2013-03-20

The Speaker: It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for St. Paul's.
[Members sang the national anthem]
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ind. Cons.): Mr. Speaker, on April Fool's Day, pasta lovers will gather at Massimo Lecas' restaurant, Buonanotte in Montreal, lampooning Quebec's separatist government and its linguistic cleansing comedy of errors. 
Sponsored by the Special Committee for Canadian Unity and putbacktheflag.com, this evening of comedy will be held at the Italian restaurant where Quebec's language police ordered the removal of the word “pasta” from the menu. Imagine, no pasta on an Italian restaurant menu. Throughout the world, from Australia to England to, of course, Italy, they regaled at this farce and the silliness of the separatists. Welcome to pastagate.
Join us on the evening of April 1 in Montreal for even more comedic fun as we support the needy, support Canadian unity, support the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, support linguistic fairness and indulge in our love of pasta.
Erast HuculakMr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the passing of Mr. Erast Huculak, a distinguished Etobicoke entrepreneur and philanthropist.
Born in Ukraine in 1930, Mr. Huculak witnessed the ravages of the Holodomor and World War II as a boy. He immigrated to Canada as a displaced person in 1948 with his family. Erast Huculak had a visionary entrepreneurial spirit as a business owner, founding and becoming president of Medical Pharmacies Group, serving long-term care facilities in Canada.
Mr. Huculak was dedicated to giving back to Canada and supporting the Ukrainian Canadian community. When Ukraine won her independence, he donated a building in Ottawa for the first Ukrainian embassy in Canada. He founded the Children of Chernobyl Canadian Fund and served as president of the Canadian Friends of Rukh for Canada. 
For his humanitarian activities and advancement of Ukrainian studies, Mr. Huculak was awarded honorary doctorates from the University of Alberta and the Ukrainian Free University in Munich. He was recognized with many honours, including the Order of Canada, the Taras Shevchenko medal and the Ukraine president's medal of merit. 
Erast Huculak's life shall be celebrated for strengthening the cultural, social and economic fabric of Ukrainian Canadians in Canada.
Retiring JournalistMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a veteran of Canadian journalism, Roger Smith.
Roger's 35 years of work was always solid, fair and worldly. Whether he was covering the Olympics in Barcelona, the protests at Tiananmen Square or the many elections in Canada, he carried himself with good humour and humility. His main passion though was always his family, his wife Denise and children Jade and Kai. 
However, that is not the full story. We have learned through leaks from CTV's Ottawa bureau that, first, Roger's colleagues believe he had the best BS detector on the Hill. Second, no matter how busy, Roger would sneak out of the office for a 45-minute workout; his colleagues loved that. Third, on his last day of work, he left a note for the CTV team that said, “Work space for rent. I am gone, but hopefully never forgotten”. 
Roger will never be forgotten.
Tanker SafetyMr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has launched a comprehensive plan to develop a world-class tanker safety system in Canada and in particular, off the west coast. 
We are implementing eight tanker safety measures immediately. These include increasing tanker inspections, aerial surveillance and Canadian Coast Guard systems. We are creating a tanker safety expert panel to review current systems and propose new and stronger ones. 
As we continue working on increasing trade, we are also working to protect Canada's environment. In the weeks and months ahead, we will be working closely with aboriginal communities. This is good news for Canada's energy export sector. This is good news for Alberta's energy.
We will be ready to fill the orders that come from around the world for our energy products. There are close to 400,000 jobs in our oil sands that contribute an average of $22 billion a year to government revenues. Over the next 25 years there will be over 700,000 jobs and $3.3 trillion that will be contributed to Canada's gross domestic product. 
International Co-operationHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today Chancellor George Osborne announced that the United Kingdom would be the first G8 country to hit the international target of committing 0.7% of GDP to overseas development aid. This is a proud moment for the British government, which kept its promise to meet the United Nations goal, despite internal opposition and very tough economic times. 
The UN target to commit 0.7% of GDP to international aid was a pledge put forward by Canada's very own Lester Pearson and is a very integral part of our reaching our millennium development goals. However, the Conservative government is far from the goal, with our percentage falling closer to 0.2% after drastic cuts in last year's omnibus budget. 
Looking to tomorrow's budget, we hope that the government will be reinvesting funds for life-saving development aid and join the United Kingdom as a leader on the world stage in our long-lasting commitment to the world's poorest of poor. 
Queen's Diamond Jubilee MedalsMr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, to mark the end of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee year, I awarded medals to 30 outstanding Canadians from Windsor-Essex: Mike Beale, Martin Breshamer, Dr. Jim Brophy, Dr. Margaret Keith, Judy Brown, Reverend John Burkhart, Evelyn Burns, Joe Colasanti, Janice Congram, Penny Craig, Bob Croft, Carl Davison, Dr. Nick Krayacich, Jack Morris, Lyle Morris, Charlie Pinsonneault, Marjorie Reive, Sandy Repko, Rennie and Anne Rota, Donna Roubos, Robert Sinclair, Marwan Taqtaq, Bill Varga, Glenda Willemsma and internationally renowned expert Dr. Jack Newman.
As well, I awarded the medal to four distinguished Canadian blacks: Constable Mike Akpata; Ms. Elise Harding-Davis; LaSalle's first black mayor, Gary Baxter; and Amherstburg's first black mayor, Wayne Hurst.
Our Queen's legacy is one of service to all. In like spirit, each worthy recipient continues to make Canada the greatest country in the world.
International Week of La FrancophonieMrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Semaine internationale de la Francophonie is an opportunity to remember that Canada has a noticeable francophone identity from coast to coast to coast.
In my riding, from Smooth Rock Falls to Hearst, and in Dubreuilville, the majority of the population is French-speaking, and the local culture reflects their identity.
This government's decisions disregard the identity of francophones, as if they were not important at all. From the appointment of a unilingual Auditor General to budget cuts that are forcing French-speaking public servants to work in English, it is now clear that the Conservatives are not complying with the Official Languages Act.
For public servants, working in French is a right guaranteed under part V of the act. This right is claimed not only by francophones in Quebec, but by all francophones across the country. Canada is made up of a vast number of communities where the francophone culture is quite present, even from Espanola to Manitouwadge.
Diversity makes us stronger, but with it come obligations that stem from rights we must respect. Let us celebrate our language and culture with pride. Happy Semaine de la Francophonie to all.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader's statement in Washington that the Keystone XL pipeline would mean a 40,000-person job loss for Canadians is ridiculous and false.
This pipeline is a key instrument to ensuring strong Canada-U.S. relations, future economic growth and jobs on both sides of the border. In Canada alone, the Keystone and other pipeline projects will mean at least 905,000 new jobs by 2035. It also means $1.3 trillion of economic output and $281 billion in tax revenue. That is a lot of schools, a lot of hospitals and a lot of roads in Canada.
Not only does the NDP want to discourage one of the biggest economic projects in Canada's history, it also wants to replace it with a $21 billion job-killing carbon tax that would cost thousands of Canadian jobs. Truly, the NDP is not fit to govern.
TibetMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the world watched over the past couple of weeks as the National People's Congress in China met for the ceremonial formalities of installing its new president, premier, cabinet and leaders of its government. To give credit where it is due, new Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke of the earnest expectations of the people for a better life in his remarks to the National People's Congress last Sunday.
I would like to note that the world is now watching how President Jinping's government lives by those words and lives up to those expectations with regard to the situation in Tibet, which has become increasingly violent and desperate under the current Chinese crackdown. 
Given this urgency, we sincerely encourage President Jinping to meet with the leaders of the Tibetan government in exile to discuss the Dalai Lama's middle way approach for peace, human rights, stability and a reasonable coexistence between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples.
International Day of La FrancophonieMr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on this International Day of La Francophonie, allow me to share with you these lyrical musings. From France the ships made their way.We braved the St. Lawrence,Our canoes slicing the rapids,Across the Great Lakes, day by day.The way was hard and long.But we tamed the land,And planted deep roots.Now with villages and churches, we're 9 million strong.People said we wouldn't succeed,The ocean would swallow us whole.But in a new land, we did flourish,Our new lives we did lead.We are francophone. We are proud.Hear our many accents, our eloquence.Faced with injustice, we cannot be silenced.Our voice is strong and loud.We are francophiles—proud, joyous and bold,Freedom flows through our veins.We champion human rights 'round the world,Helping the hungry, helpless and cold.Francophones everywhere hope to seeA better world, pluralist and united.The language of Molière, strong and free,Is what unites La Francophonie.
Leader of the New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week, the NDP leader travelled to Washington D.C. to attack Canadian jobs and Canada's national interests. While he was down there, he made it a priority to sit down for dinner at a posh downtown hotel to take up the cause of a man convicted of shooting a front-line Chicago police officer, not once, not twice, but three times. That heinous and violent attack left police officer Terrence Knox paralyzed until his recent death.
On this side of the House, we make it a priority to put the safety of Canadians first. The NDP's policy is to go south to recruit foreign criminals to come to Canada. Let me be clear. On this side of the House, our Conservative government will not permit foreign criminals who have no right to be in Canada to come to our country.
Putting forward policies like this is precisely the reason the NDP cannot be trusted by Canadians.
Employment Insurance ReformMs. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week in my riding, I went to a meeting attended by employers affected by the botched reform of our EI system. I say “our system” because that fund does not belong to the government, but rather to the workers and employers. 
Seasonal businesses are facing an unprecedented situation. Many will lose a significant number of skilled employees with specific expertise. Why will they lose these people? Because the minister is forcing them to take work that is 100 km away from their homes for 70% of their salaries.
This reform is impoverishing Canadians, especially women working in atypical or part-time jobs, because many jobs in these sectors are worked by women. Many studies have shown that poverty among women is a real problem. This reform is also threatening seasonal industries and stripping our regions of their vitality, even though the regions are essential to the healthy development of our country.
I urge the minister to do her homework, cancel the reform and talk to people on the ground.
Leader of the New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are proud that under the leadership of the Prime Minister and our Conservative government, Canada has fared the global recession better than almost any country in the world. They are equally aware that while Canada's economy is growing, it is still vulnerable to risks outside of our border. That is why so many Canadians are outraged by the inexcusable position of the NDP leader, who travelled to Washington to attack Canadian interests and Canadian jobs.
The NDP leader was so proud of his attack on Canada that he did not even mention it until it was leaked from a private meeting. This is just the latest in a long list of attacks on Canadian interests from the NDP and the NDP leader. Worse, the NDP leader is scheming to have a $21 billion job-killing carbon tax that would raise the price of everything and kill jobs and economic growth.
On this side of the House, our Conservative government will defend the interests of Canadians from the attacks of that NDP leader.
Best Buddies-Vrais CopainsHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Best Buddies-Vrais Copains is an international organization that has been operating in Canada since 1993 by establishing one-to-one matches between students and people with intellectual disabilities. Some 6,000 participants can be found in 250 Best Buddies chapters in schools, colleges and universities throughout Canada.
Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of honouring the University of Ottawa Best Buddies chapter.
This chapter has been extremely successful for the past 11 years. With 160 participants, it is one of Canada's largest and most active Best Buddies chapters. Katie Day, the chapter co-president, was very proud of her volunteers and their achievements.
What touched me the most was the warmth, good humour and joy that was so evident in every participant at the meeting. Best Buddies proves that friendship is one of the best ways to combat social isolation.
My heartfelt congratulations go to the University of Ottawa Best Buddies chapter and to other such chapters throughout Canada.
Leader of the New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the NDP leader is willing to disregard science when it does not conform to his left-wing political agenda. The NDP leader has rejected the science behind the Keystone pipeline and has instead taken to the world stage to argue against the project and argue against Canadian jobs—a Keystone Cop if there ever was one.
The NDP leader's position is directly at odds with the recent U.S. State Department's report, which concluded that the environmental impact of the Keystone pipeline would be negligible. 
The NDP leader also staunchly opposes the Northern Gateway pipeline, despite the fact that the National Energy Board has not yet reported its findings, nor has it rendered a recommendation on this project. Interestingly, while the NDP leader rejects sound science and works hard to kill Canadian jobs, his Saskatchewan NDP counterpart, realizing the economic benefits, supports the Keystone project, because it is supported by sound science.
On this side of the House, we stand behind the Keystone XL science and we stand with the thousands of Canadians who will benefit from this pro-Canadian job project.
Minister of FinanceMr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since 2006, the Minister of Finance has made a career out of increasing Canadian and household debt. In the last five years, he has increased the federal debt by $125 billion, leaving the largest deficit in Canadian history, but it gets worse. Yesterday we learned that the minister directed his staff to secretly call individual private banks about mortgage rates. Rather than trying to balance the books on the back of a napkin, they refuse to create clear rules for the financial sector and to protect Canadian consumers. Now even the finance minister's own cabinet colleague is disavowing his reckless interference in the free market. 
While Conservatives interfere with private banks, New Democrats will proudly stand by our track record. The NDP is the best party to effectively balance the budget, and we will prepare ourselves for 2015, when we can clean up the mess left by this finance minister.
Leader of the New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has been a week since the NDP leader travelled to the United States and attacked Canadian jobs, attacked Canada's national interests and took up the cause of a convicted cop shooter, but that has not stopped the ongoing criticisms of the NDP leader's antics last week. 
A week later, a Globe and Mail editorial commented that the NDP leader has “himself in knots” and called out the NDP leader for the “self-inflicted wounds” on the Keystone XL pipeline. The Ottawa Citizen went further and said that the NDP leader “once again demonstrated he is not prime ministerial material”. The National Post writes that “abroad, our elected leaders ought to be Canadians first”. 
While the NDP leader goes abroad to attack Canadian jobs, on this side of the House we stand with the tens of thousands of Canadians who would benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline. Canadians can count on us to fight for their jobs and to fight for their interests.

Oral Questions
EthicsHon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Peter Penashue broke the law. If our law and order Prime Minister considers Peter Penashue, a known lawbreaker, to be the best Conservative MP, what does that say about the rest of his caucus?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, obviously, I disagree with that categorization. I am sad, but not surprised, to hear that kind of negative campaign from the—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor.
[Interjection]
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, in Labrador, minister Penashue will be able to point to a record of respecting his promises, working against the federal long-gun registry and for such things as the Trans-Labrador Highway, the Lower Churchill project, and obviously, for the strong record he has presented to the people of Labrador.
Financial InstitutionsThomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, I received a telephone call from Salomon Rouimy in Laval. He is paying 29.9% interest on his credit card—29.9%.
The Minister of Finance has done nothing to stop banks from gouging consumers like Salomon with exorbitant interest rates on credit cards.
How can the Prime Minister justify allowing his finance department to tell banks to impose higher mortgage rates on Canadian families?
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that mortgage rates are at an all-time low in this country under this government. At the same time, we want to ensure that mortgages remain affordable and stable, that the market remains affordable and stable for Canadian families well into the future.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, there is another constituent who is upset about the finance minister throwing his weight around with lenders. He is from the Beauce. He is the Minister of State for Small Business. 
Banks have been gouging small businesses on merchant fees for years. They have been gouging consumers with higher and higher interest rates. Why is the finance minister doing nothing about double-digit credit card rates while dictating higher mortgage rates for Canadian families?
Which minister has the Prime Minister's confidence: the Minister of State for Small Business or the Minister of Finance?
Stephen Harper: Once again, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the issue I just addressed, as we all know, interest rates for mortgages in this country are at their lowest level ever, historically, in this country under this government. At the same time, obviously, this government has made it clear that it wants to make sure that we take steps to make sure that the market rests stable and affordable for Canadian families well into the future.
JusticeMs. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, more Conservative mismanagement was exposed today in a new report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Crime and justice costs are skyrocketing, while the crime rate was already dropping. This report proves that the Conservative crime agenda is more about photo ops and partisanship than about getting results. One does not draft laws just because one likes the photo ops.
Why is the government putting PR ahead of sound public safety policy?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as usual on this issue, it is a bunch of nonsense coming from the NDP. Our Conservative government makes no apologies for cracking down on crime. Since we have come to office, we have introduced 30 pieces of legislation aimed at keeping our streets and communities safe. What the NDP always misses on these things is that the cost of crime, for the most part, is borne by victims. That is the side the New Democrats are never on.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, the PBO will be happy that they agree with one of his reports.
I prefer not to be on the side of people like Bruce Carson, Peter Penashue, Patrick Brazeau, Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy. Those are examples of people who do not respect the law.
The crime rate is dropping steadily, a trend that started long before the Conservatives came to power. Yet the cost of the Conservatives' law and order agenda has been steadily rising since 2006. What is worse, the Conservatives are not the ones footing the bill; it is the provinces and territories. They are the ones getting stuck with three-quarters of the justice costs—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Gatineau is out of time.
The hon. Minister of Justice.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, let us decide who is on whose side. A couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister left Ottawa to visit Vancouver and he met with victims. Last week, the leader of the NDP left Ottawa to visit Washington and he got together with a convicted criminal. I and most Canadians are on the side of the Prime Minister, and that is the way it should be. 
