whether they will be able to pay the rent or find housing that has enough space for family members, or whether that housing can be heated and whether the electrical wiring is safe. So many health and safety concerns are raised when one does not have access to safe, affordable housing that it would be safe to say that it would distract families from their other important objectives. As a health and safety concern, it is a matter of social justice in our country that we address that core housing need of the 13% of families who do not have access.
This issue is also hugely important from an economic perspective, because when housing is not supporting and nourishing the family, it is difficult to focus on other issues, whether it is education, suitable employment, or income mobility, meaning the efforts of the family members to lift themselves up to an income level sufficient to make housing affordable. It is a matter of social justice that we address this issue.
This is one of those big, complex issues that governments really have a responsibility to address and for which they must take a leadership role. That is something that the current Conservative government is completely failing to do.
Affordable housing is an issue that cannot be left to the municipalities, even though our City of Vancouver has made huge strides in bringing together an affordable housing task force and putting affordable housing on the provincial and federal radar again. Vancouver has made a commitment to emergency shelters and to having spaces for people who otherwise would be on the streets of our city. 
Municipalities have a role, but they cannot do it alone, and provinces cannot address this complex challenge of affordable housing alone either, even though in British Columbia, as in other provinces, there have been major influxes of resources and time and effort. In downtown Vancouver, the British Columbia government—and I am sure this is happening in other provinces as well—has purchased buildings and has converted what were rundown hotels into single-resident rooms that can be combined with supports for families or individuals who have other needs in order to reduce the number of people living on the streets and create a portfolio of affordable housing.
So provinces work on this, but they cannot do it alone. What they do not need is a federal government that pumps out some money once in a while but does not have stable, predictable funding and does not take a leadership role on this issue. That is what I am asking the Conservative government to do.
A leadership role does not mean that it is the federal government's responsibility and that the federal government has to be a landlord for affordable housing. However, leadership does mean having discussions with the provinces and municipalities. It does mean taking a lead role in carefully assessing the problem in all its complexities and, with its partners, developing a strategy that will perhaps require funding or other tax measures but that has a compass point that all of the partners are headed toward. It also means having the flexibility to address the issues in the communities where affordable housing is the biggest challenge in the way they need to be addressed to get on top of this problem.
 This is one of those big public policy issues, like access to affordable child care and like access to pension security, that Canadians have faced over the generations. Federal governments, especially the Liberal governments, have actually said in this regard, “Yes, this is not easy to fix, but it is our responsibility, for the fabric of our country and its future, to tackle it.” That is what the Liberal governments did with a number of our social programs that today we are all proud of, programs that provide social security upon retirement. 
That is one program, unfortunately, that the current government wants to change, and to change in such a way that those with the lowest incomes will have to wait two more years to get their pensions, so the burden of the supposed fix would fall most heavily on low-income senior single women. Liberal governments over the years have had the courage and taken the bold action to put those social safety nets in place, and that kind of effort and commitment is needed on the issue of affordable housing.
In British Columbia, affordable housing was the most important and highest-profile policy discussed at the Liberal Party convention last November. The people of British Columbia, along with Liberals from across the province, agreed that affordable housing is critical to the well-being of our residents. It is the responsibility of all citizens and those who have affordable housing to help create a framework to ensure that all people have that right. 
It was a primary proposal by Liberals at our last convention. The solution is federal government leadership, which we are not seeing. In fact, the Conservative government is doing a variety of things to undermine income equality in Canada. Not having affordable housing, which 15% of our families do not have, costs families not only their well-being but also their economic opportunities. In Canada the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing faster than it is in the United States, and some of the government's policies are responsible for that. 
I will cite the example of tax credits. Those credits go only to families who can afford to pay income taxes. For example, the sport tax credit is a transfer of $120 million from the treasury to above-average-income Canadian families, totally leaving out those families who probably are the ones in need of affordable housing.
