2013-12-06

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2Hon. John Duncan:  moved that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to highlight many of the pro-growth and job creation measures in Bill C-4, economic action plan 2013 act no. 2, which is a very important piece of legislation for our government. 
We all recognize that during the global economic recession and throughout the recovery, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among G7 countries. Indeed, since the depths of the global economic recession, Canada's economy has created over one million net new jobs, nearly 90% of which are full-time, with over 80% in the private sector.
This morning, in fact, Statistics Canada announced that 21,600 net new jobs were created in the month of November, which is great news. Not only did this job growth beat market expectation, but solid gains were made in the manufacturing sector, where 24,900 new jobs were created. This continues Canada's strong job creation record, which is the best in the entire G7 by far. 
 It is not only that, but Canada's unemployment rate is at its lowest level since December 2008 and remains below that of the U.S. This is a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades.
However, that is not all. 
All the major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch, Standard and Poor's, have affirmed Canada's rock solid AAA credit rating. It is worth mentioning that Canada is one of only a handful of countries that can boast this top-notch rating. We can do this, thankfully, because the Conservative government understands the meaning of fiscal responsibility.
Indeed, when Standard and Poor's affirmed Canada's AAA rating on November 13, here is what it had to say:
 The ratings on Canada reflect its strong public institutions, prosperous and resilient economy, fiscal and monetary flexibility, and effective policymaking. [...] Canada's success in the past decade in achieving credible monetary and fiscal policy, along with its openness to trade...will continue to support its economic performance. 
Unlike other countries, Canada has found the right balance between efforts to support job creation and economic growth by respecting commitments to reduce deficits and return to balanced budgets in 2015. While many European countries, and even the United States, continue to struggle with their national debts, Canada is in the best fiscal position in the G7. In fact, Canada's net debt to GDP ratio was 34.6% in 2012, the lowest level in the G7 by far. Germany was second lowest, and closest to Canada, at 57.2%. If members are still not impressed, how about this: the G7 average is 90.4%.
While the Liberals may want to engage in reckless spending, our government is on track to return to balanced budgets by 2015. 
Most importantly, unlike the previous Liberal government, we will balance the budget without slashing transfers for health care and education. Our Conservative government rejects that shameful practice and is protecting and growing transfers to help support the services that Canadian families depend on. Unlike the previous Liberal government, we understand that if we make government more efficient and control program spending, we can reduce the deficit while still increasing transfers.
As was recently outlined in the government's annual financial report in 2012-13, the deficit fell to $18.9 billion, which was down by more than one-quarter; that is $7.4 billion from the deficit of $26.3 billion in 2011-12, and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009-10. The Liberals might be interested to know that the reductions in direct program spending played a key role in this outcome. Indeed, expenses fell by 1.2% from the prior year and by 3.8% from 2010-11. 
Our government will also balance the budget without raising taxes. Unlike the high-tax NDP and Liberals, our Conservative government believes in low taxes and leaving more money where it belongs, in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job-creating businesses.
The opposition may be interested to know that since 2006 we have cut taxes over 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. In fact, our strong record of tax relief has meant that savings for a typical family of four, in 2013, totals nearly $3,400. This includes cutting the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%, increasing the amount Canadians can earn without paying tax, and introducing pension income splitting for seniors. It also includes measures like reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, which has put an estimated $1,000 back in the pockets of average families. This is a measure that both the Liberals and the NDP opposed. 
That is not all. It includes introducing measures like the working income tax benefit, and the tax-free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since RRSPs. Overall, we have removed over one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls.
Keeping taxes low also helps the businesses in our communities grow and succeed. That is why, since 2006 we have consistently reduced the tax burden for small businesses. This includes reducing the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, while at the same time increasing the small business limit to $500,000. In fact, our government's low-tax plan has resulted in over $28,000 in savings for the typical small business. 
The NDP and Liberals might not understand how the economy works, but lower taxes not only encourage businesses to innovate and grow, it also makes Canada a more attractive destination in which to invest. As a matter of fact, Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7. 
To question whether this is having a positive impact, one need only look at the facts. Both the independent International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, project that Canada will have the strongest growth among the G7 in the years ahead. Last week, Statistics Canada announced that the Canadian economy grew 2.7% in the third quarter of 2013. This represents the ninth consecutive quarter of economic growth in Canada and is an encouraging sign that Canada's economy is on the right track.
However, while this is certainly encouraging news, we cannot become complacent. While economic conditions are improving, there are still too many Canadians out of work. The global economy looks fragile, especially in the U.S. and Europe, both among our largest trading partners. This is why our Conservative government remains focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and growing the economy. That is exactly what today's legislation is all about.
Bill C-4 would implement key measures from economic action plan 2013, which would help support job creation and growth in communities across the country. One such measure is the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small business. The history of this credit illustrates our government's commitment to small business in Canada.
Indeed, in economic action plan 2011 our government first introduced the hiring credit for small business, which provided up to $1,000 to help defray the cost of hiring new workers. In fact, the credit was so successful that we extended it again in economic action plan 2012. 
As I mentioned earlier, the economy is showing encouraging signs of growth. At the same time, there is still a large amount of uncertainty in the global economy. We have heard these concerns from business owners. That is why economic action plan 2013 and Bill C-4 extend and expand the hiring credit for small business.
As a result of this legislation, the credit provides for up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2013 EI premiums over that paid in 2012. It applies to employers with total EI premiums of $15,000 or less in 2012, an increase from the previous level of $10,000. Extending this credit would benefit over 560,000 employers, providing them with an estimated $225 million in tax relief in 2013. 
As the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said recently: 
 The big change for small business is the extension and expansion of the EI hiring credit. [...] That's really good news.... 
That was from March 21, 2013, on the CTV News channel. 
Clearly, our Conservative government recognizes the vital role that small businesses play in the economy and job creation. That is why we are committed to helping them grow and succeed.
On that note, there are many other measures in Bill C-4 that will support small businesses across Canada.
 Bill C-4 increases and indexes to inflation the lifetime capital gains exemption. Not only will increasing the exemption from $750,000 to $800,000 make investing in small businesses more attractive, it will make it easier for entrepreneurs of today to transfer their family businesses to the entrepreneurs of tomorrow.
Our government also wants to ensure that the value of this exemption is preserved over time. That is why Bill C-4 will index the exemption to inflation for the first time ever. Overall, this will provide an estimated $5 million in tax relief in 2013-14, and $15 million in 2014-15.
However, there are still more measures in Bill C-4 that support Canadian job creators.
Bill C-4 provides tax relief to encourage more businesses to invest in clean energy generation, by expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance. 
The message is simple: keeping taxes low helps attract investment, allows our businesses to expand their operations and to hire more workers. It also helps Canadian families keep more money in their pockets. At the end of the day, Canadians know best how to spend their hard-earned money.
How can we keep taxes low if people are gaming the system and exploiting tax loopholes? Our government does not think it is fair when a select few businesses and individuals avoid paying their fair share. That is why economic action plan 2013 introduces a number of measures to close tax loopholes and address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and reduce international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
When it comes to closing tax loopholes, our record speaks for itself. Since 2006, including measures in economic plan 2013, our government has closed over 75 tax loopholes. Bill C-4 includes some of these measures, such as eliminating the unintended tax benefits from character conversion transactions and 10/8 arrangements. It also includes a number of measures to strengthen the ability of the Canada Revenue Agency, the CRA, to crack down on tax cheats and combat international tax evasion.
Overall, the actions in economic action plan 2013 to close tax loopholes and improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system will provide about $350 million in savings in 2013-14, rising to over $1.2 billion 2017-18, for a total of $4.4 billion over the next five years.
Protecting Canada's tax base is essential, as Canadians need to have confidence in their tax system. They need to know it is fair.
Unfortunately, the Liberals and NDP do not seem to share this view. While our government has worked hard to close over 75 tax loopholes, the NDP and Liberals have voted against each of these measures each and every time. I have to ask what the NDP and Liberals have against closing tax loopholes.
However, there is no reason to worry. While the Liberals and NDP work to protect these tax loopholes, our government is committed to ensuring that Canadians have a fair and neutral tax system that keeps everyone on a level playing field. Indeed, Canadians can rest assured that our government will continue to take action to close loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
Our government is also taking steps to crack down on those who are trying to defraud taxpayers. It has come to the attention of the CRA that certain retailers have been using electronic sales suppression software, also known as “zappers”, to selectively delete or modify sales transactions in their computer systems. By engaging in this practice, certain taxpayers are avoiding the payment of their fair share of taxes. That is why Bill C-4 introduced new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to target those who use, manufacture or possess this type of software.
The Canadian Restaurant and Food Service Association welcomed this, saying:
 These measures appropriately target the producers, installers, and users of sales-distorting software, while supporting the competitiveness of Canada's hard-working small business community, among them 81,000 restaurants, the vast majority of which pay their taxes and operate in full transparency. 
It is important that our government crack down on these types of activities. When some businesses cheat, everyone loses, but when everyone plays by the rules and pays their fair share, we can keep taxes low.
On that note, I would like to quickly conclude my remarks by saying that I hope the opposition will support these measures and Bill C-4. It is clear that these measures will help grow Canada's economy and will create jobs for Canadians. If the opposition members decide to oppose these measures, as they have done so many times in the past, I hope, at the very least, that they will stop advocating for high taxes.
I must admit that I was very sad to hear just last week that the leader of the NDP confirmed that he would impose a crippling tax hike on job creators, even as they continue to cope with a challenging global economy.
The simple fact remains that we cannot tax our way to prosperity. Thankfully, our Conservative government understands that low taxes promote economic growth and job creation.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I serve in the Standing Committee on Finance, for his speech.
This speech is not very different from all the other ones we have heard on Bill C-4. When the Conservatives deign to rise and speak, they usually just rehash the same old arguments, the same script written for everyone.
I would like to correct what the member said. He is very well aware that the NDP and even the third party are in favour of eliminating tax loopholes. We would like the government to act much more forcefully to prevent tax avoidance. My colleague knows this, since he sits on Standing Committee on Finance.
The arguments presented here to tout the government's record contain elements that the government often chooses to ignore. For example, the austerity measures and provisions for deep cuts in Bill C-4, as well as the other budget bills in the last two years, have a negative impact on the economy. The Parliamentary Budget Officer spoke about this. An International Monetary Fund report released just two weeks ago shows that the budget cuts and various austerity measures enacted by the government will reduce the potential GDP by 0.2% per year. This is very close to the numbers quoted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
I would like to hear the member's comments on this question: when I talked about the impact of certain measures included in Bill C-4, for example the phasing-out of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, his colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River replied that this was a good measure because it would create jobs in his province of Saskatchewan. This measure will eliminate 20,000 jobs in Quebec, which depend on the impact of these labour-sponsored funds. 
 I would like the member to tell me whether the government's strategy consists of promoting job creation and growth in some regions at the expense of other regions.
[Interjection]
Dave Van Kesteren: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member across the way so rightly pointed out, we share a spot on the finance committee, and I have great respect for the member.
I would disagree, though. I mentioned in my speech that it is impossible for us to spend our way out of this position. The austerity measures the member mentioned are very modest.
We saw the massive unemployment after 2008-09 and saw the losses in the private sector. The government had to look at the public sector to see if there were some measures we could trim. 
I know the hon. member shares those opinions. There are economists who feel that austerity will heighten and worsen the situation. I believe that what we have experienced in this country and in the western world is a spending problem, and it is incumbent on governments to address that and do what is necessary.
I just want to say again that the measures we have taken have been quite modest, but they were necessary.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, walking into the House, it was encouraging to see the white ribbons we are all wearing today in recognition of the massacre that occurred at École Polytechnique back in 1989 on December 6. I would emphasize how important it is that we never forget it.
Having said that, I take issue with my colleague's comments from across the way when he says that Liberals, and in brackets, the NDP too, really do not understand jobs and deficits. I should remind the member that whether it was under Paul Martin or Jean Chrétien, the Liberals created more jobs than the current Conservative government. There was more small business investment from coast to coast to coast under previous governments than under the current government. In fact, it was the Jean Chrétien government that got rid of the massive billion dollar deficit created by the Brian Mulroney government. Not only did we get rid of that deficit, but when we handed over the books to the current government back in 2006, we provided a multibillion dollar surplus. It was not just the debt issue. We also provided a multibillion dollar trade surplus. A trade surplus equals thousands of jobs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Does the member not recognize good, solid policy when he sees it? Look at the facts. If he wants to look at good governance, all he needs to do is look at the most recent years prior to the Conservative government. He would recognize that there were balanced budgets, surpluses, job creation, and a trade deficit, which was a lot healthier for Canada back then.
[Interjection]
Dave Van Kesteren: Mr. Speaker, I would love to answer that. I think he walked right into that one.
The fact of the matter is that he is correct. The former Liberal government did slash that deficit, which was massive in its time. However, it did so on the backs of the provinces. The Liberals made cuts to health care. We still feel the reverberations today. They practically eliminated the military as we know it today.
They did manage to do those things. We, however, and I brought this out in my speech, managed to do it by lowering taxes. The member is absolutely correct; there were some strong years of growth in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In those years, there was a budget surplus. We took those moneys and applied them to the national debt to the tune of $39 billion so that when we were faced with the global incident we now know as the great recession, we were able to weather it much better.
I would agree that it is important to erase those deficits, but the right way to do it is to lower taxes and to manage properly.
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-4 introduced by the Conservatives is another undemocratic omnibus bill. What is more, the government has moved a time allocation motion to limit debate.
Once again, there was not enough time in committee to study the ins and outs of the bill and the negative impact it will have on the everyday lives of Canadians. This is another bill that attacks workers' rights instead of creating jobs. In this case, it is an attack on their right to work in a healthy and safe environment.
I think that nearly all of the members here met with Unifor workers, who came to tell us just how serious an attack this is and how difficult it was for them to refuse to work in dangerous situations. They feel that this bill makes it more difficult to refuse work when there never used to be an issue between the employers and the employees.
How can the member opposite justify those provisions, which now put workers at greater risk?
[Interjection]
Dave Van Kesteren: Mr. Speaker, the budget consultation last year was an extensive process, as it was this year. We heard from an enormous number of people. Not only did we hear from them at committee, we were given many other submissions, which the committee looked as well. It was on these recommendations and findings that the budget was created in the spring of this year. 
The budget implementation we are now debating and that the member says we are rushing through has taken a year. These things must be debated and have been at quite some length. The finance committee spent a significant amount of time working on this. It is the process we go through, and it must be done. I believe that we are prepared to look at this, and we are prepared to vote on it. I hope the members would also vote for this budget.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-4. We do not have much time to debate it, despite what my colleague said, given that we have only one day for third reading debate. I am referring, of course, to the second budget implementation bill. 
First of all, as we have already heard a few times, including during questions and comments this morning, it is worth reminding the House that this is another omnibus bill, at least the fourth one of its kind to be considered by the Standing Committee on Finance, where I was directly involved. 
In order for an omnibus bill to really be effective, it must contain consistent measures. A budget bill should include budgetary measures, amendments to the Income Tax Act, for example, or the Excise Tax Act. We could understand such measures being in an omnibus bill. 
However, the omnibus bill before us has practically everything in it. The Conservatives included measures that amend the process for selecting judges from Quebec for the Supreme Court, to correct an error they made. Furthermore, the bill contains measures dealing with workplace health and safety, as well as measures that alter the relationship between the government as an employer and the public service as employees.
These measures are extremely important and should be debated individually. Once again, however, despite what my colleague said, we did not have enough time to debate them. Time was very limited, particularly at the Standing Committee on Finance. A time limit on the debate was imposed from the very beginning of the committee's examination of the bill.
Three meetings were scheduled to study such an important bill that will add, eliminate or amend about 70 different acts. We heard from five witnesses during the first panel, which took about an hour and 45 minutes, and we heard from five witnesses during the second panel,which took less than an hour and 15 minutes. The Minister of Finance addressed the committee, but he did not really answer questions, as he often asked his officials to respond. Then four other witnesses spoke for about an hour and 15 minutes. We heard from an additional 13 witnesses over a three-hour period. 
That is the extent of the study that was done of the imposing and important Bill C-4, just like all of the other budget implementation bills.
The Conservatives have a habit of ramming various measures down our throats, and most of them have absolutely nothing to do with the budget process and were not even in the budget that the Minister of Finance tabled in March.
This tendency has been criticized by several extremely credible organizations, which leads me to wonder why the government continues to do this. We heard some very interesting evidence in that regard. There is a generalized sense of frustration among experts and Canadians who are worried and concerned about the state of our democracy.
For example, the Canadian Bar Association gave a presentation on this. No one here can dispute the credibility of that organization. I will quote what the representatives told the Standing Committee on Finance:
 All parties are now disadvantaged as they hastily review unexpected and unexplained changes in Bill C-4. The concern is compounded when those changes arrive in omnibus legislation, as the opportunity for serious reflection and debate is minimal. The [Canadian Bar Association] Section believes that eschewing consultation and employing omnibus bills diminish the quality of our laws and the democratic process. We urge you to reconsider these practices. 
I do not know how we could make it any clearer that the kind of omnibus bills the government has been introducing for the past three years distort the democratic process and force members of Parliament to vote on bills that have a lot of flaws and deserve closer attention.
The Association of Justice Counsel agrees. The judicial process is at the heart of what they do. They testified at the Standing Committee on Finance, which is never mentioned by the government. This is what they said:
 By virtue of introducing these changes under the umbrella of a budget bill, the government has effectively sidestepped the much-needed consultation process with stakeholders. The scope of this Bill, combined with the very short time span, is unduly pressuring elected officials to make uninformed decisions without the benefit of a solid understanding and healthy discussion and debate. 
When the government tries to claim that there were wide consultations, extensive debates and all kinds of presentations in committee or the House, and that we had time for exhaustive discussion, I have to say that I have some serious doubts.
Omnibus bills like this one have a huge impact. They are introduced very quickly with a minimal amount of consultation. Since these bills have a broad scope and there is little time for discussion, they can contain serious errors that the government is then forced to fix.
We saw an example of this a year or a year and a half ago. The government had introduced an omnibus crime bill. We told the government that some of the measures in Bill C-10 were quite problematic.
We told the government precisely how it should amend the bill. We did not agree with the scope of the bill, but we made proposals in the House and in committee. The government said no and had the omnibus crime bill passed very quickly.
After the bill passed, the Conservatives realized that the opposition was right, that the bill contained a very harmful measure. Do you know what they did? Instead of admitting their mistake, they turned to the Senate to fix the mistake. Once the bill was amended in the Senate, the government brought it back to the House. 
The same thing is happening here with the budget bills. The last budget bill contained a measure that affected caisses populaires and credit unions by changing their tax rate from 11% to 15%, effectively eliminating the 4% advantage they had. We felt that the caisses populaires and credit unions deserved that leg up given their mandate. They are not-for-profit organizations, unlike the banks, and they play a major role in local economies. 
For extremely complex technical reasons, this change did not simply shift the tax rate from 11% to 15%. The tax rate actually increased from 11% to 28% for caisses populaires and credit unions. 
We had very little time to study the bill and therefore did not have the opportunity to address this technicality. The government realized that there was a mistake.