EthicsHon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the victims of the latest Conservative crime are the people of Labrador. Those are the victims we need to stand up for.
It is now clear that there was a completely “orchestrated from central casting” resignation by the minister. Peter Penashue held press conferences. He used government money to hold press conferences. He placed ads. The Conservative Party transferred money to the riding association in Labrador. The entire thing was orchestrated by the Prime Minister of Canada and orchestrated by the Conservative Party of Canada.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, the member for Labrador has taken the correct action. The people of Labrador will decide. They will have the difference between that kind of negative ugly campaign and, on the other side, a record of positive achievement for the people of Labrador by minister Penashue. Obviously, we will respect the decision of the people of Labrador.
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to see ugly, he and his cabinet colleagues should simply look in the mirror and assess their own conduct—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. 
I do not think we need to make those kinds of personal characterizations. It is certainly not adding to the debate today.
The hon. member for Toronto Centre has the floor.
[Interjection]
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, if looking in the mirror produces unacceptable results, it is hardly the fault of the people who are asking the questions.
Let us be clear. This is about the rule of law. This is about the rule of law with respect to Elections Canada. This is with respect to somebody who is currently under investigation by Elections Canada carrying out a political campaign financed by the Government of Canada and financed by the Conservative Party. That is the—
The Speaker: Order, please.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I think the real problem is the positions that the Liberal Party of Canada has on issues that matter to the people of Labrador. The people of Labrador value the seal hunt; they value investments in their infrastructure and in their Internet; and they certainly value the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project. These are all positive achievements by the member for Labrador, by minister Penashue, who has worked very hard and fulfilled his campaign commitments to those people.
Financial InstitutionsBob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Competition Act is clear: it is against the law to conspire to maintain prices, or in the words of the member for Beauce, to set prices. It is against the law for financial institutions to make such arrangements.
Why does the Prime Minister tolerate such action from his Minister of Finance?
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the reality is that mortgage rates are at their lowest historical levels in Canada. The reality is that there are problems in the mortgage and banking sectors around the world.
Our government is taking action to make sure that these sectors remain affordable and stable for Canadian families well into the future.
The BudgetMs. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us talk about budget transparency and fiscal accountability.
Almost a year after the 2012 budget, Conservatives still have not given clear answers about which regions of the country will lose federal jobs or what services are going to be cut. Canadians deserve to know the truth about the government's plans.
In the name of honesty, in the name of fiscal transparency, would the finance minister now agree to lay out the specifics about job cuts and services that he is planning to eliminate in tomorrow's budget?
Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member actually seems to know what is in tomorrow's budget. We only have one more sleep until the budget is tabled in this House, but the Minister of Finance has done a good job of laying out what it will be and what it will not be. More importantly, what it will not be is increasing taxes on Canadians like the New Democrats would want to do with their $56 billion tax hike on Canadians and a $21 billion carbon tax. I can guarantee this entire House that will not be part of the budget.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, we take no lessons from that party on fiscal accountability. Even the Minister of Finance's own cabinet colleague is now criticizing his inappropriate calls to private banks. The minister once boasted he would never run a deficit, and then added over $120 billion to Canada's debt. Now, the Conservatives are hiding the details about planned cuts to food safety, VIA Rail and Service Canada. Whatever happened to fiscal accountability? Why are the Conservatives hiding the truth from Canadians about their planned cuts?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member actually talks about a plan. Let me talk about the anti-job plan that the New Democrats talked about earlier in the week. This would be the one that the official spokesperson for the NDP, when asked what would be in this and whether it is actually costed, said, “I'm not going to...say” there is a price tag “because I think it's a shift in approach...”. “We have not costed [our] specifics in terms of this campaign”.
As the Minister of Finance said, we will actually have numbers in our budget.
TaxationMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are so afraid of divulging information about public finances that they did not even bother to measure the revenue shortfall created by tax evasion.
Given all the cuts they are making to the Canada Revenue Agency, it does not really seem as though they are taking this problem seriously. Enormous amounts of money are slipping through the government's fingers, amounts that could be invested in revitalizing the manufacturing industry, for example. For seven years now, the Conservatives have failed to deliver when it comes to cracking down on tax havens.
Will they finally follow the lead of the other major economies and implement a procedure to measure exactly how much tax evasion is costing us? 
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of National Revenue and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is all the information we have received and we take this issue very seriously. We have increased our experts in this file by 40%. Tax evasion is an international problem and Canada works very closely with our partners to share information and best practices.
If the New Democrats are so concerned with tax evasion, perhaps it is an issue the NDP leader could have raised during his trip to the United States instead of visiting with convicted cop shooters and bashing Canadian interests.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, that does not cut it.
Canada Revenue Agency employees told us that the decision not to measure the revenue shortfall was a political one.
Not only are the Conservatives cutting billions of dollars without even thinking about an impact study, but they are even going so far as to refuse to share information about these cuts with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a position that they themselves created. Every time something goes wrong with one of their portfolios—as with the F-35s, for example—they are quick to refuse to send the PBO the documents he requires. The PBO then has no choice but to take the Conservatives to court so that he can do his job. And what a coincidence that the PBO's court case opens tomorrow, on the very day that the budget is being tabled.
Can the Conservatives promise that, this time, all the relevant information will be shared with the Parliamentary—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of State for Finance.
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, the relevant information that is provided in a budget will be the fact that Canadian businesses have created over 950,000 net new jobs since the end of the recession. Those are real numbers. Those are numbers that help Canadian families. In fact, the average Canadian family of four now has 3,100 more of its own dollars left in its pockets because of our tax reductions. We will continue on this low tax plan and we encourage the opposition members to actually read it before they decide to vote against it.
Search and RescueMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us continue with the Conservatives' poor budget decisions. 
Closing the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre is one of their worst budget decisions. The Conservatives are incapable of making improvements to our operational search and rescue capacities. They refuse to maintain the same response times 24 hours a day. That is pathetic. What is worse, search and rescue capacities in Labrador deteriorated when Peter Penashue was an MP.
Do the Conservatives understand that they are playing with people's lives and that this is an unacceptable budget decision?
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have every confidence that the changes in Quebec City will have no negative impact on our ability to respond to distress incidents on the water quickly, effectively and in both official languages. Quebec is served by 19 Coast Guard vessels, including seven search and rescue lifeboats, two hovercraft and six helicopters. We are ensuring that the Coast Guard has the tools to do its job.
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this shows that the Conservatives have played a shell game with search and rescue resources, especially in Labrador. Up until the tragic death of Burton Winters in 2012, DND was claiming there were three helicopters stationed at CFB Goose Bay, when in fact there were only two. After the Burton Winters tragedy, its cover was blown. Then DND claimed that the helicopters had no dedicated stand-by role in search and rescue. Labradorians are smarter than the government gives them credit for. Why are the Conservatives threatening to punish Labradorians if they reject Peter Penashue?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as is so often the case, the member is factually incorrect. While Mr. Penashue was the minister, search and rescue capacity increased at CFB Goose Bay. As is so often the case, we have seen from the member and his party that when we have made historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces, when we have increased their equipment, their infrastructure, the programs for members, their families, their ill and injured, the member and his party continually oppose those investments.
EthicsJack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the 2011 Conservative campaign in Labrador readily admits it cheated. It tried to bury illegal corporate donations and $18,000 in free flights. But when Peter Penashue resigned, Conservatives had already purchased full-page ads and booked the website. All this was done while he was still a minister. Once the investigation is said and done, Mr. Penashue may be subject to a five-year ban on running for a federal office. Why are the Conservatives putting this candidate forward knowing full well that he may not in fact be eligible to take a seat in the House of Commons?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the reason the NDP members do not want Mr. Penashue to have the right to advertise in this campaign is because the NDP do not want Labradorians to know of his many achievements on their behalf. One of these is the cleanup and build-up of CFB Goose Bay: rebuilding the runway, improving the infrastructure, decontaminating the site around the area, increasing search and rescue, all of which generated economic opportunity. Peter Penashue delivered for Goose Bay. The NDP could only ever deliver a goose egg.
Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Peter Penashue has done everything he can to get a leg-up for his re-election campaign, even if it means cheating, even if it means breaking the rules. He used his ministerial office to make spending announcements. He gave himself an unfair advantage. He started campaigning before he even resigned. He is using the power of incumbency, which he only has because he cheated last time.
Labradorians can see through Conservative talking points. How can they trust anything Conservatives say when Conservatives are willing to say anything to give Peter Penashue an unfair advantage?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP reminds Newfoundlanders and Labradorians every day of how it is completely out of touch with their values, in particular on the seal hunt. The seal hunt is an ancient tradition and a way of life, not only for aboriginals but for people of European descent right across remote communities in this country. The NDP stands opposed to that tradition. Thank goodness we have proud Canadians like Peter Penashue who are standing up for the rural and remote community way of life by scrapping the long gun registry and protecting the seal hunt.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of the values of Labradorians and Newfoundlanders is they respect the rule of law—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Charlie Angus:  Yesterday, we had a former Conservative MP who said that the Prime Minister is “scared of losing the seat to a more...honest person...someone [he] can't control”. What an extraordinary insight. No wonder the Conservatives do not want Elections Canada to finish its investigation of Mr. Penashue, who was forced to resign over $45,000 in illegal donations. There were 28 illegal cheques, of which six came from Pennecon, so who gave the other 22 illegal donations? Why will Conservatives not tell the Canadian people?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that he has finally admitted that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians follow the law, because he now wants to treat them like criminals simply for carrying out their traditional way of life, which includes hunting and responsible long gun ownership.
That is a member who broke his word to his constituents and sold out to his big city bosses when he came to Ottawa, instead of standing behind the people of Timmins. Thank goodness the people of Labrador have had a strong voice in Peter Penashue, a voice that we believe will continue to speak loudly on their behalf.
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in anybody's mind, writing cheques for nearly $50,000 is a clear admission that Conservatives broke just about every law in the book during the Labrador campaign and that they knew they broke them.
With that said, the Prime Minister also knows that sanctions with serious consequences remain inevitable against Mr. Penashue and his party. With absolutely nothing left to lose under those circumstances, a by-election is about to be called to try to dull some of that reality.
Does the Prime Minister really feel that holding a by-election could ever trump the rule of law in Canada and that the process of justice might actually be able to be turned off for a by-election?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, there those members go, launching a nasty, negative campaign full of slurs.
Never did a slur create a job. Never did a slur protect a traditional aboriginal way of life for which Peter Penashue has fought. Never did a slur help a school child in a remote community have access to the world through high-speed Internet, the way Peter Penashue delivered. Never did a slur protect CFB Goose Bay.
Slurs do not do that, but Peter Penashue did.
The Speaker: Order, please. There is still far too much noise during some of these questions and responses. I will ask once again for some order.
 The hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, what is a slur to democracy is when someone writes 28 cheques to try to undo what happened during an election campaign to steal an election away from the people of Labrador.
What people in Labrador do not want is someone from Ottawa, those in the big land, telling those who have a real sense of dignity and independence that they will be told who their MP is. That is what the Conservative Party is doing right now. Quite frankly, if the Conservatives want to get on with this, we will see them on election day.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the member is complaining about the writing of cheques. That is, of course, because the Liberal Party only deals in cash, and to the tune of $40 million.
As for the decision that Labradorians will have to make, they know Peter Penashue has delivered for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
The members in the Liberal Party have opposed the projects that have delivered that prosperity. They should know that if they are not going to support the people who are getting the job done, at least they could get out of the way.
Search and RescueMs. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Peter Penashue awaits sentencing for accepting illegal donations and overspending in the last election, over 10,000 people who signed the Burton Winters petition calling for full-time and fully operational search and rescue in Labrador remember Mr. Penashue failed to deliver.
Following his tragic death, Burton Winters was brought up 27 times by opposition MPs in the House of Commons. How can Mr. Penashue say he represented the people of Labrador when he failed to stand up even one time in the face of such tragedy?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the loss of young Burton Winters was a tragedy. That expression of condolence was expressed numerous times in the House of Commons.
I know Mr. Penashue felt that grief in the community, in Newfoundland and Labrador, as I know the member does. What is distasteful now is to try to use that in some kind of a political forum in the face of that horrible loss for the family, for the community. Let us not sink to that level when it comes to the politics of this place.
Correctional Service CanadaMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Ashley Smith's death too was a tragedy, but a preventable tragedy if only the proper policies and resources had been in place. 
A warden responsible for Ashley Smith is now back at work. Her return underscores that Ashley's death was the result of systemic problems under the minister, not just the acts of individuals. 
The correctional investigator has twice warned that another tragedy like this could happen unless urgent changes are made. What will it take for the minister to finally take responsibility and fix this broken system?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, this is a very sad case and our thoughts and prayers go out to Ms. Smith's family.
The government directed Correctional Service Canada to fully co-operate with the coroner's inquest. With respect to the specific hiring, as the member knows, hiring decisions by Correctional Service Canada are made independently of politicians.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Ashley Smith lost her life for throwing an apple.
If the minister truly took Ashley Smith's tragic death seriously, he would follow through on the correctional investigator's recommendations. The investigator raised a number of red flags about detainees who have mental disorders and who self-harm.
The Conservatives have not taken action. The latest statistics are frightening. Under the Conservatives, the number of incidents of self-harm have nearly tripled.
What resources will they allocate to address this problem? What is their plan to avoid further tragedies?
Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad case and our thoughts and prayers go out to Ms. Smith's family.
Our government directed Correctional Service Canada to fully co-operate with the coroner's inquest. I am certain that the coroner will come back with a fulsome report. Hiring decisions by Correctional Service Canada are made independently of politicians.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when Syrian Canadians asked the government to help them reunite with family members who are living in terror in Syria, the Minister of Immigration  flatly refused to meet with them. 
He also told them that Turkey is not allowing Syrian refugees to leave the country. However, the Turkish ambassador refuted this false statement.
Now that the minister can no longer hide behind bogus excuses, can he tell us how he intends to foster family reunification for Syrian Canadians?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration has met and spoken with Syrian Canadians across the country on many occasions about the crisis in Syria. The fact is that Turkey does not allow potential refugees to even leave the country until the UNHCR has made a decision on their case and refers their case to a country for resettlement. 
We are focused on this and we are doing what we can. The minister has worked extremely hard to assist those in Syria.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Conservatives have actually damaged our reputation on this. Now, for the second time, Turkey has had to call out a Conservative minister for not telling the truth.
People are being killed by the millions and are being displaced, Canadians are worried about the safety of their family members, yet the minister had the gall to try to blame the Turkish government for Conservative inaction. 
Will the minister stand and apologize? Will the Conservatives actually live up to their commitment to save those in Syria now?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with the premise on which the NDP members are trying build this case.
First, officials are working to process family class and privately sponsored refugee applications from Syria as quickly as possible. Let us not forget the difficult environment they are working within.
Second, almost all spousal sponsorships that were pending have been finalized. In family class cases where compelling circumstances exist, visa officers are issuing temporary resident visas to allow applicants to come to Canada while their application is being processed.
We are on this and we are going to stay on it.
The EconomyMr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while the NDP members call for billions in new spending they do not know how to pay for, our Conservative government has a low-tax plan for jobs and growth. It is a responsible plan that keeps more money where it belongs, which is in the pockets of Canadian families and businesses to create jobs. While the NDP may not like it, responsible spending and lower taxes help promote economic growth and put Canadians to work.
 Will the Minister of State for Finance please inform the House of what Canadians should not expect from Canada's economic action plan 2013?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. Most people ask what is in the budget and of course we cannot tell them. However, I can, as I mentioned earlier, tell the House what will not be in the budget. 
There will not be, as the NDP would wish, $56 billion in risky spending. There will not be a $21 billion carbon tax that it wants to put in. There will not be a $34 billion tax hike on small businesses.
There will be action to promote jobs, growth and the long-term prosperity of our country. We are looking for support to get that completed.
HealthMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are failing our health care system. 
The latest report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information shows that wait times for priority surgeries are still too long. This is despite clear commitments that were made in the health accords. 
This utter mismanagement of Canada's health care system is simply unacceptable and the minister must be held to account. How much longer do Canadians have to wait before she takes action, or will the minister admit that she has no respect for the accords at all?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we respect the provinces and territorial jurisdiction in the area of health care to help the provinces and territories address the issue of wait times. We have made targeted investments of $6.5 billion. We are also providing long-term stable funding arrangement that will see transfers reach a historic level of $40 billion.
 Our government will continue to work with the provinces and the territories on wait times in priority areas such as cancer care, cardiac care and diagnostic testing. 
Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives can say whatever they want about health transfers, but the reality is that their new formula does not cover inflation, population growth or population aging. Wait time reductions were one of the key elements of the health accords. Although targets were reached initially, wait times have now increased. 
