2013-05-03

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak about Canada's economic action plan 2013, which would continue to deliver results for Canadians, keep us in the lead among G7 nations and keep Canada on track to return to balanced budgets by 2015.
One of the ways that we would accomplish that is by creating jobs by building equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces in Canada. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to give them the best equipment possible to fulfill the demands we place on them and to bring them home safely. We owe it to Canadian industry to give it the opportunity to play a major role in that process and develop a stronger manufacturing base with the capacity for leading-edge technology and innovation. Finally, we owe it to Canadian taxpayers to ensure that their dollars are spent for the maximum benefit of Canada in all respects.
Building on the success of the national shipbuilding procurement strategy, the government would better ensure that purchases of military equipment create economic opportunities for Canadians by developing key domestic investment capabilities to help guide procurement, by promoting export opportunities and by reforming the current procurement process to improve outcomes.
The recently released Jenkins Report frames the unique once-in-a-century opportunity presented by major investments in Canada's Armed Forces to create jobs and economic growth, while enhancing Canada's ability to defend its sovereignty.
Many highly industrialized countries have clear strategies to promote their defence sectors, based on a recognition that it is in the national interests to have a strong domestic defence-related manufacturing base that produces leading-edge equipment. For Canada, such a strategy can generate high value exports and support high paying jobs for Canadians.
A key opportunity for doing so is by targeting the $49 billion in industrial and regional benefits obligations that foreign companies are expected to accumulate by 2027 to support high skill and high value opportunities and jobs in Canadian industries. These opportunities would be selected based on the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces, the potential to access global markets and the potential for increasing investments in Canadian research and innovation. Our government would work with industry sectors and stakeholders, such as the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, to identify areas of Canadian competitiveness and trends in global supply and demand in defence-related industries. 
Further, we would ensure that major procurements include a plan for participation by Canadian industry prior to approving the project. We would develop a refined set of key industrial capabilities for use over the long term, and examine how existing policies and programs can be tailored to support a government-wide strategy, while remaining cognizant of Canada's international trade obligations.
In parallel, the government would reform the current procurement process to improve outcomes. This would include thorough and rigorous options analyses, a challenge function for military requirements, early and frequent industry involvement, and strengthened oversight with the use of third-party expertise.
Canada has many success stories to tell in using the purchase of equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces to create jobs and economic growth in Canada. 
CAP Inc. sells its products and services to over 190 countries and employs more than 8,000 people. CAE is the world leader in simulation equipment, commercial aviation training, helicopter aviation training, military virtual air training and health care simulation technology. I had the pleasure of using CAE products for many years in one of my previous lives and I can attest to their excellence.
General Dynamics Land Systems Canada , or GDLS, based in London and Edmonton, is a world leader in the design, manufacture and support of wheeled light armoured vehicles, or LAVs. It is a multi-billion dollar firm with over 2,300 highly skilled employees. As a result of procurements and related support from the government, GDLS Canada has generated direct sales of light armoured vehicles in excess of $17 billion over the past 35 years. It has created approximately 500,000 person years of employment in Canada and established a supplier base of over 400 Canadian companies, located in every province.
Recently, I had the pleasure of attending the rollout in Edmonton of the first of the LAV III upgrades. Having ridden around Afghanistan a few times in its predecessor, I know that the upgrades will be welcomed by our soldiers. 
The $35 billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy, announced in 2010, means jobs and economic growth for the country, stability for the industry and vital equipment for the men and women of the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard. Over the next 30 years, it is estimated that 15,000 direct and indirect jobs may result from national shipbuilding procurement strategy projects, including skilled work in a variety of sectors.
Through this process, our government is helping small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in global supply chains that will result from these projects, creating growth and jobs throughout the country. A good example of that would be the supply of landing gear assemblies on about 4,000 F-35s by Héroux-Devtek of Longueuil, Quebec.
The Government of Canada acts as a first user of pre-commercial innovations through the Canadian innovation commercialization program, or CICP. Through CICP, federal departments test prototypes developed by Canadian businesses and provide feedback to help improve these innovative products before they are marketed to customers. This program is particularly useful for small and medium-sized enterprises, which often find it difficult to find the resources to bring innovative products to market.
Participating companies have been strongly supportive of CICP since it was launched in 2010, and our government will officially launch the military component of the program in the near future.
Canada's aerospace sector is a global technology leader and a major source of high quality jobs, directly employing 66,000 people across Canada. It is among the most research-intensive industries in the country.
The hon. David Emerson, head of the Aerospace Review, delivered his final report to the Minister of Industry on November 29, 2012. The report detailed a series of recommendations aimed at strengthening the aerospace and space sectors in Canada. Our government is carefully reviewing the advice of the Aerospace Review and will take action over the coming year to improve the focus and coordination of programs and practices of relevance to the aerospace and space sectors.
The largest aerospace-specific innovation support program is the permanent strategic aerospace and defence initiative, or SADI, which provides repayable contributions to support strategic innovative projects by aerospace, space, defence and security companies. Since its launch in 2007, SADI has authorized $826 million in assistance to 25 projects, of which $411 million has been disbursed to date. Two examples of Alberta-based companies supported by SADI are SemBioSys Genetics Inc. and AeroMechanical Services Ltd.
We will continue to provide stable funding for SADI, close to $1 billion over five years, and will review the programs, administration and operation over the coming year to ensure that it continues to respond to the needs of this dynamic sector.
Economic action plan 2013 would provide $110 million over four years beginning in 2014-15, and $55 million per year on an ongoing basis thereafter for the creation of an aerospace technology demonstration program. This program would support large-scale technology projects that exhibit strong commercialization potential and promote collaboration among industries, including simulation trials, systems integration testing and refinement activities. A component of the program would support research costs at post-secondary institutions that serve wider industry needs. As recommended by the Aerospace Review, a portion of these resources, rising to $20 million annually, would be reallocated from the strategic aerospace and defence initiative.
 We will also launch consultations in the coming months regarding the creation of a national aerospace research and technology network to be led by Industry Canada in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. The network will engage stakeholders and industry, post-secondary institutions and government laboratories to identify strategic technology areas and encourage collaboration in research and development.
The motto of the Royal Canadian Air Force is per ardua ad astra, “through adversity to the stars”. It is not just within our atmosphere that economic action plan 2013 will have effect.
 Canada's space industry is a sophisticated research and innovation leader, successfully turning investments in knowledge into a global advantage in several niche areas, including robotics and satellite communications. Canada's space capabilities will be showcased through the ongoing development of the RADARSAT Constellation Mission for which a $706-million satellite construction contract has recently been signed with MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates.
Canada's leading role in space is also demonstrated through continued participation in the International Space Station mission and the command of Expedition 35 of the station by Canadian astronaut, Chris Hadfield. Commander Hadfield has made all Canadians proud and I have been privileged to fly CF-18s with him in the past in Cold Lake and Bagotville.
The Aerospace Review has made important recommendations with respect to policies and programs specific to the space sector, and our government is currently examining these recommendations carefully to determine the way ahead. 
Canada's high-tech defence-related aerospace and space industries have a bright future. Our government will continue to encourage growth of Canadian capacity to lead the world. Economic action plan 2013 takes several steps that would enhance that process. I encourage all members of this House, indeed, all Canadians to get on board, work hard and enjoy the ride.
Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.
I would like to speak to part 3, division 6 of Bill C-60, specifically clauses 136 and 137, which provide some definitions relating to state-owned enterprises. The definitions are set out there, and that is of some interest.
Unfortunately, during the information session on Monday night, officials seemed to be telling us that, despite the definition, all purchases of Canadian businesses by state-owned enterprises would be subject to the definitions in clause 137, meaning that in a few years, the value of transactions will be $1 billion or more.
How does the hon. member think this could protect us from interference from foreign governments, considering that we have had some specific cases of concern that had to do with control of our natural resources?
[Interjection]
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, my colleague specifically mentioned the resource industry. Canada is a leader in the resource industry. We have tremendous capacity for foreign investment in Canada to help us develop that industry. We are always going to do that with the best interests of Canadians in mind first, but that does not mean....We have to operate with foreign investment; it has helped to develop our resources to this point and it will help in the future. We have to deal with people who can be challenging from time and time and that is why we put measures in place to protect Canadians. It is not going to be a one-way negotiation. It will always be two-way. 
Foreigners have to benefit as well from doing business in Canada, and we understand that, just like Canadians have to benefit from doing business in other countries. We do not live in a bubble. We have to work within the environment of international co-operation and international law. We will put in place, as we already have put in place, measures that will protect Canadian investors. At the same time we have to work in the much broader world market.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's perspective and his speech. As everyone knows, he has served Canada nobly and when he brings his comments forward he always gives an overview of the entire country. 
I want to ask him about the interconnectivity of Canada's economy, especially for manufacturing. As he knows, I come from Oshawa. Oshawa is a city that is very dependent on manufacturing. He mentioned the SADI program and how that program helps manufacturers in the aerospace industry. There are some excellent things in the budget that would really help Canadian manufacturers. 
The member has a lot of knowledge about the energy sector and the challenges it is facing in his province. However, developing energy sector resources creates a great spinoff for places in my community and in Ontario as a whole with respect to manufacturing.
Could he contrast our government's approach to helping manufacturers and creating jobs to the NDP's approach of going to another country and lobbying against Canadian jobs and Canadian industries? If he could give a perspective of the two different approaches to the House today that would be wonderful.
[Interjection]
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that when it comes to doing business, we take a different approach than the opposition, whether it is in Canada or abroad. Frankly, its approach of leaving the country and trashing our industries is quite shameful.
There is no question that the resource industry in Alberta is a key driver of the Canadian economy. It sure as heck is not a disease of any particular nationality. It is the driver of the Canadian economy. A job in the oil sands in Alberta means a job in manufacturing in Ontario or Quebec or somewhere else in the country. A very high percentage of Ontario's manufacturing process is tied to the oil sands. If the oil sands were ever shut down manufacturers in Ontario would shut down, the steel industry would shut down. I know some members across the way would like the oil sands to shut down, and they can take that view, but that would be the result. They lose perspective entirely on the interconnectivity of all businesses in Canada. 
A lot of it is geographical. Alberta has an oil industry because of geography. Quebec has hydro power because of geography. B.C. has a forest industry because of geography. It is the sum of the parts that makes Canada strong, not focusing on one at the expense of the other.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak to Bill C-60, the budget implementation bill, so that I can make some comments.
I will say right off the bat that I will focus on one specific part of the bill, which reads as follows:
 Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to give the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board for the purpose of the Crown corporation entering into a collective agreement with a bargaining agent. 
As a result, other provisions and other legislation may also be amended, because the consequences are far-reaching.
I will not hide the fact that this is quite a concern. I will use my experience on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to speak to the principle of the appearance of justice, which is so important in our legal system. It lets Canadians trust that institution and be confident that, by using all the recourse available to them, they will be able to get a ruling that is consistent with the law and with justice.
There is also a balance to be achieved, and there are very important principles to uphold when it comes to negotiations. There really needs to be a clear balance, and real dialogue and discussion among the parties involved in the negotiations. There is no denying that this is a sensitive issue and something that is difficult to achieve. Division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-60 poses a direct threat to this process.
This is a very serious problem. I feel, and I am sure that all of my colleagues do as well, that this aspect alone is reason enough to oppose this bill.
I will now talk about my personal experience. After all, my Conservative colleagues love to share their life experiences about much bigger issues. I will talk about the experience my late father had as a member of Local 9 of FTQ Construction's Fraternité nationale des charpentiers-menuisiers. 
My father worked for 12 years as a union activist, trying to convince the guys to come to the union's general meetings. At the time, most construction workers were men. He told them every time that it was important for them to participate. Indeed, their participation was very important because it made the decisions taken at those meetings much more credible.
During the second half of his career as a carpenter-joiner, my father spent most of his time as a foreman or superintendent responsible for job sites. He was around in the 1960s, a difficult period for the construction industry when there was much less protection and safety was a major issue. As a manager, he was very concerned about the safety of the people he supervised.
This week, there have been some very hot days where people could easily go without a jacket. That is understandable, but imagine how unpleasant it must be to have to wear a hard hat on a work site on a hot summer's day. Unfortunately, hard hats hold in a lot of heat.
My father's approach was very simple. He asked the worker to put on his hard hat because it was important. If the worker protested because it was too hot out, my father insisted. He would walk away once the worker had put on his hard hat. However, if my father came back that same day to find that the same worker had once again taken off his hard hat and left it on a wall or somewhere else, my father would get in that worker's face. He would get really angry because he was responsible for the job site and the physical safety of the worker who, unfortunately, was unintentionally putting his life and health at risk.
That is one of the union movement's greatest achievements. Recently, we have again been hearing about how workplace safety is still a major problem even though there has been significant progress. A single worker has very little power to stand up for his rights against a huge organization, particularly if the management or the owner is firmly opposed to that. There must be a balance of power to deal with these issues.
Also quite recently, there have been many examples of people getting together to achieve a common goal. I am thinking of chambers of commerce and groups created in response to our campaign against excessive credit card fees. There are groups of restaurant owners and corner store owners. National groups bring thousands of small businesspeople together. Getting together for these reasons is a very noble thing. There are also seniors' groups.
I am a Knight of Columbus, a member of the La Nativité council in Beauport. The K of C is yet another excellent association dedicated to reaching out to others and helping the less fortunate. Churches of all faiths bring people together for spiritual and community reasons. That, too, is noble.
In the business community, people get together to form corporations to launch for-profit and non-profit businesses, companies with share capital or investors who may decide to risk their capital on a reasonably safe venture that could return a lot. That is yet another example of a noble reason for people to get together.
Why is the government, why are Conservative elected representatives, so intent on stigmatizing perfectly legitimate groups, such as the union movement? That makes absolutely no sense. They have provided no justification here in the House or elsewhere for their visceral hatred of the union movement and their desire to work against it. The government is certainly right to address problems. There have been very disappointing examples of obvious wrongdoing in some unions. However, does that merit such an over-the-top, unreasonable attempt to crush the union movement? Absolutely not.
While the government is at it, it needs to do something about the flagrant abuses by mining companies, for example. Canada is a haven and refuge for mining companies, which is a disgrace. After what has happened elsewhere in the world—in Latin America and Africa, for example—the government could choose to shut down numerous large companies. It could put them under guardianship to set them back on the right path. Obviously, the managers and shareholders are not able to do the right thing.
The other reason, the compelling argument that keeps us from supporting the government on part 3, division 17, is that it gives the Treasury Board president the means to intervene in bargaining.
How can we trust a man who kept a slush fund to look after friends in his riding and who protected the millionaires, with their teak decks and fancy houses, who live on certain lakes?
It all happened in the context of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, when the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tried to convince us that only commercially used waterways would be affected. It is quite possible that a number of agreements were worked out on those teak decks. Nevertheless, the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth, and this opens the door to terrible abuse. It is an absolute disgrace to trust this man with such privileges.
I would like to conclude by talking about scripture. It is important to me, and I try to follow in Christ's footsteps. During the Sermon on the Mount, Christ called forth the children and comforted them. He spoke about people who take advantage of others, but he did not hesitate to drive merchants out of the temple with a whip. I will follow his example.
I am completely, 100% opposed to this bill. The government will find me, along with my colleagues, blocking its way, because of this one point.
Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech.
I have to ask my colleague about some of the comments made by the former member, when he talked about the Ontario steel industry and what has happened there because of mismanagement by the government on the Investment Canada file. That is again being changed in this budget, and it is not something that was previously announced. The changes break another Conservative promise to actually consult with business, constituents and stakeholders before making changes, a promise the government has made several times.
With the budget introducing these changes, again with no consultation whatsoever, perhaps the member could offer his opinion on what those changes might do for Canadian businesses that would get gobbled up by foreign entities without protection for workers.
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He has an interesting perspective, and it brings us back to the question about Investment Canada that I had put earlier to a Conservative speaker.
By amending the Investment Canada Act, they are tilting the playing field. Workers will suffer because of Part 3, section 17, as will Canadian and foreign investors alike. In fact, the rules will be so lax and broad that scammers and thieves will be able to walk right in and hold our natural resources sectors hostage.
I have an excellent example to back that up. The White Birch Paper Stadacona plant in Beauport—Limoilou was owned by a private investor, and therefore was a private enterprise. We know that the government is trying to open unions' books, so why not force investors—who pay hundreds of millions of dollars and can work in complete secrecy—to open their books when negotiating? That way, we could provide some minimum protections for workers, business partners and retirees.
Retirees in my riding, who have had a lot of money stolen from them, do not expect to ever recover that money.
Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a key stakeholder in the manufacturing sector, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association, had this to say:
 The federal budget sends an important signal. It positions manufacturing and exporting at the heart of Canada's Economic Action Plan by focusing on practical steps that will enhance competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and business growth. 
 This is very good news for companies creating jobs in Canada, investing in our communities, and developing and selling world-class products and services around the world. 
I would ask the member if he agrees with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association on the importance of this budget for Canadian manufacturers and exporters.
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. 
If we are going to cherry-pick our quotes, then we are going to get the result we want, but the government's real record is the outright loss of 500,000 jobs in manufacturing alone.
I will ask my colleague the following question. We had the opportunity to examine this issue last Tuesday at the finance committee, together with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the experts and analysts who accompanied her. Despite the desperate attempts by the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, not one analyst from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's office was able to confirm for my colleague that the 900,000 jobs were created strictly by the actions of the Government of Canada. Obviously, a trained economist cannot state that in absolute terms.
In any event, my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques responded by saying that if the government wants to take credit for the 900,000 jobs created, then it should also accept responsibility for the 500,000 jobs lost during the 2008 recession. I believe that that is something the government would never do. If we want to take credit, then we should also take responsibility.
Stephen Woodworth: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act no. 1, the government's bill to implement the budget.
 It is important when considering any budget bill to understand the circumstances to which it must respond, so I will begin with those. 
First and foremost, the economic polices of this government during and after the world's worst economic recession in almost 80 years are recognized around the world as an example for others to follow. Governments alone, of course, do not create jobs or prosperity. However, it has been a happy, if unintended, blessing to have been led by a Prime Minister with a strong grasp of economics through these troubled times. Keeping taxes low, time limiting stimulus spending and focusing on long-term infrastructure and job creation investments, while modestly restraining program spending, have been key, sensible policies for supporting our recovery.
Canadians can be grateful that time and again the Conservative government has been able to resist the high-tax, high-program spending demands of the opposition. This was particularly challenging during the recession, during two and a half years of opposition-controlled Parliament. Fortunately, the last election produced a strong, stable Conservative majority government to stave off reckless tax-and-spend policies.
As a result, Canada has led the G7 significantly in net employment gains of almost 950,000 since the recession and in GDP growth. Just this week, Statistics Canada announced that Canada's economy grew once again in February. 
While Canada has fared well in global comparisons, we continue to confront significant global challenges. The eurozone remains in recession. The United States, our major trading partner, is experiencing only very modest growth. Global competition from emerging economies is very intense. Too many Canadians are still looking for work.
Fortunately, this bill addresses the challenges we face. It would strengthen the Canadian economy and increase jobs, all while supporting Canadian families and respecting taxpayer dollars. This bill would deliver on the real concerns of Canadians. 
One of the timely, targeted measures included in this bill is the reform of the temporary foreign worker program. The temporary foreign worker program was created to fill acute labour needs when Canadians are not available. Canadians have expressed real concerns about the use of this program by some. The program was never intended to bring in temporary foreign workers to replace already employed Canadian workers. Recent events that suggest otherwise made very clear the need to reform this program to match that intent.
The reforms brought forward in this bill stem from the government's ongoing review of the program to ensure that Canadians are the first to be considered for available jobs. The bill would increase the government's ability to revoke work permits and labour market opinions, enabling immediate action against employers who do not comply with the program's rules. Changes to the bill would require employers using the temporary foreign worker program to pay temporary foreign workers the prevailing wage for a job. These are common sense changes to the program to remove unintended incentives to look abroad for employees. 
The bill also introduces user fees for employers applying for foreign workers so that these costs are no longer absorbed by taxpayers. The bill does not dispute the ongoing need for temporary foreign workers to meet acute labour shortages. Rather, these reforms create incentives to hire Canadians and ensure that temporary foreign workers are a short-term solution to skill shortages. These reforms introduced in this program would ensure that Canadians are always at the front of the hiring line.
To fulfill the commitments of the 2013 budget, this bill would also deliver targeted tax relief. The enhancement of the adoption expense tax credit, the new first-time donors super credit for charitable donations and the expansion of tax relief for home care services are all targeted tax relief measures to support Canadian families. 
This bill would also remove tariffs on imported baby clothing and sports equipment, resulting in significant savings for families. All parents know the expenses that come with raising a family. From basic necessities, such as clothes and food, to education and recreational activities, it adds up very fast.