The bill before us contains a measure that corrects the tax rate and brings it back down to 15%. Nevertheless, this mistake should not have gone through in the first place. I wonder how many of these technical mistakes are in bills that we have had to pass hastily over the past two years.
Bill C-4 contains numerous measures. As I mentioned, the bill adds, eliminates or amends 70 acts. We are opposed to many of these measures. We agree with some of the government's efforts. There is no problem with the fight against tax havens and tax loopholes. If people look carefully into the testimony and interventions before the Standing Committee on Finance, they will see that we support this measure and indeed find that the government is not going far enough.
This bill has some extremely harmful measures. I find it really interesting that in their speeches the Conservatives talk in very general terms about how their budget bill and their government have such a positive impact. However, they only talk about those tax issues they support.
In 2008, the Conservative government established the Employment Insurance Financing Board. It was supposed to be a means of correcting the Liberal government's misuse of the EI fund in the 1990s. We are talking about $57 billion. 
The Conservatives did not promise to put this amount in an independent employment insurance fund, but they promised to correct the situation and ensure that such a thing would never happen again. They created the Employment Insurance Financing Board to set EI premiums and to determine EI benefits and eligibility criteria. 
We are now in 2013, only to find that this bill contains a proposal to eliminate the Employment Insurance Financing Board, which has been essentially an empty shell since it was created in 2008-09.
We heard testimony from some public servants. They said that, ultimately, the minister will be given significant discretionary power so that he can decide on issues such as premiums, benefits and eligibility.
There is a recurring theme in the government's budget bills, and that is the fact that they give more power to the minister, whether it is the Minister of Employment and Social Development with regard to employment insurance or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with regard to changes to the system. The budget bill contains an amendment that will affect immigration and refugees.
Certain provisions will give the minister more discretionary power. Ministers are consistently assuming more and more power, and that poses serious problems. The Association of Justice Counsel commented on the Conservative government's tendency to centralize power in the hands of cabinet. That power used to be more spread out and dispersed among various experts and functions. The witness from the Association of Justice Counsel had this to say:
 The government holds all the keys to the legislative closet. They hold all those cards, to use that analogy. The whole point of having a choice and giving that choice to the unions in terms of what route they choose was to recognize that unions are stacked when they're dealing with the government. We're not dealing with Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola can't draft legislation and say, “Go back to work”, or, “Here's wage restraint”. This government has used those tools, and our hands are tied. 
Of course, the quotation refers to one element of the bill before us, namely the balance of power between the government as an employer—that is to say, the Treasury Board—and the public service. The government is using the bill to amend various aspects of the bargaining process. For one, it eliminates the possibility of using arbitration.
Arbitration is an extremely important tool when a government or an employer and an employee cannot come to an agreement. They may agree to have someone else make the decision for them. That is what arbitration is. The government is taking away that option.
Consequently, if the government wants to provoke a dispute with the public service for political reasons, for example, it can do just that. That poses a significant problem for government operations and for the system that provides public services. If the government wishes to provoke that kind of dispute, it will have a much easier time doing so now that the arbitration process has been amended.
Furthermore, the government is giving itself the right to define essential services, even after the fact. The government will be able to declare that a given area of the government, where a labour dispute might be happening, is now an essential service and therefore does not have the right to strike or use any kind of job action. The balance of power has shifted completely in favour of the employer, who happens to be the legislator. Thus, this is a huge conflict of interest for the government, but it chooses to ignore that fact, for purely political reasons.
I also referred to another aspect of Bill C-4 that I find completely appalling. There was a lot of media attention around the fact that the government made a colossal blunder when it appointed Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court to represent Quebec. Now the government is trying to correct that blunder after the fact by adding a measure to the omnibus budget bill. My comments have nothing to do with Justice Nadon's competency as a possible Supreme Court judge. However, the fact remains that the government really erred in this matter, as many experts agree. The government has included a measure to correct this process in a budget bill—a measure we will not be able to examine in detail. When measures like this are included, it makes it very difficult to see the relevance of the legislative process in terms of the budget.
A retroactive measure like this one will not make people forget the blunder, nor will it actually correct the government's blunder in this matter.
I talked about the attack on worker protection. Something else I would like to talk about is the issue of phasing out the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. The government members know exactly where I stand on this issue.
This measure affects Quebec in particular because 90% of this tax credit goes to Quebeckers. 
Once again, to clarify, this tax credit does not go to the funds. It does not go to big speculators, but to small investors. More than 600,000 Quebeckers save regularly for their retirement by investing in a program that is really like an RRSP. Instead of investing in speculative funds or mutual funds, where the money does not go directly to job creators, they invest in labour funds that work hand in hand with private venture capital funds and go directly into the Quebec economy. 
This money is used to save businesses that need a hand during difficult times or a recession or to start up new companies, especially in very important emerging areas that promote innovation, research and development. I am referring to the medical and pharmaceutical fields and new technologies. 
The Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN specialize in these areas and work with private venture capital funds.
There is good reason why, the day after the government announced in its budget that it would phase out the tax credit, Canada's Venture Capital &amp; Private Equity Association said it was opposed to this measure, even though the government is also creating a venture capital action plan.
Other associations, such as the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Regroupement des jeunes chambres de commerce du Québec and the Manufacturiers et exportateurs du Québec are also opposed to the phasing-out of this tax credit. 
Even the witnesses that the government invited to praise the injection of $400 million and the creation of the venture capital action plan supported the opposition's arguments against phasing out the tax credit. They said that it did not make sense for the government to reject the agreement proposed by the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN.
That astounds me because the government had the opportunity to really make its venture capital action plan relevant and effective.
The two funds proposed an agreement with the government if it would decide to not go ahead with the phase-out. Under the agreement, the funds would voluntarily put a cap on their share issuing to save the government 30% in tax expenditures—in other words, the government would offer 30% less in tax credits. The funds would also inject the equivalent of $2 billion into the government's venture capital action plan.
The government is investing only $400 million. That is all. The funds proposed that they would invest the equivalent of $2 billion not only in Quebec but throughout the country.
I strongly believe that this model works in an area where Canada is lagging behind the other OECD countries. We are at the back of the pack. Quebec is a leading country as a result of the creation and administration of these funds. Of course, Quebec is not a country, but it is one of the leading jurisdictions in the OECD, ranking just below Israel and the United States when it comes to the amount of managed venture capital as a share of its GDP, its economy. 
The proportion of managed venture capital in Quebec is nearly three times greater than the Canadian average and more than four times greater than Ontario's. The government should take note and learn from what happened in Ontario when it eliminated its tax credit. It got rid of it. That has been quite harmful to Ontario since its investment in venture capital, its amount of managed venture capital, has decreased steadily since the tax credit was eliminated in 2005. Despite having a much larger GDP than Quebec, Ontario's share of managed venture capital is equal to Quebec's in proportion to the total amount of venture capital invested in Canada. Right now, that figure is 36% for both provinces.
In many ways, Bill C-4 does not create jobs; it eliminates them. It stifles economic growth.
The IMF report shows the impact this will have on economic growth. The government should take that into account and take a more serious look at the measures it is proposing. That is why we, on this side of the House, will oppose Bill C-4.
Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques made a very well-organized speech. He makes good arguments, and it is obvious that he has a lot of experience with economic issues.
Recently, we have basically been reduced to launching a campaign about the Conservative government's abandonment of the regions. A number of the points my colleague made were general, but most of his arguments were specifically connected to realities that are more prevalent in rural regions than in other regions.
I would like to give my colleague a chance to expand on what he said and to go into more detail on the consequences that can sometimes be harsher, relatively speaking, for rural regions, especially in eastern Canada. 
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, that is a very relevant question. The measures proposed by this government often affect the regions more than any other area of the country. That was the case.
That is why I responded to the speech made by the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River two days ago. He said that Bill C-4 would create jobs in Saskatchewan, right after I told him that this bill would destroy jobs in Quebec.
The member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and I represent heavily rural regions. Some measures in the bill are absolutely disastrous for the regions, such as the reform of EI, as proposed by the government. Now, the government is going further and abolishing the Employment Insurance Financing Board. These measures hit regions like ours particularly hard, since our economies rely on seasonal employment.
I mentioned general measures. However, some of them affect labour-sponsored funds. The Fonds de solidarité and Fondaction have regional funds that specifically invest venture capital and development capital in areas like Rivière-du-Loup, Rimouski and Gaspé, where private venture capital is lacking compared to other regions.
These measures will hit rural regions very hard.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, one of the issues facing Winnipeg North, and an issue that faces many other constituencies throughout the country as well, is the issue of crime and safety.
We hear a lot from the government about how it wants to get tough on crime. However, what it seems to shy away from is getting tough on the causes of some of these crimes. If it took a more aggressive approach to dealing with some of these causes, it would be more successful at preventing crimes from taking place in the first place.
There is very much we could talk about in the budget, everything from a particular budget line to the amount of legislation that is being brought in through the back door by this budget bill. One thing that concerns people is that the government is not giving enough attention to dealing with the causes of crime in the hope of actually reducing the amount of crime in our communities from coast to coast to coast.
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North and I agree on the issue of prevention, whether we are talking about health and safety or crime. Prevention cannot be taken out of the equation.
I think it is extremely important that we try to reduce health and safety problems. One item in the bill amends the definition of danger at the workplace for organizations that are subject to the Canada Labour Code and runs counter to the notion of prevention. The same goes for crime.
In fact, I have not seen very many government initiatives to promote and enhance crime prevention in order to minimize the consequences.
During the recent debate on supervised injection sites, the government's approach went completely counter not only to the opposition's approach, but also to that of experts and organizations such as the Canadian Medical Association.
Unfortunately, one of the government's biggest flaws since being elected, and especially since winning a majority, is that prevention does not factor in to its approach to dealing with health and safety and crime. 
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague on his speech.
When the NDP develops its policy, it consults many people affected by the bills. Can my colleague say a few words about the people who support our position and provide some supporting figures? 
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Many witnesses support our position on various issues. At one point, we were discussing the gradual elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. I found it very interesting to see the government witnesses—who came to say good things about the government's initiatives—learn about certain aspects of the bill that they had ignored or neglected, such as the agreement proposed by the funds. Once they had that information, the government witnesses told us that we were right and that the government should have accepted those proposals.
With regard to omnibus bills and the use of this tool, this bundle of legislation, to fast-track a number of bills, some knowledgeable organizations, such as the Canadian Bar Association and the Association of Justice Counsel, oppose the government's vision.
From everything we have seen in the most recent bills, the majority of witnesses are not siding with the government. The government invites its own witnesses and, obviously, it will get support for some aspects of its bills. However, the aspects that do get support are often the same ones that we support in committee.
We feel obliged to vote against bills such as Bill C-4 because of all the damage that these bills will cause and the consequences they will have. These are the reasons for our position. We will continue to fight, not only against the process but also against the damage caused by the government.
Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was a privilege to work with him on the Standing Committee on Finance. In addition to being an economist, he is our deputy critic for finance and also for international trade. This shows how much we trust in his expertise and his skills. 
I would like my colleague to tell us about the macroeconomic impact of the upcoming budget. Since the Conservative government came to power, Canada has lost 400,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, among other things. In addition, personal household debt increased, rising to 166%. This is a veritable attack on Canadians.
Could the member please describe the impact of austerity on the Canadian economy and on Canadians? 
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the question because it allows me to elaborate.
In its interventions, the government always talks about the number of jobs that have been created since July 2009. Yes, jobs have been created. However, we were in the depths of the recession in July 2009, which explains the job numbers.
I want to point out two things about these numbers. First, when this government was in opposition, it kept saying that governments do not create jobs. However, this government is taking all the credit for job creation since the depths of the recession, to which it had a delayed reaction.
What is more, if we compare job creation to demographic growth or if we include demographic growth in the equation, we have more unemployed workers today than we did before the recession.
The government's policies are about one thing only, and that is taxation. Lower taxes is the government's leitmotif.
Making good investments can be more advantageous than tax cuts because of the multiplier effect. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and now the International Monetary Fund are deploring the adverse effect that the Conservative government's cuts and austerity measures are having on economic growth.
I hope that the government will take note of that in its next economic forecast.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The time provided for government orders has now expired. We will now proceed to statements by members. 

Statements by Members
BurmaMr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, another atrocity is unfolding, while the world stands by and watches the persecution of Rohingyas in Burma. Violence against Rohingyas has resulted in thousands of men, women and children living in squalid conditions.
 With a lack of sanitation and no medical supplies, the rainy season and disease are claiming lives. Aid has been blocked. Refugees are attacked if they try to leave. Local police have a record of discrimination and violence toward Rohingyas. They have failed to provide any adequate protection. The Rohingyas escaping to Bangladesh are denied even the right to register as refugees in that country.
Canada has called on Burma to take effective action against ethnic violence and religious discrimination. The world must take notice. The world must act now to compel Burma to assist UN access and to end the violence against Rohingyas.
Saint-Bruno Charity DriveMrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to all the volunteers involved in the Saint-Bruno charity drive, who took to the streets last Sunday to collect donations for needy families in Saint-Bruno. Over 1,000 of us volunteered to brave the cold and knock on doors. I would like to commend the people of Saint-Bruno for their generosity. Thanks to them, the Saint-Bruno charity drive broke its own record by raising over $67,000. 
Although much of this success is due to the kindness of the people in my riding, the contribution of the two organizers on whom the charity relies year after year is just as important. Ms. Fleischman and Ms. Lacharité, I sincerely congratulate you on this great achievement and I thank you wholeheartedly for your continued dedication to the needy families of Saint-Bruno. You are remarkable women, and I hope that the Saint-Bruno community can count on you for many years to come.
Religious FreedomMr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last month, South Korean media reported the execution of 80 people in North Korea, killed for among other crimes, possession of a bible. While North Korea may be the most extreme case, unfortunately, it is not the only country in the world that practises religious persecution.
 Religious freedom is an inalienable right deeply intertwined with our other rights. Freedom to proselytize, to convert, to worship are all elements of religious freedom that are denied in dozens of countries around the world. 
Our Government's establishment of the Office of Religious Freedom clearly shows that Canada continues to view religious freedom as a fundamental value. We will continue to promote religious freedom throughout the world. 
Canadian MPs, as individual parliamentarians, must continue to press governments around the world on behalf of the persecuted everywhere.
On behalf of Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan, Chaldean Christians in Iraq and Evangelical Protestants in Vietnam, we owe religious minorities our voice in defending their rights both in Canada and abroad. 
Nelson MandelaHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, people around the world today are remembering the late Nelson Mandela.
During one remarkable trip to Canada, Mandela was walking up Parliament Hill to deliver a speech in the House of Commons. By complete chance, he encountered a group of Metis from Saskatchewan. It too was headed up the Hill to sit in the gallery to hear what this champion of human dignity would have to say.
 As a spontaneous gesture of affection from a group in Canada that had felt the sting of discrimination and disadvantage, one of the Metis took off his traditional sash and presented it to the South African icon. A short while later, Mandela honoured the Metis by wearing that sash in the Canadian Parliament, while he delivered his speech. He knew how much that would mean.
 Nelson Mandela was a beacon of goodness in his own country and his life illuminated the whole world. He changed things for the better and millions are grateful for the hope he inspired. 
Fort St. John Army CadetsMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the young men and women who are serving proudly with the 2276 Fort St. John Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps.
In October, the cadet corps changed its affiliation from the Kamloops-based Rocky Mountain Rangers to the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry based out of Edmonton. The change will mean less travel time and more opportunity for the cadet corps to receive support and to learn from active military personnel.
The cadets will hold their change of affiliation parade this Saturday in Fort St. John to mark the occasion, which is a result of 10 years of hard work.
I congratulate Major Dan Davies, Captain Linda Nielsen, Captain Thor Toms, current commanding officer, Captain Ken Lane, and everyone involved with the Fort St. John army cadets.
Last, I would like to wish everybody a very merry Christmas.
Nelson MandelaHoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the world lost a great man. The tributes from around the world reflect our love for Nelson Mandela.
We drew inspiration from his fight for social justice, for democracy and, above all, for freedom. Despite his 27 years of imprisonment, he chose reconciliation instead of resentment and anger. Through sacrifice, courage and compassion, he brought a nation together to conquer institutionalized racism, apartheid.
South Africa and the entire world have lost a father, but human history has gained a president, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and a great hero.
I wish to end with one of his quotes. It is simple and full of optimism. “It always seems impossible until it's done”.
Halifax ExplosionMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the Halifax explosion that occurred 96 years ago today. The explosion destroyed much of the city of Halifax, the unfortunate result of a collision in the harbour between the SS Imo and the SS Mont Blanc. 
The ensuing explosion travelled at more than 1,000 metres per second, propelling the barrel of one of Mont Blanc's big guns nearly six kilometres away to land in Dartmouth, while part of her anchor landed three kilometres south in Armdale. Every building within 2.6 kilometres, over 12,000 in total, was destroyed or badly damaged. The entire city of Halifax was devastated in what was to become the largest man-made explosion prior to the atomic bomb. Over 1,600 people were killed instantly and another 9,000 were injured. 
Worse yet, the next day a severe nor'easter brought freezing temperatures and heavy snow, making the rescue effort even more difficult. To this day, the province of Nova Scotia sends a 50-foot Christmas tree to Boston every year in recognition of that explosion and the fact that the first relief train to come in with supplies and help arrived from Boston, Massachusetts.
Organ DonationsMr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Minister of Health launched a new social media program and website to help promote organ and tissue donations.
Today, in Canada more than 4,500 people are waiting for organ transplants. Oftentimes the needs of these patients will not be met as too few Canadians are registered donors. Being a registered organ donor is one of the most important things one can do in life. We all have the ability to give the gift of life to others. I urge all members of the House to please visit healthycanadians.gc.ca and spread the word that anywhere in Canada people can register to become a donor and give the gift of life.
During this Christmas season, we celebrate the greatest gift of life that was freely given. The donor gave us a new heart. I would encourage all Canadians to get on Twitter and voice their support by using hashtag giftoflife to help promote this lifesaving campaign this holiday season.
Violence Against WomenMs. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today we mark the 24th anniversary of one of the darkest days in Canadian history. On December 6, 1989, unspeakable horror unfolded on a Montreal campus. In an act of unimaginable cruelty, 14 brilliant young women, in the prime of their lives, were shot dead. They were killed because they were women.
As a mother and grandmother, I want to say for the families of the women who lost their lives that day that we do not forget, we will not forget and we dare not imagine their pain.
 Barbara Klucznik Widajewicz, Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte. We remember and we owe these 14 women nothing less. 
The EconomyMr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting Canadian jobs and economic growth, our Conservative government is on the right track.
Last week, Statistics Canada announced that the Canadian economy grew 2.7% in the third quarter in 2013, the ninth consecutive quarter of economic growth for Canada. What is more, today we learn that almost 22,000 new jobs, largely in the private sector, were created in the month of November. With over one million net new jobs created since the depth of the global economic recession, Canada has the best job growth record in the G7.
However, despite this positive news, the global economy remains fragile and too many Canadians are still out of work. That is why our Conservative government remains focused on the economy and job creation. 