 The government has a job to do on affordable housing, and it is not doing it. 
I call upon the government, for humanitarian, economic, equality, and justice reasons, to take a leadership role and begin to do its job.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about Motion M-331, which was moved by the hon. member for Shefford, concerning the right to housing and the fight against homelessness. I would like to commend him for his work on this issue.
Since this is a short motion, I would like to read it in order to make sure that the people watching know what we are talking about. It states:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) keep with Canada’s obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the right to housing under the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; (b) support efforts by Canadian municipalities to combat homelessness; and (c) adopt measures to expand the stock of affordable rental housing, with a view to providing economic benefits to local housing construction businesses. 
Access to housing is a problematic situation across Canada. According to the CMHC's most complete data, in 2008, 13% of urban households had core housing needs. Households have core housing needs if their housing is unacceptable because of its quality, size or price. The CMHC found that 1.3 million Canadians in urban centres live in poor-quality housing, housing that is too costly or housing that is too small for the number of family members.
 As one may imagine, low-income families, single-parent families and persons living alone are the ones most likely to be facing core housing needs.
 According to the Observatoire Grand Montréal of the Montreal metropolitan community, 21.8% of rental households in greater Montreal have core housing needs; 49,945 are households with minor children and 23,685 are households in which the primary financial support is a recent immigrant.
 According to the 2006 census, of the 706,619 rental households in the Montreal metropolitan community, 126,580 must spend more than half of their income on housing rather than on other basic needs, such as medication, food and transportation. In the past 10 years, the average rental cost of a two-bedroom home has increased 38% in the greater Montreal area.
 Despite relative prosperity, the situation in the northern ring of Montreal is a concern as the growing population there is putting pressure on housing availability and prices. In the town of Saint-Eustache, for example, 23.2% of households have core housing needs.
 I recently commissioned a survey from Segma Recherche to get a clearer idea of the priorities of people in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. One thousand people were surveyed there in March, and the figures from that survey are consistent with the Observatoire Grand Montréal’s data.
 In Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, 25% of tenants say they have been forced to cut spending on food or medication in order to pay rent in the past year. One in four individuals is paying too much for housing.
 Housing accounts for more than half the disposable income of some households. As that cost cannot be reduced, other basic needs are not being met.
 In view of this disastrous housing situation in Canada, it is not surprising that in May 2006, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights described the situation as a national emergency and demanded that Canada meet its international obligations respecting the right to housing. Little meaningful investment has been made since then.
 The latest Conservative budget contains no satisfactory measures to address the problems of homelessness and housing. On the contrary, the government is making matters worse by cutting CMHC's budget by $102 million by 2014-15.
 The government has also refused to increase its investments in housing and homelessness, which, in real dollar terms, are at their lowest level in 10 years, as they have not increased during that period.
 The Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain condemned the housing provisions of the last budget as follows:
 ...Over the next two years, Ottawa will continue to allocate a total of only $250 million a year to all provinces and territories, including $57.7 million to Quebec, for all of their affordable housing construction and renovation programs...in addition, the budget earmarked to fight homelessness will remain frozen for another two years at $134.8 million, despite the growing number of homeless people in Canada and Quebec. 
Similarly, Bruce Pearce of the Canadian Housing &amp; Renewal Association said: 
 The 2012 federal budget outlines no plans to invest in affordable housing or in measures to end homelessness. 
 ... 
 ...we are disappointed that this budget was effectively silent on affordable housing because so many needs remain. 
The Réseau d'aide aux personnes seules et itinérantes de Montréal and the people helped by that organization were among the big victims of the most recent budget. I simply cannot understand how the Conservative government could have denied RAPSIM a subsidy, when that organization does such remarkable work with the poorest of the poor. 
I would remind the House that RAPSIM has been receiving financial support from Ottawa for several years now as part of the homelessness partnering strategy. Federal support for RAPSIM was supposed to help safeguard rooming houses and encourage stakeholders to work together on issues like access to services for homeless people.