Through the delivery of the family caregiver tax credit, the child tax credit, the children's fitness tax credit and the children's arts tax credit, the average family now saves $3,200 a year in tax reductions compared to when the present government took office.
These tax credits deliver important savings for Canadians. However, the fact is that the price of too many products needed to support families are consistently priced higher in Canada than the same products sold in the United States. Through the removal of tariffs on imported baby clothing and sports equipment, this difference will be reduced.
The bill also delivers a two-year extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible manufacturing and processing machinery. This demonstrates that the government recognizes the importance of sectors that provide skilled jobs. The bill provides continued support for Canada's manufacturing employees, support that is especially important for my constituents in Kitchener Centre.
Canada's manufacturing economy will compete in the global economy. Members need not take my word for it. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, a key stakeholder in the manufacturing sector, has already come out and said this:
 The federal budget sends an important signal. It positions manufacturing and exporting at the heart of Canada's Economic Action Plan by focusing on practical steps that will enhance competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and business growth.... This is very good news for companies creating jobs in Canada, investing in our communities, and developing and selling world-class products and services around the world. 
Constituents in my riding of Kitchener Centre are well aware of the importance of a healthy manufacturing sector, a major economic driver in southwest Ontario. The manufacturing sector employs approximately 1.8 million Canadians across Canada. In providing tax relief for new investments of manufacturing equipment, this bill creates a favourable environment for manufacturing employees.
As mentioned, in addition to tax credits to support Canadian families, this bill also ensures that taxpayer dollars are respected. The bill takes steps to close tax loopholes that allow a select few to avoid paying their fair share. 
The government has already introduced loan rules to prevent foreign affiliates from converting otherwise taxable surplus income into the form of loans, thereby avoiding taxation. This bill also provides an information reporting regime for tax avoidance transactions. This, in turn, will help the government track down and monitor a loss of tax revenue and collect it for the rest of us.
 Hard-working taxpayers can be confident that this bill will ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes.When everyone is paying their fair share of taxes, it keeps taxes low for Canadian families and improves the incentive to invest in Canada. I am very pleased that the budget implementation bill delivers a solid plan for creating jobs and economic growth, all while keeping taxes low and balancing the budget by 2015.
This bill is great news for my constituents in Kitchener Centre. I invite all members of the House to put aside partisan differences to join me in supporting jobs, growth and long-term economic prosperity. Please pass this bill.
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member opposite that if his party really wanted to set aside partisan differences, it would allow us to debate this bill instead of imposing yet another time allocation motion.
His party is again shutting down debate after making 50 changes to 50 pieces of legislation, including one that has to do with the temporary foreign worker program, which has been a fiasco from the start. The Conservatives have mismanaged it so badly that there have been many problems.
Thousands of jobs at the Royal Bank have recently been given to foreign workers, who are paid 15% less. In addition to this legislation, a number of other changes are being made, which shows how poorly crafted the program really is. 
Can we trust a government that says it wants to stimulate the economy, when everything is so flawed? We cannot even discuss it; it is really confusing. What does my colleague have to say about that?
[Interjection]
Stephen Woodworth: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer my colleague's question about whether Canadians can trust this government to bring us through economic difficulty, because the answer is just so self-evident. 
Look at what happened in late 2008, with the deep, steep dive around the world and global economic turmoil and the government's speedy response in coming up with a budget by the end of January 2009. I know that my friend was not here when that happened. The stimulus program we enacted at that time, and the measures we have built year after year in the last three years, have brought this economy through the recession, the greatest economic turmoil in 80 years, in a fashion better than any other country around the world. That is a good reason for Canadians to continue trusting us.
Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Kitchener Centre. Having been there not that long ago, I know that small business is a very important part of the economy in his riding. I would like to know whether the member has described for the businesses in his riding, especially, small- and medium-sized businesses, how $2.3 billion would be taken out of their pockets because of the increased tax on dividends. Has he done that? Has he had a response to that move in this particular budget? I would love to hear what they had to say about that.
[Interjection]
Stephen Woodworth: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the best thing I can do to respond to my colleague's question, and I thank her for it, is to provide her with the reaction of the group that, in my view, most closely reflects the views of small businesses across Canada, and that is the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. It said this about the budget:
 The skills problem leads our Top Ten list of critical barriers to Canada's competitiveness. It's showing up all across the country, in every industry.... We are pleased to see the government is moving to [ confront it] and to include business directly in the [solution]. 
That is just one example of the many good things that are said across the country by small business in relation to this budget. I could give quotes from the Canadian Home Builders' Association and the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. Canadian building trades unions, in fact, have said some great things about this budget.
In all respects, I think my colleague would find that small business is solidly behind the government in this budget.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation bill, Bill C-60, but I think we have to understand in the beginning that many of us do it under some duress. Under the Prime Minister's leadership, he is again suppressing debate with another time allocation motion, which seems to become the norm in this place, and a budget that seems to have been prepared without the proper analysis. Certainly, the Atlantic premiers said that the proper analysis was not done, and I will get to that in a moment.
On the positive side, this document is not quite as big an omnibus bill as the previous two budgets were, so it is a little shorter and does not cover pretty near everything the government does. However, on the negative side, in following up on the budget, the budget implementation bill builds on the damage already done by the federal government on its ability of be a leader in Canada among the provinces to build our economy, to put some foundation under our social programs, to assist industries, to establish more trade in a way that benefits Canadians. This builds on the damage and even makes it worse from previous budgets.
Members will recall quite vividly when theMinister of Finance stood in his place and said that the government would balance the budget by 2015. Is there a Canadian who actually believes that? There are a couple of members who have raised their hands over there, but they raise their hands any time the Prime Minister says anything. They jump to the tune. For the information of Canadians and the members opposite, there has never been a target that the Minister of Finance has hit, whether it was when he was the provincial minister of finance and did the great damage to Ontario, which it still suffers from, or when he has been the federal finance minister, which the whole country suffers from now. 
It is important to note in the beginning a couple of key messages and summarize them.
 There is no question that this budget will make it harder for Canadian middle-class families to make ends meet. Middle-class families are really starting to suffer and suffer substantially as a result of the activities of the government. Bill C-60 raises taxes on Canadians in order to pay for the Conservatives' wasteful spending. Last night in the media, the Minister of National Defence, who is becoming infamous for his inability to manage his portfolio, saw Canadians spend twice as much on ships as other countries had. There is not time in the rest of the day to spell out all the other areas the Minister of National Defence has spent money wastefully.
The problem is that there is no joy in the Minister of National Defence, backed up by the Minister of Finance, spending wastefully because middle-class Canadians are the ones being asked to suffer and pay for irresponsible fiscal and financial spending by the government.
The budget raises taxes on small business owners by $2.3 billion over the next five years, directly hurting 750,000 Canadians and risking Canadian jobs.
There are other policy cuts. In the area of agriculture when I used to be the critic, I went to an announcement in P.E.I. two weeks ago on a Friday. I listened closely while the Minister of National Revenue made the announcement for the minister, and she said something along the lines that “We're increasing by 50% the shared funding”. It sounds really good, does it not? The Conservatives are increasing the funding. However, what we have to understand is the key words “the shared funding”. That means farmers are picking up half, where the previous government was really paying for it. If we look closely, we will find that the safety net programs, like agristability and agri-invest, have been cut substantially by the federal government. Therefore, what happens the next time when prices fall on grains in Alberta? The safety nets are not going to be there for the farm community. More middle-class families have been asked to suffer for the incompetence of the current government.
Last Sunday, I happened to be at some of the harbours in my own riding, including Stanley Bridge and Malpeque. Fishing season started early Monday morning. What were fishermen doing on Saturday and Sunday afternoon? They were stressed out and nerved up because DFO, through small craft harbours program, had not done the dredging so they could get out of their harbours. Finally, after a lot of pressure, the dredge was working and the fishermen did get out of Malpeque at six o'clock in the morning. In Stanley Bridge the fishermen had to load their traps from elsewhere because, with the cutbacks to Fisheries and Oceans to the small craft harbours program, fishermen were being asked to pay and suffer as a result of the federal government failing to live up to its responsibilities.
As well, this budget would raise taxes on credit unions by $75 million per year, which is an attack on rural Canadians and Canada's rural economy. The credit unions are right across the country. People who invest in them and put their money in those are usually small businesses. Again, the government is imposing further taxes on the credit unions.
 I do not have time to go into all the nickel and dime issues where the Conservatives will tax Canadians, but they will put GST and HST on health care services, including medical work that victims of crimes need in order to establish their case in court, and hospital parking lots will have extra tax on them. Those things add up and they are all be imposed on Canadians as a result of the absolute incompetence of this Minister of Finance.
Let us turn for a moment to the attack on workers and seasonal industries. Except for the minister in charge, we all know the damage that has been done to the seasonal industries and seasonal workers through the changes to employment insurance. However, a special thing happened last weekend, and that was the Atlantic premiers issued a press release through the Council of Atlantic Premiers on April 29, in which they came together. They are from three different political parties, four premiers representing four provinces, and they spelled out fairly clearly the damage that the federal government had done to this federation called “Canada”. They talked about the impacts of employment insurance. One point they raised was:
 These impacts are most acutely felt in seasonal industries, which make up a significant portion of the Atlantic economy. These changes were introduced without consultation or shared analysis, and therefore without a full understanding of the effect of the changes. 
Clearly, the Atlantic premiers are coming together and saying that there is no federal leadership in our country and no consultation. The role of the federal government is to use its spending power, the budget and the budget implementation act, to do things that will build up Canada and set a foundation under our economy and our social programs. All we would get in this budget implementation act from the federal government is more and more damage, building on the poor fiscal management that it already has.
Worse yet, not only is Atlantic Canada being targeted, but middle-class families right across the country are being asked to pay the price for the fiscal incompetence of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the backbenchers over there who fail to stand and speak out against the Prime Minister and the damage that has been done to the Atlantic economy and to the country.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the hon. member for Wascana a question, and I would now like to put the same question to the member for Malpeque.
The measure to eliminate the tax credit for labour sponsored venture capital funds was not included in Bill C-60, but it was announced in the budget. This measure is very important and very controversial. It has been criticized by Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association, an organization that represents private equity companies in Canada.
What is the third party's position on the elimination of the 15% tax credit, which we think is crucial? The hon. member for Wascana did not seem to think the matter was crucial enough to look at.
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, what the elimination of the tax credit shows is the misplaced priorities of the government. It is a government of big business. We see that with China, the Nexen-CNOOC deal, where special privileges may be granted to big companies to come into our country to invest even if they are state-owned enterprises. 
We have seen the corporate tax reductions where the multinationals, the big corporations around the world, are getting tax breaks in our country even though they are sitting on $560 billion that they are not using to increase jobs, improve technology and productivity. The venture capital the hon. member is talking about comes basically from workers. They also should have that advantage to invest where they see fit to improve the economy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Malpeque will have three minutes remaining in the period for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

Statements By Members
Volunteerism and Ed EggererMr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in my constituency and all across Canada, volunteers are the lifeblood of our communities. Earlier this week, the City of Airdrie held a special ceremony to honour its volunteers of the year. Perhaps the most long overdue recognition went to a pillar of our community, Mr. Ed Eggerer, who was awarded the Airdrie Ambassador Award.
It is with a heavy heart that I must inform this House that Mr. Eggerer is being given this award posthumously, having passed away suddenly on March 17. Our entire city's condolences go out to his wife Sylvia, his family and his many friends.
A true servant of democracy, Mr. Eggerer's legacy is a community far better off in innumerable ways, thanks to his humble dedication.
In addition to Mr. Eggerer, Donivan Ryan, Jack Lumley and the local Meals on Wheels program were all formally recognized for their contributions to our community.
As Governor General David Johnston said, “Volunteers are doing their part to make Canada the smart and caring nation we all want it to be.” These four winners are perfect examples.
Freedom of the PressMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate World Press Freedom Day and the essential work that journalists do to challenge the powerful and inform the public.
Sadly, around the world journalists are forced to risk their lives and livelihoods in the practice of their profession.
Over the past decade, more than 600 journalists have been killed, and nine out of 10 murders of journalists go unpunished.
Repeated attacks in Sri Lanka, the imprisonment of journalists in Ethiopia, Somalia and Iran, and the assault and arrest of atheist bloggers in Bangladesh are just a few recent examples among far too many. 
As we recognize the extraordinary dedication and sacrifices of journalists around the world, we also celebrate the exceptional work of our friends in the press gallery and reporters across Canada, including this year's recipients of the World Press Freedom Award, Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor.
 I hope that all members of this House will join me in paying tribute to their contributions.
TaxationMr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week Canadians filed their 2012 income tax returns. April 30 is the date that Canadians contemplate their tax obligations.
According to the Fraser Institute, a family earning over $74,000 will pay over $9,000 in income taxes in 2012. However, that represents less than one-third of that family's total tax obligations. When payroll taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes and import duties are added, suddenly that family's total tax bill is 43% of its budget. If we compare that to only 37% of the family budget going to food, shelter and clothing, it puts tax obligations into sobering perspective.
Moreover, as deficits represent deferred tax obligations, one's tax bill is even higher.
The knowledge that over 45% of family income goes to one level of government or another allows taxpayers to assess if they are receiving value for money and hold government to account for the taxes it collects.
Only a concerted effort to reduce government spending at all levels of government will return Canadian tax burdens to more appropriate levels.
Freedom of the PressMr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is World Press Freedom Day and a time to honour the vital role played by an independent press in fostering democracy both here in Canada and around the world. This is also a day to remember all those who have lost their lives in the pursuit of truth.
 Unfortunately censorship, intimidation and politically motivated arrests continue in many corners of the globe. Journalists must be able to report freely and without fear of repercussions, for when the press is intimidated, we all suffer. 
World Press Freedom Day is equally an occasion to examine the state of press freedom in our own country, especially as the industry struggles and learns to adapt to the information age.
On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I commend all of Canada's journalists for their admirable work in support of democracy. I join with all Canadians in demanding that freedom of expression and freedom of the press be respected here at home and around the globe.
Grand River Conservation AuthorityStephen Woodworth: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the environment committee, I am always looking for environmental best practices, and as the member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre, I am always proud to speak about the great achievements of my community. The Grand River Conservation Authority lets me do both. 
The GRCA conserves the natural environment in the middle of a thriving metropolitan area of 39 municipalities with a population of close to one million people.
The GRCA is the first watershed management agency ever created in Canada. It delivers outdoor education to more than 50,000 children per year, and its 12 conservation areas are visited by more than one million people each year. 
The GRCA is built on partnerships, which is an excellent model for conservation efforts.
Having spent a lifetime hiking and paddling around the Grand River, I am extremely proud of the GRCA's excellent work.
Congratulations to board chair Jane Mitchell, executive director Joe Farwell and everybody at the GRCA.
Scarborough Walk of Fame InducteesDan Harris: Mr. Speaker, my family has proudly called Scarborough home for over 90 years.
 It is with great joy that I rise today to celebrate this year's inductees to the Scarborough Walk of Fame that celebrates the achievements of Scarborough residents, past and present.
Former inductees include Lieutenant Governor David Onley, soccer player Dwayne De Rosario and artist Doris McCarthy.
I invite members to join us at the Scarborough Town Centre on May 15 at 11 a.m. to celebrate this year's inductees, Christine Bentley, Dwayne Morgan, Gerry Phillips, Judie Oliver, Monika Schnarre, the Scarborough Historical Society and the Barenaked Ladies.
This year's ceremony is hosted by Deb McGrath and Colin Mochrie and will include a musical tribute by the Wexford Gleeks, who will be performing the song recorded live with the Barenaked Ladies and astronaut Chris Hadfield from space.
This event provides merely a glimpse into Scarborough's immense talent, past and present. Congratulations on behalf of all Scarberians.
MidwivesColin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 5, Canadians will join communities throughout the world in recognizing the International Day of the Midwife.
Midwives are represented by the Canadian Association of Midwives, who provide leadership and advocacy for midwifery as a regulated, publicly funded and vital part of the primary maternity care system.
Our government's Muskoka initiative on maternal, newborn and child health has helped to train midwives and skilled birth attendants internationally, and increasing women's access to quality midwifery services has been a global focus of ours.
Midwives also save lives at home, and Canada needs midwives more than ever. They are well positioned to address the specific challenges still faced by women in rural, remote and particularly aboriginal communities in Canada.
Personally speaking, for the birth of my third child, my wife and daughter received excellent pre- and post-care from midwives.
This year is their 13th annual conference and exhibit, which will take place this November right here in Ottawa.
I ask my colleagues to please join me in celebrating the practice of midwifery in Canada and in thanking midwives for the health services they provide to Canadians.
Easter in the Orthodox ChurchMr. Bob Dechert (Mississauga—Erindale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the upcoming celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church calendar.
During the Easter season, many Canadians from the Orthodox Christian faith celebrate with family and friends.
Easter is the most significant and sacred time within the Orthodox Church, and consists of a series of celebrations commemorating the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As we mark this holy period, we must also recognize that not all people around the world are able to worship freely.
Through our newly appointed Ambassador of Religious Freedom, our government will continue to monitor the ability of all faith groups to practice around the world without fear of persecution.
I was especially concerned to learn about the abduction of Metropolitan Paul Yazigi of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese and Mar Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim of the Syriac Archdiocese, both of Aleppo, Syria. It is my hope that both bishops will be returned safety for the Easter holiday.
I would like to wish all of those celebrating in Mississauga and across Canada a very happy Easter. 
 Kaló Páscha! Fouseh Majeed! 
World Press Freedom DayAnne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, today is World Press Freedom Day, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a very important newspaper in my riding, The Gleaner / La Source, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year.
This bilingual newspaper, located in Huntingdon, is an excellent news source and honours both of our country's official languages, as well as the linguistic diversity in my region. I also want to commend two of its journalists, Patrice Laflamme and Sarah Rennie, for their excellent work.
They are always on the lookout for news, tirelessly reporting on stories, presenting a range of opinions and putting themselves in harm's way to cover all kinds of events. The media is a huge source of information, for both the public and elected officials.
However, this anniversary reminds us that in many countries, freedom of the press does not exist or journalists are risking their lives. Freedom of the press is essential to our democracies, and without it, we would not have The Gleaner / La Source, which I hope will celebrate another 150 years.
Anniversary of the Liberation of the NetherlandsMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian of Dutch descent whose parents felt the oppression of Nazi Germany invading their country, I am pleased to rise today to highlight the 68th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands.
The struggle to liberate the Netherlands was an important chapter in the events leading to the victory in Europe and the end of the Second World War.
Over nine long and gruelling months, more than 7,600 Canadians gave their lives to help bring freedom and peace to this country.
Whether in my local Lincoln and Welland Regiment, which helped in the liberation at Bergen op Zoom, or in the graveyards of Holton, where a number of members of Parliament went last year and laid a wreath during that ceremony among the rows and rows of Canadian soldiers who sacrificed their lives for liberation, we will always remember with everlasting gratitude the contributions of all who served and all who made the supreme sacrifice.
Let us never forget.
Fair TradeRaymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House and congratulate my constituents for their efforts to support fair trade.
Wednesday marked the launch of Fair Trade Fortnight. This international event promotes fair trade, which in turn improves quality of life for millions of workers in the southern hemisphere.
I invite my colleagues to participate in Fair Trade Fortnight in Quebec City by going for after-work drinks tonight at the Auberge l'Autre Jardin to celebrate the 10th anniversary of their Équidurable boutique.
I will also be participating in a round table discussion on becoming a fair trade town, which aims to make Quebec City a city that supports fair trade principles. The round table will take place on May 15, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at La Korrigane brewery. 
I would like to congratulate the organizing committee, which includes NAVTI Fondation Canada, L'AMIE, Children’s Care International and Équidurable, for all of their hard work and wonderful support.
Together, we will build a more united and just world.
Rail SafetyMr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Rail Safety Week is taking place this year from April 29 to May 5. It is a national celebration aimed at increasing awareness of the safety around railway operations and highlighting our government's commitment to making the rail system safer for all Canadians. 
While Canada has one of the safest rail systems in the world, improvements can still be made. 
On Monday we announced an investment of $9.3 million at 523 grade crossing projects across Canada through our grade crossing improvement program. This program will enhance safety for pedestrians and motorists and help to save lives. In my riding of Durham, grade crossings at Baseline Road and Maple Grove Road are part of this program. 
To further improve rail safety, our government also made amendments to the Railway Safety Act. These amendments came into force on Wednesday.
These investments and legislative changes show our commitment to safe and efficient rail service in Canada.
Father Andrew MacDonaldWayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Father Andrew MacDonald of P.E.I., who recently passed away.