How does the minister plan to ensure that Canadians do not have longer wait times for surgeries?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous governments that balanced the books on the backs of the provinces and the territories, we have committed long-term stable funding to the provinces and territories that will see a historic level of $40 billion. Since we have formed government, health transfers from Ottawa to the provinces and territories have grown by nearly 35%.
 We will continue to work in partnership with the provinces and territories.
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us talk about health.
Since we have been questioning the Conservatives about the abnormally high rate of nickel dust in the Limoilou sector of Quebec City, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has ridiculed the public's concerns. In his opinion, the port authority is independent and is doing its job. As the minister knows, the Port of Quebec is his responsibility.
What does the minister intend to do to get to the bottom of this matter and protect the safety of the people of Quebec City?
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear that everything that happens in the Limoilou sector depends on the Port of Quebec.
The Port of Quebec is an independent organization that is part of Canada's port system and manages its own affairs. Of course, the NDP would like to run all the organizations in Canada and centralize them in Ottawa.
The NDP does not worry about placing trustworthy people and good administrators on a board of directors. We will respect that. There are things that are currently being done by the port and its partners, and they are going to resolve the problem.
Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue that deserves serious attention.
According to the Direction régionale de santé publique, the mortality rate in Limoilou is up to two times higher than in other sectors of Quebec City. With the recent events related to the nickel dust that is affecting this area, residents are concerned, and I can understand that.
The mayor of Quebec City and the minister responsible for the region in the National Assembly are asking the federal government to step in. Will the minister for once do his job and seriously look into this worrisome situation?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Port Authority is doing its job in this respect. Moreover, it is its duty to work in collaboration with its partners, the port's clients.
Scaring people is the opposition's daily task. Taking provincial health reports, mixing things up and turning it all into something to scare people, that is the only thing they are good at. We will continue to do things with respect for the people with whom we work.
JusticeMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that the crime rate has gone down 23% since 2002, but costs have increased by 23%, especially since 2006. 
The provinces obviously end up stuck with the bill for 73% of those costs.
My question is very simple. Does the government plan on helping the provinces, which have no choice but to pay the ever-increasing court and prison costs? Is the government prepared to help them?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that transfers to the provinces have been growing at record levels, and will continue to grow.
There has been an increase of over $20 billion just since this government has taken office. The hon. member should be aware of that.
 We all have a role to play in the fight against crime. We are doing our part and we are assisting provinces as well. 
The BudgetHon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, despite more than 30 years of declining crime rates, taxpayers are now spending over $20 billion a year to pay for Conservative crime policies that even U.S. Republicans are calling outdated and ineffective.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are funding their wasteful agenda by slashing vital programs like the old age pension and cutting services for seniors and the mentally ill.
Why is it that Conservatives continue to find endless pots of money for their prisons, but cannot find money to help seniors and other Canadians who need help?
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the lack of Liberal priorities. I think it is fair to say that any money spent on fighting crime in this country would not have the support of the Liberal Party.
That said, they missed the fact that $100 billion is the price of crime, most of which is borne by victims of crime. That is who we stand for and that is who we represent in this Parliament and in Canada.
Official LanguagesPierre Dionne Labelle: Mr. Speaker, on this International Day of La Francophonie, I want to know whether the government plans on renewing its commitment to the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, which expires on March 31.
This roadmap needs funding so that we can provide the services needed to sustain official language minority communities.
Will the government renew and index its funding to ensure that this country's official language communities continue to flourish?
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in a word: yes.
That is why we held round tables and discussions across the country last year. We held 22 round tables, in every region of the country, and we held discussions with francophone minority communities—and with anglophone minority communities in Quebec—to ensure that our government will always protect the interests of both official languages in Canada.
Search and RescueMs. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us stay on the topic of language.
The pilots who travel on the St. Lawrence River between Montreal and Quebec City have had to file a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages because they are unable to communicate in French with the icebreaker crew working on the St. Lawrence.
Already with the closure of the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City, we had to expect less service in French, but now things are downright dangerous.
On this International Day of La Francophonie, why are the Conservatives jeopardizing the safety of ship pilots, who have the right to work in French?
Keith Ashfield: Mr. Speaker, the question from the person opposite is entirely wrong. The Coast Guard does make every attempt to ensure that each vessel working in Quebec has a bilingual capacity to communicate with other vessels.
Marine communications and traffic services centres will continue to provide services in both official languages. These centres are the main point of contact for all vessels.
Natural ResourcesMr. Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Keystone XL pipeline is in Canada's national interest. It will create tens of thousands of jobs on both sides of the border, but the NDP opposes it.
Canada's building trade unions strongly support the Keystone pipeline and have a very strong message for Canadians: the NDP would be very bad for workers and the entire Canadian economy.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources please update the House on the Keystone XL pipeline?
Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the NDP leader continues to argue against Canada's national interest.
On this side of the House, we stand up for thousands of Canadians, including those represented by the Canadian building trades unions who are counting on the Keystone jobs. 
Unlike the NDP members, who reject science when it is inconvenient for them, we base our decisions on science and the facts. Supporting this important project is just one more way to create jobs.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Veterans Ombudsman called on the Conservatives to settle a class action lawsuit with disabled RCMP veterans. Former ombudsman Pat Stogran and veterans organizations have also called for a settlement in order to avoid repeating the costly mistake of fighting disabled Canadian Forces veterans in court for five years. The Conservatives lost that case, resulting in legal fees of over $60 million.
Instead of making the same mistake twice, will the government now talk directly with disabled RCMP veterans, settle the issue and give these veterans the fairness they deserve?
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course we on this side of the House support disabled persons and disabled veterans and disabled public employees. The matter is before the courts, and that is as much as I can say at this particular moment.
PensionsMs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world the budget would help people, but in Conservative Ottawa, budgets are used to weaken retirement security and cut old age security. In Conservative Ottawa, Canadians are forced to work two years longer before they can retire. Expert after expert after expert has contradicted the government and said OAS is sustainable.
Will the Conservatives now abandon their reckless and punitive cuts, abandon their plan to force Canadians to work longer and restore the OAS eligibility to age 65?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that the old age security system is there for Canadians when they retire, not just now but also in the future. To make it sustainable, we are making changes that will not begin to take effect until at least 2023 because we want to make sure that OAS will be there for Canadians when they need it.
Official LanguagesBernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, our government knows how important the French language is in Canada's history, and it shows this attachment day after day, here in Canada, within la Francophonie and around the world.
The Minister for La Francophonie recently met with the secretary general of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, as well as with his French counterpart, to reaffirm Canada's unwavering support for la Francophonie.
Could the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities touch on the importance of our government's commitment to la Francophonie?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, we recognize the essential role that la Francophonie plays in promoting the fourth most spoken language in the world. That is why Canada is one of the biggest contributors. That is also why the Prime Minister begins his speeches in French, no matter where he is.
Furthermore, in July 2012, we hosted the first French Language World Forum and the International Meeting of the Economic Francophonie, which were held in Quebec City.
We wish everyone an excellent International Day of La Francophonie.
TransportationMs. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, local elected officials, individuals and businesses in my riding all want to move forward with the Montreal metro blue line extension. It is an infrastructure project that has strong support and is good for the local economy, but it will be hard to undertake without support from the federal government.
Despite the difficulty that the Minister of Transport is having agreeing with Quebec on funding for public transit on the Champlain Bridge, can he tell us if he is currently in discussions with Quebec and Montreal about the metro project?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, to begin, there was a statement in that question that is completely untrue. The Quebec government was very clear on the federal government's role in the new bridge over the St. Lawrence and in its choice about public transit. Envelopes were given to the provinces, and the provinces made their own decisions.
Similarly, the metro is the responsibility of the City of Montreal and the Province of Quebec. Once again, the member wants us to manage their day-to-day work and make decisions for them. The federal government will continue to partner with the provinces and municipalities, but we will not replace them.
Official LanguagesMrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while today is the International Day of La Francophonie, this government has very little to celebrate. By justifying its refusal to apply Bill 101 to companies under federal jurisdiction based on a bogus report, making francophone public servants pay a high price for budget cuts and depriving Quebeckers of services in French, including emergency marine services and scientific libraries, the federal government is neglecting French and treating francophones like second-class citizens.
Will the Minister for La Francophonie do something and stop treating francophones like second-class citizens?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, those accusations are completely false.
Marie-France Kenny, president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, said, and I quote: We salute the commitments and efforts of this government for the results that they've received in protecting Canada's official languages. 
She said the commitments and efforts of this government for the results that we have received in protecting Canada's official languages should be saluted.

Routine Proceedings
Canadian Human Rights CommissionThe Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the 2012 annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Aboriginal Healing FoundationMr. Greg Rickford (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation's 2012 report.
Tsawwassen First NationGreg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, in addition, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2010-2011 Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Implementation Report. 
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 25 petitions. 
Committees of the HouseMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in relation to the main estimates 2013-2014. 
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to the main estimates 2013-2014.
Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages concerning the certificate of nomination of Graham Fraser to the position of Commissioner of Official Languages.
I note that the committee has examined the qualifications and competence of the nominee and has agreed that the nomination of Mr. Graham Fraser as Commissioner of Official Languages be concurred in. It was a vote all members of the committee, from all three parties, supported. 
Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions RegulationsMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-484, An Act Respecting the Amendment of the Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired Generation of Electricity Regulations.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising today to introduce this private member's bill to reduce greenhouse gases. It has been clearly established that emissions from coal-fired power plants are one of the most dangerous sources of greenhouse gases for the planet.
My private member's bill would work to improve and strengthen the weak regulations that have been put forward to deal with greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. 
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsMr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents. They note that Canada's definition of a child is a 400-year-old definition that defines a human being as becoming a human being only at the moment of complete birth. 
They call upon Parliament to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law by amending section 223 of our Criminal Code in a way the reflects 21st century science on this issue. 
Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present eight petitions from hundreds of residents from all across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, including from my own riding of Guelph. They wish the government to respect the standing of Canada's Experimental Lakes Area as a unique, world-renowned facility for freshwater research and education, that it recognize how important the ELA is to our responsibilities to protect our aquatic ecosystems and that it continue to provide financial resources.
The facility is one of a kind, where acid rain and mercury poisoning were first researched and discovered. It is an essential institution providing public good to all Canadians. 
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present, on behalf of thousands of people who sent these to my office, petitions in opposition to Bill C-279, otherwise known as “the bathroom bill”, that would give transgendered men access to women's public washroom facilities. These constituents feel that it is the duty of the House of Commons to protect and safeguard our children from any exposure and harm that would come from giving a man access to women's public washroom facilities. I present thousands of signatures on behalf of the riding in Calgary West, and I know that there are many others that have gone to other members in this place.
Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this month is National Brain Awareness Month. We need a national brain strategy. Canadians with MS want to know when patient accrual began for the CCSVI trials, how many patients have been recruited, how many centres have passed ethical review boards, what the milestones are and who is the person ultimately responsible for oversight of the trial. Is it the Minister of Health or someone else?
Petitioners are calling on the minister to consult experts actively engaged in diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI to undertake phase III clinical trials on an urgent basis and to require follow-up care.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition. After speaking at UBC, Simon Fraser University and Trinity Western University, we received a whack of petitions. They state that the CBC revealed that ultrasounds are being used in Canada to tell the sex of an unborn child so that if it is a girl, the pregnancy would be ended. Ninety-two per cent of Canadians condemn this. The fact is that our Conservative government has a strong position and we condemn the practice of sex selection. The petitioners ask that all members of Parliament support Motion No. 408 to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex selection.
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today calling on Parliament to offer an unequivocal, sincere and public apology to those home children and child migrants who died while being ashamed of their history and deprived of their families; the living yet elderly home children and child migrants who continue to bear the weight of their past; and the descendants of home children and child migrants who continue to feel the void passed down through generations while continuing to search out relatives lost as a result of a system that, in many instances, victimized them under the guise of protection.
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here that calls on all members of Parliament to support Motion No. 408 and condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.
Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present a petition from over 500 of my constituents who ask that members of the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination. The petitioners are asking that all members of Parliament support Motion No. 408 and condemn sex selection.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
The first is primarily signed by residents of Peterborough and Ajax, and like many other petitions presented today, the petitioners call on the government to change its wrong-headed decision to close the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area and keep it open so scientific research and knowledge can be pursued.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, second, I have a petition from residents of my constituency, specifically from Salt Spring Island, who call on the government to put forward a real climate plan to reduce greenhouse gases to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, the levels that science demands.
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition representing thousands of people from British Columbia. The petition highlights that last year, 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. The group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers, called Families for Justice, says that current impaired driving laws are too lenient. The petitioners are calling for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the Criminal Code of Canada to change to redefine the offence of “impaired driving causing death” to “vehicular manslaughter”.
David Sweet: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from hundreds of constituents who have serious concerns about Bill C-279. They are convinced that all Canadians are fully protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal Code and a legal system that recognizes that every citizen is equal before the law. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament to vote against Bill C-279.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I table today a petition signed by people from Winnipeg who are asking the government to reverse its decision to close the EL research station in recognition that the Experimental Lakes Area is world-renowned for what it does with regard to freshwater and education. It is with pleasure that I table the petition.
Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I have four batches of petitions today, all on the same subject. They continue to pour in on the subject of the Experimental Lakes Area. The petitioners call on Parliament to reverse the decision to close the ELA as well as to continue to support staff and have financial support for this important Canadian research institution.
The first batch is from the riding of Simcoe North. The second batch is from the riding of Kitchener—Conestoga. The third is from the Aurora area, and the fourth batch is from throughout southern Ontario.
The Speaker: I see the hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright is rising for a second time. Is it all right with the House if we recognize the hon. member?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Leon Benoit: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
 I am honoured to present a petition from people from Tofield, mainly from Tofield Lodge. The petitioners note that the CBC has revealed that ultrasounds are being used in Canada to determine the sex of an unborn child so that they can be used to terminate the pregnancy if the child is a girl. The petitioners note that this Parliament—all parties, in fact—have condemned sex selection in this House, and they call upon Parliament to support Motion No. 408 and condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex selection pregnancy termination.
The Speaker: I apologize to the House. When we were going through the earlier items of routine, I neglected to put the following motion forward, and I will do that now.
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):  moved: 
 That, in accordance with subsection 49(1) of the Official Languages Act R.S.C., 1985, c.31, and pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, this House approve the reappointment of Graham Fraser as Commissioner of Official Languages, for a term of three years. 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  On division.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 1160 will be answered today.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat: With regard to advertising by the government during the broadcast of Super Bowl XLVII on February 3, 2013: (a) what was the total cost for advertising; and (b) what was the cost for each advertisement shown?
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada purchased airtime during the broadcast of Super Bowl XLVII on February 3, 2013, for two separate Government of Canada campaigns--the better jobs campaign for Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, and the economic action plan campaign for Finance Canada, FC. 
For the better jobs campaign, HRSDC purchased one 30-second spot on the CTV national network, one 30-second spot on the local CTV station in Winnipeg and three 30-second spots on the RDS network. Because of technical difficulties during the broadcast, the CTV network ran the ad two more times, free of charge, and RDS ran the ad one more time, free of charge. 
For the economic action plan campaign, Finance Canada purchased two 30-second spots on the RDS network. 
The Government of Canada does not disclose information about the specific amounts paid for individual ad placements or the amounts paid to specific media outlets. This information is considered third party business sensitive and is protected under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1158 and 1159 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Scott Simms: With regard to pre-budget roundtables held since December 1, 2012: (a) what are the total travel and accommodation costs incurred in respect to each roundtable by each participating minister, parliamentary secretary, staff member or other government employee; (b) what are the details of all other costs incurred in respect to each roundtable, including (i) room rentals, (ii) catering, (iii) advertising, (iv) printing, (v) equipment rental, (vi) other costs, specifying those other costs; (c) were any individuals or organizations specifically invited to attend each roundtable and, if so, what were the criteria for issuing such invitations; (d) what was the attendance at each roundtable; and (e) were summaries or reports prepared on the discussion at each roundtable and, if so, what is the file number of each summary or report? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: With regard to consultant contracts awarded by Public Works and Government Services Canada between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2012, broken down by date, what are the dates, amounts and contract file numbers awarded to (i) Roche Consulting Group, (ii) Louisbourg Construction, (iii) Garnier Construction, (iv) Simard-Beaudry Construction, (v) Catcan Entreprises, (vi) CIMA+, (vii) Dessau? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Last, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Motions for PapersTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Business of SupplyMr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):  moved: 
 That, in the opinion of the House: (a) public science, basic research and the free and open exchange of scientific information are essential to evidence-based policy-making; (b) federal government scientists must be enabled to discuss openly their findings with their colleagues and the public; and (c) the federal government should maintain support for its basic scientific capacity across Canada, including immediately extending funding, until a new operator is found, to the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area Research Facility to pursue its unique research program.
[Interjection]
The Speaker:  Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 2013, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills.
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, although it is always a privilege to speak in the House, today it is with a heavy heart that I rise to debate our NDP opposition day motion on science and scientific freedom.