This is in sharp contrast to the NDP, which wants to introduce a $20 billion carbon tax and impose a crippling tax hike on the job creators or the Liberals, whose leader has no plan for the economy.
Nelson MandelaMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today we are a country and a world united in mourning the loss of Nelson Mandela. If ever proof were needed that one person could change the world, Nelson Mandela was that proof.
He was a giant of humanity, one of the great people of our time. Around the world, his name means “freedom”. His commitment to peace and justice embodied those very concepts. He inspired a movement, transformed a nation and allowed us all to believe that a better world was possible.
I grew up following Nelson Mandela. He lost his freedom around the same time I was born. I was one of the countless people inspired by his leadership and by his example. Madiba restored our faith, not only in the power of a just cause, but in politics itself.
Today, let us once again find inspiration in his words, “I dare not linger, for my long walk is not yet ended”. Madiba's walk is done. He is going home, but we must not linger. Our walk continues.
Mr. Peter Braid (Kitchener—Waterloo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the world learned that it had lost one of its most influential, respected and loved leaders. Nelson Mandela ended apartheid and in doing so chose the way of reconciliation and understanding.
Canada is proud to have hosted Nelson Mandela three times through the years. He addressed our Parliament and became the first living person to receive honorary Canadian citizenship in recognition of his moral leadership. We were honoured to present him with a number of accolades, including two Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medals.
Canadians join the people of South Africa, and indeed the world, in mourning and celebrating Nelson Mandela's life. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and all citizens of South Africa.
Nelson Mandela was a great testament to his country and to humanity. It is up to all of us to ensure his great legacy lives on. May he rest in peace.
National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against WomenMr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise today to mark the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
Twenty-four years after the Polytechnique massacre, now more than ever, we must remember the 14 students who were targeted because they were women. Today is an opportunity for each and every one of us to denounce all forms of violence against women loudly and clearly.
December 6 gives us a chance to measure our progress, but more importantly, to look at how much still needs to be done. Let us take a moment to reflect and to remember the 14 victims. Let us also think of those women who have suffered and continue to suffer from all kinds of violence, and let us hope they find the support they need. We must be ever vigilant and always take action to put an end to violence against women.
Violence Against WomenMs. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we remember 14 young smart women who had bright futures ahead, their families and all those who knew them. Each of us in the House hopes their families feel the loving arms of the nation around them.
Those young women were killed that terrible day simply because they were women. That night, all parents held their girls just little bit tighter in their arms. Today, the scars remain. 
Let us honour these young women's memories by being strong women who fight hard for other women and by ending violence here in Canada and around the world.
To the families, we would like them to know that their daughters are not forgotten. They instill courage, they inspire and they remind us all to fight tirelessly to end violence. We profoundly thank these families for sharing their daughters with us and we keep them in our prayers.
Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today we remember the 14 women who were killed in cold blood 24 years ago just because they were women. We will never forget them.
Today we remember with grief the murder of 14 young women, killed because they wanted to live their lives fully. As we remember them, we also commit ourselves to fight against all forms of violence against women and bring justice for those who have fallen, including hundreds of missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada. 
It is not enough to commemorate them. On behalf of these 14 women, it is our duty to continue to fight against all forms of violence and discrimination against women by standing up for rights and gun control, the fight against poverty and justice for missing and murdered aboriginal women.
In memory of all these innocent women, we can do more. We must do more.
Mrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today is Canada's National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Parliament established this day to remember the tragic deaths of 14 young women at École Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989. These victims were targeted simply because they were women. Today also serves to remind Canadians that violence and the threat of violence are daily realities for so many women and girls, and that gender-based violence is not just a woman's issue. It affects all of us and we must all be part of the solution. 
I urge all Canadians to take action, observe a minute of silence, wear a white ribbon or attend one of the many vigils being held across our country. Let us all work together so women and girls can live free of violence. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I invite hon. members to rise and observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the tragic events that took place 24 years ago at the École polytechnique de Montréal. 

Oral Questions
Status of WomenMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of l'École Polytechnique shocked us at the time and 24 years later continues to affect us. Today our thoughts are with the families of the women who lost their lives on December 6,1989, but we also remember that women continue to face violence in their workplaces and in their homes.
Can the minister tell the House what the government's plan is to eradicate violence against women in our communities?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, our hearts and prayers go out to the families of the 14 women.
Our government recognizes that violence against women and girls is a sad reality and takes a heavy toll on individuals and communities. That is why we are taking action across the country to combat violence against women through measures such as greater resources to support victims of crime and protecting aboriginal women, and launching a national action plan to combat human trafficking, just to name a few. 
This was already an atrocious act, but even more so when one considers the motivation that was behind it.
 This government will always stand up for women and girls.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, December 6 is a day of remembrance and action, and words must be backed up with a resolve to act. 
Women continue to be victimized, facing violence at home, work and in their communities. We are still not doing enough to support safe environments for women escaping violence. The tragedy of the missing and murdered indigenous women has affected generations.
Will the minister listen to the victims, listen to their families and agree today to convene a national inquiry?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to women and girls across Canada and we are reminded that violence and the threat of violence remain daily realities for so many women and girls. That is why we are committed to preventing all forms of violence against women and girls throughout Canada. Let us all work together so women and girls can live free of violence. 
Our government has done more for women and girls across Canada than any other government.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that while rates of violent crimes are dropping, the rates of violence against women are not. Being tough on crime must also mean making a priority of protecting women and girls from violence.
Will the minister demonstrate her commitment to ending violence against women and support the motion from the member for Churchill for a national action plan to end violence against women?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, again, our hearts and prayers go out to the families of the 14 women. 
Our government is committed to preventing all forms of violence against women and girls. Since 2007, we have invested over $62 million in funding for over 300 projects to end violence against women and girls. This is the highest level of funding ever in the history of our government.
Hélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, 24 years ago, 14 women were brutally murdered simply because they were women. In the days after this tragedy, we swore to put an end to violence against women, but this violence is unfortunately still a daily reality for far too many Canadian women.
When will the government create a real national strategy to combat violence against women?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, today also serves to remind Canadians that violence and the threat of violence are daily realities for so many women and girls, and that gender-based violence is not just a women's issue. It affects all of us and we must all be part of the solution.
Our government is committed to preventing all forms of violence against women and girls and we will continue to do so.
Public SafetyHélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, the December 6 tragedy taught us that public safety—not politics—should be the priority when it comes to gun control.
Instead of listening to victims, the police or experts, the Conservatives listen to the gun lobby. I should point out that they just delayed the adoption of firearms marking regulations, which are important in identifying illegal firearms.
When will the Conservatives put public safety before the interests of lobbyists?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first, our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy. Today is a sad reminder of the anniversary. We must continue to act to end the violence against women and girls.
In recognition of all the things we have done to end violence against women and girls, our government has taken strong action to prevent violence and illegal firearms in this country. In fact, we have implemented mandatory sentences for very serious gun crimes. Unfortunately and sadly, the opposition parties have voted against all of that legislation.
International DevelopmentRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, from Diefenbaker to Clark and Mulroney, Canadian governments stood with the people of South Africa, especially Nelson Mandela, in the fight against apartheid. Mr. Chrétien made him an honorary citizen of Canada.
In his final days, Mandela expressed just one regret, that he had not won the battle against HIV/AIDS, which claimed the life of his own son.
As a fitting memorial to this global icon, will the Canadian government establish an ever more robust initiative in Mandela's name to battle the scourge of AIDS in Africa, just as Canadians helped Mandela battle apartheid?
Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, our thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Mandela's family, and we thank him for his great service to the world in doing the things he did to fight apartheid.
We have been a stronger supporter of the global fund, which is the fund that is fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
I was privileged to be in Washington on Monday and Tuesday at the replenishment conference, where Canada pledged $650 million. We are one of the highest supporters of the global fund, and we will continue to do our part to help eradicate these terrible diseases from the world.
Status of WomenMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this sad anniversary of the tragedy at École Polytechnique, we remember the 14 young women and their families.
As we come together today, we invite the government to lead the way in putting an end to violence against women and girls in Canada.
Can we all come together and—with the help of our partners, the provinces and territories, the first nations, women's groups, victims' groups and law enforcement—develop a national strategy and put an end to this tragic violence? 
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, we are taking action across the country to combat violence against women through measures such as greater resources to support victims of crime and protecting aboriginal women, launching a national action plan to combat human trafficking, increasing penalties for violent crimes and supporting child advocacy centres to better serve young victims and witnesses of crime.
In our economic action plan of 2013, our government also committed $24 million over two years for the family violence prevention program. This government sticks up for women and girls.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, on this sad anniversary, we remember 14 young women and their families. As we draw together, we invite the government to take the lead to end violence against women and girls in Canada.
Working with our partners across the country, the provinces and territories, first nations, women's groups, victims' groups and law enforcement, can we all come together to develop a national action plan to end the tragedy of violence in our country?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, since 2007, we have invested over $62 million in funding for over 300 projects to end violence against women and girls through Status of Women. This is the highest level of funding ever.
We have also ended house arrest for sexual assault involving serious personal injury and aggravated sexual assault, strengthened sentences for child sexual abuse and toughened penalties for those who import, produce and traffic date rape drugs.
If the member opposite was so concerned about helping women and girls, perhaps she should have voted for Bill S-2.
EthicsMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was another week of changing stories on the Conservative Senate scandal, another week of the Prime Minister trying to have everyone except himself take any modicum of responsibility, another week of the Senate's blocking an investigation into Senator Gerstein and the Deloitte audit.
Every single Conservative senator voted for the cover-up. It is obvious to everyone watching that the PMO continues to play puppet master to the so-called independent Senate.
Here is a simple question. Who in the Prime Minister's Office contacted the Conservative senators to help deliver the vote and help cover up Senator Gerstein's tracks?
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no one.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way thinks that by having shorter answers he might appear more credible, but no one believes the Conservatives did not contact sitting Conservative senators to help cover up for their friend and bagman, Senator Gerstein.
On February 15, Nigel Wright wrote that he was not only concerned about Senator Duffy's residency claims, but “Possibly Senator Patterson in BC too”. Wait, that could not be the same Patterson who represents Nunavut in the Senate, could it? No, because then he would not meet the residency requirements to sit in the Senate.
Does the parliamentary secretary actually believe that this Prime Minister appointed a senator from British Columbia to represent Nunavut legally?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, Senator Patterson is a great advocate for the region of the country that he represents. He has done some tremendous work in the Senate, and of course I am very proud to serve with the senator.
With respect to the Senate, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has brought in a number of reforms that are being discussed at the Supreme Court right now. I note that the New Democrats have no opinion on those discussions in front of the Supreme Court. They are always full of a lot of hot air, but when it comes to action, they never act.
Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, talking about hot air, we got absolutely no answer on why the PM's chief of staff was worried about whether Senator Patterson was actually qualified to sit in the Senate.
The Prime Minister said he learned of the Conservative Party's cheque to pay Mike Duffy's legal expenses on May 15. Then, for 167 days the Prime Minister failed to mention this, until Mike Duffy spoke to the Senate. Why did the Prime Minister not tell Canadians about that second cheque for almost six months?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as we have said, the party does assist members of caucus with their legal fees. That is not something that is abnormal. That is something that the NDP does. Of course, we understand that the Leader of the Opposition himself took thousands of dollars from his own political party to cover his legal fees. In fact, once the Leader of the Opposition was found guilty, in order to pay thousands of dollars he actually asked his party to pay for that as well.
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, it is a record-breaking day for the hot air that the member was talking about a little while ago. 
What we are interested in is what the Prime Minister knew after May 15 but hid from Canadians. He must have discovered from his staff that his lawyer, Ben Perrin, and his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, had arranged a second cheque as part of their $90,000 cover-up.
The Prime Minister must have learned about the legal arrangement in May, so why did he keep telling the House that there was no legal agreement for months on end?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, the member asked about what the Prime Minister knew. As the Prime Minister has said, as soon as he found out on May 15, he made this public. 
However, he went even further. As is stated on page 20 of the RCMP documents, it is quite clear: 
 Rob Staley, legal representative for the PMO, advised my office [the RCMP] that he had clear orders from the Prime Minister to provide complete cooperation with the investigation, and to provide any assistance or documentation that the RCMP requested. 
That is the real type of leadership that this Prime Minister shows day in and day out. Full co-operation and full assistance are what Canadians expect, and that is what this Prime Minister delivered.
Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, this week ends like so many others, with Conservatives blaming everyone else and taking no responsibility for their actions.
One day the Prime Minister blamed “the bureaucracy”, which really is his own department, for Ben Perrin's missing emails; the next he blamed Ben Perrin for destroying them. 
Does the Prime Minister expect us to believe that Ben Perrin could have been able to permanently erase all of his emails simply by hitting the delete button?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it was the assistant secretary to the cabinet who informed the Prime Minister's Office that they had actually preserved those emails. They had been preserved in another file for different litigation that was ongoing. At the same time, the assistant clerk of the Privy Council did apologize to the Prime Minister's Office and informed the RCMP that these emails would be made available.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that Benjamin Perrin was not involved in a legal agreement, but the RCMP documents show that that is not true.
The Prime Minister said that only Nigel Wright was aware of the agreement, but the documents show that that is not true.
How many times does the RCMP have to contradict the Prime Minister before he starts telling the truth?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, again, the exact same documents that the member refers to clearly indicate it is Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy who are the subjects of this investigation. Page 72, of course, goes on further to say that the RCMP have absolutely no evidence that the Prime Minister knew of this plan. 
At the same time, as the Prime Minister has said, had he known that this plan was being undertaken, he would have put an immediate stop to it.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister's Office is not just blaming public servants for the saga of the lost and found emails. It is also blaming Benjamin Perrin.
Mr. Perrin no longer works for the Prime Minister's Office. Can the Prime Minister or his parliamentary secretary tell us whether Mr. Perrin was dismissed or whether he resigned?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister answered that two days ago in the House. I think I have, as well. Mr. Perrin left the Prime Minister's Office to accept employment at a Canadian university. If I am not mistaken, it is the University of British Columbia.
Employment InsuranceGuy Caron: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the tourism minister came off sounding very pleased with himself in front of Quebec farmers. He seems to think that the people who are having their employment insurance benefits taken away just need to stop flaunting their Speedos on Cuban beaches. One would have to be quite heartless and have a lot of nerve to say that to these farmers, who have been watching their qualified employees slip between their fingers since the Conservatives implemented their reform that is an attack on seasonal industries.
Will the Conservatives start listening to concerned farmers and employers instead of insulting them?
Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC): Mr. Speaker, this kind of fearmongering is frankly very irresponsible. The fact is that the changes we made to EI are modest. They will only impact 1% of recipients. In fact, no changes to the rules have had any impact on the process whereby individuals can apply for, or qualify for, EI.
While the opposition wants to build an economy around temporary foreign workers and EI, we want to build an economy around jobs and opportunity for Canadians across the country.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I challenge her to say that to the people of eastern Quebec and the Maritimes. It is easy for her to stand there in her Armani suit and pretty pink blouse and insult people.
Farmers and Quebeckers in general know that the unemployed are people just like the rest of us, people who are going through a difficult time. It is also a difficult time for seasonal industries. These people are not taking advantage of the system to go spend time on Cuban beaches, as the member for Beauce alleges from his ivory tower.
As if ignoring the concerns of the agricultural community were not enough, did the government really need to insult the unemployed as well?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that 80% of individuals who are disqualified for EI benefits disqualify because they are not in the country. Maybe the opposition members, including their 45 day work week, now want to start paying people EI benefits when they are outside of the country. 
On this side of the House, we are responsible with taxpayers' dollars, and more importantly we want Canadians who want to work to have jobs. That is why we have created over one million net new jobs. 
CETA, for example, is helping farmers across this country, in my riding, in Quebec, and in provinces across the country. We are acting to get Canadians to work. They just want to bring in temporary foreign—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Avalon.
EthicsMr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP had to ask repeatedly for Benjamin Perrin's emails before the Prime Minister finally coughed them up. No one believes the story that they were simply forgotten about. 
The only way to get to the bottom of why Perrin's emails were hidden from the RCMP is for the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, Wayne Wouters, to appear before the ethics committee under oath.
Will the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council appear before the ethics committee?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you who does believe that the Privy Council made an honest mistake in not being able to find those emails. It was actually the member for Wascana, who on Sunday night said, “Beyond apologies to the PMO+RCMP, the Privy Council owes its biggest apology to all Canadians”. That was the member for Wascana on Sunday, before he came to the office on Monday and was beaten up by his advisers who then told him to change his mind and say something different on Monday in the House. 
I accept the Privy Council—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, the hon. member for Avalon.
Scott Andrews: Mr. Speaker, also this week, Conservative senators voted to block Michael Runia from appearing before a committee to explain his interference with the Senate ordered audit. Senator Gerstein, using his position as chair of the Senate banking committee, removed himself to explain his role, to protect his own self. 
I have a motion before the ethics committee to call Senator Gerstein and Michael Runia to appear and testify. Will the Prime Minister and the Conservatives commit to supporting the motion on Tuesday to finally end this cover-up?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, the committee will deal with its own affairs when that motion is brought forward.
By way of an update for the hon. member, after a number of months Mr. Runia was not one of the three auditors on the file. The three auditors who actually were on the file did appear before the Senate committee. They did confirm that the audit was done with the utmost in confidentiality. They did confirm that the Senate could have confidence in the report that was issued. 
Of course, that was the report that we used as the basis to remove these three senators from the Senate. The Liberals fought every step of the way. They fought for the status quo. We fought for taxpayers.
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the sworn RCMP statements are very clear.
Thanks to Senator Gerstein, the Prime Minister's Office received inappropriate information about the audit of Mike Duffy.
The evidence clearly shows that Gerstein not only tried to put an end to the audit, but he also offered payment to a sitting senator. The Prime Minister knows that.
When will the Prime Minister finally allow his former employees and Senator Gerstein to testify, under oath, about what they did?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I will restate for the hon. member what I said earlier for another question.
 Rob Staley, legal representative for the PMO, advised my office, [that's the RCMP] that he had clear orders from the Prime Minister to provide complete cooperation with the investigation, and to provide any assistance or documentation that the RCMP requested. The PMO employees (current and former) whose e-mails I deemed relevant, have all provided privacy waivers though their legal counsel relating to the content of the e-mails. 
 The PMO has also waived solicitor-client privilege for those e-mails. 
That is real leadership.
Status of WomenAnne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, the government's record on gender equality is pathetic.
The Conservatives closed 12 Status of Women Canada offices. They gutted pay equity legislation. They eliminated funding for organizations advocating for women's interests. 
When will the minister start working with the NDP to adequately fund organizations that promote gender equality and those working to end violence against women?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, our government continues to take decisive action to advance equality for women and girls.
That is why international reports continue to rank Canada as a leader in achieving gender equality. For example, in 2012, a global poll of experts found that Canada was the best place in the G20 to be a woman. The United Nations commissioned the 2013 human development report, which ranked Canada among the top countries on human development and gender equality.
This is one of the best places to a woman or a girl.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' record shows that there is still too much violence against women and that gender equality has not yet been achieved.
Every day, 3,000 Canadian women sleep in shelters to escape violence. Today, some 420 women will be turned away from a shelter because there is not enough space to accommodate them.