To quote Campbell Webster, “His courage no doubt originated with his faith, but perhaps most importantly, he did not allow his faith and courage to be confined by any one institution. He would even denounce his own church, as an institution, if it was not standing with the poor and the oppressed.”
Father MacDonald supported the island's strong Catholic traditions. He was a founder and ongoing member of the Latin American mission program and was its first missionary in the Dominican Republic.
He was a promoter of youth involvement in social issues and fought against social injustice. As often as not, being a fiddler himself, he supported the cause through song and music.
Parishioners were blessed by Father MacDonald's word and touched by his efforts to better the world.
On behalf of the House of Commons, I would like to recognize and thank Father MacDonald for his dedication and his contribution to global society.
RED FM Radio StationMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate RED FM on the official launch of its new radio station in Calgary today.
Originally started in the Vancouver area in 2005 with studios in Surrey, RED FM has become a leader in South Asian programming. True to its slogan of “Reflecting Ethnic Diversity”, RED FM has featured programming in more than a dozen languages in addition to Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu.
RED FM is also a community staple, a leader in several fundraising efforts for charitable causes.
Our own Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be in attendance in Calgary today. He will be participating in the ribbon-cutting ceremony and launching the new station on the air.
I ask that my hon. colleagues in the House join me in congratulating the South Asian Broadcasting Corporation and all those involved with the new RED FM at 106.7 in Calgary today.
Conservatives' ManagementMr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's latest report further dispels the myth that the Conservatives are good managers.
The President of the Treasury Board is unable to explain how he spent $3 billion—$3 billion. Like many Canadians, the Auditor General is wondering where that money went.
Where is the money? Usually with boondoggles, one has something tangible to point to, such as gazebos in the Muskokas or Canadian flags plastered across an Indy racetrack in Montreal, but this time the President of the Treasury Board stood with hollow words and empty hands, incapable of saying where the billions went. 
In any other industry, he would be fired. In the Conservative land of make-believe, the man is promoted. 
Only in Conservative Ottawa is someone rewarded for turning border infrastructure money into a gazebo slush fund.
Canada deserves better, and in 2015 New Democrats will provide exactly that.
The EconomyMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to remind that member, and the leader of the NDP and his party, of a few of the various measures in our economic action plan to create jobs, growth and long-term economic prosperity. They are the Canada job grant, advanced manufacturing fund, forest industry transformation program, automotive innovation fund, support for mining exploration, and the list goes on and on. 
I would like to ask the leader of the NDP what his plan is for jobs, growth and economic prosperity. Is it his plan to impose a $20 billion job-killing carbon tax that would raise the price of everything, including gas, groceries and electricity? Is it his plan to impose $56 billion in shameful reckless spending? Is it his plan to block the tens of thousands of jobs on both sides of the border by lobbying against the Keystone pipeline? 
We on this side of the House have a real plan for jobs, growth and long-term economic prosperity. We urge the leader of the NDP and his party to support our good plan.

Oral Questions
Government ExpendituresMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the Auditor General came looking for where the $3 billion actually went, the government had no answer. It could not provide detail because none existed, and yet it claimed that this was all somehow transparent. Did Conservatives not read the Auditor General's report?
The President of the Treasury Board cannot say that this money went to another program or if it was even spent at all. Can the minister now stand and acknowledge that his government has no clue where this money went?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is no truth to that question. Let us hear what the Auditor General actually said. He stated:
 We didn’t find anything that gave us cause for concern that the money was used in any way that it should not have been. 
We are going to listen to the Auditor General.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are being selective in quoting the Auditor General, so, yes, let us hear what he had to say. I am sure it is an oversight that they do not give the full story. This is what he stated:
 However it’s important for there to be a way for people to understand how this money was spent. And that summary reporting was not done. 
The Auditor General is clearly saying Conservatives failed to explain where this money went. Why are they misleading the Canadian public?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, again, that is a misleading question. Let us again hear what the Auditor General actually said. He stated:
 We didn’t find anything that gave us cause for concern that the money was used in any way that it should not have been. 
We are going to listen to the Auditor General.
Canadian HeritageLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, they should read the full report.
Conservative members on the Canadian heritage committee have launched a review of history teaching at provincial schools. Conservatives have already intervened politically in the War of 1812 advertisements; they are remaking the Museum of Civilization in their image, and yesterday we saw the first Canadian in space being removed from Canadian space history for political reasons. Surely, Canadians deserve better.
Why are Conservative MPs now intent on telling provincial schools what they should teach?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of telling the provinces and/or territories how to teach history. We have been very clear about wanting Canadians to reconnect with their proud history and heritage.
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether military history should be taught. The question, rather, is this: why are the Conservatives interfering in provincial education programs? 
The Conservative motion, which the NDP vehemently opposes, is clear. It calls for a review of how history is taught in primary, secondary and post-secondary institutions. The NDP demands that the Conservatives stop interfering in provincial education programs.
Why do the Conservatives want to tell teachers and school boards what should appear in their history text books?
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we obviously have no intention of interfering in what the provinces or territories are teaching. What we are going to do is to look at the places, people and events that have helped shaped and make this country a great place to live. We will take no lessons from the NDP with respect to Canadian history when one of its own members, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, actually talks about Vimy as though it were a scar on Canadian history. 
We are proud of our veterans. We are proud of our Canadian history. We are going to do all that we can to work with our partners to make sure that Canadians can reconnect with their history and, as we approach Canada's 150th birthday, celebrate it.
Government SpendingSadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, how can we trust the Conservatives to properly manage history classes when they cannot even manage the public purse?
They simply lost track of $3.1 billion. Twisting the Auditor's General's words does not change the facts. Not one minister can say where that $3.1 billion went, or even if it was really spent on anti-terrorism measures, border security or anything else.
Canadians want answers. The NDP demands answers. What was the $3.1 billion used for? 
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague already quoted the Auditor General. He said, and let me repeat:
 We didn’t find anything that gave us cause for concern that the money was used in any way that it should not have been. 
The Auditor General confirmed that opposition characterizations of these funds as lost is inaccurate. The Auditor General also confirmed that this money went through the due diligence at the department level and was conveyed to Parliament for review and approval.
TaxationHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in their last four budgets Conservatives have increased taxes on middle-class Canadians by billions and billions of dollars. 
Conservative tax increases on small businesses hurt the middle class. Conservative tax increases on payrolls hurt the middle class. Conservative tax increases on consumer goods hurt the middle class. 
Specifically, why does budget 2013 increase Conservative taxes on middle-class Canadians by nearly $2 billion every year? 
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone of economic action plan 2013 is about job creation and skills development. 
Our government has decreased taxes 150 times, saving families $3,000 annually. The federal tax burden is at the lowest level in nearly 50 years. These are important initiatives that will support Canadian middle-class families. 
Why will the Liberals not support these initiatives?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in budget 2013, on page 384, the Conservative government imposes $333 million per year in new Conservative taxes on consumer goods. On page 335, we see $550 million per year in new Conservative taxes on small businesses. On page 289, there is another $600 million per year in payroll taxes. That is not to mention taxes on credit unions, safety deposit boxes and more. 
There is close to $2 billion in new Conservative taxes on middle-class Canadians every year. Why?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat myself. Economic action plan 2013 is about job creation and skills development. We have decreased taxes 150 times, giving families $3,000 more annually.
Let me identify some of the tax measures we have made. We have reduced the GST, and we have introduced the universal child care benefit and the children's arts tax credit. There are a number of initiatives that support Canadian middle-class families. 
Again, why will the Liberals not support these important measures?
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the government increased taxes on Canada's poorest people, but it did so on the sly. The Conservatives are surreptitiously digging into middle-class Canadians' pocketbooks in order to pay down the deficit. They have increased the tax on EI, which is generating billions of dollars. They have increased taxes on many everyday items.
Why are the Conservatives so bent on increasing taxes while reducing the front-line services that are so important to the middle class? 
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is this government that has given Canadians many tax breaks, including the GST cut, for instance. Why are the Liberals fighting for special breaks for Chinese companies that compete directly against our Canadian companies? 
I would add that it was the Liberals who wanted to increase EI premiums; they are also the ones who want a carbon tax. It is this government that will cut taxes and the Liberals who want to raise them.
TourismGuy Caron: Mr. Speaker, the Percé wharf is one of the main tourist attractions in the Gaspé. It is the starting point for a number of boat tours, and the lobster fishery is very important.
As a result of the Conservatives' neglect, the Percé wharf has been closed since yesterday. Tourists will soon flock to the Gaspé to visit world-renowned Percé Rock and other attractions. Closing the wharf is a huge blow to the regional economy.
Could the minister confirm that he will release the funds necessary to reopen the wharf before the start of tourist season?
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course the safety and security of users is the department's first priority when it comes to small craft harbours and wharves. The engineers have determined that the wharf at Percé is unsafe. 
We have met with the municipality and will continue to discuss the next steps with the municipality and interested third parties.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that the municipality of Percé has filed a formal demand with the government. The wharf must reopen by Monday. This situation has become urgent. For years, the local authorities have been urging the government to restore the wharf. Now, as a result of the government's neglect, the wharf is closed.
Does the minister understand how urgent the situation is? Does he understand that this closure is catastrophic for the tourism industry and the fishing industry in the region? Does he understand that his neglect is running an entire region into the ground?
Keith Ashfield: Mr. Speaker, of course, we recognize the value of tourism in that region of the country as well as of the fishery.
The wharf is primarily used for tourism and recreational purposes. Approximately five fish harvesters are working from that wharf: three regular and two occasional fishers. Our primary focus, of course, with small craft harbours is the fishing community and the fishing industry. We will continue to deal with the municipality on this issue.
Search and RescueMr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, they have already gone after the tourism industry by gutting the employment insurance program, and now they want to kill the industry in the Gaspé by closing the Percé wharf.
As if we needed any more proof that the Conservatives have completely abandoned our regions, we learned this morning that they are thinking about moving the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre to Montreal. First it was Trenton, then Halifax, and now Montreal.
They have just realized that a bilingual centre is needed, but will they stop flying by the seat of their pants? Why do they not just keep Canada's only bilingual centre in Quebec City? 
Keith Ashfield: Mr. Speaker, of course, our primary concern is the safety of mariners, and providing bilingual service to those mariners is critical. There is no intention of moving the facility from Quebec City to Montreal.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister is clearly not aware of what is happening in his own department. When he was asked yesterday about an internal analysis indicating that the government's position was to deny the destruction of residential school survivors' files, the minister was speechless at first but then blamed a new employee.
Rather than blaming one of his employees, can the minister explain the government's position on the destruction of residential school survivors' files?
Mr. 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, as a lawyer, I personally signed the residential school agreement, and I am pleased to know that we are going to continue to honour and respect the terms of that agreement.
Our government is determined to reach a fair and lasting settlement with residential school survivors. For that reason, in 2008, our Prime Minister made a historic apology on behalf of all Canadians. What is more, the government has sent over 3.5 million documents to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, survivors of residential schools deserve to know what happened to their records. Over 50,000 survivors have not received compensation, because no historical documents can be found. Yet internal emails have come to light describing why previous governments intentionally destroyed these records. Now we learn that this is not just in emails from a junior staffer; these documents are discussed in emails from high-ranking department officials.
Can the minister tell us now what his government's position actually is on the destruction of these records?
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the NDP has decided to play politics with the legacy of the Indian residential schools and the effect it has had on former students, their families and their communities.
It is under our government that the Prime Minister delivered an historic apology on behalf of all Canadians. It is our government that has ensured that thousands of former students have received compensation and have gone through a fair process to close this sad chapter of Canadian history.
Government SpendingMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are simply misquoting the Auditor General. They still cannot say how $3.1 billion was spent, or if it was even spent at all. No information has been provided to cabinet or Parliament or Canadians. The Auditor General was clear, no matter what the Conservatives are implying.
I have a simple question for the President of the Treasury Board: was all this money used to fight terrorism?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, spending on national security went to national security. Everything has been accounted for in public documents, including the public accounts. As my colleague mentioned earlier, the Auditor General himself said:
 We didn't find anything that gave us cause for concern that money was used in any way that it should not have been. 

Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that was a very selective quote indeed. What the Auditor General actually said was:
 It's important...for people to understand how this money was spent and that summary reporting was not done. 
The Auditor General looked thoroughly for the money. He said that full reporting on this spending was not even given to cabinet. It was not given to the Treasury Board, and it was not found in the public accounts. Does the government really want Canadians to believe that the Auditor General somehow missed something, like $3 billion? Where did the money go?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General confirmed that reporting was a purely internal-to-government reporting process, and its shortcomings did not prevent parliamentarians, or Canadians, from scrutinizing spending.
The Auditor General also confirmed that this money went through the due diligence at the department level and was conveyed to Parliament for review and approval.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, something to me feels like déjà vu all over again, because in 2002, it was the Conservatives who were going ballistic over the Liberal billion-dollar boondoggle, and it was the Liberals who were soft-selling the Auditor General's report.
Now remember this language: “The question raised by the Auditor General was [only] on the way we should report”.
 It is the same old story from the same old parties. I put it to members that the only difference between the Liberals' mismanagement and the Conservatives' mismanagement is that they managed to lose three times the amount of money. The Conservatives, in those days, accused the Liberals of having a billion-dollar slush fund. In the absence of any information to the contrary, how do we know they have not created a $3-billion slush fund?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, this matter relates to the categorization of expenses by Treasury Board between 2001 and 2009. All of the funds in question are accounted for in public documents presented to Parliament, including the public accounts. There is no indication that any dollars are missing, misappropriated or misspent. Treasury Board Secretariat has accepted all of the Auditor General's recommendations.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are deluded if they think that the Auditor General was somehow congratulating them for doing a good job. The Auditor General lambasted them in the strongest language I have ever seen in an Auditor General's report.
If this $3.1-billion boondoggle was their only problem, it would be different, but we have a pattern developing here of ministers resigning, lives at risk in search and rescue mismanagement and unreported privacy violations of a million Canadians. It makes one wonder what this government is good at. 
There is one thing it is good at: re-branding Government of Canada websites in Conservative Party colours to make it look like somehow there is no differences between the Conservative Party and the--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, regarding government websites, different colours were tested with web specialists. They found that blue worked best. Do not take my word for it. The website About.com says:
 Blue is a favourite color of both men and women of all ages.... It may be the calming effect of the color blue that makes it a popular colour for both men and women or it could be the association of some shades of blue with authority figures, intelligence, and stability. 

TaxationJoyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, there is yet another new tax increase on middle-class Canadians, and that is a tax on group life insurance premiums. The premiums may be paid by the companies, but the tax goes directly onto employee paycheques.
The Conservative government has raised income taxes, raised EI premium taxes and raised taxes on dividends, but this is really going too far. It is taxing the insurance on workers' potential dismemberment or death. In the frenzy of tax increases, is there nothing the government will not tax?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, it is shocking language from the Liberals. This is the party that is presently trying to seek special tax breaks for Chinese companies that are competing directly with Canadian companies. In fact, why they do not want to support Canadian manufacturers is beyond me.
Here is what the Canadian manufacturers had to say about the GPTs:
 The government's decision to modernize this foreign aid program by removing some countries from the GPT list is a good decision... 
 They need to defend Canadian companies for a change.
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has taken on the role of tax ninjas, sneaking tariffs in here, adding user fees in there, all the time chopping services to middle-class Canadians, but it is the $600 million a year in new payroll taxes that is the real kick in the teeth to Canadians—600 million a year.
These hidden additional taxes will have a negative impact on job creation and workers' paycheques. When will the minister stop putting the boots to hard-working Canadians?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, once again, that is laughable coming from the party that insisted during its platform that it have a 45-day work year under EI. It insisted on a carbon tax. It insisted on increasing the GST. We will take no lessons from them.
On the general preferential tariff, let us hear what Michael Hart from Carleton University had to say:
 Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand really aren't developing countries and should have been graduated long ago. 
We will continue to defend Canadian companies.
Employment InsuranceRodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, with some poetic licence and an apology to Sir Winston Churchill, never in history has so much damage been done to so many by one crew. 
Half the provincial premiers in the country have voiced their unqualified opposition to the EI changes. Provincial houses of assembly are unanimous in their disapproval. These changes hurt seasonal workers. They hurt business. They hurt families, and they are devastating communities. When will the Conservatives stop hammering people because of these EI changes?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it completely backwards. In fact, the changes are designed to help Canadians find the jobs that are out there, that are in demand by employers who are having problems filling those jobs and to make sure that people have the skills to fill those jobs so that they and their families will be better off in the future. We have also changed it to make sure that when someone works, they are better off than when they do not. 
That being said, if there are no jobs available locally within the skill range of people, EI will continue to be there for them, as it always has been. 
LabourMs. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is World Press Freedom Day. I would therefore like to ask the Conservatives why they are continuing to stick their noses into the CBC's affairs.
Once again, the Conservatives want to meddle in the crown corporation's management. That is a disturbing decision.
This idea comes from a minister who lost track of $3.1 billion.
Why does he not focus on managing his own financial affairs rather than going after the CBC?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the government has the ultimate financial responsibility for crown corporations. We must ensure that these costs are sustainable. The measures proposed in the budget implementation bill are neither new nor revolutionary. In fact, the leader of the NDP was part of a provincial government that required political approval for negotiating mandates for crown corporations such as Hydro-Québec, Loto-Quebéc and Télé-Québec, to name a few. 
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the facts here. Conservatives have made it clear that they do not like the CBC. Today, on World Press Freedom Day, as we reflect on the importance of a free press, the Conservatives' latest move to take more control over our public broadcaster is unprecedented and troubling. This has nothing to do with defending taxpayers. It is about the Conservatives interfering with crown corporations. 
Why will the minister not focus on getting his own finances in order and get his hands off our public broadcaster?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the government has the ultimate financial responsibility for crown corporations. We must ensure that these costs are sustainable. 
Economic action plan 2013 stated that the government will look at options to improve the financial viability of crown corporations, including compensation levels. We are ensuring that public service labour costs align and that taxpayers' hard-earned dollars are used efficiently.
Foreign AffairsMr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have still not managed to protect jobs across the country.
The ICAO offices in Montreal are in danger of shutting down. Everyone wants the organization to stay in the city.
Let us be clear. These jobs are in jeopardy because of this government's disastrous foreign policy.
How did Canada manage to go from being a world leader to fighting tooth and nail just to keep international organizations in the country? 
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, we are working with the provinces, the city and others to keep ICAO where it belongs: in Montreal. We are dismayed by the way Qatar has been going about it. It undermines what has been a very strong and successful partnership. We have a deal to keep, and we will work very aggressively with our partners to keep ICAO where it is, and that is in Montreal. 
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, we all want to protect our national interest here. We want to make sure we keep this asset in Montreal, but the minister needs to reflect on how we ended up here.
The death toll now stands at over 500 in Bangladesh after the factory collapse. This is an horrific event that has touched many Canadians. Business as usual is no longer an option. Therefore, will the government agree to the motion the NDP has put forward to study this tragedy at committee and work with us to strengthen corporate social responsibility abroad?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, we offer our sincerest condolences to the people of Bangladesh. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Bangladesh and to those who lost family members or friends in this tragedy. 
Canada remains concerned about dangerous working conditions in the global garment sector. Canada is a member of the International Labour Organization. We urge Bangladesh to live up to the international agreement, ILO Convention 81, Labour Inspection Convention, which it has ratified. It is very important that all governments take concrete measures to provide workers with safe and healthy working conditions.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in Canada's 2013 economic action plan, our government renewed its commitment to a fast and flexible immigration system that is more focused on Canada's labour market needs. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please update the House on Canada's largest economic immigration system, the federal skilled worker program?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, as part of our government's transformational changes to the immigration system and a new improved federal skilled worker program, tomorrow we will begin accepting new applications. The updated selection criteria will help us attract immigrants who will be ready to integrate more rapidly and successfully into Canada's economy, helping spur economic growth and long-term prosperity. This is good news for newcomers and their families who will begin integration into this country with a job and a promise for tomorrow. It is good for this country. It builds on our economy for today and for the long term. We are moving in the right direction.
Science and TechnologyMr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in addition to voting against the NDP's motions to recognize climate change, the Conservatives are bent on attacking, muzzling and discrediting scientists.
They are axing funding for science, technology and innovation. Industry Canada's budget is being cut by over 50%. Fifty per cent. It will drop from $419 million to $173 million by 2015-16.
Will the Conservatives stop waging their ideological war and making cuts to science at a time when most OECD countries are doing the opposite?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, here go the New Democrats again, making things up on the fly. Federal scientists regularly provide media interviews and publish thousands of research papers every single year. How can New Democrats claim that they support Canadian scientists when they reject the science behind the Keystone XL pipeline and vote against new funding at every single opportunity? The answer is simple: they cannot.