The NDP has studied the housing problem very thoroughly and has proposed real solutions over the years. While waiting lists for affordable housing continue to grow, which is completely unacceptable, we think it is crucial that Canada have a national housing policy to ensure that the federal government contributes to the construction of new housing, which it has not done since the 1990s. This is unacceptable.
 In February, the NDP again presented a Canadian housing strategy. It is time the federal government made substantial investments in social housing and affordable housing. Canada is in fact the only G8 country in the industrialized world that does not have a national housing strategy. I say investment, because funding for social housing creates jobs and reduces the social costs associated with poverty.
 The objective of the NDP’s bill is to develop an effective affordable housing program by requiring that the federal government hold consultations with organizations that work in the field of housing, aboriginal communities, and provincial, territorial and municipal governments. The NDP is also committed to restoring funding for homeowners under the residential rehabilitation assistance program and the affordable housing initiative.
 As well, with the cost of living and the need to address homelessness constantly rising, funding for the homelessness partnering strategy has never been increased or even indexed since it was created early in the last decade. It is high time the government lightened the load on community organizations that assist people who are homeless.
 We must remember that there are currently 300,000 people without homes in Canada. The NDP supports the Réseau SOLIDARITÉ Itinérance du Québec, which is calling on the Prime Minister's government to increase funding for the HPS to $50 million in Quebec and to make that funding available starting in 2015.
 I would like to conclude by saluting the extraordinary work done by the Association de promotion et d'éducation en logement de Saint-Eustache. APEL is a community organization dedicated to doing advocacy work for tenants, educating, and developing social housing in the Deux-Montagnes RCM and the southern part of the Mirabel RCM. APEL has a broad network of partners and receives support from, among others, Centraide Laurentides and the Government of Quebec’s Secrétariat à l'action communautaire autonome et aux initiatives sociales.
 If the Conservative government listened more to communities and community groups like APEL, it would realize that access to safe, affordable housing comes well ahead of F-35s, gazebos and the minister’s $16 orange juice on the public’s list of priorities.
 The housing shortage affects the health and well-being of tens of thousands of families. We have to remember that investing in housing creates jobs that stay in the communities. It is time the government took action. 
 I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his work on this issue.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today in the House to speak on Motion M-331 moved by my colleague from Shefford. I would like to thank him sincerely for his work on this issue. I would also like to thank all my colleagues who support my colleague from Shefford.
The New Democrats have a clear position on affordable housing: it is absolutely essential to make affordable housing accessible for Canadian families. We are committed to implementing legislation to ensure that housing is adequate and accessible. This is what we are proposing today.
In Canada, the shortage of affordable housing is flagrant. In Quebec, for example, it is estimated that about 325,000 households have core housing needs. It is appalling that, at the present time, only 10% of all housing starts will provide rental housing. Given that housing is being lost at a greater rate than new housing is being built, the number of rental units offered by the private sector is shrinking every day.
Moreover, according to estimates by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, there will be an additional 50,000 rental households every year over the next decade. The low supply of suitable accommodation is increasing pressure on rents and making it more difficult to find affordable housing.
 Some of my colleagues will of course prefer statistics and figures. So here are some that clearly show that the shortage of housing in Canada is critical. Of the households that cannot afford housing, 750,000 have children under the age of 15, 26% are single-parent families, 15% are immigrant families and 20% are aboriginal households.
 In addition, nearly 1.5 million households in Canada cannot afford decent housing, which is totally unacceptable. Of this 1.5 million, 25.7% are single-parent families, 18.2% are immigrant families and 20.4% are aboriginal households. The situation is disturbing and now is the time to act.
 The shortage of affordable rental housing forces renters into deplorable situations. In the vast majority of cases, if housing is affordable, it is in poor condition. It is also sometimes the case that, given the lack of options available to renters, they are faced with owners who take advantage of their circumstances. This is the situation we are currently seeing in the Montreal area.