Too many women are not getting the help they need.
How long will these women have to wait before the government finally decides to act?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, again, as far as violence against women and girls, our government is committed to preventing all forms of violence against women and girls.
Since 2007, we have invested over $62 million, for over 300 projects, through Status of Women Canada. This is the highest level ever. Ending violence against women is a priority for the government and will continue to be so.
Aboriginal AffairsJinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, empty words will not shelter women fleeing violence.
A year ago yesterday, the body of a young girl from Gitanmaax First Nation was found in Kamloops. Her name was C J Fowler. She was 16, and her murder is still unsolved. She is one of hundreds of missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada.
The families and communities of these women deserve answers. They deserve justice. When will the government launch an open public inquiry into the cases of missing and murdered indigenous women?
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on taking action to actually deal with the tragic issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women.
For example, we recently passed legislation that gives women living on first nations reserves the same matrimonial rights as all Canadians, including access to emergency protection orders in violent situations. Unfortunately, the opposition parties voted against that legislation and against advancing the rights of first nations women. Shame on them.
The special parliamentary committee is continuing its study, and we look forward to participating in that study.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, we all need to stand up and take action to end violence against women, and start with an inquiry. Political will is essential. We mourn. We pray, but we must also act. We need to follow the leadership of women in our communities, who are working day in and day out in our neighbourhoods to make them safer. We all need to recognize that men and boys have an essential role to play in ending violence against women. This is something we have to address.
Will the members opposite stand with us today and pledge action to end violence against women in our time?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, we are reminded on a daily basis that violence and the threat violence remain daily realities for so many women and girls, and that is why our government is firmly committed to preventing all forms of violence against women and girls.
Let me give some examples of some of the actions we have taken. We passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act to improve the safety of all Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable members of society. We increased support for victims of crime. We launched the national action plan to combat human trafficking and provided $24 million over two years for the family violence prevention program to help improve safety on reserves. 
Let us all work together so that women and girls can live free of violence.
MulticulturalismMr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last night there was a report from the city of Vancouver about a disgraceful act of vandalism conducted at the Komagata Maru monument. The monument to the Komagata Maru commemorates the 376 Punjabi passengers who were aboard the ship by that name, which was turned away 100 years ago next year. This shameful incident of vandalism is very upsetting.
Would the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) please remind the House of the importance of this monument?
Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC): Mr. Speaker, this was, indeed, a disgraceful act, and we are pleased that the Vancouver police are investigating it further.
The tragic events of the Komagata Maru were a regrettable chapter in Canada's history. That is why we worked with the Khalsa Diwan Society to build this important monument and fund other projects to educate Canadians, and thanks to the member for Brampton—Springdale, Canada Post will issue a commemorative stamp to commemorate it. That is why this Prime Minister was the first to officially apologize for what happened to the passengers of the Komagata Maru on behalf of all Canadians.
National DefenceMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, injured soldiers, especially those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, need to have something to look forward to. However, many about to be medically released feel abandoned to an uncertain future. They feel they have been betrayed by a military system after serving their country and risking their lives. The fact is, they need actual solutions, not only counselling and treatment.
When is the government going to listen? We are all concerned about the lives that have been lost, but the real question is, what is the minister going to do to ensure that more lives are not lost?
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff has reached out to our men and women in uniform, urging them to seek the help and support they need, and the government stands with him in supporting those dealing with mental illness. Suicide is a public health issue and we all have a role to play in reaching out to help those who are hurting and encouraging them to get the help they need.
I want to take a moment to remind those who may be going through difficult times that they are not alone, and there is support available to help get them through this. I would ask that the hon. member not alarm those individuals who are thinking of coming forward. Help is available, and we ought to encourage all of them to seek these resources if they need them.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there were four deaths by suicide on military bases across Canada in just a little over a week. We are talking about people who risked their lives for Canada and are now paying the price. 
The minister is telling us not to talk about it. He believes that the necessary supports are already in place, but that is clearly not the case. Our soldiers need clinics to diagnose problems and they need more mental health specialists.
When will the minister finally take action? 
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, our government has done more than any other before it when it comes to taking care of our ill and injured men and women in uniform. Today, the Canadian Armed Forces have nearly 400 full-time mental health professionals and are working to hire more. We saw that just yesterday at CFB Petawawa.
 We have provided mental health care through 29 clinics across Canada, called wounded warrior centres, from Esquimalt right across to Halifax, and support is provided throughout the entire career and deployment cycle of a Canadian Forces member. We have created joint personnel support units to allow our ill and injured members to work with medical and personal social workers, occupational therapists, and others in order to help them return to work.
Rail TransportationMs. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, keeping Canadians safe is one of the government's fundamental responsibilities.
In the report he released a few weeks ago, the Auditor General was very clear: serious problems in our railway safety system were raised long before the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. 
The Auditor General noted in particular that inspectors did not have proper training, records were not properly maintained and there was not enough follow-up when problems were identified.
Can the minister tell us when she became aware of the problems raised by the Auditor General?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in fact, the health and safety of Canadians is our top priority. We obviously thank the Auditor General for his report and his recommendations. I understand that Transport Canada has accepted all of the recommendations in the report. Not only that, the minister has tasked the standing committee on transport to study the transportation of dangerous goods to ensure that they are moved safely, including the implementation of safety management systems across air, marine, and rail sectors.
We are taking the same approach to that of the world-class tanker safety initiative we developed to focused on prevention, response, and liability.
Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, to date the safety management systems have led to inspectors inspecting paperwork instead of planes and trains. The reality is that Canada's rail tracks have deteriorated, and the rules were repeatedly broken. Experts on the Transportation Safety Board have repeatedly demanded that the federal government mandate anti-crash systems that automatically slow speeding trains down. 
Why are Conservatives ignoring these repeated warnings? Why have they not required the automatic anti-crash systems that safety experts are calling for?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, positive train control, which has been talked about a lot by New Democrats, in fact is not part of the TSB's recommendations, though Transport Canada is monitoring its implementation in the United States. 
Transport Canada is currently working with industry to look at possible fail-safe train controls here.
Post-Secondary EducationHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I met with Melissa O’Rourke from Mount Allison University and Luke Robertson from St. Thomas. Both are impressive student leaders who know the difficulties post-secondary students face. They described the benefits of the Canada student grants program, and previously, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. However, the grants program has not been increased since its creation, while tuition and university costs have skyrocketed.
Could the minister tell us what plans he has to finally make up the difference and increase the Canada grants program for students so that the high cost of post-secondary education is not a factor that discourages people from going to university and college?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. Under our government, we have done more to support young people when it comes to their education or getting the skills they need to get the jobs that are available. It is under our youth employment strategy, and it includes our Canada student loans program. It includes summer jobs, about which we just made recent announcements regarding the application process starting sooner. It also includes our skills link, which helps young people get the needed skills to either go back to school or to get jobs in their area.
Whether it is student loans, whether it is grants, the funds we are providing are targeted, and they are creating more jobs.
Employment InsuranceHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance used to call EI a job-killing payroll tax, but according to the PBO, the Conservatives are keeping EI taxes “higher than necessary” in 2015 and 2016.
If the Conservatives kept their promise to set EI taxes at a break-even rate, the EI taxes would fall significantly in 2015. With a sluggish Canadian economy, why are the Conservatives breaking their promise by freezing EI premiums at an artificially high rate until the end of 2016?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are glad to see that the PBO has confirmed what we already know: our government will balance the budget in 2015. 
Unlike the old Liberal government, which raided the EI fund for its own pet projects, we are ensuring that EI premiums are only used for EI payments. Indeed, it is a bit rich to hear the Liberals talk about EI rates, when it was they who supported a 45-day work year that would have seen EI premiums increase by over 35%. Thankfully, members on this side of the House had the common sense to oppose that job-killing proposal.
Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP): Mr. Speaker, rather than insulting the unemployed and accusing them of being lazy and abusing the system, the member for Beauce should apologize.
Not too long ago, the member for Beauce was involved in raising money for the food banks in his riding.
Is he aware that some people who use food banks have lost their jobs and are not eligible for EI benefits?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. The modest changes we have made have not affected the availability for individuals who are on EI. Whether it is persons with disabilities, whether it is youth who are looking for jobs, or whether it is aboriginal people, we are creating more jobs and more opportunity so that people can work. However, if they cannot, EI is there. It is there for those who have paid in. That is what the changes have attempted to do so that, as well, employers who are looking for workers have people available who want to work. Eighty per cent of those who are disqualified are outside of the country on holidays. We are not--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please.
The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister of tourism went out of his way to call seasonal workers lazy and implied that they spend more time in the Caribbean than looking for work. How out of touch can he be with reality? It is his government that has pushed seasonal workers out of work, and it is its regressive cuts to employment insurance that have negatively impacted seasonal industries and have hurt so many Canadians. Seasonal workers are not on a beach somewhere. They are trying to put food on a table for their families. Will the minister stand up and apologize for these incredibly insulting comments?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, is the opposition suggesting that EI benefits should be paid to people who are not in the country looking for work? We absolutely do not believe that. Those people who are paying into EI benefits—employers and employees—do not believe that. We want to make sure that EI remains there for Canadians who, by no fault of their own, find themselves out of work. We do not believe in the 45-day work year. We do not believe in paying EI benefits to people who are outside of the country. We believe in integrity in the EI system so that it is there for Canadians who have paid into it. 
Nelson MandelaDave Van Kesteren: Mr. Speaker, Canada and the world is deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Nelson Mandela yesterday. The son of a tribal chief, Nelson Mandela sought an education, went on to actively participate in politics, and became a leading symbol in the fight against apartheid. Even after retirement, he remained committed to peace and stability. He accomplished so much in his long, inspirational life. 
Could the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs please remind the House of some of Nelson Mandela's most impressive accomplishments?
Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Chatham—Kent Essex for this question. 
Nelson Mandela's fight to end apartheid had a tremendous impact on me when I was growing up in Tanzania, when apartheid dominated southern Africa. 
Canadians were touched deeply by his life and his active pursuit of equality, justice, and freedom for all people. Nelson Mandela was also a passionate crusader against AIDS. He received the Nobel Peace Prize, became an honorary Canadian citizen, and was made a Companion of the Order of Canada. 
Canada joins South Africa and the world in mourning and celebrating a unique and special leader. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.
EmploymentMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hemorrhaging of jobs for young people in this country is troubling. There are now 70,000 fewer youth employed in this country than when the Conservative government took power eight years ago. 
As the minister indicated, the Canada summer jobs program opens today. That program funds fewer jobs now than it did in 2005. Today's job numbers show that we have lost an additional 26,000 youth jobs in the last month. Does the minister even recognize this? Young Canadians do. Does the minister recognize this troubling trend?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that our economic action plan is delivering results for young Canadians. This year alone, over 70,000 jobs were created for youth. What our strategy does goes beyond anything that has been done before. We are training young people for jobs that are available, whether it is skilled trades, whether it is apprenticeships, or whether it is some of the skills they need to even get into school. We are providing that kind of training.
The results are there. Canada remains strong. In fact, under our action plan, we will continue to have one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the G7. We know the youth unemployment rate is still high. We--
HealthDjaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, drug shortages are a serious public health problem.
Unlike the United States, the European Union and New Zealand, Canada does not have a mandatory drug shortage registry. This situation is unacceptable. We cannot leave it to companies to decide whether to disclose, or not disclose, shortages. A voluntary approach is not a solution. 
Will the government work with the NDP to pass my bill in order to ensure that a mandatory registry is created, yes or no? 
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the bill brought forward by the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert fails to recognize the progress that we have been making. It is unenforceable and amends the wrong act.
Companies are posting about shortages online because, with our approach, it gives doctors the information they need. We will continue to monitor whether companies make information on shortages available to doctors and patients voluntarily. If they do not, we are open to considering a mandatory approach.
EmploymentMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while Canada's economy is showing signs of improvement, the global economy remains fragile. Business owners in my riding of Northumberland—Quinte West tell me that during these challenging global economic times, the last thing they need is higher taxes that will kill job creation. Remarkably, just last week the leader of the NDP said he would raise taxes on Canadian job creators. 
Unlike the NDP, our government understands that a low-tax environment is just what job creators need to expand their operations and hire more workers. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please update this House on Canada's job market?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Northumberland—Quinte West for that excellent question.
 After announcing just last week that Canada's economy grew for a ninth consecutive quarter, Statistics Canada today announced that 21,600 net new jobs were created in November, with solid gains in the manufacturing sector. The unemployment rate remains at the lowest level since 2008. 
While our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians, that being growing the economy and helping create jobs, the Liberal leader still has not produced a single economic policy. While he demonstrates poor judgment and inexperience, we continue our prudent, responsible economic action plan—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Jonquière—Alma.
Intergovernmental RelationsClaude Patry: Mr. Speaker, it took only two weeks for the federal government to give $280 million to Newfoundland and Labrador fishers affected by the agreement with the EU, but the Minister of State for Agriculture is saying that Quebec cheese producers will have to wait up to two years to be compensated.
Worse yet, the minister has refused to recognize the negative impact of the employment insurance reform, which is harshly penalizing agricultural producers.
Will the minister acknowledge that this is a double standard when it comes to Quebec?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to consider the pork and beef farmers in the province of Quebec, who will benefit greatly from the Canada-Europe trade agreement.
As far as supply management is concerned, our government has always defended Canada's supply management system and maintains that position in this agreement.
The three main pillars of our internal supply management system remain untouched, and we will monitor how the Canada-Europe free trade agreement affects milk producers' income. If production levels suffer, we will help the producers financially.
Nelson MandelaMrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleagues' eloquent tributes to Nelson Mandela.
I believe that we all agree that future generations should always remember the profound friendship and the ideals that united and continue to unite Canada and this great man. 
Would the government consider instituting a national Nelson Mandela day?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I would join the member in giving tribute to a great statesman and a great leader, Nelson Mandela, who passed away yesterday. He was an honorary citizen of Canada. 
In answer to that question, Mr. Mandela was honoured by Canada for his fight against apartheid by being appointed a Companion of the Order of Canada.
TelecommunicationsMr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, as offensive as the $548 million spent on blatant partisan advertising by the government was, much of it for policies that do not exist, such as the Canada job grant, a new limbo bar has been lowered. That is the $9 million spent on TV and print ads targeting and, might I say, attacking Canadian cellphone companies. These ads offer no real information and mention no policy whatsoever.
 How does the government defend attacking a Canadian industry that employs 300,000 Canadians? Is this really a good use of taxpayer dollars?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the government to communicate on important programs and services available to Canadians.
Advertising is a key way for the government to inform Canadians about such important issues as time-limited stimulus measures, tax credits, public health issues, the importance of competition and fair pricing in the wireless sector, and what the government is doing to make that happen for Canadians.
For important context, advertising expenses for 2011 were almost 30% below the last full year under the former Liberal government.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.
Foreign AffairsDeepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the following treaties: the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, done in Vienna on September 12, 1997; the Agreement Between the Government Of Canada and the Government Of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, done in Astana on November 13, 2013; and the Amendment to Annex IX of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, adopted at the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention held in Geneva from April 28 to May 10, 2013. An explanatory memorandum is included with each treaty.
Food and Drugs ActHon. Leona Aglukkaq:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Divorce ActMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-560, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Mr. Speaker, I am quite honoured in these few moments to be introducing a private member's bill that would direct the courts in regard to divorce to make equal shared parenting the presumptive arrangement in the best interest of the child, except in proven cases of abuse or neglect.
Fifteen years ago, a joint House-Senate committee presented to Parliament a report entitled “For the Sake of the Children”. That report urged Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to make equal shared parenting the normative determination by courts dealing with situations of divorce involving children. This non-partisan recommendation from that joint House-Senate report was based on compelling research made available to the committee members. 
Over the past 15 years, the best research has continued to demonstrate far superior outcomes for children in general when both parents, mom and dad, are actively involved in their children's lives, even if the parents divorce or separate.
Polling from the past several years demonstrates overwhelming support from Canadians for this equal shared parenting. There is in fact slightly more support among women than men for equal parenting. This strong support from almost 80% of Canadians exists across the country, with the strongest regional support coming from Quebec and Atlantic Canada. 
Canadians claiming to be Liberal and Bloc supporters expressed the strongest endorsement for equal shared parenting, at 80.6% among Liberals and 82.9% among Bloc Québécois supporters, with the NDP and Conservatives just slightly under 80%.
A variety of countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and Australia, and various U.S. states have implemented equal parenting, joint custody, or shared parenting presumptive legislation, which has resulted in lower court costs, less conflict, and improved social outcomes for the children of divorce.
This bill is one of the most apolitical, non-partisan pieces of legislation introduced in this current Parliament.
 I look forward to strong support for this important piece of legislation from all members of Parliament who are committed to the best interests of our children.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Criminal CodeHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-561, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking and transplanting human organs and other body parts).
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to introduce legislation to address one of the most heinous practices in the modern world, namely organ harvesting. 
This legislation, if adopted, would create penal sanctions for persons who in Canada or outside Canada are knowingly involved in the medical transplant of human organs or other body parts obtained or acquired as a consequence of a direct or indirect financial transaction, or without the donor's consent.
Beyond new criminal sanctions, it would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prevent entry into Canada of those who would engage in or otherwise facilitate such practices. Evidence points to organ harvesting in China where Falun Gong practitioners suffer unspeakable horrors. Yet there are cases as well, such as this summer in the U.K. of a child being trafficked for her organs.
We must combat human and organ trafficking in all forms, and I hope this legislation will add to Canada's abilities to prosecute and prevent any involvement with this abhorrent practice.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseJohn Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have some motions for which I seek unanimous consent. These are consolidated travel motions for two different committees.
I move:
 That, in relation to its studies on the benefits for Canada in joining the Pacific Alliance as a full member and on the benefits for Canada of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), six members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to Santiago, Chile and Lima, Peru, in the Winter-Spring of 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. 
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, in relation to its studies on the benefits for Canada in joining the Pacific Alliance as a full member and on the benefits for Canada of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), six members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to Bogota, Colombia and Mexico City, Mexico, in the Winter-Spring of 2014, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.
(Motion agreed to)
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I move: 
 That in relation to its study on the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, seven members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development be authorized to travel to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, in the Winter of 2014, that the necessary staff accompany the Committee and that the Committee be authorized to televise its hearings. 
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsChris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, as members know, the Conservatives have said for quite some time that they are concerned about regional skills shortages in our country, and yet the government has not done very much to address labour mobility.
 In fact, the petitioners point out that many tradespeople can be out of work in one area of the country, while another region suffers from temporary skilled labour shortages simply because the cost of travelling is too high. Out of work tradespeople currently have to finance their own travel and accommodation should they wish to move to another region where jobs are available. 
The petitioners therefore support my bill, Bill C-201, and urge everyone in Parliament to do the same because the bill would allow tradespeople and indentured apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income so they could secure and maintain employment at a construction site that would be more than 80 kilometres from their home.