Canadian HeritageDan Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Canadarm made us all proud and is central to Canada's role in space history. This should be above politics. Why has an event to honour our space history turned into another event marred by politics? The first Canadian astronaut in space played an important role in Canadarm history and space science. Can the government not recognize this? Does the minister not agree with the NDP that the first Canadian in space should have been invited to the Canadarm event?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting in the lead question today the NDP members were talking about the fact that they did not want to actually talk about history, that it was not important to talk about history, but now they are talking about how important Canadian history is. 
We are very proud of Canada's astronauts. We are proud of the Canadian Armed Forces. In this particular event, the Canadian Space Agency was in charge of who was invited to this event. We are very, very proud of the accomplishments of Canada in space and will continue to recognize that history as often as we possibly can. We are very proud of Canada's astronauts. It is a shame that the Liberal Party rejected him by 80% at their leadership convention.
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, that answer is disgraceful and beneath a member of the Government of Canada. Conservatives cannot be bothered to show respect for the first Canadian in space, yet they want us to trust them to rewrite provincial history books. Conservatives at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage are now trying to remake our nation's history in their own image. The last thing Canadians want is politicians deciding what is in their children's textbooks.
Can the government admit that it is a mistake to try and tell provincial schools what history they should teach?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of telling the provinces what they should be teaching in our schools. What we are trying to do is reconnect Canadians with our history, making sure that the federal government works with other governments if possible, works with communities to tell the stories, the events and the things that have helped shape this country. 
Imagine the horror. We are going to invite the Library of Parliament to come before committee. We are going to invite the people who do our Hansard to come and talk to us, and museum curators. I will work closely with you, Mr. Speaker, and the Sergeant-at-Arms to make sure that our committee is secure from these very scary people who will come to talk about Canadian history.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers want nothing to do with these history classes with a Conservative twist. They made that clear in 2011.
Once again, the Conservatives are stomping all over provincial jurisdictions. They can say what they want, but their irresponsible motion clearly talks about looking at how teachers teach in each province.
That has nothing to do with promoting Canadian history. That is interference, pure and simple. The former Reformers now want to control everything. What is the world coming to?
Does the government really think that this should be the priority of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, of course, the motion says no such thing. What the motion says is that we would like to see how history is treated across the country so that we can work with other governments, so that we can work with our regions, to make sure that we get this history out there, and that we work together. 
What is wrong with asking Hansard to make it easier for Canadians to access the important debates of this chamber? What is wrong with asking museum curators about the important stories they want to talk about?
We have things that are very exciting to all of us in our regions and home ridings. I think we should work together to make sure those stories get out there for Canada's 150th birthday and beyond. Canadians want to know more about the things that have made this country great. We are going to work with Canadians to make sure they have access to that.
Search and RescueScott Simms: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of question period the Minister of Health said, and I quote, “We listened to the Auditor General”.
Well, in light of the announcements about search and rescue, following the scathing report from the Auditor General, well over 90% of the announcement material had nothing to do with what the Auditor General said. 
Specifically on fixed-wing aircraft, search and rescue airplanes on the west coast are now over 45 years of age; older than a lot of people in this House. When is this issue going to get some serious concern?
We have been listening to this now since the minister promised them several years ago. It is just like the base in Gander. The Conservatives promised money, but nothing was delivered. 
If this is a Canada-first defence policy, why is search and rescue last?
Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, like the Auditor General, our government recognizes that a quick and efficient search and rescue service is critical to many Canadians. 
We too see the replacement of our search and rescue fixed-wing aircraft as a priority. We are committed to an open and transparent process to replace our aging Buffalo and Hercules aircraft fleets. We will do this in a manner that respects Canadian taxpayers and ensures value for their hard-earned tax dollars. 
We will continue responsible management of this file, including ongoing consultations with industry. We are looking for the best outcomes.
Veterans AffairsMr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, budget 2013 falsely claims to commit $65 million over the next two years for veterans' funeral and burial expenses. However, the minister knows full well that this $65 million will not be spent over the next two years but will be spread out over some undefined, indeterminate period. It is a ruse. Further, every single veteran who is presently ineligible under the program will not be helped by this budget. 
When will the government stop misleading veterans?
Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is disheartening to hear this type of question come from the Liberals after they in fact reduced the benefits available to our veterans when they were in power. They did absolutely nothing to bring back those benefits for our veterans through all those years in power. What economic action plan 2013 does is double the amount of money for funerals for our veterans. 
We were already leading the world in the benefits we provided to our veterans for funerals and burials. Now we are the leader. Our Conservatives support our veterans.
Elections CanadaMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it has been 417 days since the Conservatives supported our motion to give Elections Canada more power.
Nothing has happened since, except for an attempt to introduce a mysterious bill, which was then abandoned because of pressure from Conservative backbenchers. The opposition did not even get to look at it.
The Conservatives are moving at a snail's pace on this. There is a limit to how long they can stall, and they passed that limit long ago.
When will they stop this nonsense, and when will we see changes to the Canada Elections Act in the House?
Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the independent audit that was recently released highlights widespread errors by Elections Canada in their operations during the last election. 
As I have indicated before, we will bring forward amendments to the law in the not too distant future.
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Instead of supporting and enhancing a 21st century electoral system, Conservatives are slashing 8% from Elections Canada's budget, while pretending the cuts are somehow voluntary. These cuts will hamper investigations, they will fetter operations and they will impede the implementation of legislation and regulations; that is, if the current government ever gets around to introducing them.
Can the minister of state please tell Canadians where this legislation is, and how he plans to fund the implementation, when he is cutting Elections Canada so drastically?
Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Elections Canada has access to unlimited financial resources for elections and investigations, such as investigating the NDP accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal donations. In fact, the Chief Electoral Officer confirmed at committee that he has the financial resources that he needs.
That said, an independent audit highlighted widespread errors by Elections Canada in its operations in the last election. We will bring forward amendments to the law in the not too distant future.
Foreign AffairsMr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our incredibly hard-working Minister of Foreign Affairs is in Montreal today to lead the defence against Qatar's hostile attempt to relocate the International Civil Aviation Organization.
As members know, our government has worked in good faith to complete an agreement to extend ICAO's stay in that world-class beautiful city for 20 years, from 2016 onward. The ICAO council actually endorsed the agreement and gave the secretary general the authority to sign it.
Can the parliamentary secretary today please tell us what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is doing in Montreal?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, yes indeed the Minister of Foreign Affairs is working very hard and diligently with the City of Montreal and the Province of Quebec to ensure that ICAO remains in its natural home, Montreal.
Yesterday, the members of this House unanimously agreed to support those efforts, but within minutes the NDP's foreign affairs critic was out in the media, practically backing Qatar and undermining the campaign by team Canada. Just for once, we would hope that the New Democrats would promote Canada internationally, instead of running it down, and that they would join us in standing up for Canada, for Quebec and for Montreal.
HealthHon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, mismanagement in the health portfolio gets worse every day, putting human life and health at risk. The list is long, including: failure to regulate diluted chemotherapy drugs; or to issue warnings for ineffective birth control pills; or to act on poor quality control at Sandoz, and recently, Apotex. We now rely on the U.S. for drug safety.
The Auditor General said that the minister spent $2.5 million to distribute $5 million for a failed diabetes initiative. This minister always has a glib excuse. What is her latest excuse for this incompetence?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier this week, the provincial committee is examining jurisdictional questions surrounding the drug service providers. Marchese has never applied for federal regulatory approval. We have proposed an interim solution to ensure that all drug service providers fall within federal or provincial regulations. We plan to continue to work closely with the provinces and the territories to address this issue.
Canada-U.S. RelationsAnne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. is still talking about a new border tax—which Canadians would pay—despite the obvious drawbacks.
Our businesses, our manufacturers and our constituents will pay the price. This will be bad for cross-border trade. It is a serious issue.
Are the Conservatives at least taking the situation seriously? How does the government intend to ensure that the flow of trade and tourism between our two countries does not slow down?
Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can assure this House that our government will vigorously oppose any efforts to impose new border fees. In these challenging economic times, there is no better American job creator than trade with Canada and, of course, vice versa.
 New border fees send exactly the opposite message. They undermine efforts to create new jobs in Canada and the United States. Canadians can be assured that our government will work tirelessly to promote the interests of Canadian exporters and investors.
Veterans AffairsMr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian of Dutch descent, I am pleased to rise today to highlight the 68th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands. 
Canada contributed in many ways throughout World War II and made significant contributions in securing victory in Europe and ending the war. The liberation of the Netherlands is an important milestone for the Dutch and Canadians alike.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs please share with the House the strong relationship shared by our countries and the vital contributions Canada made in support of the Netherlands 68 years ago today?
Eve Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex for his strong constituency work.
The struggle to liberate the Netherlands played a very important role in bringing victory to Europe and the end of the Second World War. Canada's vital contributions to that liberation laid the foundation for a very strong relationship between our two countries, which we continue to enjoy today. 
For over nine months, 7,600 Canadians paid with their lives to bring peace and freedom to the Netherlands. We on this side of the House will certainly not forget that sacrifice. I know all Canadians join me in remembering that sacrifice.
Employment InsuranceMs. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP): Mr. Speaker, more and more people in my riding are telling me just how difficult life has become for their families since the Conservatives decided to gut employment insurance. Longer and longer employment insurance processing times are forcing some people to turn to food banks, which cannot keep up with increasing demand.
Things like this should not be happening in Canada. Will the Conservatives finally listen to unemployed workers and cancel their reform?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, our government's priorities are job creation and economic growth for long-term prosperity. For that to happen, people have to get the skills they need for in-demand jobs.
That is why we have introduced skills training programs and improved the employment insurance system. People who work are better off than those who do not. However, for those who cannot find suitable jobs in their region, employment insurance will be there.
Intergovernmental RelationsMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has decided to meddle in history lessons in Quebec. This flagrant intrusion in a jurisdiction that belongs exclusively to Quebec is right in line with the Conservatives' desire to impose new Canadian symbols—military ones, especially—even if it means rewriting history. This move is even more ironic, since the federal government refuses to shed light on the repatriation of the Constitution, a pivotal moment in Quebec's history.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages justify this interference into teaching history when his boss, the Prime Minister, refuses even to speak to the Premier of Quebec about the 1982 repatriation of the Constitution?
Paul Calandra: Let me just reiterate, Mr. Speaker. This study is not about how the provinces teach history in their schools. It is not about the interpretation of history in their schools. It is about how we can work together to help people better understand the important events, people and places that have helped shape our country, that have helped shape our provinces and our communities. We heard this loud and clear when we studied Canada's 150th. 
A lot of the people around the country, who are in charge of ensuring Canadians understand and respect their history, want us to work together to give Canadians better access to that, and that is what we will do. We are not interfering in any jurisdiction. We are going to promote and work better with our jurisdictions.
Tourism IndustryMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, tourism in Canada is in crisis. It is one of the fast dropping sectors of the Canadian economy. One-third of Canada's record trade deficit can be attributed to the deficit in tourism, over $17 billion last year.
Will the government go back to the drawing board on its failed tourism policy, restore the HST rebate for tourists and reverse its 25% cut to the Canadian Tourism Commission?
Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, our government launched the federal tourism strategy, a plan to ensure Canada continued to create jobs and growth in this sector. Canadian tourism is on the right track. More money is being spent by international travellers in Canada, more tourism jobs are being created and we continue to welcome more Chinese, Indian, Brazilian and American travellers to our beautiful country of Canada.

Routine Proceedings
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 response to 50 petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, entitled Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Indian Act (publication of by-laws) and to provide for its replacement. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
PetitionsPat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by literally tens of thousands of Canadians who call upon Parliament to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known and that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial or occupational causes combined.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.
Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present four petitions regarding climate change, our most pressing environmental issue and perhaps the defining issue of our generation.
Climate change will profoundly affect our economy, environment, health, lifestyles and social well-being. How we respond will define the world our children and their descendants grow up in. More astringent actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions cannot be postponed much longer as dangerous climate change is associated with a global temperature rise of 2° Celsius. The latest analysis suggests the world is already on track to a warming of 3.5° Celsius.
The petitioners call on the government to accept the science of climate change, table a comprehensive climate change plan and commit to attaining the greenhouse gas emission goals it has promised internationally.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present three petitions from constituents.
The first concerns the interim federal health program for refugees. Parkdale—High Park is a riding that has had the good fortune to welcome many newcomers, including refugees over the years. However, vulnerable refugee claimants are already being denied basic health services, such as medication, psychiatric treatment and hospitalization.
The petitioners call on the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to reverse the cuts to the interim health program for refugees and maintain Canada's reputation as a compassionate and humanitarian country.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, my second petitioner is from constituents who are concerned about the government's changes to the old age security program. They believe this is a direct attack on some of the poorest of seniors who rely on that money for their daily expenses.
The petitioners call for maintenance of funding for OAS benefits and that Canada make the required investments in the guarantee income supplement to lift every senior out of poverty.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, my final petition is from those who seek to have Canada join a growing number of U.S. states which are banning the practice of importing shark fins. This practice results in an estimated 73 million sharks being killed each year for their fins alone.
 The petitioners therefore call on the Government of Canada to legislate a ban on the importation of shark fins to Canada.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, my petition, with signatures from across the entire country, is with regard to a vital link for Nova Scotia, as well as the island of Newfoundland, and Marine Atlantic. I would like to thank Mr. Lewis Rideout of Valley Pond for organizing the petition. He did a masterful job.
Marine Atlantic provides that vital link between the province, particularly the island of Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia. The petitioners call for the Government of Canada to change the current fee structure to eliminate fees for passenger travels when leaving the island of Newfoundland going to the province of Nova Scotia.
Once again, I would like to thank Lewis Rideout for his work in putting this together.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition signed by about a hundred of my constituents, who feel that practitioners of Falun Gong have been the largest, most persecuted group in China since July 1999.
They are calling on Parliament to condemn and halt the systematic killings of Falun Gong practitioners for their organs by the Chinese Communist Party. They also want Parliament to publicly call for an end to the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, petitions continue to roll in on the Experimental Lakes Area today from Winnipeg.
The petitioners demand that the government reverse its decision or, if not that, at least in good faith ensure that it moves forward on transferring the facility in an orderly fashion to a responsible new program.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today : Nos. 1227, 1240, 1245, 1247 and 1248.
Mr. Merv Tweed:  With regard to Registered Retirement Savings Plans, what would it cost the government, on an annual basis, to include within the deduction limit any one-time contribution to an RRSP of an amount that is paid to a taxpayer as a lump sum by his or her employer in respect of the taxpayer’s loss of an office or employment, for reasons other than by dismissal for just cause?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, the question amounts to estimating the cost to the Government of allowing tax-free rollovers of severance pay to a registered retirement savings plan, or RRSP. 
Based on available tax data, it is estimated that permitting rollovers of severance pay and lump sum payments received for long service to an RRSP would cost about $285 million annually in forgone federal tax revenue. This estimate takes into account that individuals currently receiving severance pay may contribute all or part of such amounts to an RRSP based on their available unused RRSP room, while others with little or no unused RRSP room would likely take full advantage of a rollover measure. 
Libby Davies:  With regard to the proposed Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, published in the Canada Gazette on December 15, 2012 for public consultation: (a) what was the number of responses received by the deadline of February 28, 2013; and (b) of these responses, (i) how many responders indicated they disagreed with all or certain sections of the proposed regulations, (ii) how many responders indicated they agreed with all or certain sections of the proposed regulations, (iii) what were the 3 sections of the new regulations that were most commented on?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), Health Canada received a total of 1663 comments on the proposed marijuana for medical purposes regulations, MMPR, during the 75-day public comment period, which ended on February 28, 2013. Comments received by mail after this deadline that were postmarked before the end of the public comment period were included in this count.
 With regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), of the 1663 comments received, 1317 comments proposed changing the regulations, 77 expressed support for the regulations and 269 had mixed views. A summary of the comments will be included in the regulatory impact assessment statement when published in the Canada Gazette, part II later this year. 
With regard to (b)(iii), the three areas on for which Health Canada received the most comments were the elimination of personal production of marijuana in favour of a regulated commercial or industrial production, the estimated cost to purchase marihuana for medical purposes from licensed producers and the limitation of products to dried marijuana only. 
Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon:  What would it cost the government, on an annual basis, to re-establish a Federal Apiarist position at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to coordinate research in bee-keeping?
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hypothetical situation presented would depend on a variety of factors, including personnel availability, salary demands on the employer, technical support staff requirements, bees, equipment, laboratory and storage space, and ongoing operating funds. All these factors would need to be included in the amount and would vary depending on the size of any new apiary program.
 Owing to these factors, an accurate cost estimate cannot be provided at this time. 
Ms. Olivia Chow:  With regard to changes made or planned to be made by NAV Canada to flight paths of aircraft arriving at and departing from federally-owned airports in 2012 and 2013 year to date: (a) which airports are affected by the flight path changes; (b) how many flights and what percentage of total flights are subject to flight path changes, broken down by i) incoming and outgoing flights, ii) flight arrival or departure time, iii) affected airport; (c) what is the justification for the changes; and (d) have consultations taken place on these changes and, if yes, what are the (i) groups consulted, including, but not limited to, public consultations, (ii) date of the consultations?
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, in March 2007, NAV Canada submitted terms of reference on the projected airspace changes to the Windsor-Toronto-Montreal, WTM, corridor. Transport Canada accepted the proposed changes in October 2008 and the changes were implemented on February 9, 2012. 
With regard to (a), the Windsor-Toronto-Montreal, WTM, corridor was affected by the flight path changes. The following major airports were affected by these modifications: Toronto--Pearson, Ottawa, Montreal--Trudeau and Quebec City. Owing to the nature of these changes, airports in the vicinity of the major aerodromes were also affected, such as Windsor, London, Kitchener, Hamilton, Oshawa, Toronto--Buttonville, Toronto--Downsview and Toronto--City Centre). The proposal also affected flight training areas in the vicinity of Toronto--Pearson. 
With regard to (b), members are requested to contact NAV Canada for this information. 
With regard to (c), the purpose of these changes was to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions as well as to improve cost efficiency. 
With regard to (d), members are requested to contact NAV Canada for information on the consultations process. 
Olivia Chow:  With regard to noise caused by airports: (a) what measures are in place to mitigate airport noise, (i) which statutes, regulations or documents set out these measures, (ii) which entities are responsible for enforcing these measures; (b) what measures are under consideration or planned to mitigate airport noise; (c) how much research funding has been provided for projects relating to mitigation of airport noise between 2006 and 2013 year to date, broken down by (i) year, (ii) title of project, (iii) recipient of funding, (iv) source of funding; and (d) how many noise complaints have been received relating to airport noise, broken down by (i) entity which received the complaint, including but not limited to airport authorities, NAV Canada and the Ministry of Transport, (ii) airport which was the subject of complaint, (iii) date of complaint?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), noise issues are best handled at the local level. Local representatives and airport-based staff have intimate knowledge of regional matters and are better able to address local concerns. 
Transport Canada provides oversight of this system, verifying that the policies and procedures work for the community, for the industry and for travelers. This is done in conjunction with third parties, including Health Canada, NAV Canada and the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO. Transport Canada also enforces airport noise abatement procedures and operating restrictions. 
The applicable Canadian Aviation Regulations relating to noise can be found at the following link: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/aerodromeairnav-standards-noise-cars-906.htm.
Further information on noise can be found at the following link: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/aerodromeairnav-standards-noise-menu-923.htm. 
With regard to (b), the publication entitled “Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports”, which provides guidance to airports to mitigate airport noise, is being updated. The current publication can be found at the following link: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp1247-menu-1418.htm. 
With regard to (c), Transport Canada has not funded these types of projects.
With regard to (d), noise complaints must be addressed to the management of the airport where an aircraft is either landing or taking off. Noise issues are best handled at this level. Airport management establish locally based airport noise management programs to deal with noise from aircraft operating at that airport, which includes the receipt of noise complaints from adjacent communities. Questions of this nature should be addressed to the specific airport or airports.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 1224 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. 