Before moving to the motion, I would like to clarify that we use the term “science” in the broadest possible sense, encompassing the natural sciences, technology, engineering and math, the so-called STEM disciplines, as well as the social sciences and humanities. By science, we mean all forms of intellectual endeavour whereby truth is sought.
Our motion has three main points. The first is for all MPs to support the basic principle that federal scientists must be enabled to openly discuss their findings with the public. Second is also a fundamental principle that public science, basic research and the free and open exchange of scientific information are essential to evidence-based policy-making. The third point is a specific request that the federal government maintain support for basic scientific capacity across Canada, including immediately extending funding to the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area research facility.
To begin I will talk about our first principle, which we are asking the House to vote in support of tonight. This concerns allowing scientists to discuss their findings, a practice that sits at the very heart of what for centuries has been called the scientific method.
Science is not test tubes or data sets or microscopes or space stations, but a method by which we explore and attempt to explain our world. Central to the scientific method is the public disclosure of data and test results. This is crucial as it allows others to replicate research and retest and re-examine how and why scientists reached their conclusions. Without a strict adherence to the scientific method, we do not generate science but mere propaganda.
 Our motion asks that the House recognize that we in this place support a critical component of the scientific method, namely that researchers employed by the Canadian government not be restricted in their ability to share their work.
I was shocked to recently discover that during an interview on #FAQMP, the Minister of State (Science and Technology) actually bragged about getting daily briefings to ascertain whether “some scientist leaked information to another country”. Is this what we have come to? Does the government live in such fear of our top researchers that it requires daily briefings as to whether our scientists are traitors? We ask government members to vote “yes” to our motion to prove otherwise.
The second point concerns public science for Canadians. Our second principle concerns ensuring government policy is based on the best available research, and that this research is made available to the public.
Canadians support science through their tax dollars. However, by suppressing the results of public research, Conservatives either seem to think that Canadian taxpayers are incapable of understanding the science being done on their behalf or think it is too dangerous to allow them to be informed and make decisions for themselves.
I would also like to mention at this point that I will be splitting my time.
Despite their disdain for science, hopefully the members on the government side of the House can see how important it is that our policies, including those connected to the economy and the environment, be based on solid evidence and not ideology. It is hard for scientists to take comfort in platitudes from members opposite. They hear the same talking points about how the Conservative government values scientific research.
Canadian scientists know full well that the voices of their colleagues are being silenced. Canadian scientists know that our international partners are now choosing not to collaborate with us because they question the integrity of Canadian science and fear government interference with their work. Canadian scientists also know that promising young students are being turned away because funding for scholarships and research labs is being drastically cut. Canadian scientists know that labs across Canada must now scramble to secure emergency funding and finding none, wait for an eleventh hour pardon for the crime of believing that furthering knowledge is worthy of their life's effort.
Finally, our NDP opposition day motion calls on the Conservatives to concretely demonstrate their commitment to discovery by ensuring long-term stable funding for basic research, starting with the extension of funds to the Experimental Lakes Area. In the grand scheme of things, the few hundred thousand dollars it takes to keep the ELA open is a pittance, both in real numbers, when compared to many other government schemes and policies, and in relative terms, recognizing how much Canadians and indeed the whole world has benefited from the work being done there.
To quote our outgoing environment commissioner, Scott Vaughan: 
 —this is something that doesn't exist elsewhere and also it's been under way now for a couple of decades. When you turn that switch off...it is incredibly difficult to turn the switch back on.... When these scientists are gone, to try to then rebuild those programs is really difficult. 
I have spoken with the very people who laid the groundwork for Canada's greatest living laboratory and it deeply saddens me when I think of how this government has squandered our advantages and has surrendered this critical international research facility to loggers' chainsaws. That is right. Instead of being used to solve questions such as the effect of silver nanoparticles on the environment, the forests around the lakes are likely to be logged bare.
Let us not forget that what is happening to the ELA is happening in research facilities right across Canada. The ELA is just one cruel symbol among many of the Conservative science policy.
While I am sure the Minister of State (Science and Technology) will stand and say that his government has invested more than any other, in fact, that is not true. The most recent Statistics Canada report shows that last year the Conservatives cut 6% from science and technology funding and laid off 1,500 personnel engaged in science and technology activities. Canada committed 1.8% of our gross domestic product to research and development in 2010, down from our 2.1% commitment in 2001. Our southern neighbours under President Obama now spend 3% of GDP on research and development, and other developed countries spend up to 4.5%. 
The Conservatives' cuts to science have hit hard primary funding agencies such as SSHRC, NSERC and CIHR. They have forced many labs and research institutes to close and forced promising early-career researchers to move abroad for research opportunities.
A letter of concern signed by University of Ottawa professor David Bryce and 46 other top scientists on the moratorium on NSERC's major resources support program said:
 There are now no funding streams dedicated to the purchase of scientific equipment or to operate nationally and internationally unique resources. The loss of the MRS program in particular means that resources built up over many years could be lost or made inaccessible due to loss of personnel needed to sustain the resource. 
The principal investigator for the advanced laser light source, the first and only large-scale laser user facility in Canada, described the sudden cut of his funding as a bullet to the head.
Pieces form the whole. One cannot expect that Canada will be in the position to lead the global push for innovation in the 21st century on one hand, but then on the other, ruthlessly slash the scientific research capacity from which innovation stems. One cannot expect that the voices of Canadian scientists will be the ones that inspire the world, but still choose to muzzle many and cast over all the fear of retribution.
The innate human drive of curiosity is a powerful and beautiful thing, but that which leads us to world-changing discoveries is first contingent upon our freedom and capacity to innovate. That freedom, that capacity, is being taken away by the Conservative government. 
Canadian scientists need the freedom to speak freely and have their work judged not by political loyalty tests but by their peers in the field. Ensuring scientific capacity is strong means stable, sustainable funding for basic research and ensuring the next generation of Canadian scientists receive the support they need.
The NDP believes in scientific research and though it may take decades to reverse the effects of these short-sighted Conservative cuts, Canada will climb out from these new Dark Ages. We will look back at the Conservative legacy littered with logged lakes and mothball spectrometers and ask: How could we have let this happen?
Science and knowledge will prevail. Today is the first day of spring. Let us end the long Conservative winter for science and use this opposition day motion to turn things around.
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have spent the better part of my career working in research administration with academic researchers in two prestigious universities in this country. I have to say from first-hand experience working in this field that I have seen the change in funding and the impact on science and technology that has come directly from this government. 
When our government took power, we increased the funding to the tri-councils. We increased funding to agencies such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation. I personally saw the installation of major research facilities that enhance the capacity for us to train students and commercialize our research. In fact, when we talk to academics across this country, people who are looking to come to this country, they know that our government has built a science capacity that allows people to stay here. We are a magnet for international research. 
Every single one of these facts that my colleagues have stated have been out of context, misquoted. They are patently fearmongering. Can the member give me the exact amount of funding that the tri-councils have been reduced by? It does not exist. How about the Canada Foundation for Innovation? How about any of the departments in which we have supported science and technology? It is false and it is wrong.
[Interjection]
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I know the Conservatives are busily cutting away at Statistics Canada and in fact they do not read these reports. The last report from Statistics Canada said that there was a 6% cut to science and technology in Canada. The overall spending by the government on science and technology is being cut by 6%. It is easy. Anyone can go to the web page and see that there has been a 6% cut. This cut is being felt across all scientific organizations. There have been 1,500 science and technology staff laid off. This is also in the Statistics Canada numbers. 
Although the Conservatives would like to do away with this organization and they are facing a massive cut in the recent estimates, we will not let that happen. The NDP is here to stand up for science.
Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the most important part of a science conference is the informal discussions that take place in the hallways, not the formal presentations in the seminar rooms. What happens in the hallways is that people have ideas and data. They are 80% sure they understand what is going on and they share their ideas among their colleagues, who push, pull, squeeze and test the ideas. Then after those conversations, they may be 90% sure or perhaps 0% sure because someone shot down their idea. That 90% then becomes 95% and people keep talking. That is how scientific ideas are tested, hardened and refined.
I do not know if the government properly appreciates the importance of communication and of trying out ideas that one is not quite sure about, which might be wrong or embarrassing, or the effect of having media handlers follow scientists around at scientific conferences. I am wondering what my hon. colleague thinks about that.
[Interjection]
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I know the member spent many years in academic halls, as have I, and we know a great many people doing research across Canada and around the world.
There is a chill being created in Canada. All one has to do to find out what is happening internationally is to look at the German researchers who have just pulled out of a major experiment in Alberta because of what is happening at the federal level. The idea that every scientific proposal has to be screened and that scientists cannot go to conferences and talk about their findings without having someone clear their notes is unacceptable. It is going to really hurt science in Canada.
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of speaking today on this NDP motion, which is aimed at protecting public science and the freedom of speech of scientists. This is a crucial issue because public science has direct implications for the air we breath, the water we drink and the environment around us.
Again this week, the Minister of State for Science and Technology boasted that the Canadian government had never invested so much in science. However, he forgot to mention that his government blindly made cuts to the industrial research tax credit program. By reducing the tax credit provided by the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program, the Conservatives are trying to save $500 million at the expense of entrepreneurs and people working in innovative companies.
The Minister of State for Science and Technology also forgot to mention that it is his government that made cuts to basic research and a dozen or so research programs at Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Library and Archives Canada, National Research Council Canada, Statistics Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the National Council of Welfare and the First Nations Statistical Institute.
We should also remember that it was this government that eliminated the research tools and instruments grants program, put a moratorium on the major resources support program of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, cut funding for the PEARL research station in the high Arctic, cut the centres of excellence budget by 17% and made the irresponsible decision to abolish funding for the experimental lakes program, a world-renowned research program. 
 But the most telling statistic is gross domestic expenditures on research and development—an important indicator of research and development performed in Canada—which has fallen to its lowest level in 15 years under this government. In 2011, gross spending on research and development represented 1.74% of GDP, a significant reduction from 2.09% in 2001. 
The reduction in research spending undermines our ability to innovate. Again this year, Canada fell two positions in the innovation rankings by the World Economic Forum. 
This all goes to show that the Conservatives are not credible when they say they are the champions of research and innovation. By cutting government programs and support for industrial research, they are setting a bad example for businesses, which are delaying their investments, and causing an exodus of researchers.
According to Dr. Matthew Stanbrook, a respirologist and editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal: 
 The erosion of research funding in federal budgets raises concerns over a brain drain. 
And he says that we are already seeing this brain drain. People are going to countries like the United States and Great Britain.
Dr. John Hepburn, vice-president, research and international, at the University of British Columbia, noted that we are now starting to lose talented mid-career researchers to the European Union. The EU framework program, France and Germany are all increasing their basic research envelope. He added that Germany is increasing funding for basic research by 5% and that European countries can do targeted recruitment and they are making spectacular offers. That is his main concern.
And on the business side, BlackBerry is threatening to move its research activities out of Canada. In 2011, this company invested $1.5 billion in research and development.
According to a Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters survey of Canadian businesses, 18% of businesses indicated that they will move their research activities and 69% said that they will reduce their research budget if the Conservatives go ahead with this bad policy.
In addition to having to work with increasingly tight budgets and having less access to cutting-edge research tools, Canadian scientists are having to deal with an increasingly poisoned atmosphere while the government tries to enforce a kind of law of silence.
Since coming to power, the Conservatives have tightened the leash on scientists. 
On the one hand, the focus of research is controlled more and more by the government. Basic research that satisfies scientific curiosity is no longer valued. However, what the Conservatives do not understand is that basic research often leads to our greatest discoveries.
On the other hand, the government has tried to restrict scientists' freedom of speech in a number of ways: they cannot attend scientific conferences; they are not allowed to speak directly to specialized journalists; and certain studies that could contradict the policies and ideology of the Conservative government are not published.
I have come up with some particularly absurd examples of government censorship. Scientist Scott Dallimore was told that the minister's office had to approve his message before he spoke to the media. His research was about flooding that occurred in northern Canada 13,000 years ago.
I have another example of this government's paranoia. An Ottawa Citizen journalist called the National Research Council to obtain information about a Canada-U.S. study on the geometry of snowflakes. It only took him 15 minutes to contact a NASA scientist, but the NRC response was late and provided only after 11 officials exchanged 50 emails.
The Conservative government's attitude towards its scientists is problematic in many ways. Taxpayers have paid for these studies and therefore it seems only right that they be published and promoted.
Censorship affects democracy. Public policies must be based on science, not ideological prejudices. With its reign of terror, the Conservative government is trying to silence scientists who could contradict it. That is unacceptable. 
Furthermore, Canada's ability to innovate relies on the rapid and open dissemination of the results of scientific and technical research. Knowledge is acquired from the experiments conducted. It can be compared to the construction of a house: it is built brick by brick, fact by fact. If the government holds back information, science does not advance as quickly.
In closing, I would like to say a few words about one of these programs—the Experimental Lakes Area program—which is mentioned in the third part of today's motion. 
In the previous budget, the Conservative government announced that it would stop funding the Experimental Lakes Area program at the end of the month. The cancellation of this program by the Conservatives marks the end of 44 years of continuous research to improve fisheries and water quality.
New buyers have expressed an interest in the site, but the Conservatives are already dismantling the Experimental Lakes Area research facility, which will make transferring the site to a new operator much more difficult. 
Our hopes that the open-air laboratory would remain under federal management were dashed, but will the Conservative government at the very least not sabotage the program so that the site can retain its scientific value in the long term?
I hope that the Conservative government will use the 2013 budget it is introducing tomorrow to fix its mistakes.
The government must invest more in Canada's research capacity. It must stop firing and harassing federal scientists, and it must provide better support for companies that want to invest in research and development in Canada. Thousands of good jobs depend on that investment.
In closing, I believe that we must leave future generations a legacy instead of the huge environmental debt that the Conservatives are running up.
I therefore ask all members of the House to support the NDP motion.
Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleagues across the way, but I have to point out a number of mistakes they have made in their research. First, the member said we reduced funding for industrial research. That is factually incorrect. Originally it was about $83 million or $84 million a year. We added an additional $110 million to that program. The member voted against it. That could perhaps be why she does not know. We also have increased science funding by an additional $8 billion. I know that when I went to school, grade three mathematics suggested that $8 billion was more than not. 
However, I also want to mention a couple of names because the member talked about migration out of Canada. We have a net migration of brains in Canada. Let me ask my hon. colleague what she thinks about Marcel Babin, from France, coming here; Ali Emadi, who is a hybrid powertrain expert, one of the world's best, coming out of the United States; and Oliver Ernst from Germany, structural neurobiology, all basic research. 
I have a huge list that I would be happy to table of some of the brightest minds on the planet who are desperate to come to Canada to do their research because of our funding.
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives continue to cut funding for science, people will not choose to stay.
The numbers speak volumes, and I would like to share some with the House. We know that investment in research and development in Canada amounted to 1.92% of our gross domestic product in 2009. That is almost one whole percentage point lower than the United States' total investment in research and development. It is also lower than the OECD average, which is 2.33%.
It is therefore clear that the Conservative government has nothing to be proud of when it comes to its record on research and development. Clearly, if the Conservative government continues to cut funding for science and basic research, Canadian scientists will continue to leave.
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question about the last part of the motion regarding the Experimental Lakes Area. In response to questions in question period on the Experimental Lakes Area, the DFO minister said his department is still doing research on freshwater at the Winnipeg Freshwater Institute. However, I do not know if the government realizes that scientists at the Winnipeg Freshwater Institute actually use the Experimental Lakes Area as a place to do experimental work. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on that.
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's policy makes absolutely no sense. We know that the Experimental Lakes Area is part of a unique program that is useful for science, the protection of our waters and research on our environment and our health.
I would also like to come back to what the parliamentary secretary said earlier about the migration of brains, because we know that the brain drain is a reality, as I said in my speech. Dr. John Hepburn said that we are now starting to lose talented mid-career researchers to the EU. Furthermore, according to a survey on the concerns of Canadian manufacturers and exporters, Canadian businesses are thinking about moving their research and development activities to other countries that are more open to industrial innovation. 
Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have yet another casualty of the ideological Conservative government. The Helmholtz Institute that was working with the University of Alberta has now pulled out. This is a major loss for a Canadian university, and it is all due to the ideological position of the Conservative government that is hurting research, hurting science. 
I have spoken with researchers from the University of Alberta, and they said they did not have the logistical support of the federal government to run this kind of collaboration. We see yet another brain drain that has gone on due to the ideology of the government. Losing $25 million for the University of Alberta is significant. Could the hon. member speak to this point?
[Interjection]
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservative government's policy is undermining our international reputation. I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention. We also know that this government does not have a clear plan to provide the necessary framework for science and technology in Canada.