 Some owners neglect to maintain their units. For example, damage goes unrepaired, pest infestations go unresolved, and problems with mould are left untreated. Residents have their backs against the wall and have no option but to live in these conditions.
Canadian families should not have to live like this. Families in Quebec and in Canada deserve much better. 
In the past, the federal government played a major role in the construction of social housing, particularly between 1967 and 1993. Thanks to the funding that was available during that period, many co-operatives and all the low-income housing units were built. It was the Mulroney government that made devastating cuts to that funding.
FRAPRU estimates that, if that funding had continued after 1993, there would be an additional 60,000 social housing units in Quebec alone. There are currently 1,120 low-cost housing units in Laval, 93 of which are located in my riding of Alfred-Pellan. Only 12 of those 93 units are set aside for families and the rest are reserved for seniors.
There are clearly not enough units, and it has come to the point where every week my riding office receives requests from my constituents for help in finding social housing. People are desperate. Some, like Ms. Galipeau, have been waiting for a place in social housing for nine years. Nine years.
The lack of social housing was underlined by my predecessor, who tabled many petitions, including one signed by 135 tenants of social housing asking for funding merely to renovate the low-income units and another one signed by 2,813 residents in Laval asking that the old Saint-Vincent-de-Paul prison be converted into social housing.
 There is an urgent need for the government to deal with the social housing it has built. Many low-income housing properties are coming to the end of their agreement with the federal government. Low-income housing was built in partnership with the municipalities and the federal government. Tenants spend 25% of their income on rent, and the federal subsidy pays the remaining operating costs only until the mortgages are repaid. As a result of the expiring agreements, 85% of the social housing stock is facing radical rent increases. In addition, as we all know, once the first mortgage is repaid, major work on the buildings is often necessary. However, the federal government does not appear to be interested.
 What is even more alarming is that some families are being forced into homelessness as a result of the housing shortage. In recent years, homelessness has persisted and increased in Canada, and an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 Canadians are currently homeless.
 Contrary to what some would think, homelessness is also a problem in the Laval region, as the program Les Francs-Tireurs showed last March. I suggest that anyone who did not see it go to the  Les Francs-Tireurs website and watch the episode on the homelessness problem in Laval. It is extremely relevant to this issue.
 However, there is very little in the way of resources to assist homeless Canadians, and funding still appears unstable. Needs are growing, whether it be in Montreal, Laval, Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax or any other city in the country, but funding under the homelessness partnering strategy, the HPS, has not been indexed since 1999. In fact, the program will be expiring in 2014, and this government, the one opposite, is refusing to be clear and specific about its plans after 2014. Will this government abandon Canadians? I wonder.
 The last budget, which the government brought down in March, does not offer even a glimmer of hope to families looking for housing. In fact, it announces a $10.2 million cut to CMHC's budget by 2014-15. There is also no provision for affordable housing and absolutely nothing about renewing social housing operating agreements.
 In reaction to that budget, the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association indicated that a commitment to at least extend existing programs, such as the homelessness partnering strategy, would have been appropriate.
The right to housing is part of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for good reason, as a number of my colleagues have already said.
This is also an issue that overly affects people who are already marginalized such as women, aboriginal populations, newcomers, people with disabilities, seniors, and many others.
Access to decent, affordable housing is a health and safety issue in Canada. The report entitled “Housing and Population Health”, by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, indicates clearly that the type of housing affects health. Renters have average health or, at least, their health is not as good as that of homeowners. The poor conditions that exist in some housing are one reason for this disparity, but the percentage of income spent on housing also has an impact, since it influences the ability to spend on other needs such as food, suitable clothing, health services and so forth.
I want to reiterate that I subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says that access to suitable housing is a fundamental right, not a privilege. I urge the government to take this declaration seriously. Canadian families have the right to have a roof over their heads for their safety, health and survival. 