Questions on the Order PaperDan Albas: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 65, 67, 71, 72, 81, 85 and 95.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat:  With regard to government policies on colours used for its websites: (a) when were the most recent policies tabled; (b) were the policies approved by any ministers; (c) what research was used to develop recommended policies; (d) what were the results of this research; (e) was this research contracted out by the government and, if so, to whom; (f) what were the costs for this research and these policies; (g) what was the estimated number of person-hours required to implement the changes in colour; and (h) what were the costs required to implement colour changes?
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Standard on Web Usability came into effect on September 28, 2011, and was updated on March 31, 2013. 
With regard to (b), the Standard on Web Usability is issued under the authority of section 7 of the Financial Administration Act by the Secretary of the Treasury Board, pursuant to subsection 6(4) of the Financial Administration Act and section 3.5 of the Policy on Management of Information Technology. 
With regard to (c), the Standard on Web Usability was developed through an extensive review of existing studies and reports, including usability studies that had been conducted by various consulting firms on Government of Canada websites from 2002-2010; studies and reports from Wichita State University, Nielsen Norman Group, Usability.gov, A List Apart, Stanford University, and University of Washington; and a review of other jurisdictions’ websites. 
With regard to (d), the results of the studies with regard to colour revealed that approximately 75% of them use blue or green as their primary colour. 
With regard to (e), research conducted for the development of the Standard on Web Usability was not contracted out. 
With regard to (f), the research was conducted using internal resources within existing budgets. The Standard on Web Usability was developed using internal resources within existing budgets. 
With regard to (g) and (h), departments are required to implement the changes within existing resources. Departments are encouraged to implement changes at the same time as other updates.
Laurin Liu: With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) in Quebec, for the fiscal years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, what is the proportion of regular claimants who exhausted their weeks of benefits, broken down by EI economic region? 
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, employment insurance claims are considered exhausted if claimants use all the regular weeks to which they are entitled. The proportion of regular claimants who exhaust their regular weeks of benefits is referred to as the entitlement exhaustion rate, and is reported in the annual EI Monitoring and Assessment Report, MAR. The MAR can be accessed at www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/ei/reports/index.shtml.
Laurin Liu:  With regard to the budget cuts made in 2013 at the National Research Council of Canada’s Herzberg Institute for Astrophysics: (a) what are the reasons that led to these cuts; (b) what impact and efficiency studies is this decision based on; (c) what groups and individuals were consulted prior to this decision; and (d) which projects will be affected? 
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Department of Industry is taking steps to ensure the National Research Council, the NRC, remains a world-class organization that supports business-led initiatives. 
With regard to (b), in order to stay within the defined budget envelope while ensuring a continued focus on priorities, an in-depth review of NRC Herzberg operations and programs was undertaken by NRC Herzberg senior program managers. 
With regard to (c), the Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics, LRP2010, is a document that balances both regional and disciplinary priorities in the Canadian astronomical community, and is the result of over a year’s worth of consultations between the NRC and relevant parties. 
NRC meets on a regular basis with the Association of Canadian Universities for Research in Astronomy, ACURA, to ensure its activities are aligned with the astronomy community priorities. 
With regard to (d), specific reductions were made to two completed projects. 
In the first project, the Atacama large millimeter array, ALMA, telescope became operational in 2013. This 10-year project, led by NRC, was successfully completed in 2012. The positions related to the production, delivery, and integration of the relatively large number of deliverable units for this specific project were no longer required for ongoing astronomy technology development activities. The activities of the ALMA telescope will not be affected by this decision. 
In the second project, the development work in support of the James Clerk Maxwell telescope, the JCMT, archive was completed in 2012, and the domain expertise of the incumbent position in this area was no longer required. The activities of JCMT will not be affected by this decision.
The visitors facility at NRC Herzberg in Victoria, known as the Center of the Universe, suspended its outreach activities at the end of August 2013. The National Research Council, NRC, has been meeting with the community and exploring options for the future management of the centre. The NRC is working with local stakeholders to find ways to resume some of the activities at the centre in the short term and is continuing to investigate options that would safeguard the long-term sustainability of the Centre of the Universe.
Mr. Louis Plamondon:  With regard to the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court, did the government verify whether the Justice: (a) resided in Ontario and, if so, for how long; (b) resided in Quebec and, if so, for how long; and (c) is registered with or was already a member of the Barreau du Québec?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the information requested contains personal information and cannot be disclosed. However, Justice Nadon was born and raised in Quebec and was a member of the Barreau du Québec for almost 20 years prior to his appointment to the Federal Court and later the Federal Court of Appeal. By virtue of the Federal Courts Act, Justice Nadon was required to reside within 40 kilometres of the National Capital Commission. 
With regard to (c), Justice Nadon was a member in good standing of the Barreau du Québec for a period of about 20 years, from 1974 to 1993. By virtue of the Loi sur le Barreau, he ceased to be a member of the Barreau when he was first appointed as a judge of the Federal Court in June 1993, as one of the judges on the Federal Court who were required to have been members of the Barreau du Québec, as set out in section 5.4 of the Federal Courts Act. 
Hon. John McKay:  With respect to the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COARGLBE): (a) what is the current status of approvals with respect to each proposed Annex within each department or agency that is a partner to the Canadian Federal Great Lakes Program (CFGLP); (b) which department or agency is the responsible authority for consulting First Nations on the COARGLBE; (c) what was or is the budget of each department or agency that is a partner to the CFGLP for consulting with First Nations on the COARGLBE; (d) which department is the responsible authority for considering and developing the proposed First Nations Annex (FNA); (e) which departments or agencies have discussed the proposed FNA with First Nations; (f) what is the status of deliberations or discussions with respect to the proposed FNA; (g) which departments or agencies have committed verbally or in writing to creating an FNA; (h) what is the expected timeline for approving the FNA; and (i) what is the expected timeline of approving the COARGLBE? 
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), a new Canada-Ontario agreement respecting the Great Lakes is currently subject to negotiations between the Governments of Canada and Ontario. Environment Canada is the lead federal agency responsible for coordinating the negotiations on behalf of the Government of Canada. Negotiations on the draft agreement are not yet complete. Once a draft agreement has been negotiated, all participating departments and agencies will be asked to review and approve prior to posting the draft agreement. A notice will be posted on the Canada Gazette, and the draft agreement will be available on the Canadian Environment Protection Act Registry for a 60-day public comment period. 
With regard to (b), as the lead federal agency responsible for coordinating the negotiations on behalf of the Government of Canada, Environment Canada is leading the engagement of a wide range of stakeholders and aboriginal groups, including first nations. 
With regard to (c), no specific budget has been allocated. Engagement activities are supported through existing budgets for the delivery of federal efforts to protect the Great Lakes. 
With regard to (d), Environment Canada is the lead federal agency responsible for coordinating the negotiations on behalf of the Government of Canada. All proposed federal signatories to the Agreement--Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Parks Canada, and Infrastructure Canada--are involved in considering and developing appropriate content for a new Canada-Ontario agreement, including content of interest to first nations. All stakeholder and aboriginal input, including input from first nations, is being considered in the development of a new Canada-Ontario agreement. 
With regard to (e), Environment Canada has met with first nations to ensure their appropriate engagement in a new Canada-Ontario agreement.
 With regard to (f) and (g), negotiations for a new Canada-Ontario agreement are ongoing between the Governments of Canada and Ontario. Once a draft Canada-Ontario agreement has been negotiated and all federal approvals to post are in place, a notice will be posted on the Canada Gazette and the draft agreement will be available on the Canadian Environment Protection Act Registry for a 60-day public comment period. After public input has been reviewed, the Governments of Canada and Ontario will negotiate final revisions to the agreement and seek appropriate approvals prior to ministerial signatures. 
With regard to (h) and (i), Canada and Ontario are working to negotiate a draft agreement as expeditiously as possible. Once a draft Canada-Ontario agreement has been negotiated and all federal approvals to post are in place, a notice will be posted on the Canada Gazette and the draft agreement will be available on the Canadian Environment Protection Act Registry for a 60-day public comment period. After public input has been reviewed, the Governments of Canada and Ontario will negotiate final revisions to the agreement and seek appropriate approvals prior to ministerial signatures. 
Mr. Fin Donnelly:  With regard to coast guard search and rescue operations in the Vancouver region: (a) how many calls has the Sea Island coast guard received between the dates of March 1, 2013 and October 1, 2013; (b) where were the calls made to; and (c) of the calls responded to how many were answered by (i) coast guard hovercraft, (ii) coast guard vessels excluding hovercraft, (iii) Vancouver Police Department, (iv) Vancouver Fire Department, (v) North Shore Search and Rescue? 
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Canadian Coast Guard base at Sea Island responded to 225 search and rescue incidents between March 1 and October 1, 2013. 
With regard to (b), the general area of search and rescue responsibility of the Sea Island base during this period was north to Departure Bay, south to Boundary Bay, east to New Westminster, and west to Crofton on Vancouver Island. 
With regard to (c) of the 225 search and rescue incidents received by Sea Island, with regard to (b)(i), 197 incidents were responded to using an air-cushioned vehicle. With regard to (b)(ii), 28 incidents were responded to using fast rescue craft. With regard to (b)(iii) through (b)(v), the Canadian Coast Guard does not track all of the search and rescue responses of non-federal response agencies, such as the Vancouver police and fire departments and North Shore search and rescue. 
Ralph Goodale:  With regard to the proposed divestiture of the Agroforestry Development Centre at Indian Head, Saskatchewan: (a) have any studies been conducted, either internally or by external consultants or advisors, to identify the costs or benefits, including any possible continuation of any science or research activity at the existing site or elsewhere; (b) who prepared the studies; (c) when were those studies completed; and (d) what were the detailed results of any such study?
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the answer is yes. 
With regard to (b), the study was prepared by SEPW Architecture Inc. through a specific service agreement with Public Works and Government Services Canada on behalf of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 
With regard to (c), the study was completed December 21, 2012. 
With regard to (d), the report presents four options for possible continuation of agroforestry science or research activities. They are to lease back all of the land and facilities at the Agroforestry Development Centre, to lease back a core portion of the Agroforestry Development Centre, to relocate activities to existing Indian Head Research Farm facilities, or to relocate to new facilities on the Indian Head Research Farm. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsDan Albas: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 77, 86 and 98 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Sylvain Chicoine: With regard to spending on monuments and commemorative events honouring veterans, what is the total expenditure since fiscal year 2005-2006 and what is the breakdown by (i) year, (ii) year and province, (iii) year and constituency? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Sylvain Chicoine:  With regard to the employability of veterans in departments and agencies and the public service’s priority appointment program for veterans, since the public service’s priority appointment program for veterans came into effect: (a) how many veterans (i) have registered for the priority appointment program, broken down by year, (ii) have found a job in the public service through this program, broken down by year, (iii) have been unable to find a job in the public service within the two-year time limit; and (b) how many employees who identified themselves as veterans (i) have lost their job in the public service following the 2012 Budget cutbacks, (ii) are currently working for the government, broken down by departments and agencies, (iii) have come through the priority appointment program and are currently working for the government, broken down by departments and agencies? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Charlie Angus:  With regard to the purchase of televisions for departments, agencies and crown corporations: a) what is the amount spent per year for each department agency and crown corporation on televisions for each of the last seven years; b) what is the proportion of those amounts spent on high definition or 3D televisions respectively; c) what is the amount per year for televisions in the offices of ministers, deputy ministers or CEOs listed by agency and name; d) what are the proportions of the amounts listed in c) for HD or 3D televisions respectively? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Judy Sgro:  With regard to the government’s allocation of the public service budget for each fiscal year starting with 2006-2007 to present: (a) what is the total number of staff, by department, in each Executive (EX) and Deputy Minister (DM) pay category; (b) what is the total number of staff in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canadian Forces, Canada Border Services Agency and Correctional Services Canada, receiving the maximum remuneration permitted, including bonuses?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Stéphane Dion:  With regard to the most recent Supreme Court Appointment process: (a) on what dates was the Quebec Government consulted and who was consulted; (b) when was the Barreau du Quebec consulted; (c) when were judges from the Quebec Court of Appeal (QCCA) consulted; (d) concerning Justice Marc Nadon specifically, (i) on what dates was the Quebec Government consulted regarding his nomination, (ii) when was the Barreau du Quebec consulted, (iii) when were judges from the QCCA consulted; (e) when was the issue of Justice Nadon’s eligibility first raised, (i) by whom, (ii) how, (iii) with what response; (f) still concerning Justice Nadon, (i) from whom did the government seek legal opinions, (ii) on what dates, (iii) at what cost, broken down by opinion, (iv) how many lawyers from Quebec were consulted on Justice Nadon’s eligibility, (v) how many judges from Quebec were consulted, (vi) what scholars from Quebec were consulted; (g) by what measure was the litigation risk evaluated relative to Justice Nadon’s appointment, (i) by whom, (ii) on what date, (iii) what communications were sent between the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice regarding the risk of litigation surrounding the appointment; (h) with respect to assessing Justice Nadon’s eligibility, (i) what was the role of the Department of Justice, (ii) what was the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, (iii) what was the role of the Minister of Justice, (iv) what steps did the Minister of Justice take to assure himself of Justice Nadon’s eligibility to assume a Quebec seat on the Supreme Court of Canada; (i) how much funding is allocated to any defence needed to a legal challenge to Justice Nadon’s appointment; (j) is the government aware of any instance in which a Supreme Court justice has stepped aside from his or her duties; (k) what steps is the government taking proactively (i) to ensure that Quebec is not under-represented at the Supreme Court of Canada while Justice Nadon is recused, (ii) to ensure gender parity at the Supreme Court of Canada; (l) what steps has the government taken with regard to addressing the lack of racial diversity at the Supreme Court of Canada; (m) who developed the questionnaire provided to judges in the most recent round of Supreme Court appointments, (i) what specific questions were asked of judges, (ii) what information was sought from potential Justices during the process; (n) for each of the last six appointment cycles, what were the questions given to judges and what additional information was sought from candidates; (o) what steps are being taken to modify the process of Supreme Court appointments for the next vacancy?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. John McCallum:  With regard to removal orders, by country and for each calendar year from 2006 to 2013: (a) what are the number of issued (i) departure orders, (ii) exclusions orders, (iii) deportation orders; (b) for each category of orders under (a), what is the total number of people issued removal orders by country to which they were to be removed; and (c) for each category of orders under (a), how many of these orders were successfully executed?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Joyce Murray:  With regard to the Department of National Defence Jericho property in Vancouver, British Columbia, which has been declared surplus and identified as a “strategic disposal”: (a) when will the property be transferred to Canada Lands for disposal; (b) what are the processes, stages, and time frames for disposal; (c) what consultations will be conducted, including with the City of Vancouver, the Vancouver community, First Nations (including the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations), and the general public; (d) what consultations have already taken place; and (e) are the lands of the former Kitsilano Coast Guard base implicated in the sale of the Jericho Lands and, if so, how? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Philip Toone:  With regard to the commercial wharves in ridings in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces: (a) which ones are in operation today, broken down by (i) province, (ii) riding, (iii) municipality; (b) of those mentioned in (a), what are the estimated repair costs, broken down by (i) province, (ii) riding, (iii) municipality, (iv) wharf; and (c) of those mentioned in (a), what are the estimated maintenance costs, broken down by (i) province, (ii) riding, (iii) municipality, (iv) wharf? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the third time and passed. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to rise today to speak to Bill C-4. There is so much that could be said about the bill that limiting one to only 20 minutes does somewhat of a disservice because of the amount of content in the bill. It can be a challenge to take into consideration the numerous pieces of legislation that have been incorporated into Bill C-4.
There are probably five or six points I want to emphasize, but I will start off with regard to the government's attitude toward presenting budget bills. Canadians are becoming more and more aware of the majority Conservative style of governance in the House, which has been very disrespectful in terms of democracy. Democracy in the House of Commons has been lacking in allowing for proper diligent debate and proceedings on a wide spectrum of different issues.
We have witnessed the Prime Minister and the instructions he has given to the PMO that the best way to pass legislation under the Conservative majority is to start compiling it, submit it to the PMO and it will be bundled altogether, forwarded to the Minister of Finance and be brought in through budget legislation.
Not to be outdone by previous budgets like this under the same Conservative majority, this time not only did the Conservatives prorogue the session by limiting the number of days we would sit this fall, but they also once again put in time allocation on this legislation. It is so very bizarre and very undemocratic. 
Unfortunately, we have found that the Prime Minister, through the Prime Minister's Office, has done a great disservice by not allowing for legitimate debate on a wide variety of issues. I plan to touch base on a number of those.
Things have really changed for the Prime Minister. I was provided a very interesting quote. I may have said this in the past. I have had opportunity to do so because it was last year around this time when we had another mega budget bill. Let there be no doubt before I cite the quote that it is important to recognize that no prime minister in the history of our country has taken such liberties in bringing so much legislation forward under one budget bill. 
Let us reflect on the days when the Prime Minister was in opposition. What did he have to say about legislation of this nature? I quote what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons:
 We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill. 
He asked government members in particular to worry about the implications of omnibus bills for democracy and the functionality of Parliament.
That is what he said when he was talking about a bill that was just over 100 pages long. This is the Prime Minister who has introduced thousands of pages through a few budget bills, effectively changing 100-plus pieces of legislation with a few budget bills. 
That is why it is an assault on democracy. It is an assault on the House of Commons, the manner in which the majority Conservative/Reform government has brought forward budget legislation. The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for what takes place within his cabinet and his government. There is no doubt in my mind that he does rule the Prime Minister's Office and that he is very much aware.
 That bring me to the next topic. We know why the Prime Minister prorogued the session back in September. It was because he did not want to have the House sitting. He avoided the day in and day out accountability in the House, because he was not happy with what was being reported in a sequence of events that portrayed corruption and fraud in the Prime Minister's Office.
As a result, we lost weeks of debate earlier this fall because the Prime Minister did not want to come back. Why did he not want to come back? He had a very serious problem, and still does, and it is not going to go away. It is going to continue to be there and it will ultimately be dragged out, all the way to the next federal election in 2015.
There is so much more that has not been disclosed. We will ultimately ensure that we get more information as we sit, because Canadians deserve to know the honest truth, the full truth in what has taken place in regard to the scandal in and around the Prime Minister's Office.
I pointed this out to a number of individuals in looking at the Prime Minister's actions and trying to understand them. All those people are around the Prime Minister are so close to him. There was the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Nigel Wright. This individual had the ears of the Prime Minister on a daily basis. He in essence paid off a $90,000 debt that was owed by Senator Mike Duffy.
The Prime Minister likes to say that he had taken corrective actions. We are not too sure if, after it became public, what Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, did but within days of when it became public he was no longer the chief of staff.
There were no RCMP charges or anything of that nature. It just became public. The chief of staff at least acknowledged that something wrong had been done. We do not know if he was actually fired or released or took it upon himself to leave. We do not know, or at least it is not clear. It is one of the things the Prime Minister has not been very clear on.
What we do know is that he has not been consistent.
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: How is this relevant to the discussion?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: What about the most recent questions—
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: We are talking about the budget.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, there are a series of questions that we have in regard to Mr. Gerstein.
When we look at what has happened with Mr. Gerstein and we do the contrast between Nigel Wright and Senator Gerstein, we have to wonder why the Prime Minister has not done anything in regard to that.