I would like to quote from an article written by the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton concerning his version of a potential policy for science and technology. In the article, he suggests that instead of funding public science, that money should be offered to researchers as prizes, which I think is ridiculous. He boasted about a recommendation made to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, saying:
 In Canada, the House of Commons transport committee unanimously made the cost-neutral recommendations to the government to “redirect a portion of its existing research and its innovation budget away from institutions and toward substantial prize money”.
I find that position completely ridiculous.
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, we could spend the day sending barbs back and forth. I could remind the member that just a couple of weeks ago, Fraunhofer announced that it would partner with the University of Western Ontario. We could also tell the member opposite that this idea about using federal funding as awards to stimulate research in areas of critical importance is very common around the world and has worked extremely well at meeting the needs and the challenges that societies face around the world. This is not in lieu of anything else. It is an idea that we consider to boost our scientific outputs. 
It does, however, give me great opportunity to highlight the approach of the Government of Canada to supporting science and technology, which has been a major priority of our government since coming to office.
In 2007 the Prime Minister launched the science and technology strategy, a multi-year strategy, and since then we have made great strides and significant investments to strengthen Canada's advantages.
 We are quickly establishing Canada's leadership in many scientific fields. For example, last February, a Canadian team, led by the TRIUMF physics lab in Vancouver, announced the promising news that it had developed a method of making the next generation medical isotope in existing cyclotron. What this means is that we will no longer need to use nuclear reactors. In coming years, this advancement will help hospitals, save time and money and reduce patient wait times and improve treatment protocols.
A few months later, in April, a Canadian scientific team was part of the groundbreaking study that revealed ten distinct types of breast cancer. This discovery promises to make diagnoses more precise and ultimately allow for more effective treatments. We are very proud of saying yes and voting to fund these types of initiatives.
In June researchers at the University of Montreal published their development of a new approach to visualize how proteins actually assemble themselves in a chemical reaction. This could lead to not only a much better understanding of diseases such Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, but it could have wider implications on how the world looks at things such as biomedical basic science.
In September researchers at the University of Waterloo's Institute for Quantum Computing participated in a groundbreaking experiment that even I find hard to believe. They teleported a particle over a distance of 143 kilometres. This is actually the farthest distance of teleportation that ever happened on this planet. This institute is part of a global effort to develop quantum Internet, which again will be Canadians behind changing the way we do business on the Internet.
Promising advancements are also emerging from Canadian involvement in pure science at CERN, the European Nuclear Research Organisation. Canadian researchers, funded in part by this federal government, were partners in this year's great discoveries, like measuring the intrinsic properties of antimatter atoms and identifying the elusive Higgs boson, an elementary particle in the standard model of particle physics, sufficiently well known to have entered popular culture.
Another significant event that Canadian researchers were involved in that took place in Ottawa just last fall and again funded by the federal government's dollars, was the National Research Council's achievement, which I believe is a major milestone for aviation. In fact, a civil jet powered by 100% unblended biofuel was flown. This is a historic flight that symbolizes a significant step, not only for the aerospace industry but also for the advancement of sustainable sources of renewable energy. That is exactly why, on my side of the House, we vote yes to funding science and technology at every chance we are given. 
Our celebrated astronaut, a personal friend of mine, Chris Hadfield, is currently serving as the first Canadian Commander of the International Space Station. We have been delighted for months with his engaging tweets, his humour, his incredible photographs of earth from the International Space Station. In fact, his communications have become almost more popular than the President of the Treasury Board's, if I can send a little humour out there.
These are just a few examples of only the research that made it to the headlines last year. We can take pride in these achievements and we definitely do that, not only as Canadians and members of Parliament, but as members of the global scientific community. That is because science knows no borders. It benefits everyone.
We know that science has to keep up with the frontiers and the challenges that face the globe and our nations. That is why we are focusing on such priorities as the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg, the Bayfield Institute in Burlington and cleaning up Lake Winnipeg and Lake Simcoe.
I would remind members of the House that just a few years ago, in the midst the worst global economic downtown since the Great Depression, governments around the world were facing very difficult choices, not only for us in Canada, but countries all over the world. They continue to do so in many instances. 
We have seen difficult cuts to science and technology spending from many of our peer nations, cuts that have cost scientists and professors in nations, such as England, the United States and many others. In contrast, in Canada, our Prime Minister took an entirely different approach. We chose to invest in science and technology. 
The opposition, commonly known in the House as the no discovery party, voted against each and every one of the budgets that contained more funding for research. Now the New Democrats are standing wanting us to support an endeavour that they voted against in the first place.
We have made historic investments in science infrastructure, ensuring that our scientists have state of the art laboratories and equipment. Through the knowledge infrastructure program, we invested $2 billion in more than 500 post-secondary research infrastructure projects all across the country. 
We did this when jobs were needed the most, but the NDP voted against this $2 billion, which went on to be leveraged by the provinces, the private sectors and the institutions to total over $5 billion. These are good quality jobs for our construction sector when they need it most and laboratories and research capacities for our scientists today and tomorrow.
We know that investments in science and technology and innovation create those high-quality and value-added jobs. They grow our economy and are fundamental to the long-term prosperity of the country. 
However, the opposition rejects science when it is not convenient. For example, the NDP leader recently went to the United States and attacked the Keystone XL pipeline, when science has said it is supportable. The New Democrats attack it when it is not convenient for them.
We continue to strengthen research infrastructure through organizations such as the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. Over the years, we have given them over $1 billion to put state-of-the-art equipment into their new laboratories and facilities. Of course, the NDP voted against that as well. 
I would like to mention for the NDP that the $2 billion in the knowledge infrastructure program was a stimulus project. It was for two years and it ended. The member takes that information, twists it and suggests that it has been cut. It was a temporary program. The definition of temporary is that it comes and we bump up the expenditure. When it ends, and it has done its job remarkably well, that expenditure is not in the funding. However, the NDP twists those facts.
One fact that the New Democrats continue to ignore is that since 2006, when this government came to office, we have increased science and technology by $8 billion in new dollars. We have made significant investments in basic science and scientific research at colleges and universities across Canada.
Do not just listen to me. The OECD has said that Canada ranks at the top of the G7 in higher education expenditures on R and D as expressed as a percentage of our GDP. Our government is committed to building on these significant achievements. One of the ways we are doing that is through government programs that connect Canadian researchers and institutions to the international community to strengthen Canada's world-class research talent and reputation. 
We have programs such as the Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships, the Banting Postdoctoral Fellowships and the Canadian Excellence Research Chairs program that ensure that the brightest minds on the planet want to come to Canada, the brightest minds who are already here want to stay here and we have the ability to train the next generation brightest minds. 
The Canada Excellence Research Chairs is a $10 million program over seven years. It is the most generous program on the planet. That is exactly why we have a brain gain in the country, despite what one might hear from the opposition. 
We are delivering programs that enhance collaboration as well among the private and public sectors, programs such as the Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research, the College and Community Innovation Program, Business-Led Networks of Centres of Excellence and the Industrial Research and Development Internships program. These build industry and academic connections that lead to new products and new processes that will lead to new and better jobs and economic strength. 
Our efforts are clearly making a difference. In a highly competitive global environment, where innovation cannot lag behind and collaboration matters more each day, we cannot stay constantly with what we have done in the past, but must look to the future and organize our scientific endeavours with that in mind. 
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition can take notes on this fact and share some of the following scientific facts on his next field trip outside Canada, rather than propaganda that costs Canadians jobs and security.
 Last fall, the Council of Canadian Academies, an independent study group, released a report showing that Canadian science and technology was healthy. It is growing and it is recognized around the globe for its excellence, not in Canada or outside Canada by the NDP, but by the top scientific researchers around the world. They ranked Canada's science and technology as fourth in the world, only behind the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany. It was not fourth as a percentage of our population or as a percentage of our GDP, but in absolute terms. They also said that with less than 0.5% of the globe's population, Canada produced more than 4% of the globe's scientific papers and nearly 5% of the world's most frequently cited papers.
 Canada clearly is punching above its weight in scientific expertise. Our reputation is helping to further strengthen that and our position and we do not expect or desire to lose that momentum. 
Canada has become a powerful magnet for high-quality researchers from abroad. We are pleased that researchers come to Canada to do their work and our researchers go to their nations. That is part of the ongoing ebb and tide of international scientific co-operation. We do not just force our scientists to stay here, we share them with the rest of the world and the rest of the world shares theirs with us. 
That is why we will see a change of scientific numbers in Canada, but the bottom line is, as pointed out by many of the researchers, Canada has become a powerful magnet for high-quality researchers from around the world.
Unlike the opposition, our government is extremely proud of the world-class work that our scientists and researchers do. We value and support the important work they do every day. We rely on the critical knowledge that they produce to help us form public policy and meet the needs of Canadians, not just today, not necessarily yesterday, and certainly tomorrow. 
Our government employs and supports scientists and researchers in countless capacities. In 2011-12 alone more than 20,000 scientific and professorial personnel worked for the federal government, including some 7,000 engaged in research and development.
The exemplary work of these individuals helps us achieve key social goals, such as improving public health, ensuring safety of foods and products, building strong and vibrant economies all across the nation and ensuring a clean and healthy environment for future generations. 
As a government, we understand that for these benefits to be fully realized, research findings must be effectively communicated and shared with Canadians. On federal science, as with all matters, the government's policy is to provide the public with clear and objective information about policies, programs and services, and there are many avenues through which this can happen. 
For example, each year scientists at federal departments and agencies produce thousands of peer-reviewed articles, research reports and data sets that are available to other scientists, to Canadians and to other scientific communities around the world.
For example, Environment Canada participated in more than 1,300 media interviews. In 2010, its scientists published 524 peer-reviewed journal articles. In 2012, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada issued 1,142 peer-reviewed scientific publications and 711 non-peer-reviewed publications. In 2010, NRCan published 487 scientific publications.
These are just a few of the numerous departments and agencies that actively share their research. The numbers show that this government not only stands behind its scientists and supports them in their work but also makes the data they generate available to Canadians and makes more data available to Canadians than ever before.
In recent years the government has also unveiled new measures to increase Canadians' access to federally funded scientific data.
For example, in 2012 the government enacted changes providing Canadians free access to Statistics Canada's main socio-economic database, CANSIM. Another example is the government's action plan on open government, led by the President of the Treasury Board.
Open government is based on three core initiatives: open data, open information and open dialogue.
 Open data is about offering government data in a useful format. It allows citizens, the private sector and non-governmental organizations to leverage government data in innovative new ways. Open information is about proactively releasing information on government activities to Canadians on an ongoing basis. Open dialogue is about giving Canadians in an online community a stronger say in the development of government policies and so on.
Through this initiative, the federal government launched its open data portal, a one-stop shop for federal government data that can be downloaded free of charge by Canadian citizens, researchers, voluntary organizations, private sector business, and the list goes on and on. In fact, the portal features thousands of government data sets now freely available to the public.
We have also put in place initiatives to share federal scientific knowledge directly with Canadians. That can be found at the website science.gc.ca. 
These communication initiatives play an important role in our government's science and technology strategy, and it is through this strategy that we have redefined the way governments, business people and the research community band together and work together to drive economic activity through science.
We are working to bring the private, public and academic sectors together for the benefit of all Canadians. Why? It is because, as the Prime Minister has often said, science powers commerce. By moving this data out of our laboratories onto our factory floors and out to the living rooms and hospitals of the world, we will not only achieve more jobs and economic growth here, and a better quality of life, but we will also help people around the world do exactly the same thing.
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech the minister mentioned a free sharing of data through CANSIM, which is a great service that is offered to Canadians.
There is a table that StatsCan puts together using CANSIM data, table 380-0056. Table 380-0056 shows that in 2010-2011 the federal government spent $12 billion on science and technology, in 2011-2012 it spent $11.6 billion, and in 2012-2013 it spent $10.9 billion.
As 12, 11 and 10 are descending, that is a cut. Does the minister agree with that?
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that especially in the House of Commons, the member do better research than that. In the last budget alone there was an additional $1.1 billion for science, technology and innovative firms.
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will recount for the House an episode from several years ago that really illustrates the current government's approach to information and science. 
The minister's colleague, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, was then the Minister of the Environment. Apparently a leak occurred in Environment Canada, according to the minister, who then summarily dispatched the RCMP to arrest a clerk who was responsible for clippings in the morning at the Department of the Environment. The clerk was led out in handcuffs in front of over 200 employees at a science-based department called Environment Canada.
Let us take this theme of environment and give this recount for Canadians: the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, gone; Sustainable Development Technology Canada, barely surviving; foundation for climate change research, eliminated; 700 and then 200 more positions announced at Environment Canada to be eliminated; the Global Environment Monitoring System, a UN partnership of decades, gone; Office of the National Science Advisor, gone; Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory, PEARL, gone; the Experimental Lakes Area, gone.
 That is just one area where the government has systematically dismantled decades of investment in order to prepare Canada and its citizens for the future of adapting to and mitigating climate change.
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I first will congratulate the hon. member for taking the file as critic for science and technology. I look forward to working with him. I know he was quite adamant on the environment file, despite increasing greenhouse gases under his party's leadership by some 30%. 
I would like to say we will take no lessons from a party that cut funding during the last economic downturn, which was nothing compared to the one we just faced a few years ago. The Liberals cut science and technology funding.
The fact is again we see the member saying things like “PEARL is closed”. That is actually incorrect. This is a building that is open. This is an infrastructure building that the federal government funds. I am not sure whether the member voted for it or against it. I am pretty convinced the New Democrats voted against it.
What we want to do is ensure that the tax dollars we are spending on science and technology, at record historic levels, are spent on the needs of the nation. Those needs change. The world faces different challenges from one year to the next. I congratulate my colleagues for recognizing that fact and that we are building capacity to do research, not just at state of the art but in ways that will change the way our social systems work and will change the economic benefits to society.
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister's commitment to science and technology, particularly in very practical ways so that it is going to contribute to the economy as well. 
The minister mentioned the knowledge infrastructure program in Windsor as a stimulus project. For two years there were significant construction jobs during the great recession to build the Centre for Engineering Innovation at the University of Windsor. The centre brings together in the same environment students, engineers and businesses to not only provide a solid learning environment for students pursuing engineering degrees but also to solve real-world problems and make our businesses much more competitive.
First, could the minister comment on whether we are going in the right direction? Second, why is it that the opposition members oppose measures like this? Are they opposed to our economy succeeding because our science is strong?
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question, because this is a trend that we are pursuing here in Canada. We do not apologize for it. I have travelled around the world. I was just in Belgium a couple of weeks ago. We see them scrambling to get up to where Canada is.
 Where is Canada? We have rebuilt our research capacity at our universities and colleges. There are new laboratories and state-of-the-art equipment going into those labs, and brilliant minds from around the world work that equipment in those laboratories. 
However, we are pressing and focusing a bit harder on the other end, the commercialization end of all of that knowledge. We have to do both. We are very strong in this country in basic research and we intend to stay there. Where we could do a little better is on the commercialization end of that knowledge. We have an obligation to do that. If we are serious about saving the environment and if we are serious about improving quality of life and saving lives, we must move those discoveries out of the laboratories, build those products in our factories and sell them to the living rooms and hospitals of the world.
Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, science is non-partisan. 
I know that the Conservative government has cut “non-partisan” from its vocabulary, but if we want to get things done in Ottawa, we need impact studies so that we can know whether something will have a positive or negative impact, or both. This does not apply only to basic science.
For example, the minister responsible for employment insurance herself admitted that she had not done any impact studies on her EI reform. Was that because she was afraid of what those studies would show? I have to wonder.
Why does the government not conduct studies when it does things here in the House?
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Actually, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we do. We use science to make our policy decisions. This is how we make foreign policy decisions and decisions here at home. 
Indeed, I would ask NDP members opposite to respect science as they pretend to. The science is in on the safety of the Keystone XL pipeline. There is science that tells us that bitumen is no more of a corrosive product than normal heavy crude. However, the member's leader goes to the United States, ignores all of this science, refuses to listen to the scientists that New Democrats pretend to support, cuts down Canada and puts at risk our economic security and jobs. That is shameful.
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology spoke about scientific knowledge being used to help the government form public policy. He also talked about cleaning up Lake Winnipeg. I know my colleague understands that in science it is important to do experiments to understand things. I am wondering if he would agree that it is better to do an experiment on a small lake than it is to do an experiment on Lake Winnipeg.
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is in fact a scientist himself and would understand that there is the capability of not actually using the entire lake to do freshwater studies. I am sure my scientific colleague knows that equipment can be set in the lake so that research can be done in a contained area and the entire lake is not exposed to the experiment. I would encourage scientists to consider that.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, an assault on science is an assault on good government policy.
 I am a biologist and an ecologist. I was a scientist before becoming an MP, and what I see in the House of Commons is disturbing. On this side of the aisle there are a lot of people who believe in facts, data, statistics and science as a basis for policy. On that side of the aisle, all too often I see government policy formulated based on belief, faith and ideology.