I want to thank my colleague who took the initiative to move this motion and my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who introduced Bill C-400 to ensure that Canadians have secure, adequate, accessible housing.
I invite the government to support this motion and our affordable housing initiatives because housing is a necessity, not a luxury. It is time to open a dialogue on this.
Manon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, today, I am truly pleased to support the motion of my colleague from Shefford, and I thank him very much for introducing his bill on affordable housing.
The motion clearly indicates the social and economic aspects of rental housing and articulates a vision for housing in Canada. The motion addresses a matter that is a national emergency, and it is vital that we advocate for rental housing in Canada. 
First, I would like to make you aware of a reality that is unfamiliar to many, but one faced by many Canadians every day. Access to affordable rental housing must also be considered from the viewpoint of people with disabilities. Finding rental housing suited to their needs is a difficult task.
Housing is of vital importance for people with disabilities because it gives them the autonomy and independence needed to believe in themselves, knowing that they are valued and accepting their qualities and their limitations. It helps them appreciate and accept themselves for who they are. 
Housing also fosters full participation in the community. People with disabilities cannot live wherever they want. Some neighbourhoods simply do not have suitable rental housing. These people find themselves constrained by the fact that they have to find housing close to their place of work, which limits their options and often forces them to pay much higher rent. 
I had a great deal of difficulty finding housing that met my needs in close proximity to Parliament, in Gatineau. I needed an entrance that was easily accessible and, above all, a bathroom that could accommodate a wheelchair, not to mention the fact that most buildings do not have elevators.
You will realize, Mr. Speaker, that I quickly abandoned the idea of having an affordable place to live just a few minutes from Parliament. I can assure you that I quickly realized that there are very few areas that have truly accessible housing that is affordable, and where people with functional limitations can live.
A person living with functional limitations must basically, out of necessity, have criteria not just for the layout and accessibility of the building but also for their safety. I am not talking about one or two criteria, but of many criteria. 
I would like to mention a few of them.
 To begin with, parking lots must be accessible and well lit. Imagine getting out of a car into a wheelchair and standing on ice in an unlit area: it is dreadful.
 Moreover, very few landlords want to widen access at entries and doors. And too often, it is impossible to move around in the common areas. I am not asking for access to balconies because that would be a real luxury for disabled people.
 Building access ramps should also be a prerequisite in many cases. Improving the flooring by removing carpets and installing simple linoleum costs money and few landlords are prepared to pay the price—imagine what a carpet is like when you come inside with snow-covered wheels; it is awful.
Adaptive bathrooms that make it easy to move about and access the shower and bath are also very rare. Sometimes, it turns into an acrobatic feat for people using wheelchairs.
 Finally, to guarantee real autonomy, there must be access to switches and taps and to windows so that they can be opened in the summer.
 That is a list of features required to adapt housing to the special needs of a person living with a functional limitation.
 It is clear when adaptive housing is adequate, because the abilities of the disabled person are matched to the characteristics of the housing to ensure full autonomy.
 Unfortunately, this kind of match is all too rare, and I have experienced this myself on many occasions. 
The list is long and the obstacles to carrying out work on an apartment block are also numerous. You can imagine therefore just how rare it is for rental housing to meet all these criteria because each individual has specific needs, and expecting this kind of housing to be affordable is almost inconceivable.
 I hope that this brief overview of what it is like for people living with a functional limitation to reside in rental housing has demonstrated just how vulnerable Canadian households can be in these situations.
 Yet, housing is a human right. And this government's negligence is not without consequences for the welfare of Canadians, especially since Canada has a legal obligation in this regard, whether the government likes it or not.
 Canada is a signatory to the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which recognizes the right to adequate housing. It is very unfortunate that the government does not approach the issue of housing and poverty from a rights perspective.