The Speaker:  Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Ms. Annick Papillon: With regard to human resources at the Joint Rescue Coordination Centres of Trenton (JRCC Trenton) and Halifax (JRCC Halifax): (a) how many Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) search and rescue coordinator positions are there (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (b) how many of these positions are officially unilingual English positions (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (c) how many of the positions in (a) are officially bilingual BBB positions (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (d) how many of the positions in (a) are officially bilingual CBC positions (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (e) how many of the positions in (a) are staffed permanently (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (f) how many of the coordinators in (a) meet the BBB language requirement (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (g) of these coordinators, how many are certified to take charge of a watch (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (h) how many of the coordinators in (a) meet the CBC language requirement (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (i) of these coordinators, how many are certified to take charge of a watch (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (j) how many unilingual English-speaking coordinators are there (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (k) of these coordinators, how many are certified to take charge of a watch (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (l) what were the expected schedules for January 1, 2013, and the following 12 months, specifying the bilingual positions, unilingual positions and names of the individuals assigned according to these schedules and the language proficiency of these individuals, (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (m) how many retirements are expected over the next 12 months (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (n) what is the language requirement for CCG JRCC supervisor positions (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (o) what is the language proficiency of the incumbents of the CCG JRCC supervisor positions (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (p) how much has the government committed to date to improve the French proficiency of CCG search and rescue (SAR) operations coordinators since June 2011; (q) how many Canadian Forces (CF) air SAR coordinators work (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (r) how many of these CF air SAR coordinators are bilingual (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; (s) what is the current individual language proficiency of the CF air SAR coordinators (i) at JRCC Trenton, (ii) at JRCC Halifax; and (t) following the Commissioner of Official Languages’ recommendations of August 2012 regarding air SAR coordinators, what actions has the Department of National Defence taken to assign bilingual air SAR coordinators to the JRCCs of Trenton and Halifax?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. 
The Speaker:  Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, two years ago yesterday, many of us in this House were elected for our first term. Given that occasion, as I rise today I thank my constituents in Calgary Centre-North who elected me and gave me the great honour of allowing me to represent them and speak on their behalf here in Ottawa. I thank my constituents very much.
It is on that note that it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of our budget implementation bill, which continues on our government track record of trying to ensure that Canada is a place of economic prosperity, job growth, environmental health and safety, and innovation. It is also a place where as legislators in this House of Commons, we can assure our constituents we are doing everything possible to be wise stewards of their taxpayer dollars and everything possible to ensure the sustainability of the programs we are tasked with legislating long into the future. 
Two years ago, I remember travelling throughout my riding. The number one thing I heard from my constituents then, and now—I was actually out door knocking last weekend in a couple of communities in my riding—is the fact that Canadians are still concerned about the economy. I believe that is still the number one issue on the minds of Canadians right now. We need to be cognizant of that when we are approaching debate on the government's budget.
Canadians are still concerned about the global economic situation. They are concerned about ensuring we have markets to which we can trade our products and that we have export markets. They are concerned about ensuring we have job growth. 
They are also concerned about making sure our government programs are sustainable, that we are making sure when we are voting to spend their tax dollars in this place that we can do that with authority. We want to be able to tell them we are looking for ways to make programs more effective whenever possible. That is really the goal of economic action plan 2013.
I often rise in the House to speak about environmental issues, but today I will speak about a few initiatives that are very important to the people in my riding. Certainly there is commonality across the country, but there are certain issues addressed in economic action plan 2013 that are important to Albertans.
First, the Canada job grant was one of the cornerstones of economic action plan 2013. Certainly in my home province, we face a skilled worker shortage. I have heard from many businesses in my community and across the province, but there are other components of the economy across the country that speak to this as well. That is why we introduced the Canada job grant. Providing up to $15,000 per person in Alberta would combine federal, provincial, territorial and employer funding to help folks get the skills they need for independent jobs. By doing so, we hope to fill those in-demand jobs in a more effective way.
We also want to make sure that Canadians who want to seek those skills to fill those positions have the tools at hand to do that. That is the role of this program. I am very excited about it. I am sure it will have a very positive impact on our economy across the country, but certainly at home in Alberta.
One of the challenges we have in Calgary is the fact that it is a growing city. I am quite proud to represent a Calgary riding because I feel it is one of the economic engine cities of the country. One of the demands we see in Calgary is for infrastructure. Our government has been very proud to support infrastructure funding across the country. In Calgary, some of our economic action plan funding has been used to build things like the Stoney Trail ring road. 
I am very excited about the indexation of the gas tax fund to better support the development of this infrastructure, and I hope my colleagues will support it. That is such an important thing because it will allow cities to build upon the continuation and certainty we have provided by making the gas tax transfer funds permanent. That is a legacy that our government is quite proud of, and it is a wonderful part of economic action plan 2013. 
I will talk about a few other things today that are in economic action plan 2013.
As members know, we have recently reformed the temporary foreign worker program to make sure Canadians are given the first crack at available jobs. About a week and a half ago, I held a town hall teleconference in my riding. I think I had almost 10,000 of my constituents on that call at one point. Several of the questions we received related to making sure that program is both effective and fair in the long run. That is really where our reforms have been aimed over the last year. Certainly, this is a step in the right direction.
There are many things that my colleagues should have a look at with regard to how communities in their ridings are supported in economic action plan 2013. I have just mentioned a couple of them here.
I want to spend my remaining time talking about something that is very near and dear to my heart, that being the support for science and technology in economic action plan 2013.
There is one program that I specifically want to highlight and which I hope my colleagues will choose to support, and that is the $165 million in multi-year support we have provided to genomics research through Genome Canada. For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with Genome Canada's work, it is a very unique program. It cultivates and supports some of the best and brightest researchers in their work on this cutting-edge, uniquely Canadian research that is designed to support a wide variety of industrial problems and basic research problems across the country.
I am quite supportive of this funding because Genome Canada has a track record of research excellence in supporting some of the best and brightest researchers in this country. I hope my colleagues will support economic action plan 2013, in part because some of these programs exist and are funded.
Further to that, on the S and T side, I believe we have $325 million of additional support for Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC. This is an organization that is dedicated to bringing clean energy technology, clean technology and sustainable technology to industry so we can continue to address major issues in some of the bigger sectors of our economy, including the energy sector. 
A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to tour Pure Technologies, a company in my riding. It has developed a technology that SDTC has supported. Basically, it is a ball that can go through pipelines and detect microscopic fractures to help promote better monitoring of our pipeline safety. It is these sorts of developments that our government is proud to support, through organizations like Genome Canada and SDTC, but more importantly also through our tri-council granting agencies as well.
I spent several years working with these agencies, and we have provided continued support to them through budget 2013, as well as to the Canada Foundation for Innovation. This is an organization that supports the funding of research infrastructure, so it is either the bricks and mortar needed to support research or the equipment that researchers need. Our continued support there is very indicative that supporting science and technology, and the diversification of the Canadian economy, is something our government is not only cognizant of, but into which we are really putting our money where our mouth is. That is very evident in budget 2013.
Overall, the goal of budget 2013, and what we have seen in here, is that balance between ensuring we have long-term economic growth, which is built on our track record of programs such as a suite of programming for responsible resource development, but also making sure our House is in order in Ottawa. We are trying to make sure that as we grow our economy, we are also moving back to balance.
I was quite pleased to see some of the economic forecasts that this budget has been based around. I know our Minister of Finance has worked quite hard to get to that point.
I certainly will be very proud to support this particular bill because of that ability to move Canada's economy into sustainability well into the future and build on our strong track record of growing Canada's economy.
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I agree with a central point that my hon. friend made, which is that Canadians believe the economy and economic growth is the number one priority. However, where I disagree with her is that somehow the government is a “wise steward of taxpayers' dollars”. 
I would particularly ask the member whether or not this budget, with its hundreds of tax hikes, from hospital parking and credit union safety deposit boxes to bicycles and baby strollers, which are costing Canadians perhaps $8 billion over the next five years, demonstrates a good economic decision at this point in our country's history. Is this the right time for those changes?
[Interjection]
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy that I answer my colleague's question and hear of his interest in reducing the tax burden for the average Canadian. I am glad this is something we share. 
In fact, it has been through our government's efforts since we took power in 2006 that we have reduced the Canadian tax burden by about $3,000 for an average family of four. That is a lot of money. It has an impact on Canadian society. Yes, this is our track record, and it is something that we are quite proud of.
I find it interesting that he is bringing this up, given that the budget his party put forward actually did not have any costing attached to it. I am not sure how he can talk about wise stewardship of taxpayer dollars when there is no costing associated with the NDP's financial proposals. It is something we should be quite concerned about.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary, who mentioned “as we grow our economy” several times, but in fact the Canadian economy is virtually stalled. There is a great deal of concern right across the spectrum over how poorly our economy is doing right now. 
One of the ways it is being stalled is by the hits on small businesses, which, as we know, are the job creators of Canada. My colleague from Thunder Bay—Superior North mentioned the attack on tourism and the downturn in the tourism industry. Small businesses are hurting under the Conservative government. 
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary which small businesses that the government consulted advised that there should be an extra tax on dividends, which will cost small businesses $2.3 billion over the next five years?
[Interjection]
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of my colleague's question, in that Canada actually has a strong record of economic growth in the global context. The fact that we have created over 900,000 net new jobs in our economy since the economic downturn was deemed to have slowed down is something that our country should be quite proud of. We should be touting that. 
We are attracting workers and investment to this country at greater rates than some of the developed countries are, and this is through our government's focus on ensuring that our products have access to other markets, that we have increased trade relations and that we have a proper regulatory structure that allows for investments in major infrastructure projects. 
All of these things are at the core of budget 2013. They build on our government's track record, and yes, absolutely, we are seeing economic growth.
Blake Richards: Mr. Speaker, I noted that my colleague mentioned she had been spending some time recently knocking on doors in her riding. 
I have been knocking on doors in my riding, which is in the Calgary area as well. I have knocked on doors in the community of Cochrane and I have spent time at trade shows in communities like Airdrie and Didsbury, which are all in the same general area. My constituents are quite happy to be hearing that we have reconfirmed in the budget that we will make sure we balance our federal budget by 2015. I am wondering if she has heard similar things from people in her community and if her constituents are supportive of our commitment as a government to make sure we balance the federal budget by 2015.
[Interjection]
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, my very hard-working colleague raises an excellent point. What his constituents told him shows that this is a principle that is very important to many Canadians. Why? It is because Canadians know in their hearts what it takes to balance a chequebook. They understand that if we spend more now, we have to either spend less in the future or increase revenue. 
As I said earlier, through our government's efforts to increase trading opportunities and increase job creation through various programs, we are creating the economic growth or the increased revenue component through the strategic review of various government departments and through looking for operational efficiencies. We are also trying to make sure that government works more effectively. It is that balance that our constituents expect.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to voice my disappointment and opposition with respect to the various measures set out in Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013.
Once again, I am sorry that the government has decided to move a time allocation motion to limit debate in the House. This denial of democracy is especially appalling since Bill C-60 contains many amendments that will affect Canadians directly.
It is important to point out that this bill amends close to 50 laws, including a number of things that have nothing to do with the budget, strictly speaking.
Rather than splitting it up so that we can study it in-depth in committee, the government wants to impose its views in a mammoth bill for the third time in this Parliament. The Conservatives are rejecting good democratic sense, without any consultation and without in-depth debate.
What we are getting is yet another austerity program that will in no way help Canadians re-enter the workforce and that will keep the country on a precarious path.
Tax increases, tariff hikes and the elimination of tax credits for labour-sponsored funds and co-operatives: the outcome is that Canadians have less money in their pockets, have access to fewer services and are the primary victims of the Conservatives' action.
As the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported this week, budget 2012, the 2012 economic update and budget 2013 alone will lead to the loss of 60,000 jobs by 2017, and a 0.57% drop in the GDP.
This determination to make massive cuts is unacceptable because they will inevitably cause an economic downturn. What the Conservatives are doing is weakening Canadian growth to serve some backwards ideological imperative.
Issues related to immigration and the temporary foreign worker program have a prominent place in this bill. It is therefore essential that we pay special attention to them.
First, the Conservatives were true to form with regard to the temporary foreign worker program. They waited until they were backed into a corner before reacting. They waited until the very last minute to make adjustments to the program. Today, without any consultation, they quickly and with great fanfare announced adjustment measures.
In reality, what the government is announcing with regard to the temporary foreign worker program undoes everything the government has done since it was elected.
The Conservatives were pushing for an increased number of temporary foreign workers. Today, they realize that they went too far. They were allowing companies to pay temporary foreign workers 15% less than Canadians workers. Today, they admit that that was a mistake, even though they completely denied those accusations less than a week ago.
They announced a program to fast-track the processing of applications. Today, they realize that companies are taking advantage of this opportunity to replace Canadian workers.
The fact is that the Conservatives hastily went ahead with these measures without consultation, which is exactly the same criticism we have of Bill C-60 today.
The government's laissez-faire attitude has led to such debacles as the ones involving HD Mining and the Royal Bank of Canada.
We believe that the temporary foreign worker program must return to its core mandate, which is to allow companies to meet specific workforce needs for a temporary period of time when Canadians are not available to do the job, particularly highly skilled occupations.
The program must not be used to replace Canadian workers nor to cut companies' payroll costs, as the Conservatives have allowed.
Last week, Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, reiterated what the NDP has been saying for a long time. 
The new user fees and the government's requirement for companies to submit a hiring and training plan for Canadian workers before being able to benefit from the program will penalize small and medium-sized businesses much more than large businesses.
SMEs will have more difficulty complying with these requirements since the costs will have a much greater impact on SMEs overall spending than they will on that of the big Canadian banks, for example.
Similarly, Bill C-60 gives the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism new discretionary powers. This is in addition to the powers he gave himself under Bill C-31 and Bill C-43. 
Instead of putting the normal appeal process in place, the minister is once again setting himself up as both judge and jury in various immigration matters. As for other aspects related to immigration, the issue of fees is also cause for concern. It is important to point out that the new fees put forward by the minister for applications for permanent residence, citizenship and the temporary foreign worker program will not be subject to the User Fees Act under Bill C-60.
Accordingly, for these new fees, the minister will not have to consult with anyone, do any impact studies or inform applicants. In the last budget, the Minister of Finance gave Citizenship and Immigration Canada the latitude to increase various fees. Now he is giving that department carte blanche.
An application for permanent residence can cost over $1,500 with all the associated fees, and increasing costs even further will limit people's access to our immigration programs.
In addition to wanting to create a distinction between citizens with just one citizenship and those with dual citizenship, now the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism will also be creating a distinction between wealthy immigrants and those who are less well off. The government's decision to reduce that department's budget for integration services will have a direct and negative impact.
In closing, this House must work on behalf of all Canadians. Imposing major changes of this nature without sufficient debate shows carelessness and contempt for democracy.
The immigration measures announced in response to pressure in the House and in the media, particularly concerning the temporary foreign worker program, reek of improvisation and amateurism, as usual.
Once again, this government is demonstrating that it has no overall plan and it has no idea what it means to be accountable.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of people in my riding of Toronto—Danforth have been writing to me about what they want to see in this budget. I have to say that trashing unionized workers was not on anybody's list.
 Bill C-60 authorizes the government's Treasury Board to intervene at any stage of collective bargaining between any one of 49 crown corporations and unionized workers in order to impose a negotiating mandate on the corporation. It also permits the Treasury Board to intervene directly with the crown corporation and change the conditions of employment for any non-union employee at any time.
This represents the deepest possible hypocrisy by the Conservative government. I wonder if my colleague agrees that in this House and in the media, government ministers repeatedly tell us that crown corporations operate at arm's length from the government as a way to shield these corporations from accountability, effectively saying, “Don't ask us; ask the corporation.” 
For example, repeatedly the government does this with respect to Canada Post when it is closing outlets, while never failing to take the opportunity to defend Canada Post's freedom to do what it wants, including pushing a business model that is designed to squeeze out unionized workers more and more.
Therefore, beyond hypocrisy, this is a combination of big government and Big Brother government. I wonder if my colleague for Saint-Lambert agrees with me or can add anything else.
[Interjection]
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I obviously agree with him. The government is always telling us that this is an austerity budget and that it is meant to stimulate the economy. That will have a number of implications. My colleague talked about complete and total interference in crown corporations, when these corporations should be independent and should remain that way.
In addition to interfering in crown corporations, this government is choosing to take control over everything. We can see in particular how it is trying to interfere in collective bargaining and everything related to hiring or choosing employees. This government is misguided and continues to be very controlling.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to build on the question asked by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth and ask the member for Saint-Lambert to say more about this.
It was very worrisome to me when I discovered that in Bill C-60 we would have the government staff sitting on the boards of our crown corporations, vetting and making decisions. This would end an historic arm's-length status of companies like VIA Rail, Canada Post and the CBC—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. Unfortunately, I do not think the translation was working.
The translation is not working. Is it working now?
It seems to be working now.
[Interjection]
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member, following up on the question from the member for Toronto—Danforth, about government staff sitting in on the boards of crown corporations, vetting and making decisions under Bill C-60. As we know, these omnibus budget bills have little surprises and this is a worrisome surprise. This would end the historic arm's-length relationship of companies like VIA Rail, Canada Post and the CBC.
In light of today being World Press Freedom Day, what does the member think about the government taking control of what is supposed to be our independent broadcaster in Canada?
[Interjection]
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This situation is very serious. We are talking about the CBC. Today is World Press Freedom Day, and we have to send a clear message that freedom of the press must be observed and, obviously, maintained.
We have a democratic system. However, this government is taking over many aspects of our economy. This interference will be nothing but disastrous. As the official opposition, we will continue to oppose these completely unacceptable control tactics.
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ability and the opportunity to debate the budget implementation act.
 Like everybody here, I am encouraged by Canada's steady progress toward recovery from the recession. People have heard the statistics already. We are moving forward while many of our trading partners are actually struggling to keep their footing. Our record of job creation is better than any other G7 country and we are further ahead than any of the G7 when it comes to our debt to GDP ratio. Thanks to our government's prudent fiscal management, we still have a Triple-A credit rating.
 Because of these strong fundamentals, Canada is seen internationally as a good place to invest, and that can only bode well for our continued prosperity. However, this is simply no time to relax. At the global level, the economic recovery is still fragile and we will need to continue to be prudent and follow the plan that has always served us so well. We will also need to come to grips with the greatest threat to our long-term economic vitality. Simply put, that is the skills shortage. 
As Canada's Minister of Labour, I have my own particular perspective on the issue. I travel across the country and I talk to workers and employers about the importance of co-operative labour relations, about health and safety in the workplace and about the benefits of diversity and inclusion in the workplace. These are wide-ranging discussions and they often shift to the topic of skills shortages.
 Employers say that they are having a hard time finding qualified workers and this stifling of their ability to grow is a direct result. In some cases, it has actually put their businesses and even their industries at risk.
 On the other side, workers are always aware as well of the pressures and they are rightfully concerned. Indeed, I have been stopped on the shop floor by machinists who are very concerned about the fact that they are heading to retirement and there is nobody coming in to replace them.
 The workers and the employers I talk to often express their bewilderment that it does not make sense that we have this skills shortage at a time when we have so many Canadians who are still unemployed.
We have heard from the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development that there is a mismatch in our country between the skills that employers are looking for and the skills that are actually available in the workforce. Our government is committed to giving Canadians the skills they need in order to get the jobs that are in demand. That is why skills training is such an important part of this new budget.
 In economic action plan 2013, we will give our young people better access to information on where the jobs really are, particularly in the skilled trades area and the STEM fields, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and what skills are required to get these jobs.
As members know, the Government of Canada invests about $2.7 billion a year in agreements with the provinces and the territories for skills training and for employment training as well. However, these programs need to be better lined up with the skills that the employers require and we want to transform the way that Canadians get training. That is why we will create the Canada job grant. Instead of having the situation where officials or bureaucrats decide what training should be delivered, employers themselves will identify their training needs and then they will apply to the provinces for the funding. This will ensure that Canadians will get the skills that employers seek.
With the current $500 million a year labour market agreements with the provinces and the territories set to expire in 2014, we will negotiate new agreements centred on this job grant. When it is fully implemented, we expect this job grant can help 130,000 Canadians to access the training they need to get a job or to improve their skills for in-demand jobs.
Just as important as in-school training is on-the-job training. We already have grants to encourage people to pursue and complete their apprenticeship training in a red seal trade. In our economic action plan 2013, we introduce new measures to further support apprentices. People who want to enter the skilled trades will benefit from reduced barriers to accreditation and as well from support to complete their apprentice training and their certification.
To that end, we will work with the provinces and the territories to help harmonize requirements for apprentices in the red seal trades. I will give the House an example. We are going to examine the potential use of practical tests as a method of assessment. 
We are also going to take a number of steps to recognize the importance of hiring and training apprentices. The government will be introducing measures that will support the use of apprentices through federal construction and maintenance contracts, investments in affordable housing and infrastructure projects receiving federal funding.
Finally, we are increasing our support for training and employment programs that target groups that are under-represented in our workforce. What we know is that people under the age of 25, aboriginal people, newcomers and people with disabilities have a significantly higher rate of unemployment than the general population. Quite frankly, this is a waste of their potential and it is a loss to our economy, because we need all of the talent in Canada at work.