Many of the people on the other side of the aisle remind me of little Johnny. When Johnny was a little boy, he prayed repeatedly for a bicycle, but he did not get one. Then he took a new approach, maybe after watching the proceedings in the House of Commons: he stole a bicycle and prayed for forgiveness.
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I would think that all members of the House would be offended by that member's attack on religion and faith.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cardigan.
Scientists work for a better tomorrow through exciting discoveries, from aerospace to astronomy and from biotechnology to nanotechnology. Science matters more than ever before because the challenges we face, climate change, shrinking biodiversity, are greater and the potential benefits are larger. Canada therefore needs robust science for the public good—for example, to identify risks to ecosystems and human health and to develop solutions to reduce dangers and protect the health and safety of Canadians and the communities in which we live.
Tragically, science is under persistent attack in Canada, despite the fact that the benefits of university research and development are $15 billion and 150,000 to 200,000 person years of employment per year.
In 2008, an editorial in the prestigious journal Nature criticized the Conservative government for closing the Office of the National Science Advisor, skepticism about the science of climate change, and silencing federal researchers. Budget 2009 cut $148 million over three years from the federal research granting councils. Moreover, the government attempted to direct research towards subjects it perceived as priorities. Scholarships were to be focused on business-related degrees. This was a flawed strategy, as no one can predict with any certainty what the most important inventions and technologies will be in the future. 
As one of Canada's Nobel laureates, John Polanyi, wrote, “We have struggled for a long time to come to terms with the fact that our universities serve the public interest best when free of government interference in academic affairs.”
The reality is that countries that maintain and increase their investments in research and development during difficult economic times emerge stronger and more competitive when the recovery begins. In 2009, James Turk, the executive director of Canadian Association of University Teachers, warned that lack of funding and increasing government micromanagement means we could lose a lot of our top researchers.
James Drummond, the chief scientist at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory, in Eureka, explained that he would be able to improve the lab through new infrastructure funding but would not be able to operate it. On April 30, 2012, PEARL was scheduled to cease full-time, year-round operation.
In addition to government cuts to research funding, cuts to federal science programs and scientists, there have been new media protocols for government scientists since the Conservatives came to power in 2006. For example, Canadian journalists have documented numerous cases, from an unexplained virus in salmon, to a two-degree Celsius increase in global temperatures being possibly unavoidable by 2100, to a 13,000-year-old flood in northern Canada, in which prominent researchers have been prevented from discussing peer-reviewed articles.
Researchers would once have responded quickly to journalists, but are now required to direct inquiries to a media relations office which requires written questions in advance and that still might not allow scientists to speak. Federal scientists are under growing surveillance and control. Numerous studies have shown a pattern of suppression, manipulation and a distortion of federal science. Officials have limited public access to scientific information.
Recently a symposium called "Unmuzzling Government Scientists: How to Re-Open the Discourse" was held at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in Vancouver. The government's media policies were once again under scrutiny. According to the journal, Nature, “The way forward is clear: it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free”.
I can attest not only to the muzzling but also to the fear on the part of scientists. I used to consult for Environment Canada, and I have numerous friends who are scientists across Canada and the United States. Because of fear of retribution if they speak out, Canadian scientists often ask me to speak to American colleagues, who can freely comment on what is happening in Canada. I have one friend who was so concerned that he or she wrote to me from the spouse's email account to my old university email account, and then explained that he or she would call on the spouse's cell phone from a busy mall so the call could not be traced.
Surely everyone in the House should be outraged by the climate in which our scientists are being forced to perform. Surely everyone should be outraged by the quashing of dissenting opinions, by the war on democracy, environment and science. The persistent attack on science for the public good reached a boiling point on July 10, 2012, when Canadian scientists rallied on Parliament Hill in order to protest the closure of federal science programs, the muzzling of scientists and the “untimely death of scientific evidence and evidence-based decision-making in Canada”.
At the end of the month, Canada's world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area, with 58 lakes and considered to be one of Canada's most important aquatic research facilities, will shut down. In fact, the government has already begun dismantling the station. In the space of a few weeks, 11,000 Canadians signed a public petition, sent hundreds of letters of support for the ELA to government officials and held rallies across the country. Leading scientists from around the world and across Canada support ELA's cause. Opposition members of Parliament have delivered petition after petition and undertaken press conferences, including one to push the Minister of the Environment to adopt the 58 lake facility. Liberal MPs held briefings for all members of Parliament and senators and put forth motions to study the value of the ELA and the potential effects of transferring the facility to a third party.
Following the presentation of two Liberal motions regarding the ELA, in both the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the issue was addressed in camera without public explanation, and the motions are now no longer before the committee.
The Canadian public supports the ELA. An Environics Research poll showed that over 73% of Canadians oppose the decision to cancel federal funding for the ELA, including 60% of those identifying as Conservative voters. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans claims it cannot find the $2 million per year required to run the ELA, although it would require $50 million to remediate the lakes in the area upon the centre's closing.
Scientists suggest the Conservatives are trying to silence a source of inconvenient data. As a first example, PEARL, the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Lab, which gathered atmospheric information related to air quality, climate change and ozone required only $1.5 million to permit its year-round science program.
Also potentially on the chopping block is one of Canada's oldest and most celebrated scientific research stations, the 50-year-old Kluane Lake Research Station, located in the Yukon adjacent to the largest non-polar icefield in the world. The sensitive region is ideal to measure climate change.
ELA has been compared to the Hubble telescope for its service in aiding scientific research. The research conducted at the ELA must continue. The research must be made public and ELA must be owned by the public.
In closing, we must fight for a government that understands that scientific research is fundamental to meeting Canada's needs, will restore science to its rightful place, will back promises with action and money, and will protect scientific findings from being altered, distorted or suppressed. All Conservative cabinet ministers should stand up for science, for scientists, for unmuzzling researchers, and for ensuring a scientific integrity policy so Canadians can receive the best cutting-edge science to ensure evidence-based decision-making. The government must protect our water now and for our future generations, and not protect navigation as it did in Bill C-45. That means ELA must continue.
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is budget day. The Experimental Lakes Area costs about $2 million a year to run. That is with full staff capacity. I have heard from scientists at the institute that the ELA would cost $600,000 to run operationally, and perhaps even as little as $200,000 to keep it open for a year. 
I am wondering if the member agrees that the Conservatives are mean-hearted if they do not provide this small amount of money, $200,000, to keep the facility open until a new operator can be found. Would she agree with me on that?
[Interjection]
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. The ELA must continue. It is a pittance. We have seen three research stations being cut for $1.5 million to $2 million. Will the Conservative government cut internationally renowned research stations, such as ELA, PEARL and perhaps Kluane, for between $1.5 million and $2 million per year? It approved tens of millions of dollars in economic action plan advertising, even as it cited fiscal restraint.
For $1.5 million, taxpayers might have learned more about ozone depletion—the first large Arctic ozone hole, which was two million square kilometres, was discovered in 2011—and other indications of significant Arctic change. For $2 million, Canadians might have learned more about solutions to problems that affect lakes, fish populations and drinking water.
The question that begs to be asked is, what did Canadians receive in return for their investment in economic action plan ads?
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the theme that my colleague was speaking about. Since the Conservative Party arrived in power, Canadians should know that it has spent $600 million on advertising. On present trends, by the 2015 election, that is if the Prime Minister abides by the fixed-term election date, it appears as if the government will be spending close to $1 billion on what most Canadians would likely describe as self-serving propaganda.
I would first like to posit that fact with my colleague to get her to react to that.
Second, last January, Sir John Gummer, the former head of the Conservative Party in the U.K. under one Margaret Thatcher, absolutely criticized the government saying with respect to its views on science and climate change, saying this is not a conservative party; it is something else.
[Interjection]
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, who has worked most of his career in protecting the environment, protecting science.
He is absolutely right. We are coming under attack internationally. Nature magazine, one of the world's leading journals, recently reported that policy directives confirm little understanding by the government of the importance of the free flow of scientific knowledge. The journal reported that:
 ...rather than address the matter, the Canadian government seems inclined to stick with its restrictive course and ride out all objections. 
The government's untenable position is coming under increasing pressure. I have repeatedly called upon the government to recognize that Environment Canada's ability to protect environmental and human health depends upon scientific excellence and integrity, and should therefore ensure that a scientific integrity policy is developed to foster the highest degree of accountability, integrity and transparency in conducting, utilizing and communicating science within and outside Environment Canada, and to protect the department's scientific findings from being altered, distorted or suppressed.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the motion from my hon. colleague for Burnaby—Douglas. I want to thank him for introducing such an important motion.
On this side of the House, we fully understand the importance of having proper research and science in place in order to produce the best public policies for the benefit of all Canadians. Unfortunately, we have a government that does not believe in science. In fact, it is worse than that. We have a government that has launched an attack on science in this country. It has closed or cut funding to some of the best scientific research centres in Canada and has muzzled our scientists. This is absolutely unacceptable. Canadians have the right to know the results of our scientific research that is funded by tax dollars. However, we have seen many federal department crack down on what their scientists are allowed to say in public.
We know DFO's new communication policy: Crack down hard on scientists. All interview requests are now forwarded to the minister's office, and they are routinely denied. This is truly hard to believe. 
Within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, many research centres have been negatively affected by the Conservative government. This department is in constant need of more science dollars for the survival of our many economically important fisheries throughout the country and for the survival of our oceans, lakes and rivers. 
However, rather than ensure proper science funding for DFO, the Conservative government has slashed funding for many of its important research stations. These stations include the Institute of Ocean Sciences, the Freshwater Institute, the Kluane Lake Research Station, the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, the Gulf Fisheries Centre, the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, the St. Andrews Biological Station and the Experimental Lakes Area, one of the most important research areas in the country. This is only for DFO. Many more harmful scientific cuts have been made in other federal departments and programs. 
The closure I want to focus on, and the one that I believe is perhaps the best example of the government's shameful attack on science, is the Experimental Lakes Area, or the ELA. 
The ELA is one of the world's most renowned facilities for freshwater research. It is one of a kind and has produced a lot of critical information and policy over the last 40 years. Last spring, the government announced that it would be ending the operation of the ELA. Later the government stated that it would try to find a new operator by March 31, 2013.
This facility is located in northwestern Ontario. It includes 58 small lakes and is managed through a joint agreement between the Canadian and Ontario governments. It is truly a living natural laboratory for freshwater research, and it is the only place in Canada where whole-lake ecosystem research can take place. In fact, it is the only place in the world where this type of research can take place.
The ELA has been critical in developing evidence-based environmental policy, regulations and legislation, including regulations to control phosphorus in the Great Lakes. ELA research led to Canada becoming the first country to ban phosphorus from laundry detergents. Other research led to legislation to curb acid rain production and demonstrated that reducing mercury emissions from burning fossil fuels will rapidly lower mercury levels in fish. Ongoing research evaluates nitrogen removal from municipal waste water and the effects many household products could have on our freshwater. 
Information produced at the ELA is also used by researchers across the country and around the world to investigate how climate change will affect Canada's aquatic resources. Research at the ELA also provides the scientific evidence required to manage commercial and recreational fisheries.
 The fact that we can now conduct responsible monitoring in the oil sands is a direct result of invaluable research done at the ELA.
First nations chiefs in Ontario and Manitoba have called upon the Conservative government to reverse its decision to terminate the ELA. Four former regional director generals of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have spoken out against this closure. Liberal members of Parliament have been actively fighting the closure and are working with the Coalition to Save ELA.
Last October I introduced a motion for the fisheries committee to study the ELA, the research done at the facility, its impacts on public policy and the potential consequences of closing, remediating or transferring the ELA to a third party. I know that my colleague from Etobicoke North did the same in the environment committee. 
The ELA costs the federal government $2 million or less to operate per year. In fact, we are hearing that the ELA could keep going for as little as $600,000. However, closing the facility entirely could cost up to $50 million. The government is now saying that the cost of closing the facility could be as low as $8 million, but we well know that it is going to be a lot of millions. Either way, it seems that the priorities of the government are severely misguided. For the cost of shutting down the ELA, the government could keep it open, and Canadians, in fact the entire world, could benefit from its research for years to come, perhaps even decades to come. However, the government would rather close up shop than keep this scientific research alive. 
In fact, even though March 31 of this year was the date given for the government to find a new operator, we now know that the destruction of the buildings on the site has already begun. It was also reported that scientists have been told to remove their belongings in preparation for the demolition of the site. There were rumours that the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the IISD, the Winnipeg-based United Nations think tank, was the only group known to be discussing the possible takeover of the facility. The IISD was not aware of the destruction that was taking place at the ELA. This brings into serious doubt that the government is sincere that it will actually transfer the facility to a new operator.
 It is certainly my fear, and the fear of all members on this side of the House, that it is not its intention at all. It is my fear that the research produced by the ELA does not go along with the government's agenda, and it has decided to shut it down, no matter what it costs. Canadians will be the ones who bear the cost of the closure of this facility, not only for the millions of dollars it would take to shut the facility down and clean up the site but also for the loss of all the possible research and policy the ELA could have produced for decades into the future.
For a country like ours, where nature is such an iconic symbol, to lose one of our most important natural research facilities is beyond belief. It is a black eye on the country, along with many other policies of the government. It has severely damaged our reputation on the international stage. The government repeatedly says that it is closing the ELA because it no longer fits the core mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I find this excuse completely unacceptable. 
I hope that government members will look at what is, in fact, taking place: the destruction of the scientific community across Canada, the muzzling of scientists, and their making sure that we do not have the best possible scientific advice to put policy in place for this country. Again, I urge government members across the way to take a look at this, support this very important motion and save the scientific work that is so important for fisheries and other aspects across this country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before I go to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque, Canada Revenue Agency; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; and the hon. member for Drummond, The Environment.
Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. It points out the need to continue what we started to do on climate change, and under this government, have systematically abandoned. The Conservative government appears to want to ignore scientists who would tell us that the continued use of fossil fuels will forever change the climate and cause floods, famine, water shortages, drought, wildfires, tornados, rising seas, et cetera, which may result in millions of refugees. 
The Conservatives have also killed Kyoto. They have decided that Kyoto is not something worth pursuing. They have removed environmental assessments from the Canadian landscape. Even where environmental assessments remain, they do not study human health as part of their assessment process. 
In the words of a senior scientist at the University of Victoria: “I suspect the federal government would prefer that its scientists don't discuss research that points out just how serious the climate change challenge is”. That is in regard to the muzzling of scientists, as the member referred to earlier. 
Under the previous government, we did not do a lot of work on climate change. Under the Conservative government, the members talk the big talk, but they are not going to do anything, and they have killed Kyoto. What is it that we have to do in the future to actually deal with this looming spectre?
[Interjection]
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question as well as his great appreciation for Kyoto. He understands how important that was if we are going to live on this planet. The fact is that we have to live somewhere. If we do not address climate change, we will create, as my hon. colleague indicated, a lot of people who have no place to live. A lot of people will be under water.
There are so many other areas in which the Experimental Lakes Area did so much research. I know that my hon. colleague is fully aware of these, and I appreciate the motion he brought forward. It is impossible in just a few seconds to indicate all that they have done. 
Scientists who are free to do their research, discuss issues with scientists around the world and let the public know what they have found and what effect it will have on our climate are so important to the people of this country and to the people of the world.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the comments from my colleague from Cardigan. From what I heard, it was not clear to me that he was aware that DFO has been spending $200 million or so every year on science, and it continues to do so. I just wondered if he was aware of that. 
Could I also ask him if he would not agree that the nature of science requires us to look at what we are doing from time to time and ensure that it is focused on the things we need to know and the priorities we have set for ourselves as a department and as a country?
That is what we have been doing. As my colleague, the Minister of State, has said, we have been adding money every year as we have identified those priorities and have become more focused than the previous government.
[Interjection]
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague, but I certainly do not respect his thoughts on science and what the government has cut.
The fact is that in the last budget, the government cut $1.3 million from the National Research Council of Canada, and by 2014-15, it is projected to be cut by $16.3 million. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada has lost $15 million, and by the end of 2014-2015 it will be $30 million. 
Fisheries and Oceans needs more money. It is an important industry across the country on both coasts and in our lakes and rivers. It was cut last year by $3.8 million and is projected to be cut by about $80 million. Is that what the government calls taking care of an industry? In my opinion, that is destroying an industry.
 The government is just concerned that it will receive information from the scientists that it does not want to receive.
My hon. colleague is not a scientist, and neither am I, but I would rely on the scientists, not on my hon. colleague.
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.
Today's debate is vital. The current ecological and economic crisis is a reminder that Canada needs to invest in public science and basic research and freely distribute scientific data. Climate change is real, and we are already suffering from its effects. We are at a crossroads, and we need science now more than ever.
Need I remind hon. members that, just 40 years ago, our industries were polluting the St. Lawrence River, we were burning toxic waste and miners were dying of cancer because they did not have the information and protection they needed?
We have come a long way since then. We set up research institutes, cleaned up our lakes and rivers and decontaminated thousands of sites across the country, but there is still a lot of work to be done. Today, we are paying for the mistakes of the past.