 Genuine equality of access to rental housing has to be promoted. To achieve that, there has to be a better balance between the supply of housing and the demand, and location must also into account. We are looking at an extremely disturbing situation, where one-third of Canadians are renters but rental housing accounts for only 10% of total housing construction. This is unprecedented in Canada, in fact, because the number of rental units declined between 2001 and 2006.
 Rental housing construction carries benefits for many segments of the population. And yet Canadian households are facing high rents because of tight supply, which makes finding affordable housing increasingly difficult for many households. This is an issue that affects households across the country, regardless of the region where they live or whether they are in big cities or small towns.
 This is a financial choice made by young families, newcomers, the aging population and young people. We have to make sure that we continue to offer them this choice, because they are entitled to make it. Homelessness should not be one of their choices, but it is unfortunately widespread in spite of everything. As well, organizations working to combat homelessness are not receiving the support they need from the government, and this is undermining the effectiveness of their work. That is the situation for the Réseau d'aide pour les personnes seules et itinérantes de Montréal, for example, which was recently denied support from the federal government to fund a project that would cost barely $80,000 over two years. That is nowhere near the $16 that a glass of orange juice costs, in any event.
 This is happening at the same time as homelessness is on the rise in Quebec. The government has to shoulder its responsibility for helping individuals and families. Support for renter households is also particularly crucial in economic terms. Renter households have lower than average incomes and must have access to affordable housing. When households spend less on rent, they are able to buy more consumer goods—necessary goods like clothing, food and electricity.
 An adequate supply of affordable rental housing also facilitates labour force mobility. This is an important economic stimulus. It is therefore essential that we have available a larger supply of affordable, better-quality housing in Canada, to give full effect to the right to housing.
 Supply is simply not meeting demand, particularly when we consider the predictions made regarding demand in the next decade. It is estimated that there will be about 50,000 new renter households per year over the coming decade. If nothing is done, we will have to anticipate the worst. Homelessness is a threat that too many people in this country unfortunately live under. The government has a role to play when it comes to encouraging rental housing across Canada.
 It must work with the municipalities to do that. It must also recognize that housing is an economic incentive. Our economic growth depends on expanding the rental housing market and also on more jobs in the construction industry. Cutting jobs in that industry is extremely harmful to our economy.
Because of the shortage of rental housing units, the government should take a leadership role and work alongside stakeholders in the rental housing community, including the municipalities. The government needs to understand just how bad the problems of housing and poverty are in this country. The government has an obligation to implement the policies necessary to promote affordable rental housing.
 I therefore urge the government to recognize the need to increase the supply of rental housing units in Canada while maintaining the current housing units. The government must take steps to ensure that the right to housing is fully respected in Canada. I thank my colleague from Shefford along with all my colleagues who are going to support this motion. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. member for Nickel Belt know that I will need to interrupt him at 2:25 p.m. in order to leave time for the right of reply of the hon. member for Shefford.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt.
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, the motion that we are debating today is very important for a lot of Canadians, especially young families just starting out and senior citizens. In order to ensure that Canadians know what we are talking about today, I would like to read the motion into the record. It states:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) keep with Canada’s obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the right to housing under the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; (b) support efforts by Canadian municipalities to combat homelessness; and (c) adopt measures to expand the stock of affordable rental housing, with a view to providing economic benefits to local housing construction businesses. 
My colleague has brought a very important motion to the House. I would like to congratulate him for doing that.
 A lot of people are living in rental housing. One-third of Canadians are renters. Unfortunately, of the number of housing starts from coast to coast to coast, approximately 10% are for rental housing. This causes a deficiency in the number of rental housing units available. Because of the low number of housing starts, there is a supply and demand deficiency. The fewer the rental units, the higher the costs.
As members know, most people who live in rental housing may be some of the poorer Canadians, perhaps seniors or families just starting out. The number of seniors who will be renting in the future will increase. Why? As a result of the budget bill the Conservative government is bringing forth. As we know, in the budget bill, the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS would increase from 65 to 67. 