 As the minister responsible for employment equity, diversity in the workplace is an issue that is very close to my heart. There are almost 800,000 Canadians with disabilities who are employable, but they have yet to find a job. Almost half of these, 340,000, have a post-secondary education. They could fill many of the jobs that are now vacant.
That is why last year our government created a panel on labour market opportunities for persons with disabilities. It was given a mandate to identify private sector successes and best practices in increasing labour market participation of persons with disabilities. In January 2013, it issued a report entitled “Rethinking Disability in the Private Sector”, and it presented a convincing business case for hiring persons with disabilities. It helped to form the measures that were announced in economic action plan 2013.
The budget announced an investment of $222 million per year for a new generation of labour market agreements for persons with disabilities. These reformed agreements, to be introduced by 2014, will be designed to give persons with disabilities more support in finding employment. 
The opportunities fund for people with disabilities assists people with disabilities to prepare for, to obtain, to keep employment or to become self-employed. Our government is extending this program with ongoing funding of $40 million per year. It will also be reformed to provide more demand-driven training solutions for people with disabilities and make it more responsive to labour market needs.
We are extending the enabling accessibility fund with annual funding of $15 million to support capital costs of construction and renovations to improve physical accessibility for people with disabilities.
We also announced additional funding of $7 million for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, or SSHRC, some of which will support research related to labour market participation of people with disabilities.
In addition, the economic action plan will enable the creation of the Canadian employers disability forum, which will be managed by employers for employers. The forum will continue the good work of the panel by educating employers about the best ways to attract and retain persons with disabilities. 
I am looking forward to contributing to the government's efforts to modernize the disability regime and focus on early return to work for federal civil servants.
Our government is also proposing ways to meet the challenge of employment for youth. The Minister of Finance pointed out in his budget that good choices made early on in life could help ensure that young Canadians would get the skills and experience to find work quickly, avoid unnecessary debt and get a better start to their career.
Our government has never wavered from our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians and get more people into the workforce. Our economic action plan 2013 reflects our fidelity to that commitment. The measures it proposes will help us close the skills gap and it will benefit both employers and workers.
 As the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said, “The measures announced...are a significant step forward in the federal government’s attack on Canada’s skills challenge”.
With that in mind, I ask the House to support the budget implementation act.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Minister of Labour is all talk and no action.
The government is responsible for a number of failures. I could talk about the $600 billion accumulated by Canadian corporations.
Let us focus on the government's bragging rights that the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca desperately tried to have the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysts validate. The 900,000 jobs created since the end of the recession are for the most part structural in nature, but let us not forget that the government could do more damage to the economy.
If the minister wants to take credit for creating 900,000 jobs, is she prepared to take the blame for the loss of 500,000 jobs during the recession while her government was dithering? 
[Interjection]
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that this government does not dither. It gets on with getting the work done that needs to be done. Quite frankly, the proof is in the results. Yes, we have net new jobs in Canada. Yes, our economy is doing much better than anywhere around the world. 
However, as I said in the opening speech, we need to continue to be prudent. We have recognized what the gap is for us. It is a skills gap. We have developed programming to help us close the skills gap. 
We are the party, we are the government, that figures out what the issues are and then develops a plan. We execute that plan, and we get excellent results.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, as heritage critic, I received a letter from the Independent Media Arts Alliance. They quoted from the Canada Council for the Arts. The Canada Council is what the Conservatives brag about putting more money into. They obviously feel that it is an effective organization.
What the Canada Council says is this: 
 ...freedom of artistic expression from control or dominance by external forces such as governments and markets... 
Contained within the budget is something unprecedented. It is the presence of the Treasury Board in the midst of all these negotiations. The answer we get in return is that they want to be more in control of the process. 
This poisons everybody, management and union alike. They are so quick to endorse the idea of arm's length when it is convenient for them, but this really goes against all theories of being arm's length.
Where did it come from? Why is it really going to be the case in the budget implementation bill?
[Interjection]
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, every minister who has a crown corporation in his or her portfolio is responsible for the crown corporation. Indeed, the government is responsible for crown corporations in total, and as such, it is responsible for their fiscal management.
One of the key aspects of looking at crown corporations is the reality that we have a significant portion of their budgets associated with human resources. It makes very good sense that we want to improve the financial viability of crown corporations, including their compensation levels. We are doing so by introducing the ability of the government to take part in setting the mandate for negotiations on behalf of the crown corporations. 
It is very simple. It does not go to anything with respect to day-to-day activities in the arts world and whatever arts endeavours are being undertaken.
Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, we know that our economy is doing very well. We have heard from world leaders, the OECD, and the IMF about how well our economy is doing as a result of the $45-billion economic action plan and the infrastructure stimulus fund this government put in place. We have seen jobs created as a result of new bridges, new roads and new community centres right across the country—in Quebec, Ontario and Alberta.
Mr. Speaker, you and I know, but many Canadians do not know, that the NDP voted against the economic action plan and every single dollar that went into Ontario, Quebec and across the country. 
What would have happened had the NDP had its way? What would have happened if we had not had the economic action plan and had not created the 900,000 net new jobs we have as a Conservative government? What would have happened to our economy?
[Interjection]
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you what would have happened in my part of the world, in my constituency of Halton. There would certainly be fewer jobs than there are right now, and there would certainly be less of an economy than there is right now.
Many constituencies and many communities across the country benefited greatly from the prudent plans we put in action to ensure that we have long-term growth, economic growth and prosperity and that we continue to create jobs. We did it through infrastructure investment. We did it through job share and so many different programs that helped keep us moving through the recession. 
It sets us up for an excellent future.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to follow on the heels of the speech just made by the Minister of Labour, because it gives me the opportunity to point out to anyone listening, to the country in general, that this particular piece of legislation and the recent actions of that Minister of Labour constitute nothing less than a war on labour and the left. It is a war on fair wages and benefits, earned over a century of free collective bargaining and trade union rights. The minister has been systematically undermining the rights of workers to organize, the rights of workers to bargain collectively and the rights of workers sometimes to withhold their services, in fact, as is their right should collective bargaining reach an impasse.
We find it again in the most egregious assault on trade union rights in the post-war era. We find it again in the parameters of this document in which the Conservatives are interfering pre-emptively in the collective bargaining rights of crown corporations. They say that they will dictate the terms and conditions of those working people.
I do not think I need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that a burgeoning, well-paid middle class is the greatest strength our economy has, and it can be traced directly to the advent and rise of the trade union movement, which bargained for fair wages and working conditions for working people all over North America. It was the United States of America's biggest folly and biggest mistake when it attacked trade unions in that country with its right-to-work legislation, with measures just like we are seeing from their neo-conservative counterparts in Canada. They diminished the rate of unionization in those right-to-work states, and correspondingly, wages and working conditions cascaded and tumbled to where a good job in Georgia or North Carolina these days pays $8, $10 or $12 an hour, with no benefits whatsoever.
If that is the direction the Conservatives want to go, I ask in whose interest it is to drive down the wages and working conditions of Canadians. Canadians do not need to elect a government to do that. There are market forces all over the place that seek to do that. 
The Conservatives are interfering with the normal market forces, the natural market forces, that dictate that in a time of skills shortages, working people can command a better wage. That is the time they go to the bargaining table and say that our labour might have been worth only $20 an hour last year, when there was no work, but there is lots of work now. Now is the time when working people should be able to negotiate fair wages.
What are the Conservatives doing in my industry? One example found in Bill C-60 is the temporary foreign worker program. People forget that in the last omnibus budget bill, that minister eliminated the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. They hardly even noticed that. The construction fair wages act set minimum wages for non-union construction workers at something higher than the provincial minimum wage. She said that they got rid of that because hardly anyone works under it anyway.
Correspondingly, the Conservatives brought in the temporary foreign worker expedited 10-day guarantee. Labour brokers, labour pimps, from around the world are now bringing crews of construction workers to Canada under that program. They are being paid 15% less, and not less than the construction wage but less than the minimum wage in a province. How does any fair employer ever compete? How does any fair contractor ever win another job if its competition is using these labour pimps that have been facilitated by the minister to undermine the whole fair tendering process? 
These are the unintended consequences, or maybe intended consequences, of the rash, irresponsible legislation we are seeing in these massive omnibus bills. There is no debate. There is never any time to debate any of these predictable consequences. We would have brought these things to the attention of the minister if these things ever could be debated fairly. 
I was thinking earlier today of a poem by Allen Ginsberg called Howl. It begins, “I saw the best minds of my generation [rot]”. I watched the best aspects of our parliamentary democracy systematically undermined, assaulted and destroyed by the government. The Conservatives have this idea, like a lot of neo-conservative fundamentalists, that the end justifies the means, that they can throw away everything that is good and decent about our parliamentary democracy, because somehow God is on their side and they are going to drive this down people's throat, in spite of overwhelming evidence that it is the wrong way to go.
I saw a bumper sticker the last time I was in Washington that said, “At least the war on the middle class is going well”. That is what is happening here. 
The Conservatives have this idea that they have to ratchet down the expectations of Canadian workers by ordering people back to work at Canada Post at a rate lower than what was negotiated with their employer, or by pre-empting job action at Air Canada by ordering people back to work before there was even a strike, or now, by stripping the collective bargaining ability from the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who work in crown corporations. 
In whose interest is it to drive down the wages of Canadian workers? Are they out of their minds? We can look south of the border at the predictable consequences. They have destroyed their middle class there. They have completely undermined fair wages. 
I come from the building industry. I served an apprenticeship as a carpenter. I have indentured literally hundreds of apprentices in my experience as the head of the carpenters' union. We predicted skills shortages 40 or 50 years ago, for heaven's sake, given the predictable demographics of the baby boom. It was no surprise. 
A temporary foreign worker program that saturates the market with cheap foreign labour is not a human resources strategy. It is the polar opposite. It is admitting defeat.
Let me give an example of some of the catastrophes in that program. I already brought it to the minister's attention years ago. Gold River Tahsis, on Vancouver Island, had a pulp and paper mill shut down. It was a terrible loss to the community. A company in China bought the pulp and paper mill, but it had to be dismantled and torn down. Eighty unemployed millwrights in the town of Gold River Tahsis could have used one more year's work to dismantle the pulp and paper mill. Instead, the company had to go to a labour broker, a labour pimp we call them, and bring in 80 people from South Asia to do it. We got the documents. We got a copy of the application. It asked if they had tried to find qualified Canadians. The response was “yes”. It asked why they did not hire qualified Canadians. The response was that the cost was too high. 
That is what the contractor put in the documents that went to the minister's desk, and the Conservatives signed off and brought in these guys. All these local people in Gold River Tahsis were locked outside the gate looking in while a bunch of temporary foreign workers got the last few weeks of employment in their dying pulp mill. That is an atrocity.
The Winnipeg International Airport is another example. Again, I tried to go to the minister with this complaint. We have a couple of hundred unemployed carpenters in Manitoba. We are building a brand new airport that we are all proud of. Where does the construction crew come from to place all that concrete? They come from Lebanon. Their last job was in Latvia. They are a bunch of Lebanese workers being shopped around by these labour pimps who go around the world with their crews undermining the local conditions. There are hundreds of unemployed carpenters in Manitoba. It is skilled work doing elevated concrete ramps with all kinds of staging and scaffolding involved, and it goes to a bunch of Lebanese workers. 
I have nothing against the good people of Lebanon, but they have no right to those Canadian jobs. If we need to open the doors to immigration, there would be no complaint from this side of the House, but those jobs should not be given away to temporary foreign workers. 
God knows under what terms and conditions they were being paid. Believe me, the local contractors can never compete with someone who can get 40 people working at 15% less than the minimum wage. How does a fair contractor ever win another job?
The most recent example is the Women's Hospital in Winnipeg. That is going on right now. The labourers and carpenters are picketing that job as we speak, because temporary foreign workers are doing labour work. These are not even carpenters' jobs. They are construction labourers. The Conservatives cannot tell me that there is not some unemployed aboriginal kid in a northern Manitoba reserve, where the unemployment rate is 80% and 90%, who could not be trained and put on that job at $20 an hour to do construction labour. 
No one has tried hard enough to place the skills shortages with the labour surpluses. It is a pathetic situation, absolutely pathetic. 
Bill C-60 is full of 50-some odd pieces of legislation that we as members of Parliament, representing the people who elected us, will never have a chance to give proper scrutiny and oversight to. We are being denied that right by closure again. How many times have the Conservatives moved closure on a bill? All of them. It is an easy number. I do not need to even know the number.
Every single time they have a piece of legislation, they deny us the right to do due diligence, as is our obligation and duty as elected members of Parliament. 
I am sick of it. I have watched it deteriorate, and in my 15 years as a member of Parliament, I have never seen it as bad as it is today. These guys are a disgrace. 
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, some things do not change. The hon. member across the row believes that calling people names and being very flowery in his words is actually going to matter, but what really does matter is actions. They speak a lot more than words. I think it is important to set—
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: They are one step up from Simon Legree. They are slave drivers. They are human traffickers.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order. The hon. Minister of Labour has the floor. 
[Interjection]
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, I will say one thing, and I hope that the women on the other side of the House will listen and consider this clearly.
I think it is inappropriate to utilize language associated with the sex trade in this House of Parliament to describe people who are doing different jobs around the country. I think it is nothing more than grandstanding, and I think it is nothing more than trying to grab a sound bite.
I am offended by it personally. He should know better, and the women sitting behind him should know better than to put up with that kind of nonsense as well.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, another question comes to mind.
First of all it was robocalls and the fixed election. If the Conservatives won their razor-thin majority by cheating, they do not actually have a mandate to govern at all, never mind what they are doing now by abusing and undermining every institution of democracy that we hold dear.
Then it was election financing fraud. Now it is using MPs' mailing privileges to carpet bomb ridings like mine. Ten members of Parliament from Manitoba used their MP mailing privileges to carpet bomb my riding with all this stuff.
The question that comes to mind and the question I put to you, Mr. Speaker, is this: where did they get the lists? How did they know that my neighbour's mother only lived at my neighbour's house for four months before she passed away? How did they send a personally addressed letter to that person's mother?
How about the case in which they filed their income tax from their son's address? How did they know that their income tax was mailed from that address?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order. I am not sure if that line of commentary is particularly related to the question that is before the House.
Questions and comments. I see there is lots of interest, so I would ask members to keep their interventions brief.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Labour was speaking, I noticed that she referred to training dollars for first nations.
I know the member for Winnipeg Centre has a lot of knowledge around employment and the skills required for first nations. We know that in this country many first nations youth are simply not employed.
I wonder if the member could comment on the lack of action in this particular budget implementation bill in providing meaningful skills and training to first nations.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for that very relevant question. I appreciate the work she has done on the file as our representative on the aboriginal affairs file.
The unemployment rate among aboriginal youth in my province and in many places across the country can be as high as 50% or 60%, four or five times higher than the already high unemployment rate for youth. There are communities in northern Manitoba where the unemployment rate is 85% to 90%. There is a vast pool of youth between 16 and 25 who, with an opportunity, could make a meaningful entrance into the workforce.
When I was head of the carpenters union, we did make an outreach effort specifically to go up and do some training in northern Manitoba because we had hydro dams going there. Believe me, a lot of the apprentices we signed in the aboriginal apprenticeship initiative found really satisfying careers in the construction industry. It is not a bad segue into the industrialized workforce, the construction and building trades.
It is hard work, and they are no strangers to hard work, growing up in the north. It is the high school kids from downtown Winnipeg who have a tough time getting into the construction industry, because it is hard work. These guys think it is easy money. For those who spent their life splitting wood and hauling fish nets in the wintertime, construction is easy money.
We are missing the boat by not matching the skills shortages that everybody knows about in the construction industry and the human resources surplus that is under our nose. Surely it is cheaper to train a kid from Pukatawagan than it is to fly them in from Lebanon or Southeast Asia or wherever these other temporary foreign workers are coming from. For God's sake, it is completely counterintuitive.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great privilege today to speak on a good economic action plan. However, I do not think anybody in this House, including those from our side, would say that it is perfect. There are not such perfect things at this point, but in view of what we are dealing with, it is a good plan, it is a decent plan, and it takes us ahead. When we compare it to what the others would offer, it is probably a great plan.
I want to start by talking about the fiscal side. That said, I think we all realize right away that the fiscal side involves the human side, and there is an integral kind of connection, a coherent kind of approach to it in our budget this year. Therefore, I will talk about the fiscal side and the compassionate Conservative side by way of some of the social side as well.
First of all, I want to note, as other members in this place already have, that this budget, in a very considerable way, wants to connect Canadians with available jobs. It is pretty important that we do that. Instead of giving a handout, as some people say, we give a hand up, which increases human dignity and builds people. It is a pretty important thing to be doing just from a human perspective.
 We are also, as someone has said and is often repeated in this place, teaching a person to fish and not just giving them a fish by way of the Canada skills grant, which would provide some $15,000 or more per person, which would be combined with some provincial monies and the employer funding as well.
I met today here on Parliament Hill with a representative from the chemical association, who was commending this particular feature. For that industry, it is pretty important to be able to increase and bring people from apprenticeships to journeymen, and he sees the Canada skills grant as a very important way of doing that. Also, in relation to strengthening the apprentice system, he remarked as well that growing out of the Canada skills grant, it will do that. It will make it easier to get the needed experience for journeyman status.
In terms of expanding the pie, that is a pretty necessary thing. If we are just looking at the status quo and thinking we do not need any more journeymen because we are not figuring to advance and progress and expand beyond our borders, then of course some would say that there would be some fights over journeymen and the journeymen coming on. However, we are looking beyond. We realize that to hold our own we need to do that. We need to have strength in the apprenticeship system. 
We are supporting job opportunities as well as providing tools for persons with disabilities, who often are not looked at as part of the labour force when we are wanting to bring people on stream to have the opportunities that others do.
As well, for our youth, getting that first job is a pretty important thing. In my province of Saskatchewan, there is a burgeoning birth rate among the aboriginal people, and many of these young people deserve jobs, as does any other Canadian. They will be the future workforce in the province of Saskatchewan in a big way, particularly in the resource sector up in the north, where there are high-paying jobs close to their home communities and close to these first nations settlements. That will be a great thing in that they can stay even closer to family and have good-paying jobs to support themselves, their families and others as well.
Also, there is the matter of helping recent immigrants find a job when we allow them into our country and bring them here. Most of us are immigrants in some fashion, I might say. We need to provide more than just a promise of a dream and a better tomorrow and a bright future by putting some actual steps to it and supporting them in job opportunities so we can fill the labour shortages and have the economy carry on because of that. 
Those are some of the initial things that strike me as really important in our budget in connecting Canadians with available jobs in parts of the country. 
For example, in Saskatchewan, my own home province, there is a great deal of prosperity and success these days, but there is a labour shortage. For those reasons, this budget strikes to my heart because of the need in my own backyard, my own riding of Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, where we have seen a 15% growth over the last few years since census indications and change of boundaries and so on. Because of that, we need to ensure that we are filling those needs, and the labour market needs to respond to that. 
Also, I think that the long-term infrastructure plan is wise. There are things the private sector should and can be doing, but in terms of critical infrastructure, there is a vital role that government can play. Therefore, we have a new long-term infrastructure plan with over $70 billion over 10 years for a new building Canada plan.
Some of these figures have been cited before: $32.2 billion over 10 years for a community improvement fund; $14 billion for a new building Canada fund; $1.25 billion for the renewal of the P3 Canada; and $6 billion under current infrastructure programs for provinces, territories and municipalities in 2014-15 and beyond. 
There is the matter of investing in world-class research and innovation. Taking it directly into the workplace, as well, is quite crucial. We are doing that by way of advanced research, supporting business innovation and enhancing Canada's venture capital system.
I am going to talk in a few moments about the support for families and communities in our budget. I also want to talk about helping small businesses succeed, the heart and engine of the economy, and medium and larger-sized businesses as well, and some of the things we have done there. 
We are providing tax relief for manufacturers, helping small businesses expand, with $225 million to extend and expand the temporary hiring credit for small businesses for one year; increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $110 million over five years, by increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 for small business owners, farmers and fishers, and indexing that new limit to inflation going forward; and supporting mining exploration. Canada has a great deal of natural resources, so we need to key in and capitalize on that. 
I want to read part of an email sent to me by one of my good constituents, a lady in Blaine Lake, Saskatchewan. She makes a good argument against socialism in the story and how we need to continually fight that back for the good of all Canadians. She stated:
 A previous Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. John Diefenbaker, once said the poor cannot be helped by pulling down the rich. The middle class and the rich people have the businesses— 
She is a business lady herself:
 —that need people to keep them viable, thus providing them with a living to support their families and communities. These middle class and rich people often encourage employees to begin their own businesses thus ensuring the cycle will continue. I personally have seen that happen in my lifetime. 