Right now, the situation in Canada is of grave concern. This Conservative government is undoing all the progress that we have made over the past decades. By making cuts to scientific research, censoring scientists, abolishing our environmental laws and destroying world-renowned research institutes, such as the NRTEE, the government is setting us back 50 years.
The experimental lakes program is a very good example. For 40 years now, the research conducted on 58 lakes has allowed us to make extraordinary advances in the field of biology that are recognized throughout the world. For example, this research has helped us to better understand the blue-green algae phenomenon and the role of phosphates in the development of cyanobacteria. This research has helped to improve water quality in many of our lakes. And that is not all. The research on these lakes in their natural state has helped to advance scientific studies at the international level. This is the only laboratory of its kind in the world.
Yet the Conservatives do not really seem to understand the importance of this institution. Their decision to do away with the experimental lakes program is a monumental mistake. The government is saying that it will save $2 million by closing this site, yet it costs only $6,000 to operate and replacing it or getting a private institution to run it would cost several million dollars.
What is more, the Conservatives are not considering the cost of depriving our country of data that are essential to preserving the quality of our water. The Conservatives seem to think that this is no big deal, that we will stick future generations with the bill and that they will deal with the problem. 
In addition, this week we learned that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had locked up the Experimental Lakes Area cabins and was preventing scientists from accessing the site. Yet Ottawa had announced that it would continue managing the site until next September, but that it would not be paying for any research after March 31.
For months the government has been saying that it is looking for a private sector organization to take over the program, but nothing has happened yet. Britt Hall, a biochemist at the University of Regina and the director of the Coalition to Save ELA, is worried that 44 years' worth of data will be lost and that experiments will be cancelled.
Researchers at Trent University in Peterborough had to stop their work. They were working on the use of microscopic amounts of silver to prevent bacteria. It will be impossible for them to finish their research.
Cuts at the PEARL atmospheric research station in Nunavut also demonstrate this government's lack of a long-term vision. This winter, researchers were not able to gather data. It is important to continue funding research in areas as vital as climate change.
The list of this government's strategic errors is long: cuts to experimental farms and Mont-Joli's Maurice Lamontagne Institute, abolishing Statistics Canada's long form census, cuts to fishery research, cuts at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada's major resources support program, and so on.
Thanks to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, we recently learned that there is concern amongst Environment Canada scientists who are responsible for monitoring air quality. Many of them work in offices in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver, ensuring that we are complying with laws limiting land and atmospheric pollution. Employees are saying that the government will eliminate positions and that monitoring will be compromised. There is cause for concern.
When the Minister of the Environment goes to Copenhagen, Rio or Durban and says that his government is protecting the environment, but we here in Canada see that cuts are being made to essential, basic scientific research, there is every reason to doubt the sincerity of his remarks.
Yet public research is essential for a developed economy such as ours. The three key players in scientific research—universities, the private sector and the government—all play a fundamental role. The government funds research through programs, institutions and tax credits. Therefore, why eliminate these incentives in science and continue to offer tax breaks to oil companies? That is a double standard.
Public research cannot always be replaced by the private sector. Take Statistics Canada's consumer price index, for instance. Only the government can measure it, and companies really need that information.
Yves Gingras, a professor who is the Canada Research Chair in history and sociology of science at UQAM, said:
 People often say the Conservatives are opposed to science. I think instead that they are in favour of strategic ignorance, so they can justify their inaction in certain areas that could hurt industries. When fishers observe that there are fewer fish, the government will be able to tell them that it does not know why and that the government is not to blame if it could not predict the shortage. 
It is troubling to see that these cuts to science are accompanied by drastic changes in environmental legislation. With Bill C-38, the Conservative government drastically modified the environmental assessment process for hydrocarbons. Consultations were reduced to a minimum, almost to nothing, in fact. With Bill C-45, it took away all protection for our lakes and rivers.
All of this is accompanied by a culture of secrecy and censorship that has been imposed by the Conservative government since 2006. The prestigious Royal Society of Canada, an institution that has been around for more than 100 years and whose members are scientists in all fields, wrote an open letter to condemn the Conservatives' attitude. The Royal Society of Canada made a very simple request, namely, that the government stop preventing scientists from announcing their discoveries to the Canadian public. It is a fairly basic request. In a democratic society, it is important to discuss what action to take based on fact rather than simply being guided by ideology.
For instance, the census is one of the tools that enabled Canada to become one of the most developed countries in the world. It is one way for the government to develop targeted, effective public policies. For instance, it tells us what the average age is in a given area, which helps public health authorities target their actions. It guides entrepreneurs who are looking for opportunities, by mapping out the average income in a given region. It also helps community organizations that want to reach out to a specific clientele.
Let us talk about the status of French, since today is the International Day of La Francophonie. The status of French in Canada is another example that proves how useful the census can be. The data collected made it possible to accurately follow major linguistic trends, thereby allowing governments to adapt their policies in order to ensure the vitality of the French language. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister could not care less. He has decided to put his own ideological interests ahead of the country's interests.
For a government that claims to care about important issues like economic development, public health, the environment and the status of French, its attitude—tossing aside all scientific data and muzzling scientists—is not very responsible.
In my opinion, good public policies should be based on proven, credible facts. We will continue to advocate for complete freedom for all Canadian researchers and an end to this censorship.
I hope the Conservatives will put their shoulders to the wheel and support this important motion, so that our scientists can restore their image, regain their zeal and continue to participate in the essential research that Canada so desperately needs. Above all, I hope that we can give new hope to young Canadians who are thinking about a future in innovation, research, science and technology.
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question. Since 2006, our Conservative government has invested at unprecedented levels in science and technology and innovation, all of which the NDP did in fact vote against. 
We have made changes to ensure that our programs meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. My question is simple. Does the member believe that this money has been well spent by our Canadian scientists?
[Interjection]
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, I respect the member on the other side, but what he just said is disgraceful.
Statistics Canada's website shows that federal funding for science and technology has been cut by 6% over last year. For example, the government just got rid of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which cost about $5.2 million, and it cut the budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by nearly $80 million.
Many academics, business leaders and government experts signed a joint letter calling on the government to cancel cuts to several departments.
I think we have a long way to go to give our scientists the recognition they are calling for. 
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I want to repeat the question I just asked. Canadians should know that since the Conservative Party arrived in power, it has spent $600 million on advertising. Most Canadians have already determined that it is Conservative propaganda. 
Could the member talk about how the actual costs of continuing science and technology work in Canada compare to the $600 million already spent?
People are saying that by the 2015 election, the government will have spent $1 billion on advertising.
[Interjection]
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for the question.
Indeed, since the Conservatives took power, their approach has been very partisan and ideological. They have spent $600 million on propaganda. That money could have been used to restore hope and fund work in the Experimental Lakes Area, an area the government said was much too expensive at $2 million. Furthermore, the government has no scruples about spending $600 million on nothing more than propaganda.
The government is making cuts to many departments that do research on health and the environment. It is eliminating very high-quality jobs.
We are wondering what the Conservative government's priorities are. We completely disagree with them. That is why today's motion was moved in the House. We hope it will be adopted.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, not only is this Conservative government the laughingstock of the international community when it comes to science and technology, it has also drawn criticism from space.
Yesterday, we heard Commander Hadfield plead for a real science and technology policy. He said, "Science is absolutely essential in Quebec and in Canada....Science is essential and needs to be developed in the long term." That is not what this government is doing.
Will the Conservative government leave Commander Hadfield hanging?
[Interjection]
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for that very relevant question.
If the Conservatives wanted to help the commander, they should reinvest in science and make informed decisions so that they do not abandon our scientists.
Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you my experience as it pertains to this matter.
In 2004, I went back to school to complete a BA in the pure sciences. It was a wonderful experience to submit to the rigour of scientific inquiry. My studies in agricultural and environmental sciences were a wonderful experience because of the team work and the quest for answers to our questions. It is interesting to note that when we asked a question or formulated a hypothesis, other questions surfaced. That is what science is all about. 
Knowledge is rooted in science. When we engage in scientific inquiry or conduct experiments, we are searching for science. These studies allowed me to look at the world in a different way and to take another look at the universe, whether it was an infinitely small universe or an infinitely immense universe, in microbiology or in physics. These studies provide the opportunity to see the world in a different light. 
The 2011 election gave me the opportunity to become an MP and sit in Parliament. In my opinion, Parliament is a place for debate where we ask ourselves questions and look for the best solutions to the important issues brought before us. Parliament Hill and the public service employees who serve Canadians exist to help parliamentarians find the answers they need so that the laws introduced in the House of Commons are based on facts, evidence and probative data from Statistics Canada or scientific research.
Public research is interesting. As my colleague said earlier, research and development is carried out by universities and industries, and also by the government. That is called public research. In Canada, for a number of decades, we have been interested in various subjects. We are a Nordic country, with a particular climate. Thus, we are interested in meteorological data. In fact, Canada began establishing meteorological stations in the mid-1800s and even earlier.
These data have been collected over the years and allow us to see daily weather trends. Meteorological data allow us to see if it is time for farmers to plant or, later in the year, to harvest, or if we should be wearing a winter coat or a raincoat. When these meteorological data are collected over a number of years, they also reveal climate trends.
It is the same for environmental data. Environmental monitoring must take place over a number of years.
The beauty of public scientific research is that it provides the data needed to track trends. That is what the Experimental Lakes Area did. Since 1968, when this program was established, the region has served as a living laboratory to answer our questions about, say, lakes that were dead. What was the cause? What would fix the problem? The ELA allowed us—and will allow us, if the government wakes up and realizes the need to continue—to collect essential data. It is very important for us as parliamentarians and Canadians.
I would also like to point out that while I was in Vancouver, I was one of the only parliamentarians who attended the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference. I had the opportunity to meet with science professionals who denounced the muzzling of scientists, which we have already talked about. I spoke about my studies and the importance of being able to debate issues and how to address them.
Then, last spring, I participated in a protest against muzzling scientists. It was very exciting to see a number of scientists rise up during the protest to denounce this.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 6:15 p.m., and today being the last allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 2013, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. 
The question 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. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Call in the members. 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
Vote #631
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
Supplementary Estimates (C), 2012-2013Tony Clement:  moved: 
 That Vote 1c, in the amount of $1, under CANADA REVENUE AGENCY—Canada Revenue Agency—Operating expenditures and contributions, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013, be concurred in. 

[Interjection]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to the current vote with the Conservatives voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Ms. Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and the NDP will vote no.
[Interjection]
Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply the vote and will vote no.
[Interjection]
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, we vote no.
[Interjection]
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and vote no.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and vote no.
[Interjection]
Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.
[Stage Direction]
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
Vote #632
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Tony Clement:  moved:
 That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013, except for any vote disposed of earlier today, be concurred in. 

The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #633
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Tony Clement:  moved that Bill C-58, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2013, be now read the first time.
 (Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Tony Clement:  moved that the bill be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole. 
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the results of the previous motion to the current motion with the Conservatives voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and the NDP will vote no.
[Interjection]
Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will vote no.
[Interjection]
Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois will vote no.
[Interjection]
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North will be voting no.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes no.
[Interjection]
Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #634
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole. I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committed of the whole, Mr. Joe Comartin in the chair)
Mathieu Ravignat: (On clause 2)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the bill is in its usual form.
[Interjection]
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, the presentation of this bill is identical to that used during the previous supply period.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division. 
Joe Comartin: (Clause 2 agreed to)
 Shall clause 3 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division. 
Joe Comartin: (Clause 3 agreed to)
 Shall clause 4 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division. 
Joe Comartin: (Clause 4 agreed to)
 Shall clause 5 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division. 
Joe Comartin: (Clause 5 agreed to)
 Shall clause 6 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division. 
Joe Comartin: (Clause 6 agreed to)
 Shall clause 7 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division. 
Joe Comartin: (Clause 7 agreed to)
 Shall schedule 2 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division
Joe Comartin: (Schedule 2 agreed to)
 Shall clause 1 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Clause 1 agreed to)
 Shall the preamble carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Preamble agreed to)
 Shall the title carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Title agreed to)
 Shall the bill carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Bill agreed to)
 Shall I rise and report the bill?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Shall I rise and report the bill?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Joe Comartin: (Bill reported)
Tony Clement:  moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the results of supplementary estimates (C) concurrence to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and we will vote no. 
[Interjection]
Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree and will vote no.
[Interjection]
Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote no.
[Interjection]
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North agrees and will be voting no.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the Green Party will be voting no.
[Interjection]
Peter Goldring:  Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #635
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Tony Clement:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. 
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the results from the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and we will vote no.
[Interjection]
Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and we will vote no.
[Interjection]
Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote no.
[Interjection]
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North agrees to apply and will be voting no.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes no.
[Interjection]
Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #636
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Interim SupplyTony Clement:  moved: 
 That this House do concur in Interim Supply as follows: 
 That a sum not exceeding $26,392,186,039.19 being composed of: 
 (1) three twelfths ($13,193,391,186.50) of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Proposed Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014 which were laid upon the Table on Monday, February 25, 2013, except for those items below: 
 (2) eleven twelfths of the total of the amount of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Vote 15 and Treasury Board Vote 5 (Schedule 1.1), of the said Estimates, $781,131,083.33; 
 (3) nine twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Grain Commission Vote 30 and Canadian International Trade Tribunal Vote 25 (Schedule 1.2), of the said Estimates, $22,681,822.50; 
 (4) eight twelfths of the total of the amount of Justice Vote 1 (Schedule 1.3), of the said Estimates, $157,323,812.00; 
 (5) seven twelfths of the total of the amount of Canada Council for the Arts Vote 10, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Vote 20, Industry Vote 10 and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Vote 20 (Schedule 1.4), of the said Estimates, $490,885,330.84; 
 (6) six twelfths of the total of the amount of Agriculture and Agri-Food Vote 10, Canadian Polar Commission Vote 25, Natural Resources Vote 5, House of Commons Vote 5, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee Vote 60 and The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited Vote 45 (Schedule 1.5), of the said Estimates, $274,540,197.00; 
 (7) five twelfths of the total of the amount of Agriculture and Agri-Food Vote 1, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Vote 15, National Arts Centre Corporation Vote 65, National Battlefields Commission Vote 70, Finance Vote 5, Public Health Agency of Canada Vote 55, Human Resources and Skills Development Vote 5, Office of the Co-ordinator, Status of Women Vote 25, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 10, Registry of the Specific Claims Tribunal Vote 35, Statistics Canada Vote 105, Library of Parliament Vote 10 and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission Vote 65 (Schedule 1.6), of the said Estimates, $4,282,262,941.68; 
 (8) four twelfths of the total of the amount of Public Service Commission Vote 95, Citizenship and Immigration Vote 5, Health Vote 10, Public Health Agency of Canada Vote 45, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 1, Industry Votes 1 and 5, Canadian Space Agency Votes 30 and 35, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Vote 80, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Vote 95, National Defence Vote 1, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Vote 15, Public Works and Government Services Vote 1, Marine Atlantic Inc. Vote 30 and VIA Rail Canada Inc. Vote 60 (Schedule 1.7), of the said Estimates, $7,189,969,665.34; 
 be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014. 

The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #637
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Appropriation Act No. 1, 2013-14Tony Clement:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-59, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
[Interjection]
Tony Clement:  moved that the bill be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
The Speaker: The hon. government whip.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the results of the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and we will vote no.
[Interjection]
Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will vote no.
[Interjection]
Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote no.
[Interjection]
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North agrees to apply and votes no.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the Green Party will vote no.
[Interjection]
Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.
[Stage Direction]
 (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #638
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
 I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee of the whole thereon, Mr. Joe Comartin in the chair) 
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: The House is now in committee of the whole on Bill C-59.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Chair, could the President of the Treasury Board confirm to members of the House that the bill is in its usual form? 
(On clause 2)
Tony Clement: Mr. Chair, the presentation of this bill is identical to that used during the previous supply period.
Joe Comartin: Shall clause 2 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Clause 2 agreed to)
 Shall clause 3 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Clause 3 agreed to)
 Shall clause 4 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Clause 4 agreed to)
 Shall clause 5 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Clause 5 agreed to)
 Shall clause 6 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Clause 6 agreed to)
 Shall clause 7 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Clause 7 agreed to)
 Shall schedule 1.1 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Schedule 1.1 agreed to)
 Shall schedule 1.2 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Schedule 1.2 agreed to)
 Shall schedule 1.3 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Schedule 1.3 agreed to)
 Shall schedule 1.4 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Schedule 1.4 agreed to)
 Shall schedule 1.5 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Schedule 1.5 agreed to)
 Shall schedule 1.6 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Schedule 1.6 agreed to)
 Shall schedule 1.7 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Schedule 1.7 agreed to)
 Shall schedule 2 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Schedule 2 agreed to)
 Shall clause 1 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Clause 1 agreed to)
 Shall the preamble carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Preamble agreed to)
 Shall the title carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Title agreed to)
 Shall the bill carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Joe Comartin: (Bill agreed to)
 Shall I rise and report the bill?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Joe Comartin: (Bill reported)
Tony Clement:  moved that the bill be concurred in.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the results from interim supply concurrence to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and the NDP will vote no.