This would do two things. First, it would make the poorest Canadians even poorer, and they would be poorer for two extra years. In order to avoid being poor for two more years, they might be forced to work longer, and that would put a strain on our workforce. Second, it might cause homelessness. If seniors cannot afford to rent an apartment, where would that leave them? That would leave them in the street. Homelessness is something that we want to discourage and help prevent from coast to coast to coast.
If we do not invest in rental units that people can afford, we are going to decrease the number of people who can rent units and we are going to increase homelessness. So, if the government were to spend money to help build rental units, it would certainly help Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has come up with some statistics that say that there is presently a deficiency of 50,000 jobs in the construction industry, which is responsible for constructing rental units. 
Therefore, if we were to start investing in rental units we would create jobs. When we create jobs, it reduces unemployment and creates revenue for the government. I would impress on the government the need to invest in rental housing. 
Housing is an important human right. If there is not sufficient rental stock, that right is in jeopardy. The alternative is homelessness.
Investment in housing is also important for economic stimulus. The report of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that I referred to says that if we invested in more rental housing, we would create jobs. The supply of private rental housing is shrinking. That is obvious because one-third of Canadians are renters, but only 10% of construction is for rental housing. 
I see my time is up. I hope that colleagues will support my good friend's motion. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Shefford has five minutes for his right of reply.
Mr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to speak to my Motion M-331 about rental housing.
I listened very closely to everything my colleagues said in the context of this debate. I would like to thank them. I would also like to thank everyone who plans to support this motion. 
I would like to begin by responding to arguments that some members raised during the first hour of debate on my motion. Specifically, I would like to respond the the Conservatives' oft-repeated argument that we, the members of the New Democratic Party, voted against measures to help Canadians obtain housing and to fight homelessness. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The NDP is not opposed to policies that subsidize and increase the availability of social housing. That has been our stance for decades.
Take for example Bill C-38, the budget implementation bill that we are now debating and that several Quebec media outlets have described as “mammoth”. I want to make it clear that we cannot vote for this omnibus bill because it contains a hodgepodge of separate bills that have nothing to do with one another. This bill is like a garage sale or a flea market.
Conservative members can say whatever they want in the House, but if the government chose to split the omnibus bill, then the NDP, as a social-democratic party, would support any social measures designed to improve quality of life for people across the country. We would also be prepared to share our opinions and suggestions about measures that raise questions or concerns.
Any discussion about housing has to be placed in context. We have to talk not only about rental housing, as we are doing now, but also about a range of measures, such as subsidies for social housing, programs to deal with homelessness, partnerships with the non-profit sector to provide more good-quality housing, and measures to improve low-income individuals' access to capital.
 It is clear that this Conservative government, rather than pursuing these comprehensive measures, has opted to do away with crucial homelessness programs and is refusing to implement amendments to the bill, proposed by the NDP, that would establish national housing standards. This, along with the government's ongoing abdication of its responsibilities—to the point that these responsibilities have now to a large extent fallen on the shoulders of the municipalities—has eroded the very notion of safe, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for all Canadians.
 The situation is only getting worse. In the past, low income earners had the option of investing in a mobile home, but today, even that option is rarely a possibility. Unfortunately, with the federal government's ongoing cuts to the funding of housing, the trend in many municipalities across the country has been to replace mobile home parks with condominiums and other high cost housing. This is happening in Granby with the Tropicana campground, which has nothing to do with orange juice.
 With Motion M-331, my colleagues and I from the New Democratic Party are trying to draw attention to an extremely important problem, which is growing throughout the country.
 The United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes access to housing as a human right. The government can and must do more to ensure that all Canadians have access to safe, adequate, accessible and affordable housing. We encourage all members to support this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  It being 2:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.
The vote is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen:  
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 9, 2012, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
 (The House adjourned at 2:32 p.m.)