 When governments decide to enter the realm of business it takes tax dollars to keep the businesses going. We have been down this road before during the time of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and it was a disaster. 
She lived through that era. This was from a good constituent in Blaine Lake. 
She also sent me an article titled, “Is this man a genius?”. It is about the follies and problems of socialism. Members have probably heard this. The article states: 
 IS THIS MAN A GENIUS? 
 An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. 
 The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on [socialism]'s plan”.. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars--something closer to home and more readily understood by all). 
 After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. 
 The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. 
 As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. 
 To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.... These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment: 
 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. 
 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 
 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 
 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! 
 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. 
God forbid that we would ever come to that. The NDP proposal seems to be pretty much along that line.
I will have to address some of the other things in the following questions, which I am looking forward to at this juncture.
Jonathan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, that proves that, for the Conservatives, it is all about the ideology and not the content.
I will talk about the content of the budget, because that is what we are supposed to be talking about today. The Conservatives are good at messaging, but not at taking action. That is what we are seeing once again in this budget. 
I will give an example that pertains to tax evasion. We often hear the Conservative members say that we must fight tax evasion and bring the money home.
There are cuts at the CRA, but it is being asked to do more. How are we going to fight tax evasion with fewer resources?
[Interjection]
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a few measures in the budget that would, in fact, help families avoid taxes and seniors avoid taxes. I think there are some very good things along that line.
In supporting families, we have enhanced the adoption expense tax credit to better recognize those unique costs, so that there would be some avoidance of tax that way. There are measures for expanding tax relief for home care services to include personal care services for those who, due to age, infirmity or disability, require assistance at home; enhancing the funeral and burial program for Canadian veterans; supporting palliative care services; and combatting family violence. These are some of the good initiatives in the budget that would help people to pay less tax, and that is always a good thing for Canadians.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the member's speech was rather pitiful.
I disagree with him and would suggest that he read the delightful letter written by American multi-billionaire Warren Buffet that was published in The New York Times at the beginning of the year. That letter would show the member how the world really works. It is nothing like the caricature he presented in his speech.
I want to talk about what is really happening. At the beginning of the year, I went to a reception at the Port of Québec and met a local businessman. He told me that the business community needs recognition from government.
It is incredible that after seven years of Conservative government, the business community still feels neglected and ignored by this government.
By the way, I would like to say that things are going well in and around Quebec City. Unemployment sits at about 5%. It is a very vibrant region, much like the prairie provinces.
Billions of dollars are sitting idle in Canadian companies because of this government, which has made some terrible decisions. That is the equivalent of about $25,000 per family that is not circulating, not creating jobs and not increasing the competitiveness of Canadian companies here and abroad. Could he comment on that?
[Interjection]
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, we have done some great things for businesses. I talk to businesses all the time. They commend us for the kinds of things that we have done with respect to them, helping them succeed and grow our global economy. Within the budget documents, which I think they have received in French and English, we talk in terms of the budget initiative of providing tax relief to manufacturers, some $1.4 billion in tax relief, through a two-year extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new machinery and equipment. Small businesses are pretty impressed with the fact of helping small business expand by way of extending and expanding the temporary hiring credit for businesses for up to one year, and increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption. 
That is a huge thing that is supported by the business community, as well. When we have that kind of thing where, for manufacturers, for business, for small business, and so on, there is an opportunity to expand, it actually means jobs, and the NDP needs to understand that, jobs that then would give people the opportunity to support their families. A job builds a person. It would actually build an individual because they would have the dignity of a job. That is what we have tried to do as a keynote throughout the budget. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before I recognize the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex on resuming debate, I will just let him know we only have about two minutes left before the interruption. 
However, he can get under way, at least, and he will of course have the remaining time when the House gets back to business on this question.
Dave Van Kesteren: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the budget implementation, creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.
I have just a couple of minutes to introduce my speech and I will do that by giving a little history lesson, talking about what happened in the past, where we are today, why the bill is so significant and why this has been a process rather than just another budget.
In 2009 we experienced the global meltdown we all remember so vividly. Some would call it a recession, but in some places in the world it is called a depression. It was definitely the worst thing that happened to our economics in this country and around the world since the Great Depression. In 2009 our government introduced Canada's economic action plan in response to the near-global collapse that took place. This plan sought to stabilize Canadian markets and restore financial security and stability. 
I do not have time to go through my whole history lesson, but the International Monetary Fund urged that all countries in a position to do so inject fiscal stimulus of 2% of gross domestic product to reduce the effects of a damaging recession. Of course, this meant deficit spending over a period of time until the markets returned to normal. Canada was part of that.
We have made some important and right decisions in the past. Since 2006, for instance, the average family of four pays $3,400 less in taxes than it did previously. Today we see that, and it is a result of decisions taken in 2006.
My time is up. I will pick up where I have left off on Monday. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex will have eight minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next returns to the question. 
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 1, consideration of the motion that Bill C-460, An Act respecting the implementation of the Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, World Salt Awareness Week falls between March 11 and 17. However, unlike last year, there does not appear to be a record on Health Canada's website of the Minister of Health issuing a statement on the importance of reducing salt in the diet of Canadians. That is perhaps because of the fear of potential blowback for the Conservative government's killing of this important bill, which would implement the recommendations of the previous Conservative health minister's sodium working group.
The minister's reason for killing the bill is, wait for it, not a $21-billion tax but a $48-billion tax. Perhaps the government would be good enough to table, for all members of this House, who did the calculations for the tax, the method that was used and the results obtained. Perhaps, at the same time, the government would also table the health costs of chronic diseases that are linked to consuming too much salt.
In her statement on salt last year, the Minister of Health said:
 On average we eat more than double the amount we need for good health.... It is important for Canadians to remember that consuming too much sodium is a risk factor for high blood pressure, heart disease and stroke and is also linked to other diseases such as stomach cancer, osteoporosis and kidney disease. 
She continued:
 As Minister of Health, I want to help Canadians avoid these health risks by promoting the adoption of a healthy diet that is low in sodium. 
Therefore, it is clear that the minister understands the problem, yet thinks it is funny to say the bill is “...tough on potato chips”. It is not funny to a family struggling to control blood pressure, and not funny to a family battling heart disease or stroke. More distasteful still is the fact that once again she is prepared to put industry before the health of Canadians. Specifically, the minister is refusing to reduce the average sodium intake from about 3,400 milligrams per person per day to 2,300 milligrams by 2016. Health Canada's own recommended daily intake level for sodium is just 1,500 milligrams. The minister's own sodium working group estimated that a decrease in the average sodium intake to about 1,800 milligrams per day, still above Health Canada's recommendation, would prevent 23,500 cardiovascular disease events every year, and would save $1.4 billion per year in health care costs.
The Minister of Health is also refusing a consumer education campaign, a monitoring plan and public database to track if individual food products meet specific reduction targets, and new regulations to force companies to use uniform serving sizes and the nutritional facts on food. Why did this health minister disband the sodium working group at the end of 2010? Why did the minister fail to endorse a federal-provincial sodium reduction plan at the health ministers' meeting in Halifax in November 2011? Why is this minister ignoring the overwhelming scientific evidence?
 The reality is that this private member's bill is supported by the Canadian Medical Association and 40 other groups and experts, including: the Canadian Institute of Child Health; Canadian Nurses Association; Canadian Pharmacists Association; Canadian Public Health Association; Canadian Society of Internal Medicine; Canadian Women's Health Network; Dieticians of Canada; Food Secure Canada; Hypertension Canada; Kidney Foundation of Canada; and Public Health Physicians of Canada.
The Canadian Medical Association stated: 
 The Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada Act is an important piece of legislation that can lead to healthier lives for all Canadia2 Parliament support it. 
The Canadian Medical Association also very clearly stated:
 Canadians consume on average 3,400 milligrams of sodium daily, well above recommended levels. High sodium levels in food are responsible for almost one-third of hypertension cases in Canada. Hypertension is a major cause of heart disease (heart attack and heart failure), stroke and kidney failure, and is an important contributor to premature death, disability and health care costs in Canada. It is estimated that 7.5 million Canadians have been diagnosed with this chronic condition, with an estimated 1,100 new patients being added every day. 
Dr. Norm Campbell, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research chair in hypertension prevention and control, said:
 The bill provides concrete measures for reducing the amount of salt food processors add to food. The measures proposed in the Bill include close government monitoring and oversight and mandatory labelling of foods that fail to comply with sodium targets. If passed, Bill C-460 will for the first time provide Canadians an opportunity to even know if they are even making a healthy or unhealthy food choice. 
Canadians should be asking broader questions. Why did the minister quash trans fats recommendations in 2009 and again in 2012? Why did she ignore the advice regarding caffeinated energy drinks? Why did the minister immediately shoot down the idea of the Institute of Medicine's report, sponsored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, calling for a fundamental shift in the way companies were allowed to present certain nutritional information on the front of food packages? Where is the leadership?
It is outrageous that the government would resort to invoking fear in Canadians to kill this bill. We heard from a government member who said:
 —the bill would pose many challenges. While unintentional, implementing the bill may potentially have negative impacts on food safety and health; I repeat, negative impacts on food safety and health. 
The member suggested that reducing salt and sodium-containing food additives to levels still higher than Health Canada's own recommended limits might affect preservation.
The member did not stop there, saying, “The bill simply does not anticipate the food safety consequences that this could create”.
Equally ludicrous is the government's argument that a warning label for sodium could be very misleading to Canadians, even though the government's own approach has been to encourage healthy eating through positive messaging, awareness and education activities.
I would like to finish by bringing some reality to the government's position and arguments.
On average, adult Canadians consume about 3,400 milligrams of sodium per day. This is significantly above recommended levels. Health Canada and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences have determined that the tolerable upper intake level for adults is 2,300 milligrams of sodium per day. Of most of the sodium Canadians consume, 77% comes from processed foods sold in grocery stores and in food service outlets. Only about 11% is added during preparation at the table, with the remainder occurring naturally in foods, hence, showing the fundamental flaw in the parliamentary secretary's comments regarding a salt shaker.
In some people, too much sodium causes blood pressure to rise. High blood pressure increases risks for heart disease and stroke. About six million adult Canadians have high blood pressure or hypertension, the leading risk for death in the world, the number one risk factor for stroke and a major risk factor for heart disease.
 It has been estimated that excess sodium intake is responsible for one million hypertension cases in Canada today. Dietary sodium reduction could eliminate hypertension for over a million Canadians, with a resulting savings of at least $430 million annually in direct high blood pressure management costs alone.
A recent study in the United States shows reducing salt intake by three grams per day would save the country up to $24 billion in health care costs a year. Even a modest reduction of one gram per day between 2010 and 2019 would be more cost-effective than using medications to lower blood pressure in people with high blood pressure.
Is it not time that Canada's Minister of Health acted, not ignored experts and stonewalled?
Francine Raynault: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Health ate All-Bran this morning, she ingested six times more salt than if she had filled her bowl in the United States.
This evening, if the minister stops at Burger King on her way home, which I do not recommend, her onion ring will contain three times more salt than one of Uncle Sam's. Why? Because Canadian regulations are just not good enough when it comes to sodium.
The Minister of Health said that my party is “soft on crime and hard on chips”. I would like to point out that, according to Statistics Canada, there were 598 homicides in Canada in 2011. If we can reduce Canadians' daily sodium intake to just 1,800 milligrams, we will be able to prevent between 10,000 and 16,000 deaths every year. Obviously, we cannot put chips in jail. The Conservatives would be well advised to reconsider their approach, just as they have done for crime.
Canadians are asking us for smart, effective regulation. That is exactly what Bill C-460 has to offer. I hope that the Conservatives care about Canadians' health enough to support the bill.
The Minister of Health has accused us of trying to introduce more red tape. I do not see how a government that loses track of $3 billion spent on anti-terrorism legislation can deny the importance of a strict regulatory framework. This is not about adding more red tape. This is about saving lives and helping Canadians live longer lives among their loved ones.
Three billion dollars. That is how much money the Conservatives managed to lose between the couch cushions. Coincidentally, that is also exactly how much money Canada would save if we reduced daily sodium intake to 1,500 milligrams. Why slash people's retirement income when it is so easy to save money by investing in their health?
Salt is everywhere. Now that Canadians have to work more than ever to make ends meet because of ill-advised Conservative cuts that are slowing our economy down, they have to eat salt in restaurants, frozen meals and cafeterias. All of the prepared food we buy every day because we do not have time to cook is full of salt. It would be cheap and easy to address this problem by forcing companies to label foods as high in sodium.
That is exactly what Bill C-460 is proposing, and that would of course have a positive impact on the market.
This bill is very sensible. It is not rooted in a political agenda, but rather in recommendations by experts, particularly recommendations provided by the Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada, published by a working group set up in 2007, but which was dismantled by the current minister in 2011. Was the working group too bureaucratic?
The minister must have known that the strategy was supported by the provinces, territories and health organizations. The government must stop making budget cuts everywhere and start doing what a government is elected to do, which is to serve the public.
People are asking us for a tough policy to force companies to reduce sodium levels and inform consumers properly.
A recent survey shows that 76% of Canadians want warning labels on products that are high in sodium. That is almost twice the number of people who elected the Conservatives in the last election. A majority of Canadians agree that government intervention is needed to reduce the sodium levels in our food.
Sometimes it is funny to see how much the Conservatives hide behind their open market ideology when they do not want to disturb the agri-food industry, and how heavy-handed they can be when it comes to stealing from the unemployed.
Where do the Conservatives stand? Are they tough on people and soft on industry? Canadians are not fools. They want what is being done elsewhere and what is being recommended by all the proper authorities.
Finland is a good example because it has been regulating salt consumption since 1979. Through simple labeling, Finland has managed to convince a number of companies to reduce the amount of sodium in their products, which has helped citizens become more aware of what they are consuming. The outcome is that, in 1979, the average daily sodium intake dropped from 5,000 mg to 3,300 mg.
Since 2004, the World Health Organization has issued a number of reports and held many forums on the importance of reducing sodium. In 2010, the World Health Organization met with the government, but clearly the WHO did not get the attention it needed. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, criticizes Canada in his report that followed his May 2012 visit.
According to Mr. De Schutter, Canada is not doing enough to discourage the consumption of foods high in saturated fat, sugar and sodium. He even added that it was unfortunate that Quebec is the only province to ban advertising directed at children under the age of 13.
How did the Prime Minister respond? He called the man a lazy intellectual and said his findings were ridiculous. Given their tendency to mock the most reliable multilateral organizations in the world and to refuse to listen to what Canadians want, the Conservatives could very well wind up all alone in their tiny ideological universe.
It is time to put an end to this schizophrenic governance and start operating like a democratic government. That is why I invite all members across the floor to support Bill C-460, which will finally allow Canada to show some leadership in the fight against sodium.
In closing, I would remind the House that malnutrition causes nearly 50,000 deaths a year in Canada, 20 times more than the number of deaths on our roads. After the fight against tobacco use, the fight against sodium is the most direct and effective way to reduce preventable deaths in Canada—yes, I said “preventable”.
Our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children and even grandparents will enjoy better, longer lives if we all support Bill C-460. That is what Canadians expect from their House of Commons, and they deserve nothing less.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the opposition's Bill C-460, an act respecting the implementation of the sodium reduction strategy for Canada.
I am also pleased to speak to our government's efforts, which are already starting to work, to address sodium reduction, as it is an important issue to all Canadians. Our government is fully committed to working with our stakeholders to reduce the average amount of sodium that Canadians consume.
However, we cannot support the heavy-handed approach to sodium reduction as proposed in Bill C-460. The approach to sodium reduction creates unnecessary red tape and additional financial costs to the taxpayers that may also result in unintended risks in food safety.
I will be walking through some of the highlights of how the measures proposed in this bill compare to the actual recommendations of the sodium working group and to the actions our government has taken with respect to sodium reduction.
I think it is important to highlight that the sodium working group recommendations were pan-Canadian recommendations. Pan-Canadian, in this context, means the recommendations were addressed to all levels of government, and even to individuals.
I would point out that Bill C-460 has excluded the province of Quebec. As was highlighted in the first hour of debate on this bill, it would seem rather impractical and costly to try to impose mandatory labelling requirements on the food industry to only selected parts of the country.
This side of the House wonders why it is only Quebec that is spared the heavy-handed provisions of this bill. If Quebec would benefit from an exemption from the bill, why not the rest of Canada? The experts did not recommend that Quebec be exempted. They recommended a pan-Canadian approach, which is what our government is pursuing. The experts also recommended a voluntary approach. The call for mandatory compliance with guidance levels as described in the bill stands in direct contrast to the working group's recommendations.
A voluntary approach is what we have in place now, with guidance for the food industry on reducing sodium in processed foods. The guidance provides direction to the food industry to continue with the sodium reduction efforts and help Canadians lower their average sodium intake.
The guidance, which provides specific benchmark levels for over 100 categories of processed foods, directly supports one of the working group's core recommendations, and that was to reduce the average amount of sodium consumed by Canadians from 3,400 milligrams per day to 2,300 milligrams per day, by 2016. Our government, along with provincial and territorial governments, endorsed this recommendation back in September 2010.
The bill also proposes that consumers be alerted to additional mandatory labels on packaged foods with sodium content that is above “target levels”. Again, this is not one of the recommendations of the working group, and for good reason. By focusing on a warning label just for sodium, Canadians could be misled into believing that sodium is the only nutrient about which they need to be educated. It is overall diets that have the greatest impacts on health, not any one food or nutrient.
This government has developed a number of tools to help Canadians make informed decisions about the foods they eat. This includes mandatory nutrition labelling for most packaged foods. There are also set criteria for phrases such as “low in sodium”, “salt-free” and “reduced in sodium”. These phrases can be used on food labels to help consumers identify foods that are lower in sodium.
Our government has invested $4 million for new activities as part of the healthy eating and awareness initiative. The goal is to help Canadians move towards healthier diets, which includes supporting them in reducing sodium intake.
The sodium working group recognized the importance of engaging all stakeholders, as does our government. However, this bill has overlooked this critical component of a strong sodium reduction strategy. Governments, Canadians and industry have important roles to play.
 This bill proposes the establishment of an independent sodium reduction committee that excludes the food industry from the committee. This exemption would limit the successive activities already in progress and undermine the spirit of the working group's recommendations.
What we currently have in place is the food expert advisory committee. This committee has been extended to ad hoc members with expertise in areas of sodium to provide advice to this government on sodium issues. Members include some members from the former sodium working group, as well as some new experts.
Finally, the bill proposes that industry be required to report the sodium content in prepackaged food so that a public registry of this information could be established and maintained. We have heard about registries before. As has been previously stated, this registry would be ineffective. The cost to taxpayers to implement these measures would be significant. Maintaining a public registry for the 100,000 prepackaged food products sold in Canada would require considerable new resources and additional regulations and red tape. Again, this bill's proposed sodium registry was not recommended by the sodium working group.
Before I summarize, I want to point out that budget 2012, which both opposition parties voted against, contained measures which were in fact recommended by the working group and the red tape reduction committee. Both called for a streamlined approval for food additives, and budget 2012 delivered. I would point out that the opposition did not support those proposals.
Mr. Speaker, please allow me to summarize. The bill unnecessarily regulates mandatory sodium limits in prepackaged food. This is not consistent with the working group's recommendations. Our government is advancing a voluntary approach to sodium reduction, just as the working group recommended. The bill calls for misleading warning labels on foods that exceed sodium limits. This is not one of the sodium reduction strategy recommendations. 
Our government will continue to take into account the full diet of Canadians in its approach to nutrition labelling and awareness and education initiatives, so that Canadians can make informed choices about the food they eat. My family and I read food labels all the time. I know it is simple to say and it may be tough to do, but if Canadians would simply take that one step before they put something in their shopping cart, we could avoid the necessity for bills such as the one proposed.
The bill would legislate the creation of an advisory committee that excludes the food industry. This is not in line with the sodium reduction strategy recommendation to take a multi-stakeholder approach. Our government will continue to seek the expertise of all stakeholders regarding sodium reduction initiatives. 
If the bill is in fact to support the recommendations of the sodium working group, as the opposition claims, it has failed to meet that objective. It took a team of stakeholders nearly three years to develop the sodium reduction strategy for Canada. We are making progress, but time is needed to reach our sodium reduction goals. That is why provincial and territorial health ministers agreed to a 2016 deadline. 
In closing, I cannot support this bill. It is not consistent with what the experts have recommended. It increases costs for Canadians and red tape for industry in its heavy-handed proposal for a wasteful and ineffective sodium registry, just like the other wasteful and ineffective registries we have finally taken off the backs of Canadians.