[Interjection]
Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree and will vote no.
[Interjection]
Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the motion.
[Interjection]
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North agrees and votes no.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to division and votes no.
[Interjection]
Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, Edmonton East agrees to a division and votes yes.
[Stage Direction]
 (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #639
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Tony Clement:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and the NDP will vote against the motion.
[Interjection]
Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will vote no.
[Interjection]
Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the motion.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes no.
[Interjection]
Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and vote yes.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #640
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from March 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed. 
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find agreement to apply the results from the previous motion to the current motion with the Conservatives voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote. The NDP will vote yes.
[Interjection]
Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will vote yes.
[Interjection]
Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote yes.
[Interjection]
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North votes yes.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes yes.
[Interjection]
Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and vote yes.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was carried on the following division:) 
Vote #641
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)

Private Members' Business
Canadian Human Rights Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from March 7 consideration of Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression), as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. 
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions No. 2, 4, 7 and 8.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #642
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 carried. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 8 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 3. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 9.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #643
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 carried. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 9 carried.
Randall Garrison:  moved that the bill be concurred in with amendments.
The Speaker:  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #644
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Randall Garrison:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. 
The Speaker:  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #645
The Speaker:  I declare the motion carried. 
Homes Not Connected to a Sanitation System[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 18 consideration of the motion. 
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 400.
[Stage Direction]
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Vote #646
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
I wish to inform the House that because of the delay there will be no private members' business today.
The order is therefore deferred to a future sitting. 

Adjournment Proceedings
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on November 22, I asked the Minister of National Revenue, Prince Edward Island's representative at the cabinet table, to explain the reasons her department decided that it is in the best interests of Canadians to have the document centre located in Borden-Carleton privatized.
The concern I raised is that privatizing the record centre, ending the relationship with the Government of Canada, which has direct control over these critical, important and private documents, could, in fact, create a problem in terms of security.
The termination of the Borden-Carleton centre with the Government of Canada is part of the government's attack on front-line services that are critical to Canadians, an attack that has most severely targeted Atlantic Canada as a region, and an attack by the government that is felt in every province and in a growing number of Atlantic communities.
What the minister from P.E.I. has done is ensure that more than 70 positions will be eliminated or replaced somewhere with minimum wage jobs by workers with no affiliation with the Government of Canada.
The submissions made to CRA by Canadians often consist of documents of a highly sensitive and personal nature. Most importantly, they could be medical records. When I asked the minister to explain her actions, which will risk sensitive documents, including medical records, the minister declared that “we do not keep medical records”.
Actually, Canadians must submit documents on a regular basis for tax and benefits purposes. CRA files, in fact, do contain medical records. The minister was wrong. The minister confirmed that the purpose of the privatization of the Borden-Carleton facility was to do records management at a lower cost.
How low will the Conservative government go? Is it willing to privatize to a facility paying minimum wage? Is the minister from P.E.I. willing to allow the private sector to move records off Prince Edward Island, away from the island, with the loss of those jobs as well? Does the minister not realize that paying decent wages and benefits lessens the risk to the security of the system? Citizens' records are important. To put records at risk is just not sensible.
On February 2, 2013, in response to a letter I sent to the Minister of National Revenue, the minister stated that her officials had consulted the Privacy Commissioner and Justice Canada with respect to the control of these sensitive documents.
What is interesting is that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has acknowledged that on December 12 it would be making a decision. However, according to the Union of Taxation Employees, which had called for an investigation by the Privacy Commissioner, that investigation, as of today, has not been concluded.
The question remains: Why has the government taken this action to privatize or close this facility? Why did the minister not give us the proper information on what the Privacy Commissioner is really doing and where that investigation is at?
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we will be able to put the member for Malpeque's mind at ease in terms of a response to his question. Of course, our top priority is the economy, which includes meeting the needs of Canadians while making sure that tax dollars are spent wisely. Re-engineering the way we manage paper records to a records management service provider will ensure the privacy and security of taxpayers' records and will do so at a lower cost to Canadians.
Also let me clarify that the benefit programs directorate within the Canada Revenue Agency does not keep medical records. Certainly as a former medical health care practitioner, there is a significant difference. We do have documents that contain limited information related to an applicant's eligibility determination for the disability tax credit. Let me assure the hon. member that the privacy and security of taxpayer information is always our foremost consideration when it comes to making business decisions.
Our decision to find a records management service provider involved a thorough risk assessment with due consideration paid to all aspects of physical, personal and technological security. I can assure the member that privacy risks have been properly assessed and due diligence was done, including extensive consultation with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
Currently, CRA is in the process of finding a records management service provider through a competitive process. The RFP has clearly identified and addressed privacy-related requirements including placing priority on keeping sensitive taxpayer information under government control and within Canadian borders. Consequently, the contractual documents require that all records processing, storage, transportation and destruction must take place in Canada.
The successful bidder's facilities will be state-of-the-art, with remotely monitored alarm systems, digital closed-circuit TV systems, infrared motion detection systems and other technical safeguards such as fire detection and suppression and biometric access controls to protect the privacy and security of taxpayer information.
Using a records management service provider gives the agency access to ongoing technology, and process improvements will eliminate processing steps and will reduce total costs to the CRA, while ensuring the security, privacy and safety of the records.
Private sector innovation and expertise offer the agency economies of scale and storage costs that are directly proportional to the storage and service used. Moving to using a records management service provider will provide the CRA with ongoing annual savings beyond 2015, while ensuring the safety, privacy and security of our records.
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I just had to shake my head. Wow. Is that not great? All this technology. The government would be happy if it could just get rid of people because that is what it is basically doing. It is getting rid of the people who are doing the jobs and who are receiving reasonable incomes. The Conservatives are, regardless of what the parliamentary secretary says, risking sensitive information. Has the member never seen the information that goes on Canada pension disability applications? That is very sensitive medical information in many cases.
The answer is quite simple. The government has not answered my question to date. Why is the minister from P.E.I. moving jobs off Prince Edward Island and trying to move government paid workers to lower minimum wage jobs? It just makes no sense in terms of our economy on the island and it makes no sense to Canadian taxpayers who deserve decent services and decent wages for the taxes they pay the government.
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, records management storage providers are currently being used by other government departments to store sensitive documents. Other jurisdictions, including the U.K., the Australian tax office and the provinces of Ontario and Alberta, have also found a managed service model to be an efficient and effective solution to improved paper records management.
The U.K. government procurement office recently announced it had completed a procurement that establishes an agreement to provide government-wide standardized practices and pricing for records management document storage and services delivered by four vendors.
By using a records management service provider, the Canada Revenue Agency will continue to provide taxpayers and benefit recipients with the high standard of service and security they expect and deserve, while doing so at the lowest possible cost for all Canadians and, most importantly, protecting the integrity of the Canadian tax system.
Employment InsuranceMrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in early December last year, I was trying to get the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to understand that the changes made to employment insurance and the appeal mechanisms she wants to introduce beginning this April violate the rights of unemployed workers. I was not satisfied with the answer I received, so I would like to revisit the issue here this evening.
The structure of the new the social security tribunal, commonly known as the SST, is unacceptable. The Conservatives have systematically reduced access to programs, and they are now doing the same thing with appeal mechanisms. Furthermore, instead of creating a more efficient system, they are only adding to processing times.
I am here to repeat my question: why discourage unemployed workers from appealing, if not to deter them from applying for the benefits to which they are entitled, or to force them to move and accept a lower wage? 
There are many negative aspects to the changes made to the appeal mechanism. At present, when someone's EI claim is denied, they can appeal the decision directly before a tribunal—known as the board of referees—that is made up of three people. It normally consists of a chair and two assessors.
Beginning in April, with the elimination of the board of referees and the tripartite system, hearings are not guaranteed and a single member of the new social security tribunal will make the decision.
We also now know that the Conservatives save well-paying jobs for their cronies or even former candidates who were defeated. In Quebec, of all the appointments made so far, none of the new members of the social security tribunal is a former labour representative.
The appeal system has also been consolidated and centralized, reducing the number of members from 700 to 850 part-time and 39 full-time members to review some 27,000 cases annually across the country. How can there not be new wait times? The numbers speak for themselves, and it is absolutely disgusting.
Also, in the new first-level appeal system, claimants will have the right to appeal within 30 days of the decision, in writing please. They may also face a summary rejection on a paper review or at a hearing in x number of days. It may also be possible to extend the appeal period for special reasons, but within a maximum of one year. A review of the decision will be possible in the event of new information but, once again, within a maximum of one year.
At the second level, the system will go from 32 judges hearing about 2,300 cases a year, to 13 judges for all of Canada. It will be possible to appeal with permission only within 30 days. We believe that this new system will abandon the unemployed and cut them off from the employment insurance system. They will have less access to it, and our families will suffer more and more.
Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all Canadians have the right to fair and impartial decisions with their social security appeals, and we are not about changing that.
Right now four different tribunals hear cases with respect to employment insurance, the Canadian pension plan and old age security. In three of the four current tribunals, each case is heard by a three-member panel chosen from among over 1,200 part-time members. These members hear appeals, on average, two days per month. This is inefficient, as we can tell.
A great deal of complex logistics and administrative support is required to keep these part-time members engaged and fully informed. Support staff must train these members and keep them informed of current appeal and other legal decisions that may affect cases put before tribunal members.
In addition, under the current system files are generated manually, resulting in a lot of cumbersome paperwork.
Panel members must hear cases in person, and that means that there are significant administrative and travel expenses.
The new social security tribunal would be made up of 70 members, all working full time, appointed by order in council. In place of panels, cases would be dealt with by one member. These members would be dedicated solely to hearing and deciding on appeals.
Having full-time members would allow the social security tribunal's support staff to concentrate on what they should doing, that is, the appeal process itself. This would enable members to hear and render decisions more effectively. It would also significantly reduce the work that is involved in appointing, training and briefing them.
With respect to fairness, one of the hallmarks of the current process is the independent relationships members have with the department and their impartiality. This independence would be preserved in the social security tribunal, and the importance of objectivity and neutrality would continue to be emphasized. The expertise of decision-makers would not be affected.
The new social security tribunal would provide two levels of appeal. The first, the general division, would have two sections for appeals, one for employment insurance and the other for CPP and OAS. The second level, the appeal division, would hear all appeals from the general division. Both divisions would be dedicated to providing fair and impartial reviews of government decisions. Members would be assigned to one section, based upon their particular experience.
As for the appeals themselves, we are going to see quite a few changes.
First, case files would be generated electronically, eliminating heavy paperwork. Instead of appearing in person, appellants could apply to have their cases taken by phone or video conference whenever possible.
Canadians have told us that they want less bureaucracy. They want us to cut red tape. That is exactly what we would be doing in the establishment of the new social security tribunal.
[Interjection]
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I wonder who this will benefit. It certainly will not benefit unemployed workers, who used to have the right to be heard. With the new social security tribunal, they can make their case in writing. If the tribunal decides to uphold the decision, it can do so without providing any new information to the person making the appeal. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour talked about impartiality. Let me talk about partiality. She mentioned 70 members. How many of these $120,000-a-year members will be appointed by this government?
Furthermore, we know very well that there are proposed cuts in this area, quotas of $485,000. The unemployed workers will suffer the consequences.
I will repeat my question for the parliamentary secretary. Why is this government so bent on punishing unemployed workers, treating them like criminals and putting their fate in the hands of failed Conservative candidates?
[Interjection]
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, in deciding and planning to replace four tribunals with one, we have paid careful attention to guaranteeing that safeguards would be in place to maintain the integrity of the system.
We cannot hide the fact that the old system, with four tribunals, each with its own staff and processes, was costly and inefficient.
The social security tribunal is a common sense approach that would make it easier for appellants to have their cases heard and to do so at a significantly lower cost to Canadians. By streamlining the appeals process, we would get a process that is not only fair and impartial but more efficient and less costly.
The individual experience of decision-makers for a particular section would be maintained. All members deciding EI cases would be selected in consultation with employers and employee representatives to the EI commission.
The EnvironmentMr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my intervention today follows up on the question I asked on December 4 last year about the many changes made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
I would like to point out that the reform of the Navigable Waters Protection Act was never announced during the election campaign or in the Conservative government's mammoth budgets. It was a real surprise, especially since the government did not announce it during the election campaign.
Unfortunately, when I asked the Minister of Transport my question, he did not respond in any way to the concerns of Canadians about the changes to this legislation.
However, my question was quite clear, simple and inspired by comments from Canadians. I travelled around the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable and the Chaudière River area to find out if the public knew about this reform. They told me that they did not know that Lac Mégantic, Rivière Chaudière, or even Rivière Saint-François, in my riding, would no longer have environmental protection.
Following my visit, people came to see me. They could not believe that their Conservative MP did not stand up for their river or lake. Even after I got back to my riding, I received a number of calls from people who wanted to thank me and to tell me that they were angry about this situation. These are a few examples of people in the community who were not aware of this reform. They were shocked and angry.
When it comes to protecting navigable waters, I highly doubt that the legendary slogan that the Conservatives used to appeal to Canadians—“Our region in power”—can be applied. Instead, our slogan—“Our region abandoned by the Conservatives”—seems more fitting. The comments my colleague made earlier about employment insurance shows that this is true. The same thing is happening here. 
In this respect, we are wondering why the Conservatives allowed the President of the Treasury Board to protect the lakes of the rich and famous in his riding and abandon the rest of Canadians. That is the question.
I examined the whole situation carefully and there is no reasonable explanation. It is important to mention that, when asked a question in the House, my NDP colleague clearly showed that the website regarding the Navigable Waters Protection Act mentioned the word “environment” dozens of times. As soon as she mentioned this in the House—the next day, I believe—the website was completely changed with every instance of the word “environment” removed. This may have been a coincidence, but I think that it was arranged by the Conservative Party.
People are upset that the government is abandoning environmental protection. They do not understand why certain lakes and rivers are protected while others, such as Rivière Saint-François, Lac Mégantic, and Rivière Chaudière, are not. That is my question. 
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, all of the waterways mentioned by the hon. member are protected. Environmental laws will continue to apply to all of our country's waterways, as he said.
The changes made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act are not environmental in nature because this is not an environmental law. This law is not environmental and it never has been; therefore, the amendments will have no impact on the environment.
The Navigable Waters Protection Act exists to reconcile conflicting interests in the case of ships and bridges, for example. It allows Canadians to have access to these waters for transportation and construction. That is the main reason this law was created.
Currently, the law applies to waters where navigation is questionable. Our public servants are obliged to work on projects that have nothing to do with navigation. In order to eliminate this waste and keep our economy working as it should, we changed the law to focus on navigable waters.
Happily, all of the laws protecting the environment continue to apply just as they always have. For example, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act and the laws on wildlife habitat will continue to apply. All of those laws will continue to protect the waterways that the member mentioned in his speech. 
The reality is that the laws on navigation will apply only to those waters that have navigation. It would seem to me that would make sense. When there is a small stream that is not capable of carrying any large-scale navigation and a farmer wants to build a small footbridge over it, I do not think it is necessary for the national transportation department to come out and make sure that a shipping vessel will not be interrupted by that footbridge. When the people at Wabamun Lake in Alberta want to build small recreational docks so their kids can fish off them, or God forbid, jump in the lake, I do not think it is necessary to have federal bureaucrats ensuring that shipping tankers will not be interrupted. We know that is not necessary. 
Navigation laws will now focus on navigation. 
[Interjection]
François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, before getting back to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I want to point out that my hon. colleague was saying that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the fish habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act could apply. However, these two pieces of legislation were targeted in Bills C-38 and C-45. They were amended and the protections were reduced. In fact, the government is attacking environmental protection. Why is there a double standard in the Navigable Waters Protection Act?
If my hon. colleague is saying that we do not need to protect the environment, then why is it that the Treasury Board is protecting the lakes in one riding in particular? This supposedly does not protect the environment. However, those lakes are protected when tens of thousands of other lakes and rivers in Canada are not.
The question needs to be asked. Why this injustice? Why is it that the Treasury Board is protecting lakes in one riding full of rich and famous people? What are we doing for all the other Canadian lakes?
[Interjection]
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain it again. 
Let us once again go back to the example of Wabamun Lake in Alberta. If people want to build recreational docks on that lake, they are not interrupting shipping or navigation, so we do not need bureaucrats from Ottawa or a federal department to ensure that navigation is not interrupted. Rather, if someone were trying to build something of an environmentally damaging nature on that same lake, then federal legislation protecting the environment would continue to apply. That is because the changes we are bringing to the Navigable Waters Protection Act have literally nothing to do with the environment. The environmental legislation, which is adequate and copious, will continue to be in place to protect our environment.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:51 p.m.)