It seems there is a different standard of testing of a moral compass. We just do not know what the PMO is doing on this. Staff members who worked in the PMO and who were directly involved in the conflict or scandal now work for other ministers.
All of this has stolen a great deal of attention away from what should be talked about a whole lot more, and that is in fact the budget and the impact, from our perspective, that these budgetary measures are taking on the middle class in Canada. That has been a huge priority for the leader of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Party as a whole, holding the government accountable on the issue of the middle class and how the government's policy has not been in the interest of those people.
However, it has been overshadowed because of the scandal that has been taking place inside the Prime Minister's Office. This is the reason why—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dan Albas): The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
[Interjection]
David Wilks: Mr. Speaker, the member has not alluded much to Bill C-4 and that is what we are debating. Could you get him to come back on track, please?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dan Albas): I will inform the member that the tradition of this place is to allow members to have a wide amount of discretion. I imagine the member will continue his speech on the theme of the debate.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, if the member were to reflect on the last two paragraphs prior to him standing, I was talking about the budget. It was absolutely relevant. 
I can appreciate that the Conservative members are very sensitive about what is taking place in the Prime Minister's Office. I know if I were them, I would be. I would want answers to many questions. I sense it at the doors of people's homes in my own constituency. I have had the opportunity to knock on a lot of doors in the last couple of months and to have a lot of discussions with many of my constituents. It is a very genuine and serious concern, and we still do not know the full truth. I hope the Prime Minister and the PMO will see the merit of taking advantage of the offer that was suggested by the member for Avalon with regard to having individuals testify before an ethics committee.
With regard to the issues within the budget, I made reference at the beginning of my speech to the size of the bill and the different types of legislation that are being incorporated into Bill C-4—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, I do not see much relevance to Bill C-4 in the member's speech, frankly. It was mentioned once before that the speech should be kept relevant. One obligation we have in this place is to keep the debate relevant to the topic at hand. I would ask you to ensure that happens, Mr. Speaker.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I am not sure if the member has been here throughout my comments. If he reads what has been said, I was talking about Bill C-4. I am talking about the budget bill and it is very lengthy. I am showing how it is relevant. Bill C-4 is a huge bill and the government prorogued the session.
The members need to listen closely to what I am saying and they will find it is actually relevant.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before we go back to the hon. member so that he can continue his speech, as all members know, there is a rule of relevance in this place that hon. members are required to speak to the matter that is before the House. That is true. 
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, Bill C-4 touches on many areas. Therefore, there is inherently significant latitude within this discussion to talk about things that are in the bill or things that relate to things that are in the bill. On that basis, I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the time for the points of order will be deducted so that I will still get my full 20 minutes, because there is so much that I want to get on the record.
When we look at representing our constituents, one of the tools that I often use to allow my constituents the opportunity to have direct input here on the floor of the House of Commons is petitions. Through the petitions, members will know that I have had the opportunity to introduce a number of petitions on a wide variety of issues.
I would like to take a look at some of those petitions and how the government's budgetary decisions have had, I would say, a very poor performance in terms of priorities. Let me give a few examples. I am referring only to petitions that constituents of mine in Winnipeg North have taken the time to sign. I very much appreciate it. I will take those petitions here to the floor and provide some comment.
Example number one is one of the more popular petitions that I have. It deals with pensions and calls upon the government to recognize that people should continue to have the right to be able to retire at age 65, as opposed to the budgetary decision of the government to increase the age when one can qualify for the old age pension from 65 to 67. This is something that the government has now committed to do and that we believe is wrong.
I can tell the members opposite, and particularly the Prime Minister, that the residents of Winnipeg North believe that Canada is a wealthy enough country that we can allow people to retire at the age of 65 if that is what they choose. We have the riches available as a nation to continue that. That has been independently approved beyond a shadow of a doubt by individuals such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Another very popular petition that I get back deals with the House itself. When I do my questionnaires, there is a resounding response on this issue. At a time when the government is cutting back on its civil service, what is it also doing? It is increasing the number of politicians here in Canada. I have an overwhelming majority of constituents in Winnipeg North who disagree with the government's decision to increase the size of the House of Commons. We do not need to increase the size of the House of Commons. That has been an issue on which I have received an overwhelming response from constituents, with an overwhelming majority of them saying no. 
Some, including myself, would estimate the cost at $30 million or more to accommodate that increase on an annual basis, not to mention the millions that would be involved in creating those positions. My constituents would rather see the millions and millions of dollars that it would cost spent on a wide variety of other types of social programs.
We have petitions regarding crime prevention. As the government talks tough about crime and getting tough on criminal activity, what it fails to recognize is the importance of dealing with some of the causes of crime and becoming more aggressive and progressive in dealing with issues that would prevent crimes from being committed in the first place. This is something that the constituents that I represent want me to express to the Prime Minister and to the government. They want me to say that we need to start doing what we can to prevent crimes from being committed in the first place. The best way to do that is to come up with activities and programs that would prevent, for example, gang activities from growing. 
We can say to young people it is better to get involved in programs such as Katimavik, even though the government has cut that program, which provided thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast with wonderful opportunities, and fantastic lives have followed out of those opportunities. However, we should be looking for programs and ideas that would allow our young people to say “yes, I would rather be doing that as opposed to getting engaged in gangs”.
I was at the McGregor Armoury for the Remembrance Day service and it was so encouraging to see so many young people involved in Air Cadets and other cadet programs. This again provides opportunities for young people.
I only have another minute but there are so many other issues. I could talk about the housing co-ops. I could spend at least 20 minutes just on health care. The issue is that there is so much encompassed in the bill that we could and should be talking about. The bill is going to be forced to a vote. Why? Because of time allocation. The government does not allow MPs to express themselves and that is indeed unfortunate because there is so much to talk about.
 I did not even get the opportunity to say that the government inherited billions in surplus and converted it into billions in debt. I did not say anything about the billions in trade surplus, which were converted into trade deficits. The government has not done what it should be doing and that is the reason that we cannot support Bill C-4.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to my friend across the way. He seemed to touch on two major aspects. One was the ongoing Senate scandal and the Prime Minister's involvement in that. If I could follow his logic, the point he was making was that the Prime Minister's Office and the government have been greatly distracted by their own ethical lapses and that distraction leads to bad legislation and bad planning around the economy and health for Canadians.
We have seen a recent report by the OECD, another one from The Economist just today, talking about the frailty of the Canadian economy and the significant foundational issues that need to be addressed. 
When we look at Bill C-4, which is the topic of today's debate, this bill, which is meant to deal with supposedly the budget and finances, has all of these things crammed in, as we so often see with these omnibus bills from the Conservatives. 
I would make note that the bill is, in part, introduced to fix a previous omnibus bill that was introduced to fix a previous omnibus piece of legislation. That is why we in the New Democratic Party have such opposition to the very process the government uses, because Conservatives keep introducing laws to fix old laws and doing it all under time allocation.
One of the significant frailties or concerns in the Canadian economy is the housing bubble that exists in many of our housing markets across the country; it varies. What has the government done, from my hon. friend's perspective, to address the potential, growing and concerning issue of overpricing in the housing market and of course the potential bubble bursting and affecting so many millions of Canadians?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and I will address both points. There have been ethical challenges within the Prime Minister's Office. Canadians are very much aware of those challenges and as a result of that and as a result of the Prime Minister not being transparent, accountable or fully truthful on a wide variety of different issues coming out of the Prime Minister's Office, we have been putting in a huge amount of time in terms of the agenda of the House on that issue. It has taken away from other aspects that we could be addressing. The best example of that would probably be how that issue has dominated question period. We hope that the Prime Minister will see the value in terms of testifying under oath and coming to committee.
In regard to the housing issue, the member is quite right. There is a serious housing crisis today that does need to be dealt with. One of the petitions that I introduced deals with housing co-ops. We need to start looking at ways in which we can give strength to different types of housing programs such as housing co-ops, life lease programs, renovation programs. There is so much there that we could be doing, but we find that the government's budgets have been lacking in providing this.
Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech in the House earlier. He brought up some very valid points in relation to the ongoing scandals that we are seeing on the other side of the House from the government and how those relate to Bill C-4.
One of the things that Bill C-4 does is change the way the government is acting when it comes to budgets. It is not so much in the sense of omnibus budget bills, because it seems to be the common practice to put in as much stuff as it can, call it a budget, and then introduce it to the House. What we see now are changes to health and safety for workers. We have seen changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act in the previous omnibus budget bills. Then we had a prorogation of another month so that the government could come up with consumer-friendly items, but we have seen no action on these items, just a lot of talk.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on all of the talk that we hear from the other side, contrasted with the lack of action.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, there is a real need for us to look at the way in which the government has chosen to pass legislation through these budget mega-bills. It is not healthy.
I believe that what we could do here in opposition, as much as possible, is to remind our constituents and to inform all Canadians, in the best way we can, that passing legislation through the back door is not a good way to go about it.
Whenever we have a budget bill, whether it federal or provincial, there is always a need to have some bills brought through in a budget implementation bill. That has happened in the past. What makes this unique is the quantity of bills that are being brought in through this back door.
I want to add one further comment, because I realize that people are really concerned about the PMO. Let us recognize that it is the budget that allows for the PMO to exist in the first place. Maybe we should be looking at how we could be cutting back on the budget in the Prime Minister's Office until we start to get straightforward and truthful answers and possibly have representatives come before a committee to testify under oath.
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, the NDP obviously opposes Bill C-4, because of both its content and the process used. I have a question for my colleague.
Over the past 35 years, under both Conservative and Liberal governments, the income of the richest 20% of Canadians has increased, while the income of the poorest 80% has decreased.
Could he speak to that?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity and the good fortune to be around for a number of years. One of the things I have found is that statistics can often be used in many different types of manipulative ways. I can reflect on the reality that back in the nineties, for three or four years, the United Nations reported Canada as the best country in the world to live in, based on a wide spectrum of social factors. I take great pride in our quality of life. Many Canadians will say that we are the best country in the world to live in. I like to believe that the Liberal Party of Canada had a lot to do with that through engaging Canadians and, as a political entity, bringing ideas forward to the floor of the House of Commons.
Therefore, I give credit where credit is due. Canadians who have taken the time to get engaged and to participate in the political process have made me a proud Liberal in terms of our social programs and health care, where we had record amounts of dollars. That was because of Paul Martin and his health care accord. Programs such as our CPP and pension programs and many of the national programs we have today, if not virtually all of them, exist because of the efforts of wonderful, great Canadians getting engaged, and the Liberal Party has most frequently been the vehicle used to implement them as government policy.
When the member makes reference to some mistakes being made over the last 35 years, I suspect there have been some. However, all in all, I believe that we have done exceptionally well.
I find that at times there is a need for us to reflect on where we are. That is why I concluded my opening remarks by saying that when the Conservative government took office from Paul Martin, there was a healthy surplus. There was a surplus in terms of trade deficit, which means thousands of jobs, and there was a surplus in terms of finances, which means we had a healthier economy.
The Liberal Party, under the good, strong leadership of individuals like Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Paul Martin, and Jean Chrétien, has done exceptionally well over the years.
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak at third reading to Bill C-4, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. Economic action plan 2013 is crucial to Canada's long-term growth. It is a strategic plan for jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity and it builds on our government's success.
Let me begin by noting that Canada is in an enviable position among the world's industrial economies. We have fared relatively better than most in the aftermath of the global recession. Real GDP is significantly above pre-recession levels and shows the best performance in the G7. Since we introduced our economic action plan, Canada has recovered more than all the output and all of the jobs lost during the great recession. Employment has increased by over one million since July 2009. This is the strongest job growth record among G7 countries over the recovery. About 90% of all jobs created since July 2009 have been full-time positions, and more than 80% are in the private sector. This has been no easy feat, but our government continues to focus on job creation and economic growth. 
I would like to point out that Canada has weathered the economic storm quite well, and the world has noticed. Both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over the next few years. For the sixth year in a row, the World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banking system as the world's soundest. Three credit rating agencies—Moody's, Fitch, and Standard &amp; Poor's—have reaffirmed their top ratings for Canada, and it is expected Canada will maintain its AAA rating in the year ahead. 
I should point out that we are one of only a few countries that still maintain those AAA ratings. 
This economic resilience reflects the actions our government took before the global crisis: lowering taxes, paying down debt by $38 billion, reducing red tape, and promoting free trade and innovation. 
Of course, Canada cannot rest on this record of success. Despite solid job creation since July 2009, there are Canadians who remain unemployed. Much of our vast potential remains unfulfilled; consequently, our work is not done. We are not out of the woods yet. That is why today's legislation focuses on the drivers of growth and job creation, underpinned by our ongoing commitment to keeping taxes low and returning to balanced budgets in 2015.
Let me briefly highlight a few of the most important initiatives in the legislation before us today, all of which touch on three pillars of this legislation: closing tax loopholes and combatting tax evasion, respecting taxpayers' dollars, and providing support for job creators. 
I would like to start with tax fairness, which is a significant part of today's legislation. 
This issue affects all hard-working Canadians. They know that when everyone pays their fair share, it helps us keep taxes low for all Canadian families and businesses, thereby improving incentives to work, save, and invest in Canada. That is why we are taking additional action to improve the integrity of the tax system, such as further extending the application of Canada's thin capitalization rules—which limit the amount of Canadian profits that can be distributed to certain non-resident shareholders as deductible interest payments—to Canadian resident trusts and non-resident entities, and lengthening the normal reassessment period by three years for a taxpayer who has failed to report income from a specified foreign property on their annual income tax return and failed to properly file the foreign income verification statement. 
It does not end there. The legislation takes further action on this front by modifying the tax treatment of certain financial arrangements, which are referred to as “character conversion transactions”. These transactions seek to reduce tax by converting the returns on an investment that would have the character of fully taxable ordinary income to capital gains, only 50% of which are included in income. Other financial arrangements, which are referred to as “synthetic dispositions”, seek to defer tax or obtain other tax benefits by allowing a taxpayer to economically dispose of a property while continuing to own it for income tax purposes. 
To ensure that taxpayers cannot avoid paying their fair share by entering into these types of arrangements and transactions, Bill C-4 proposes a measure that treats these transactions as giving rise to dispositions at fair market value for income tax purposes. 
As I am sure some may recognize, “synthetic dispositions” and “character conversion transactions” may not be terms we use on a regular basis, but make no mistake, these schemes have unfortunately allowed a select few to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Today's legislation would correct this imbalance by making common sense changes we believe are necessary and timely to ensure fairness in Canada's tax system.
While we are on the subject of tax fairness, Bill C-4 also proposes to further enhance the integrity of the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program, also knows as SR and ED. Today's legislation would introduce a penalty of $1,000 in respect of each SR and ED program claim for which the information about SR and ED tax preparers and billing arrangements are missing, incomplete or inaccurate. In addition, in the case where a third-party SR and ED tax preparer had been engaged, the SR and ED program claimant and the tax preparer would be jointly and severally liable for the penalty.
Hon. members, our government has also taken steps to enhance the neutrality of the tax system, thereby improving the allocation of investment and capital within the Canadian economy. Economic action plan 2013 contained a number of measures to improve the neutrality of the tax system, including the phase-out of certain preferences, such as the 10% corporate mineral exploration and development tax credit. 
Bill C-4 builds on this success by introducing two changes that would make the tax system more neutral across mining and other industries.
First, pre-production mine development expenses, which are currently treated as Canadian exploration expenses for tax purposes, would be treated instead as Canadian development expenses. Whereas CEE is fully deductible in the year incurred, CDE would be deductible at a rate of 30% per year on a declining balance basis. To allow companies to adapt to these changes, the transition from CEE to CDE treatment would be phased in over the period of 2015 to 2017. 
Second, the accelerated capital cost allowance provided for certain assets acquired for use in new mines or eligible mine expansions would be phased out over the period of 2017-20.
These two changes are consistent with similar changes announced for the oil sands sector in budget 2007 and economic action plan 2011. 
Hon. members, today's legislation would improve the fairness and neutrality of the tax system while keeping taxes low for Canadian families who work hard, play by the rules and pay their taxes. Let me remind all members that it is our government that has introduced over 75 measures to improve the integrity of the tax system since 2006.
Let me now briefly touch on some of the other key measures in Bill C-4.
First I will touch on the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment.
Canada is an energy superpower, with one of the world's largest resource endowments of both traditional and emerging sources of energy. Canada is increasingly looked at as a secure and dependable supplier of a wide range of energy products.
Since 2006, our government has taken significant steps to establish our country as a global clean energy leader, including through regulatory actions, investments in technology and innovation, and broad-based incentives. The government has also supported these sectors through the tax system by expanding eligibility for the ACCA for clean energy generation equipment. Through economic action plan 2012, we expanded the eligibility of the ACCA for clean energy generation equipment to include a broader range of equipment that generates or distributes energy from waste. 
To further encourage businesses to invest in clean energy generation and energy-efficient equipment, today's legislation would expand eligibility by providing for more types of organic waste to be used in qualifying biogas production equipment. Specifically, eligible organic waste is expanded to include pulp and paper waste and waste water, beverage industry waste and waste water, and separated organics from municipal waste. 
This legislation would also broaden the range of cleaning and upgrading equipment used to treat eligible gases from waste that is eligible for the ACCA. 
These are all measures that are in line with our Conservative government's strong record of environmental protection and examples of how we are ensuring that environmental protection goes hand in hand with building a strong economic future.
Our Conservative government is also committed to keeping the employment insurance premium rate low. Bill C-4 would make good on this commitment. In September, we announced that we would freeze the EI premium rate at the 2013 level of $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings for the year 2014. Additionally, the rate would be set no higher than $1.88 for the years 2015 and 2016. 
By doing this, our Conservative government is promoting stability and predictability for both employers and employees. It would also leave an estimated $660 million in the pockets of employers and workers in the year 2014 alone. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently told the House finance committee that:
 ...85% of our members indicated that a steady and predictable EI rate is critical for small business to help keep their businesses afloat during unstable economic times, and in turn help them grow their business as the economy improves. 
These are the businesses that are looking to hire Canadians and are critical to Canada's success and economic recovery.
To ensure further predictability and stability around EI premium rates, this measure would amend the Employment Insurance Act to set the EI premium rate for 2015 and 2016 at $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings. Unlike the old Liberal government, which raided the EI fund for its own pet projects, we would ensure that EI premiums are only used for EI payments. This measure would also establish that the premium rate for 2017 and onward would be set according to the seven-year, break-even rate setting mechanism.
Make no mistake, when it comes to employment insurance, we will take no advice from the members across the way. It is a bit rich to be here to hear the Liberals and the New Democrats talk about EI rates when they supported a 45-day work year that would have seen EI premiums increase by at least 35%. Thankfully, the members on this side of the House had the common sense to oppose such a job killing proposal.
Bill C-4 also recognizes the challenges faced by small businesses across the country. In economic action plan 2011, we announced a temporary hiring credit for small business of up to $1,000 per employer. This credit provided needed relief to small businesses by helping defray the costs of hiring new workers and allowing them to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities. Indeed, the temporary hiring credit was so well received by businesses that it was extended to 2012.