It is unnecessary because our approach is working. My hope would be that all members of the House will continue to work with our government on this important file. We will continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders to reduce the sodium intake of Canadians. By increasing education, awareness and guidance to the industry, we believe it is the balanced approach that will deliver results.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we marked the second anniversary of the election of the NDP as the official opposition in the House of Commons. I would like to acknowledge the exemplary work of my four assistants, Olivier Thibault, Katia Isabelle, Isabelle Bourassa and Camille Bouillon Bégin. 
Today, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-460, An Act respecting the implementation of the Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada. This bill is very important to me.
First of all, I would like to say that foods high in sodium are the health scourge of the 21st century. Bill C-460 proposes a strategy to prevent thousands of needless deaths by reducing Canadians' sodium consumption. The government must address the issue of high sodium consumption, just as it tackled drunk driving and smoking a few years ago. 
It is imperative that we lower sodium in foods to a safe level, improve food labelling, protect our children from misleading food advertising, ensure that public money is not used to pay for high-sodium foods and, above all, have Canada lead the way in food industry monitoring.
Our society is grappling with a deadly killer. Consuming too much sodium is the leading cause of cardiovascular disease in Canada. It also has devastating effects on the health of people suffering from serious illnesses such as stomach cancer, osteoporosis, asthma, obesity and kidney disease.
Sodium is a true blight on our health care system. We allocate time, money and human resources to the treatment of illnesses that are directly caused by the overconsumption of sodium, which is present in processed foods. Therefore, these resources are not available to fund research on and treatment for childhood diseases, congenital disorders and heart defects.
It is time to examine our conscience and make a choice. We can put in place a national sodium reduction strategy that will impose clear rules on the food industry, decrease Canadians' sodium consumption and help Canadians make healthier food choices. By reducing Canadians' sodium consumption to 1,800 mg a day, we could prevent almost 24,000 cardiovascular incidents a year. We could also prevent 10,000 to 16,000 deaths a year.
This government has proven to be particularly obsessed with the economy in recent years. Reducing sodium consumption would help save billions of dollars. For example, reducing our sodium consumption by 1,500 mg a day would generate direct savings of $1.38 billion in health care alone. Furthermore, if we include indirect costs, we could save $2.99 billion, which is almost $3 billion. That is a significant amount.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Another $3 billion lost.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach:  Another $3 billion that the Conservatives could recover. We are used to seeing the Conservatives lose billions of dollars.
When will the government implement a strategy to save billions of dollars and thousands of lives? We have the choice, but we need to make the right choice and we need to make it now. I repeat: excessive sodium intake is a serous public health issue, and it is too important for us to ignore. This could save lives.
Governments have had to pass laws to change how individuals and industries act. Take seat belts, for example. When they became mandatory in 1976, road fatalities dropped by 43%. That is unbelievable. Attitudes are hard to change, and sometimes the government has to try to force these changes in the name of public health and safety.
Another example would be drinking and driving or anti-smoking legislation. Prevention is no longer enough. The government has taken this approach for years to reduce sodium consumption in Canada.
This approach has been a huge failure for two reasons. First, it is very difficult for Canadians to analyze the ingredients on products they are purchasing so that they can make healthy choices. Second, food companies refuse to change their production methods. Right now, manufacturers are encouraged to reduce the amount of salt in their products voluntarily. This is in no way effective, because the food industry does not comply. The industry continues to say that sodium reduction targets are unrealistic.
Manufacturers are resisting because they are worried that consumers, used to the taste of salt, will go elsewhere. We understand their concerns. Manufacturers want to remain competitive at all costs. The food industry says it is impossible to reduce the amount of sodium because food safety would be affected.
That argument does not hold water, however. The fact that sodium levels in chain restaurants vary from one country to another is proof of that. Why do the amounts vary? Because the food industry has gotten Canadians used to foods that are much saltier here than elsewhere. I see no reason to keep it that way. Companies' concerns are unfounded. All of the experts agree. Consumers have the ability to adapt to the taste of food that is less salty, and it is up to the government to force that change.
The lack of legislation that is binding on the food industry also affects consumers. Making healthy choices is increasingly difficult. I spoke with Marie-Claude Jolicoeur and Manon Rousse, two nutritionists at the Suroît hospital in my riding. They confirmed that trend. They said that they meet with patients every day who need a low-sodium diet, including people with hypertension, heart failure, liver disease, kidney failure, diabetes and other diseases.
In all of those cases, a low-sodium diet is essential to effectively treating the disease. The nutritionists told me that their role is to teach people how to reduce their sodium intake by recommending which foods to avoid and suggesting alternatives. In reality, 80% of sodium intake comes from processed foods, not from salt. The nutritionists maintain that despite their good intentions, their patients have difficulty making healthy choices and adhering to a low-sodium diet.
That is especially true of seniors and the sick. They rarely cook and often rely on processed foods. Their health declines further, which increases costs for our health care system.
Even for those who are in good health and eat well, it is very easy to exceed the recommended intake. That is why the government needs to step in. Legislation that imposes limits on the amount of sodium in processed food is the only solution that will have the desired effect.
The government has demonstrated a blatant lack of leadership on this issue. Why did the Minister of Health dismantle the sodium working group? It does not make any sense. The government's inaction has forced the provinces and territories to take the bull by the horns and create their own sodium reduction strategies. The Conservative government needs to stop burying its head in the sand. The Department of Health Act clearly sets out that Health Canada is responsible for “the protection of the people of Canada against risks to health”. 
Does high sodium intake not constitute a sufficient risk for the Conservatives? Do the resulting cardiovascular diseases not constitute a sufficient risk for the Conservatives? Do the billions of dollars in costs not constitute a sufficient risk for the Conservatives? Of course not. They are already $29 billion in the hole, and no one knows where that money went.
I think that, instead of subjecting us all to its austerity measures by cutting all the programs that Canadians value, each time that the government tables a budget that we are not even allowed to comment on, it should pass legislation that would allow us to really make economies of scale, not to mention save lives.
This is a major public health issue. I would even go so far as to say that we are facing a food safety crisis. Foods that are high in sodium are poisoning Canadians. It is imperative that we develop a strategy to put a stop to this trend. We need to think about the health of our children and the billions of dollars that our inaction is costing our health care system.
Brian Jean: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening intently and I have find it very interesting that we are going to set up a sodium control mechanism by registering the amount of sodium that goes into food. I wonder if the next thing is we will have trigger locks on all of our salt shakers on the table.
 The NDP members want to have a sodium registry, but they want to decriminalize marijuana. They talk about health issues with sodium, but have they thought about the other issues that they bring forward? It seems they are sucking and blowing at the same time in relation to many of the policies they are behind. 
It just does not seem to fit. In fact, I am wondering what is going to happen next after they control the amount of sodium that goes into products instead of just providing information and education. Maybe they are going to throw people in jail for testing too high on salt. Maybe we are going to have lineups of people being tested for salt. I am not sure. I just do not know where this ends. 
The control mechanism those members want to force on consumers clearly indicates the disrespect they have for taxpayers and Canadians alike, thinking they cannot make their own decisions based on proper information.
We know for instance that on processed foods it is required to list the amount of sodium that is contained within those products. Therefore, consumers can go along, pick up a can when they are buying their groceries and see how much sodium it has. Then if they have a sodium issue, they can control the amount of sodium they take by being educated. As we know, just about all Canadians have the ability to read the labels. 
The NDP wants to set up this mechanism, this highly regulated and expensive Canadian government registry that will have all of these products on the list and the amount of sodium in them. What are people going to do? Every time they want to go out to get a processed product, such as a bag of chips from the grocery store, will they have to run home and check the computer or take the information with them? Are the New Democrats trying to create more money for large cellphone companies? I am really not sure where they are coming from. I clearly think this is a disrespectful model to follow. It is wasteful, ineffective and will simply not work.
I would like to begin by reiterating the work the government is doing to address sodium intake in Canada because it is a serious concern. However, the NDP members say that it will lower health costs and yet they want to decriminalize something like smoking marijuana that would have such a high health cost to consumers. Their position just does not make sense.
I would like to talk about what the Canadian government is doing.
 First, the sodium working group that my friend talked about recommended the government take a voluntary multi-stakeholder approach to reducing the amount of sodium found in foods in the Canadian market. I agree because Canadians are smart. They can feel their health. They see their doctors. We have a good medical system in our country. It does need some work, like most things, but one thing that does not need more work is a sodium registry. Clearly, this would not be good for Canadians and, as I said, I think it disrespects Canadians. It certainly disrespects the independent working group that was set up to find some solutions to the issue. 
The government recognized the need for this comprehensive approach by setting up the group. It acknowledged the roles of industry, government and Canadians in working together to reduce sodium consumption. However, we must not do so through some draconian methodology that will, frankly, be very expensive and accomplish nothing except to penalize companies and consumers. 
In particular, I would like to talk about the 90-day coming into force program. I know many people in this place have not been commercial printers, but I can promise them that a 90-day coming into force regime would not even enable companies to change the labelling fast enough if they were to reduce the amount of sodium. It would not allow them to change the product. These are products they have spent many years on in putting the perfect ingredients in, as they see it and consumers demand, and sodium is used as a preservative for some of these products. 
What are we going to have with a 90-day coming into force? If the NDP had its way and if it were in government, it would have its way, we would find there would be nothing on the shelves. That is what it wants to do. It wants to control the lives of consumers, drive up taxpaying costs and disrespecting Canadians through this. 
We have established a voluntary approach. It focuses on three main pillars. The first is awareness and education for consumers. It is clear that the Conservative government respects Canadians and respects the ability of Canadians to make proper choices. 
The second pillar is the provision of guidance to the industry to reduce sodium in processed foods. This is a voluntary approach, but at the same time one that will make changes. We have seen this work in other areas, including the transportation industry, consumer groups and food safety issues. It does work and it works in such a way that industry members have an opportunity to do so in a consumer-minded and commercial-minded approach that makes sense and does not shut them down and take all of these processed foods off the store shelves. 
The third pillar is proper research. This government has done a lot of investment in research and development, not just in the aerospace industry, not just in the transportation industry, not just in the criminal situation where we need to make sure we have proper laws that are not too draconian, but send criminals to jail because they have done wrong things and the public needs protection. Research is very important, especially in food safety and looking at consumers and consumers' patterns of eating, especially Canadians because we are a little different. 
We have the far north and some other areas that frankly need to be more careful in relation to the amount of food they eat and what types of food they have. I highly recommend fresh fruits and vegetables and proper foods like that, regularly going to a marketplace and having the food come in every two or three days. Many European nations and other nations do this. They do not buy in large bulk like Canadians do and like we had to do as a result of our heritage. They buy regularly every day and that is why they have sometimes a much better source of food than we do in Canada.
Focusing on these three areas, we are clearly working to respect Canadians' views, but also to lower Canadians' sodium intake to 2,300 milligrams per day by 2016. This is an ambitious target, but by educating consumers and Canadians we can do that.
This is an approach that is already showing progress. We have had success in this area in meeting its target. As a result of that, in the small amount of time we have taken to do this, it shows that this government's approach is clearly working. Data recently collected from samples of breads, breakfast cereals and canned soups show that sodium levels have been reduced by about 10% overall in these products.
I find very interesting that the NDP members vote against, for instance, infrastructure projects and all the economic action plans that the Conservative government brought forward. They vote against jobs. They sent a delegation to Washington to shut down the oil sands industry, to shut down the jobs that Canadians are working in, to shut down the manufacturing industry in Ontario and Quebec that supplies somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40% to 50% of the jobs outside of Alberta that are working in the oil sands. It is shocking that they would try to shut down Canadian jobs, that they would vote against action plans to create employment and infrastructure and a higher quality of life in Canada, yet they want to control the amount of salt that Canadians eat. Quite frankly, it is ridiculous.
Bill C-460 unfortunately does not acknowledge the work that has already been done and the positive changes that are coming out. It just criticizes. I would like to focus today on the costs especially.
 I know I do not have a lot of time because I have a lot to say about the bill because of the ludicrous nature of it. This would be a significant cost to taxpayers and how do we maintain that? Well, the government has to maintain it. The government has to maintain it on a continuous basis and keep it up-to-date. I think it would be underutilized, if at all utilized, by Canadians and would cost a lot of money. The only people who would actually know what is on the website, because those would be the only people able to use it, are government people who are inputting the data. I just do not think it makes sense.
By mandating the levels of sodium in food products, manufacturers would also be forced to reformulate their product in a very quick fashion. That is not how it works. Frankly, as I said before, they would end up pulling the product off the shelf until they could conform properly because it is an issue of food safety as well. They would be changing the products that go into their food because they would have to, as a result of the NDP bill. It would mean so many disruptions to Canadians' lives and accomplish absolutely nothing.
It is clear that Canadians made a choice in the last election. They voted for a Conservative government so that we can continue to operate as they want us to do, continue to respect Canadians, continue to allow them to make their own educated choices, but to make sure at the same time that they have the ability to understand what they are consuming and be able to understand what choices they are making.
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will follow a proven formula based largely on the empirical nature of the matter before us.
In my analysis of the bill respecting the implementation of the sodium reduction strategy for Canada, I will focus on detailing the true impact and omnipresence of fast food and the hold that junk food lobby groups have over northern communities.
My remarks will be informed by my own experience and by the 2012 meeting with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter, to which some of my colleagues and I were invited.
During the meeting, I made a point of providing certain documents and photographs to the United Nations representative. The photographs showed how some fast food lobby groups have a monopolistic hold over my own community. 
At the risk of repeating myself, I come from a community located on the 52nd parallel, where food transportation costs are quite high. Oddly enough, some of the least healthful food products, such as soft drinks, are available for ridiculously low prices in my home community. One of the photographs I provided depicted the cost of soft drinks.
For example, a two-litre soft drink costs $.99 during heat waves in July, but a pint of milk costs about $4 or $5. 
I mentioned soft drinks, but the same is true of products high in sodium, such as chips. It is a shame that this example comes up so often. 
During my early university years, I worked for the parks service when I went home in the summer. I had to pick up trash from sandbanks—grass does not grow particularly well where I am from. I had to pick up trash, and most of the trash I saw was fast food packaging, especially chip bags.
As I have already said several times, children in my community enjoy an unusual degree of freedom. Unfortunately, there is a dark side to that. Young people with a few dollars in their pockets automatically spend their money on chips, soft drinks and cakes to feed themselves, because parental supervision is often lacking.
That is why some elementary school children are overweight and morbidly obese. This is a real problem in my community. It also explains why so many aboriginal people have health conditions with a high mortality rate. These conditions are associated with diabetes and fairly high blood glucose levels, among other things.
The spectre of diabetes hangs over the everyday lives of many aboriginal social groups and is inextricably linked to access to prepared foods. As I mentioned, the cost of these products is ridiculously low in my community.
However, I also took advantage of Mr. De Schutter's visit to mention the fact that beverages with a high alcohol content of 10% and 11% are sold in 1.2 litre quantities in my community. There is a very good chance that these beverages are sold to specific target markets and that lobby groups have done market studies and found that there was a very high demand for these products in aboriginal communities.
I doubt very much that the same type of product could be found in Westmount, for example. One might be able to find them in the east end of Montreal. These products are sold to specific target markets, and suppliers are well aware that there is a high demand for them in these communities. As a result, very powerful lobby groups will simply support the sale of these products at a low cost in my community.
The World Health Organization estimates that one-fifth of the deaths in high-income countries—nearly 48,000 deaths a year in Canada—are caused by preventable nutrition-related conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer, which result from a high sodium intake, high blood cholesterol and blood glucose levels, an insufficient intake of fruits and vegetables and excess abdominal fat.
Proportionately, these problems are much more common in aboriginal communities. The traditional diet of aboriginal peoples did not include processed and prepared foods.
Fifty or 60 years ago, the Innu and Naskapi, whose communities were north of the 52nd parallel, lived in the traditional way. They went into the forest and survived on game and food found there. Their diet did not include all the high-sodium, high-sugar prepared foods. That is why in 2013 we are seeing this deplorable situation. It is not in keeping with the traditional diet that the Innu and Naskapi are more or less adapted to.
Let me give you a personal example. I worked for my band council for two years. Every year, health care professionals met with community leaders, as well as officials and members of the community's administration. The health professionals set up seven or eight kiosks in the community hall. All band council employees had to undergo testing at each kiosk. They took blood, tested our glucose levels, measured our body fat, and assessed our VO2 Max. Basically, they tried to get an overall picture of everyone's health. Every employee had to do it.
I myself took all of these tests during my years on the band council. After undergoing all of these tests, a health care professional was happy to tell me that she was going to give me a medal at some point that day, because I was the only one who had achieved balanced test results.
This has many implications, especially considering that the band council had about 70 employees. That day, I was the big winner. I am not saying this to boast. I had to come clean and I told her that I was taking medication and pills to try to reduce my body mass index. They were non-prescription drugs and supplements. So, the test results were false. I had the same lifestyle as everyone else in my community and I did not eat well. I was aware of the problem. When I started eating a healthy diet, everything balanced itself out. 
Despite some efforts that have been made by various food stakeholders in Canada in response to concerns linked to high sodium levels, it is up to government bodies to implement measures to reduce Canadians' daily sodium intake from 3,400 mg to 2,300 mg.
The 2,300 mg limit is applied automatically by many private entities that use this limit as a guideline. Some industry stakeholders and certain corporations in the food industry know that, although it may not be mandatory, limiting sodium intake is necessary to maintain balance and a healthy weight. They will automatically use that guideline even though it has not yet been implemented.
Yesterday, I was reading a report by the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association that mentioned these voluntary measures taken by certain industries, retailers and restaurant owners.
I submit this respectfully. 
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today at the end of the second hour of debate on Bill C-460 to have the last five minutes to respond to the debate.
First, I would like to thank all of the members on all sides of the House who have participated in this debate. Many members have participated with great passion and vigour, and certainly the issue before us is a very important one. In fact, I would argue that this is probably the most critical public issue that is facing us today. 
It is very interesting to note that there has been an incredible amount of media attention on the need for sodium reduction. There are major articles in the press every day. It is something that is of great concern to many people in Canada.
I am looking at a recent article in The Globe and Mail, which says, “Health Canada's voluntary, unsupervised guidelines for the food industry aren't adequate to the task, say health experts and advocates”. 
The article quotes Kevin Willis, the director of partnerships at the Canadian Stroke Network, who said:
 We don't have data available in a transparent way that we can monitor that these changes are actually occurring. Government could require companies to make that information available so it can be verified. It's all part of the transparent monitoring process. 
I have to say that in the development of this bill there has been an incredible amount of support across the country, and some of the organizations have been mentioned here in the debate today. I particularly want to thank Dr. Norm Campbell, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada CIHR chair in hypertension prevention and control, and Bill Jeffery, national coordinator for the Centre for Science in the Public Interest. These two individuals have been just incredible, both here on the Hill and in providing information, education and awareness. I think they have spoken volumes about the critical need to have this bill move forward at second reading. 
I have listened to the arguments from the Conservative members, and I want to reiterate that this is actually a very straightforward bill. Again, this bill would implement the sodium reduction strategy that was developed not by me or by any member in this House, but by an expert working group in 2010. The purpose of this bill is to make sure that the guidelines and strategy that were devised are actually followed through.
 As we have heard from many members in this House, the non-action, the pathetic lack of leadership from the government on the sodium reduction strategy and its disbanding of the sodium working group have really been quite shocking. As many people I have spoken to in the community and some organizations have told me, at one point Canada was the leader in the world, and other countries looked to Canada to take leadership. However, that situation has now been completely reversed. We are so far behind on this issue and on many other public health issues that it really is very disturbing.
In arguments we have heard today, in fact, we have heard members who wanted to ridicule the bill and make fun of it and come up with jokes. That was very perplexing. It makes me wonder if they know of the major organizations in support of this bill. They have done the research, they are the experts, and they believe this bill is sound. Do the Conservatives not understand that the Canadian public want to see the Canadian government take leadership?
Some members referred to a survey that was done. A very recent survey was done by the University of Toronto in March of this year. It tells us that 78% of Canadians support setting maximum sodium levels in food sold in grocery stores and that 76% agreed that warning labels and statements should be displayed so that people have the information they need.
I want to end by saying that other countries are doing what needs to be done. Recently South Africa announced that it is now going to require regulations for sodium reduction that have to be met by June 2016. Many other countries have taken much more significant action than Canada has. 
At the end of the day, I think we have to ask ourselves a question: are we committed to the health of Canadians and to preventing the deaths that are now taking place? Will we ensure the health of Canadians in the future? If so, then this bill is one concrete measure that would allow that to happen. 
I urge all members of the House to read the bill properly, to look at who is supporting it and to support it at second reading so that we can look at it in committee, where we can address any issues or concerns that may exist. I urge members to vote to support the bill in principle.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 2:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. 
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. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the nays have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 8, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
 It being 2:32 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:32 p.m.)