While the Canadian economy is improving, the global recovery remains fragile. In order to support job creation, Bill C-4 would extend and expand the hiring credit for small businesses to 2013. By doing this, an employer whose premiums were $15,000 or less in 2012 would be refunded the increase in their 2013 premiums over those paid in 2012, to a maximum of $1,000. It is estimated that 560,000 small businesses would benefit from this measure, saving them $225 million alone in 2013. Through this initiative, we would stimulate new employment and provide better support to small businesses.
Bill C-4 would also phase out inefficient and ineffective tax credits, such as the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit. Clearly, the NDP does not realize that this credit simply is not working. The message we heard from Canadians during our consultations was loud and clear, and consistent with independent experts such as the OECD. They all said that this tax subsidy was not working to promote economic growth and create jobs.
Just listen to what the Montreal Economic Institute had to say:
 All things considered, labour-sponsored funds are financial instruments that fulfill neither their economic objectives, namely to make venture capital available to help Quebec businesses, nor their financial objectives of offering a good return to contributors, their performance being interesting only by taking into account the additional tax credit. 
Here is what the reputable economist, Jack Mintz, had to say:
 These credits have not only been ineffective in generating more venture capital, but they have also helped finance poor projects that should have never been funded in the first place. 
There is more. This is what the C.D. Howe Institute had to say:
 Providing tax relief to LSIFs has been, overall, a disappointing use of taxpayer money. Such funds have been shown in multiple studies, including this one, to do a poor job of achieving public policy aims. 
When will the NDP get it? These credits simply do not work. Our government understands that Canada's long-term economic competitiveness in the emerging knowledge economy needs to be driven by globally competitive, high-growth businesses that innovate and create high-quality jobs. 
That is why economic action plan 2012 announced resources to support Canada's venture capital industry, including $400 million to help increase private sector investments in early stage risk capital to help recapitalize existing private sector funds with willing provinces, and to support the creation of large scale venture capital funds led by the private sector.
In summary, as I said at the outset, Bill C-4 contains many important new measures. These are measures we must take in order to respond to the needs of our time, while setting out the goals our long-term prosperity demands. Measures that find efficiencies and cost savings in government are critical to sustainability and cost-effectiveness. 
Action taken to support business and industry are imperative to the economic success of Canada. We must continue to provide the steady guidance that has allowed Canada to continue on the right track to recovery. 
Our government will not apologize for streamlining government, creating jobs and keeping our tax system fair, while keeping taxes low. I therefore urge all hon. members to continue to support the government in this work that is so vital to the people of Canada and their continued prosperity, and thus vote for Bill C-4 in its entirety.
Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there are some things in the speech of my neighbour about which I have some questions. 
I am particularly interested in the National Research Council. There are changes mentioned in Bill C-4. However, I do have other questions about the National Research Council. For example, there have been hundreds and hundreds of scientists for the National Research Council fired over the last years and the council has taken an entirely different direction without really consulting any of these scientists. 
We have heard of the muzzling that is going on in federal agencies. I smell a bit of mismanagement there. I do not have confidence that the new president, Mr. McDougall, really has a handle on what he should be doing in the NRC. Could the member comment on that and does Mr. McDougall enjoy his complete confidence?
[Interjection]
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the government continues to support the National Research Council. In fact, I have been to certain announcements in the last couple of weeks and shows that our government is spending unprecedented amounts of money on research and technology. 
I was at Simon Fraser University just last weekend announcing funding for the VIVA, the visual analytics program, which is making great strides in analyzing new ways to form data and go through important information, which will help our country when it comes to innovation and research.
This morning I went to the innovation breakfast where Gilles Patry, the president, gave a wonderful speech about what his organization was doing for innovation and research in our country. 
We will continue to support research and innovation because that is the future of our country. That is how our businesses will compete head on with businesses worldwide.
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I thought my hon. colleague did a really good job of explaining why predictable EI rates were so important to businesses as they plan future hiring decisions.
He mentioned the former Liberal government and the way it raided EI funds over the years, and this absurd notion the opposition puts forward of a 45-day work year. 
He also mentioned the small business hiring tax credit. I represent the city of Mississauga, which has a number of large employers, manufacturers, but it also has many small businesses especially. It is a diverse community made up of a lot of new Canadians. Many new Canadians operate those small businesses. 
Could he tell us how the small business hiring tax credit could benefit those types of business and encourage them to hire new employees?
[Interjection]
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we understand that small businesses are the backbone of this economy. They are the ones creating the bulk of the new jobs. That is why we have extended the hiring credit for small businesses. We expect over 560,000 small businesses across the country to be eligible to apply for this. Those are small businesses that could actually get up to $1,000 back next year as a result of their claims.
 We expect that employment will continue to grow. In fact, we just found out that in the month of November alone, 21,600 net new jobs were created. That adds to over one million net new jobs that have been created since July 2009. It is the number one jobs growth record in the G7. It is thanks to smart policies like the hiring credit for small businesses that we are experiencing such great growth in jobs.
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that even though we are pretending that we are debating the budget here, the budget has two new bills in it and all kinds of matters that are not really budget related.
I am glad my colleague across the way raised the question of employment. We have a government that is absolutely married to giving more and more power to ministers. Now we are going to have the Minister of Finance actually setting the rate for EI contributions and having the final say, instead of a board. Yet the people who pay into that EI fund are employers and workers. The government does not put any money into that fund. 
Is this another ruse so that the government can keep stealing from the EI fund, as it did in the past to the tune of $57 billion?
[Interjection]
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague opposite for that question, because it gives me the opportunity to set the record straight. In fact, it was the previous Liberal government that took almost $57 billion from the EI fund. We are changing that. We are making sure that EI premiums go only to EI payments. That is going to be in our budget. That is something we are going to stick to.
We are also freezing EI premiums for three years so that there is predictability for both employers and employees. After those three years, we are going to have the rate set to the break-even rate so that employers and employees will be paying just the necessary amount for the system to break even. That is the way it should be, and that is the way it is going to be.
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, I come from Oshawa. Oshawa has a strong history of manufacturing. I was wondering if the member would be able to contrast our approach, where we are lowering taxes for business and trying to keep taxes low for families and all Canadians, with the NDP policies.
We all know that the NDP wants to put in a $20-billion carbon tax. Right now, with the recovery kind of iffy and when we are not sure where we are going to be going, does the member think that in the economy right now Canadians can afford another hit such as is being suggested by the NDP with this $20-billion carbon tax?
[Interjection]
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer the question from my hon. colleague.
As we all know, lower taxes create jobs, and they help families get by, as well. That is why, since 2006, we have lowered over 200 different taxes. Canadian families, on average, have $3,200 extra in their pockets at the end of each year as a result of our low-tax policies.
It has also encouraged businesses to invest. It has encouraged businesses to come back and relocate their head offices in Canada, such as Tim Hortons, which relocated its head office back in Canada because of our low-tax policies and our low-tax plans, which have proven to be a success. They helped us through the recession we had in 2008.
 We came out stronger than any of our trading partners in any of the G7 countries. It is because of our low-tax policies. It is because we are also intending to balance the budget in 2015. It is because we have already paid down the debt by $38 billion between 2006 and 2008. We all know that a $21-billion carbon tax, which is proposed by the NDP, would be a job-killing tax.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, December 3, 2013, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
 Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, December 9, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Interjection]
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find agreement to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Does the House give its consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Retirement Income Bill of Rights[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 5, 2013, consideration of the motion that Bill C-513, An Act to promote and strengthen the Canadian retirement income system, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
François Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House to speak to a private member's bill, Bill C-513, which was introduced by the hon. member for York West, one of our Liberal Party colleagues.
I would like to read the bill summary so that everyone knows exactly what we are talking about. It states:
 This enactment creates a Bill of Rights for a retirement income system that promotes the goals of adequacy, transparency, affordability, equity, flexibility, security and accessibility for all Canadians. 
Everything that could be in there is, and who would not want those things? As a result of this description, we will support the bill at second reading, even though it does not contain any real advances with regard to the extremely important issue of future old age pensions. 
This high-sounding statement talks about the right to retirement income. However, it does not seek to enhance the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. That is a bit worrisome for such a broad statement that seems to cover the entire future of Canadian pensioners. The bill does not even address the issue of the Canada pension plan, which is the fundamental tool for planning for the future of retirees, particularly those with fewer means.
The bill also does not seek to reverse the changes to the old age security program so that Canadians can once again be eligible for benefits at age 65. The current government decided that, from now on, Canadians would not be eligible for these benefits until age 67.
Since we are talking about a private member's bill from a Liberal member, there is one thing that I think is extremely important to point out. The cuts to the Canada pension plan made by the former Liberal government will total the exorbitant amount of $15 billion a year in 2030. That is what the Liberals did a few years ago, and today, they are making a grand statement about the need to have accessible, transparent and affordable pensions.
Actuaries are being asked to find solutions to ensure that our pension funds are viable in the long term. Just imagine how decisions made by previous Liberal governments and the current Conservative government make their lives impossible.
Let us discuss the consequences of a pension plan that will not meet the challenges of current and future demographic change. Transfer payments make up more than 90% of the income of seniors living in poverty in Canada. The pension plan represents 90% of the small amount of money that prevents the poorest retired Canadians from living in abject poverty.
According to the National Council of Welfare, between 122,000 and 567,000 seniors lived in poverty in 2008. Need I remind members that, over the past 40 years, they built one of the richest economies on the planet? Now they find themselves in poverty. 
There are currently 11 million Canadians without a workplace retirement plan, and many young families are struggling to pay for their children's education and their mortgage. Consequently, they do not have a pension plan.
Between 2005 and 2010, the rate of poverty among Canadians 65 and older increased by 2%. Of the 34 most advanced countries, only Turkey, Poland and Canada lost this much ground. 
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, these poor results are in part due to the current Canadian pension system, or at least the way it is managed. Public transfers represent less than 39% of the gross income of Canadian seniors, compared to an average of 59% for OECD countries.
In this situation, approximately 5.8 million Canadians could see a significant deterioration in their standard of living when they retire.
On average, this will affect women even more than men, as 70% of seniors are women.
Let us talk about the opposite scenario, in other words the impact of having a pension plan that addresses the challenge of current and future demographic changes.
The most important thing is that we have a moral obligation to ensure that an entire generation does not end up living out retirement below the poverty line. That is essential.
Nonetheless, there are economic aspects to consider, things as basic as maintaining a certain purchasing power.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that bringing the retirement age back down to 65 would not threaten the pension plan. Increasing the retirement age to 67 is a striking example of the government taking money out of retirees' pockets.
In our economy, which has been developing for many years, the manufacturing sector accounted for only 12% of the jobs in Quebec in 2011. Ten years earlier, it accounted for 18% of the jobs. These well-paying jobs in the processing industries are often shipped to developing countries. Another type of economy and service is developing.
Where is the government collecting its taxes from? It is thanks in large part to consumer spending. Sales tax has slowly been replacing business income tax. 
More and more, the economy is being driven by consumer spending. The lack of long-term vision, and the fact that millions of pensioners living in financial conditions whereby they will no longer—in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years—be able to afford to eat out once a week or go on short vacations, is a moral and ethical problem, but also an economic problem.
We have a real retirement security crisis on our hands that might trigger an economic slowdown in the medium and long terms and problems for the public treasury if nothing is done about it.
Consolidated savings through increased contributions to a public retirement fund seems like a surefire way to secure a number of important aspects.
A public retirement fund would ensure a better savings rate among Canadians, a better return, less dependence on voluntary contribution models such as RRSPs, which often are barely or not at all within reach of low-income families, and in the end, a decent income for our seniors and a healthy economy.
The current government does not seem to be thinking about these obligations. It has a short-term vision.
A number of my NDP colleagues ask questions about the pension plan, and the government always tells us that now is not the time. It will never be the time if the government keeps its short-term vision and does not think about what will happen in 10, 20 or 30 years if we do nothing. They can keep saying that tomorrow morning is not the right time and then nothing will get done.
The Minister of Finance did not fulfill his commitment to meet his Canadian counterparts in June. The provinces were expected to approve an increase to Canada pension plan benefits, but they cannot do that as long as the federal finance minister refuses to meet with them.
We cannot forget that Quebec is different when it comes to negotiations between the federal and provincial governments. In Quebec we have the QPP and not the CPP. I do not know how quickly these negotiations could move in order to improve the pension plan to avoid the crisis that is expected to strike retirees in 15 or 20 years.
The government should at least sit down so everyone can work on it together and see what we can start doing now that will result in fewer Canadians struggling with poverty in 20 years. That would be encouraging, but we are not even getting that from this government.
Actuaries like Bernard Dussault, who was the chief actuary of the CPP from 1992 to 1997, fully support a small increase to help provide for the future of Canadian retirees.
We have to remember that sooner or later we will all be seniors. Some people will be privileged, like many members in this House who were fortunate enough to be elected twice and will have access to an excellent pension. Do not think about those people. Think about the increasing number of families who struggle to pay their mortgage. These people deserve to be living with dignity 10, 15, 20 and 35 years from now.
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of Bill C-513. This is a bill that was put forward by my friend and colleague from York West.
 I certainly hold in high regard the work that the member has done on this particular issue. I know that over the last number of years she has travelled the country and met with numerous stakeholders, many Canadians who have voiced their concerns around the entire pension issue. This bill is an outgrowth from that experience. 
The member listened to experts in the field and to a broad range of voices from many sectors, and I am sure she would be able to share that when she has an opportunity to speak herself. I am sure that was her motivation; trying to help Canadians in their later years is certainly what brought this bill to the floor.
To understand the focus of the bill, it is important that we appreciate the changing demographic in this country. Certainly our aging population, where Canadians are living longer and some are retiring sooner, puts a shift in the paradigm as to how many people in this country are contributing and how many are benefiting from investments in pensions. 
As a matter of fact, the ratio has changed considerably over the years. If we look back to 1980, the ratio of retirees to workers was at 36% in 1980, and today that ratio is 53%. That is fairly substantive, and it is a shift, so we have to look differently at how we prepare for retirement. That demographic shift alone places many Canadians' retirement at risk. 
A recent survey indicates that 30% of Canadians feel they would not be able to retire at the age of 65. We see that more and more now, whether it is from necessity, or that they want to continue to work past the age of 65, which is not uncommon in this day and age. However, among those Canadians who would like to retire at the age of 65, at least 30% of them feel they would not be able to do so. Also, that study identifies that only 14% of seniors believe they are going to be able to retire with any degree of comfort. They have anxiety leading up to the point when they do retire.
What we are seeing is the development of a two-tier retirement in Canada. We have those who get along quite well and are comfortable. They have had a pension plan that they have been able to pay into, or they have earned quite well, and saved and invested well for their retirement. Then we see the people at the other end of the spectrum, who have not had the benefit of a company pension plan and have not made the money they felt was necessary to invest and save. They have spent most of their time trying to get by and raise their family. We are seeing that gap widen between those in retirement who have and those who do not have.
Some additional statistics that came out of that study are that 75% of Canadians working in the private sector do not have a pension plan other than CPP, OAS, or a guaranteed income supplement. Seventy-five per cent of Canadians is certainly a number we should all be concerned about. 
Many Canadians expect to depend mostly on those government benefits in retirement. However, together these government plans can pay only up to a maximum of about $27,000. The average is considerably less.
Those who work for the government or a large company will have some type of plan to rely on. I know of some unfortunate cases, which we can find right across this country, of companies that have come up against hard times. One of the first casualties of tough economic times is an investment in the company's pension plan. We know that they do not have to be fully funded. There are laws on the level of funding for company pension plans. 
Stora Enso, in my riding of Cape Breton—Canso, is a company that has been a great corporate citizen and has had a great history in the riding. It did newsprint and high-end glossy paper for many years. However, we know where newsprint and the paper industry have gone in this country and globally. When Stora Enso fell upon hard times, it sold to NewPage Corporation. One of the things NewPage did not invest in was topping up the defined benefits pension plan. When the company went into receivership, many people who left the mill years ago all of sudden themselves making 40% less from their pensions than they did before the downturn and the bankruptcy.
 People have a particular lifestyle. They think that they will have a guaranteed income going forward into retirement. To have almost half of that pulled away certainly comes as a shock to many. That is what the retirees and pensioners of Stora Enso and NewPage have experienced.
The provinces recognize this, and they have been pushing the federal government to expand the CPP. However, the government has been dragging its heels. We have heard the minister responsible stand in the House and speak against that. However, it is coming in loud and clear from the provinces that changes have to be made. The government's new PRPP retirement plans are voluntary tools. Employers do not have to offer them, and employees do not have to use them.
 We know that Canadians are not saving enough for retirement. There are reasons for that. In the last five years, we have seen an increase of 78% in the number of Canadians who are working for minimum wage. People working for minimum wage are doing the best they can to pay the bills. People are doing the best they can to keep the wolves away from the door if they are trying to run a household on minimum wage. Therefore, they are not able to make those types of investments in savings. What they are investing in is food and heat and lights for their homes. That has to be of concern.
CIBC recently did a study that showed that a 35-year-old today saves half of what a 35-year-old saved a generation ago. I think we all know about those experiences.
To sum up, the bill does two things. It gives Canadians the right to contribute to a decent retirement plan and to be provided with up-to-date, unbiased information about their savings plans. That is worthwhile and noble. If we were able to embrace that through this legislation, those principles would serve us well. That is why I would be happy to stand and support my colleague from York West when the opportunity arises to vote on this piece of legislation.
Dave Van Kesteren: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to debate this private member's bill this afternoon.
First, our government is dedicated to supporting Canada's senior citizens. Many have spent their lives working hard, while demonstrating great resolve and determination to make this country great. As the older generation passes the torch along to a new and younger generation of Canadians, we want to ensure that seniors are always respected and receive the appreciation they deserve.
We have also taken concrete action to benefit our seniors. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight just a few of the steps we have taken in that vein.
Our government has established October 1 as National Seniors Day to pay tribute to the seniors who have helped build our country and continue to help make it great.
Since 2006, we have funded over 11,000 new horizons for seniors programs and projects, in hundreds of communities across Canada. The new horizons for seniors program is a federal grants and contributions program that supports projects led or inspired by seniors who want to make a difference. Projects must be led or inspired by seniors and address one or more of the following five program objectives: promoting volunteerism among seniors and other generations; engaging seniors in the community through the mentoring of others; expanding awareness of elder abuse, including financial abuse; and providing capital assistance for new and existing community projects and/or programs for seniors.
One other objective of the new horizons for seniors program is to combat social isolation. Although it is not the case for every senior, there are too many who are not aware of or cannot partake in their community's activities due to social isolation. Research clearly shows that isolation continues to be a serious concern, particularly for older Canadians. We take it very seriously.
Recently, the Minister of State for Seniors conducted calls for proposals for projects that focus on one of three priorities: identifying seniors at risk of isolation and determining the existing programs and services that could support them; expanding community-based services for seniors who are experiencing or are at risk of social isolation; and supporting social participation through intergenerational learning.
By doing this, our government is making it easier for seniors, individuals, and organizations to form partnerships with the not-for-profit sector, the private sector, and governments, to localize and leverage the resources in their community. We are pleased to help create partnerships that would form a circle of support around all seniors in our communities.
Another object of the new horizons for seniors program is protection. I am proud to note that our government passed the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act. This act will help ensure consistently tough penalities for criminals who have committed elder abuse. We want to ensure that seniors feel safe and secure in their homes and in their communities. We believe this legislation will help.
We are not only committed to protecting the safety and the security of seniors, but also to protecting the security of their pensions and Canada's retirement income system. Obviously, the level of retirement income in Canada is directly related to the state of the Canadian economy.
I am proud to note that just last week, Statistics Canada announced that the Canadian economy grew by 2.7% in the third quarter. This is the ninth consecutive quarter of economic growth in Canada. This is yet further evidence that despite a fragile global economic environment, our government's economic action plan is working. We are also on track to balance the budget in 2015, all the while keeping taxes low.
Our plan is working. That does not mean we have not faced difficulties. We have faced the adversity of the worst recession in a generation. We have faced the difficulty of an opposition party that wants to raise taxes and punish job creators. 
Recently, we faced a new threat. It is not the same as the economic threats that lie beyond our shores; rather, this is one that is right here at home. It is the threat of one of the world's most inexperienced leaders, the member for Papineau. Time and time again, the Liberal leader shows poor judgment. This is the type of judgment that would damage our economy. It would damage the confidence of foreign businesses looking to invest in Canada. It would create dangerous instability that would prevent businesses from expanding.
It almost sounds comical, but sadly it is true. Even though he is the federal Liberal leader, he has not put forward one single economic policy. While many Canadians are honourably giving their hard-earned dollars to support charities, the elected member for Papineau was taking those same charity dollars and pocketing the speaking fees. While we create greater prosperity that gives the nation hope, he emphasizes dictatorships and free-flowing dope. 
Pensioners and seniors know better. They know the Canadian economy has benefited from the unprecedented leadership of the Prime Minister for eight consecutive years.
In fact, the Prime Minister has recently signed an historic trade agreement with Europe that will contribute to greater prosperity in Canada for generations to come. Canada has also profited from our prudent and responsible fiscal plan. This has been led by the Minister of Finance. They do not call him the world's greatest finance minister for nothing.
Across the globe, Canada has a reputation as a nation with steady leadership and a strong economy. Despite the economic threats that continue to exist outside our borders and beyond our shores, Canada has enjoyed strong economic performance during both the recession and the recovery.
I would like to highlight a few other examples of how our plan for creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity is benefiting Canadians.
Since 2009, Canada has created over one million net new jobs. Almost 90% of those are full-time and more than 80% are in the private sector. This is the strongest job creation record in the entire G7.
This is good news, but we cannot be complacent. We must continue to take responsible, prudent steps to build our economy. Economic action plan 2013 is continuing to support our economy. It includes helping small businesses by extending the small business hiring credit, helping manufacturers with tax relief when they make new investments in machinery and equipment, and supporting persons with disabilities with new training investments to help them secure employment.
Economic action plan 2013 also keeps taxes low. We are keeping taxes low for all Canadians including seniors. Since 2006, we have cut taxes for seniors and pensioners, and have taken many steps to ensure they keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their wallets. For example, we have introduced pension income splitting, doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income tax credit, increased the maximum GIS earnings exemption to $3,500, and increased the age limit for maturing pensions and RRSPs to 71 from 69 years of age.
Overall, our actions have resulted in delivering over $2.7 billion in annual targeted tax relief to seniors. Seniors have asked for this and they have also asked that we keep Canada's retirement income system strong. We have done exactly that.
Canada's retirement income system is recognized around the globe. It is a model that succeeds in lowering poverty for seniors and in providing high levels of retirement income. This model is based on a three pillar approach.
The first pillar is made up of the old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits, which provide a minimum income guarantee for seniors. The second pillar is the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. These plans provide a defined benefit in retirement based on an individual's career earnings. The third pillar includes tax-assisted private savings opportunities. This includes registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans. 
The three pillars are strong, but we have taken action to make the system stronger. We passed the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act that will provide employers, employees and the self-employed with a low-cost pension option. This will enable more workers to benefit from the lower costs that result in large, pooled pension plans.
PRPPs are a viable option that provinces can enact very quickly. It would assist the 60% of Canadians who do not have access to workplace pensions. Unfortunately, the bill we have here today, Bill C-513, would only apply to less than 10% of the pension plans in Canada.
We do not support the private member's bill. Rather than focus on ineffective proposals, I encourage the Liberal Party to support our job-creating measures. After all, the best way to ensure a healthy retirement plan for tomorrow is to have a job today.
Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that the NDP will be supporting the bill so that the Standing Committee on Finance can discuss the Canada pension plan. This is important and serious.
I want to immediately correct the falsehoods that have been put forward by government members.
The Conservatives began by saying that they have delivered $2 billion in tax relief for seniors. Take Nortel, for example. The file was handled with such incompetence that Nortel workers lost more then $2 billion from their pension fund. That says a lot about how poorly the pension plan was managed. That is serious.
The people of Nortel worked their whole lives and lost more than 40% or 50% of their pension funds. It happened just like that. What did the government do? Nothing. That is serious. That type of situation needs to be addressed.
Here is another major falsehood. The Conservatives indicated that this was not the time to discuss the issue of pension plans. They do not know what they are talking about. The provincial proposal and the legislation concerning the Canada pension plan show that it will take three years from the moment the government decides to improve the pension plan for the change to happen. Increases to the Canada pension plan will happen over a seven-year period. It will take a total of 10 years from start to finish. Does that mean that the government is saying that the economic slump is going to last another 10 years? Is that the government's idea of economic growth? A 10-year slump?
Perhaps the government members need to understand that there is a difference between a pension fund and a tax. They are not the same thing. If they do not know what they are talking about, it would be better for them to study up on the issues instead of reading from notes prepared by the Prime Minister's Office. If the Conservatives were to do that, they would look more successful.
It is shameful that we are faced with such an astounding situation. The people who are losing their pension funds will not have the necessary income to meet their needs when they retire. However, the Conservatives refuse to talk about it.
With regard to the bill, I would have hoped that the Liberals would be better than the Conservatives, but that is not the case. The Liberals do not know what they are talking about either. It is appalling.
We have before us a bill that seeks to protect people who want to invest in a pension plan. That sounds good. It is good to know that the Liberals want to protect investors who put money into a pension fund.
However, when we look at the bill more closely, we see that it reflects a total lack of knowledge in this area. It does not make any sense. The Liberals want flexibility, but pension plans must produce a rate of return. Such plans must give a minor, quantifiable and identifiable return so that people who draw their pensions have at least 70% of their income. Math does not give the Liberals the wiggle room that they are used to. Two plus two equals four. That is always the case. The Liberals would like two plus two to equal three sometimes because then they can slip the extra into their pockets.
I would now like to explain why the bill is not viable. Subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act deals with registered pension plans. To be recognized as a registered pension plan, a pension plan must include a mandatory contribution from the employer. The Conservatives are changing the registered pension plan without taking into account that key element of the act.
The employer has to make a contribution. I did not find anything in their bill that amended the Income Tax Act. Obviously, they did not see this coming, they did not catch it and they did not even understand it.
Even if I went out of my way to explain it to them, I am not sure whether they would bother making the effort to understand. This is unfortunately what most deeply affects the Canada Pension Plan issue. We keep talking about it, but nothing gets done. 
The bill refers to “other” savings vehicles without defining them. However, under section 147.1 of the Income Tax Act, a deferred profit sharing plan is determined by legislation, not a definition that says “other savings vehicles”, as stipulated in clause 2 of the Liberal bill. Therefore, there is a total lack of understanding of the relationship between pension plans and the Income Tax Act. That is not really being discussed, either.
Subclause 4(1) of the bill states that the right to accumulate sufficient pension income is subject to any reasonable restrictions. What exactly is a “reasonable restriction”? This means that all legislation addressing pensions is now subject to judicial control to define what is a reasonable restriction.
We want pension plans to put money in the pockets of retirees, not legal firms. Once again, they did not get that and did not see it coming. They do not want pension plans to violate an individual's right to accumulate a pension on the basis of their religion, language or place of birth. That is nice, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms already guarantees that.
However, what takes the cake is when they say that there should not be an age restriction, even though the pension plan is, first and foremost, an age-based restriction. For example, people often hear that they cannot retire before 30 or 35 years of service without a financial penalty. That is an age restriction.
The Liberals are saying that there should not be one. That says a lot. I do not know who wrote that or what they were smoking, but perhaps they were smoking a bit too much.
An annotation to section 146.2 of the Income Tax Act indicates that people who have RRSPs must roll their RRSPs into RRIFs at age 69. This is clearly an obligation and a penalty based on age. This text is so weak that we could talk about it for hours. However, there are a good number of really important questions here. 
Are old age security, income security and the guaranteed income supplement enough to protect our seniors? That question needs to be addressed. Are people getting enough money?
Second, defined benefit pension plans are not protected by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Retirees are not considered preferred creditors. This was a major reason why the people at Nortel lost so much money. Can something be done? Can we create a group insurance plan with regard to registered pension plans? We must discuss this. CPP and QPP premiums are about 25%. Perhaps that needs to be increased to 50%, as suggested by the provinces.
In closing, this is about RRSPs. We need to limit the management fees and the rates of return.
This is why the NDP wants to be able to discuss this bill—basically so that the Standing Committee on Finance can have a closer look at these critical issues.
Scott Andrews: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here today to speak to the bill.
To refresh us on what the bill would do, I would like to quote a few words from the member from Toronto who proposed it.
 In broad strokes, the bill would create substantive, justifiable rights relating to retirement income, give every person a chance to accumulate retirement income, promote good plan administration, and set out in law that pension reform goals to which we aspire legislatively. 
This bill, in a few short steps, would improve people's financial retirement. 
For a lot of people, retirement takes years of planning. Those who start working in their mid-20s to mid-30s are not always thinking about retirement. Thirty years or 25 years is a long way away. A lot of factors can go into what may happen to one's retirement savings over that 30 years. We only need to look back at the last 10 years to see what happened when the markets collapsed and people's retirement savings vanished overnight, making them have to work longer. One never knows what might happen to one's retirement savings. It has taken at least the last five to six years to get back to where their savings were almost 15 years ago.
 Wherever I have travelled in my riding over the last little while, the number one issue I have heard from seniors has been how they are struggling in their day-to-day operations trying to survive on the little bit of pension income they have. The cost of living is going up. The cost of a quart of milk has gone up over the last little while. This impacts many seniors. There are a lot of seniors out there who are going to the malls to get warm, which is a shame. When one gets to that age in life, one should be able to retire in dignity and with respect.
I hear it everywhere I go. A lot of seniors are finding it very hard. A lot of them will admit that they did not think of retirement planning for the last 30 years. We have to make sure that these things are there so that people have the retirement savings they need.
People refer to some of the programs we have in place now, such as the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS, the Canada pension plan, and old age security. As the member for Cape Breton—Canso mentioned, when we look at the sum of those plans, it is only in the range of $27,000 a year. With the cost of everything going up, and as people are getting older and living longer, their needs become greater. When they get to a stage where they need care and help, it is costly.
My mother is 82 years old. It is not easy living alone in a home one has lived in one's entire life. When property tax goes up by a small increment, it can really cash-strap a lot of our seniors. When they get into a home or alternate living, it is not cheap. It costs of a lot of money. A lot of people at that age are spending every nickel on it. They have no money left over to share with their grandchildren, family, and friends. 
We need people to be thinking about this. We need to make sure that people are guaranteed an honourable retirement. All this bill is doing is proposing a bill of rights for retirees and seniors to make sure that they have the funds to live out retirement with dignity.
Getting back to the GIS and the CPP, one of the things I hear most, and what really gets me going, is that the government will say that it has given a little increase in the CPP. It gives this increase to the CPP; people receive it in January. They have their increase in their CPP, and it is not a whole lot, but it is a little. It is not enough to cover the cost of a carton of milk. However, by the time June comes around and they get reassessed, they are clawed back on their GIS. Therefore, they are no further ahead, at all, on any increase in the CPP. It is clawed back through their GIS. 
Seniors, retirees and people in the House cannot understand why the government would claw back their GIS. It gives it on one hand and takes it away on the other. I hear it every June, without fail, from people who call our offices and complain that their GIS, their income supplement, has been decreased because they were lucky enough to get a little more on their CPP in January. It is very frustrating. 
Much like where we have a number of bills of rights and charters for our veterans, we need to have this bill of rights for our seniors and for retirement. 
It is a pleasure to support the bill. I know the member has been an advocate for seniors and pension plans for a number of years now. She has seen what has happened when people's retirement incomes have slipped away through no fault of their own, or through businesses that collapse and pension funds are in jeopardy. I know there were some references made to Nortel. 
Bill C-513will help try to preserve that and make sure it gives seniors every tool they need to remain happy in their senior years. 
I would like to close by quoting this one the member put together. Basically, it says that is she had to summarize the bill in 50 words or less, she would say it is about “choice, fairness and flexibility”. She goes on:
 It is not about tearing down pensions; it is about elevating everyone to the same level. Every Canadian should have the right to a financially secure retirement and I believe this proposal sets the stage for that to become a reality. 
That is what the bill is about, and it is a pleasure to support it. 
Colin Mayes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this private member's bill. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex, for his comments. I will be repeating some of the very important points that he pointed out in his speech. 
Like many other Canadians, I feel very strongly about being able to have a safe, secure retirement. That is one of the reasons I am particularly pleased about our government's strong economic record. As we know, a secure retirement is directly connected to a stable economy. After all, there is no retirement if there is no job. That is one of the many reasons that our government has made creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity our top priority.
Despite obstruction attempts from the opposition across the way, we have been steadfast in our economic commitment, and Canada is benefiting. One week ago today, Statistics Canada announced that the Canadian economy grew by 2.7% in the third quarter. This is the ninth consecutive quarter of economic growth in Canada. This is especially noteworthy when we consider the delicate global economic environment in which that was achieved. While many other economies around the world are faltering, one simply cannot argue with the success of nine consecutive quarters of economic growth. 
However, this is not the first economic accomplishment under our government's stewardship. Canada has created over a million net new jobs since the depths of the recession in 2009. More importantly, nearly 90% of these new jobs are full-time and over 80% are in the private sector. This is the strongest job creation record in the G7. The International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development both project that Canada will have some of the strongest growth in the G7 in the years ahead. These organizations are expressing steadfast confidence in our government because they know we are steadfast in our commitment to the economic action plan. 
Economic action plan 2013 is continuing to support job creation and helping our economy grow. It includes helping small business by extending the small business hiring credit; helping manufacturers with tax relief when they make new investments in machinery and equipment; and supporting persons with disabilities, aboriginal people, youth and newcomers, with new training investments to help them secure employment. 
We are proud about creating a pro-growth environment while keeping taxes low. Canada continues to have the lowest overall tax rate on new—
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is rising on a point of order. 
[Interjection]
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, apologies to my friend across the way for interrupting his speech. It was my intention to have it otherwise, but the pressing clock requires me to rise now.
I am rising on a point of order resulting from a very disturbing event that took place this very afternoon. I will be asking for unanimous consent to table a document at the end of remarks to the House.
At 12:53 p.m. today, Conservative Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais circulated a letter to all members of Parliament, senators and their staff. The letter was addressed to the MP for Terrebonne—Blainville. The letter was offensive to the point that I rise today in the House.
Senator Dagenais was rejected by voters in the 2011 election, and then appointed by the Prime Minister to the Senate, which is unelected, unaccountable and under investigation. From atop his pedestal of legitimacy, this man used his Senate office, title and taxpayers' money to make vicious and personal attacks against the duly elected member for Terrebonne—Blainville. 
The letter in question attacks the very legitimacy of a sitting member of Parliament. The attack is paternalistic, childish, condescending and frankly misogynistic.
This man is a federal legislator, but not because he was elected by voters. He holds this position simply because he was a Conservative Party of Canada crony.
The timing of this attack could not be worse. Today, of all days, the tone deafness of Senator Dagenais's actions are absolutely stupefying.
We often lament the lack of participation of young Canadians, and in particular young women, in the democratic process. We are all aware of the effort to bring those voices into our Parliament. We will be looking more closely at this matter over the weekend and I expect that you, Mr. Speaker, will be hearing about this again from us when the House resumes on Monday.
I will now ask for the unanimous consent of the House and my colleagues to table the letter that was issued by their Conservative senator just this very afternoon in the attack on the member from Terrebonne—Blainville.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the document?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Order, please. At this point we will go back to private members' business. As there is only five minutes remaining before 2:15 p.m., the hon. member for York West can make her five minute right of reply at this point.
Judy Sgro: Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone who spoke for and against my seniors' bill of rights, and in particular, my two colleagues who spoke so very well.
Both my colleagues who spoke understand the challenges of being a senior today. Because of their closeness with them, they understand when seniors say that they have to eat macaroni and cheese for several days in the last week of the month because they do not have adequate pension funds.
The work I did in my previous critic role is hence the reason I tried to establish a basic bill of rights for seniors in Canada.
I am sure there are many on this side of the House and possibly some on the government side who understand what a bill of rights sets out to do, which is to establish parameters. It does not say to put money into it anywhere, because that is not a private member's bill anyway, but it is to set down the quality of life we want our seniors to have.
In the few minutes I have, I will try to reiterate a few points. Too often it is financial illiteracy that gets people into problems. They do not understand the awful lot of red tape that is involved when one invests in a bank. It sounds like a good investment so an individual might put their money there. An awful lot of people do not take the time to understand how complicated some of that is. 
Often there is a conflict of interest with the person promoting a particular investment because they get a higher management fee on it. Many people do not know these things. They do not know enough to ask those questions. They are busy trying to make the money to put away.
Every once in a while we hear about a group of people who lost their life savings in investments. Over and above issues such as Nortel and companies that go bankrupt, which is another issue altogether, people have the perception that if they put money away, it will be perfectly safe. People need to get up to date on what they need to know, the questions they need to ask and they need to become much more aware of what happens to their pension money if they are able to put any away. 
Often it is inadequate opportunity and economic instability. An individual has a job, which they lose, then they draw out their savings, not thinking about what will happen 20 years later because it is today that they need that money. That instability strips away the hard-earned savings of our seniors, and that is what we are trying to stop.
Bill C-513 is the first bill of its kind ever proposed to better protect our seniors and their nest eggs. I was hopeful that all of my colleagues in the House would support that. However, I have heard the message from the government side and it does not surprise me as the Conservatives move forward to promote the things they think are best, in their viewpoint, to help those who have.
When we look at the aging demographics and the population, there will be an awful lot of people who will have to rely on the province for more than the current GIS and OAS. 
The intent of part of the bill of rights is to put in parameters that would ensure that people get spoken to in plain English when they talk about retirement, so that they start to learn about financial literacy early on, understand the issues better and will not find themselves at the time of retirement with inadequate funds, if any at all, because they have used them for various reasons. 
The bill is about building people up, not tearing people down. It is about helping Canadians better prepare for tomorrow. That is a responsibility we all have in the House. 
We been talking about enhanced CPP. We have been talking about the Liberals' supplementary CPP. We need to get this issue on the agenda to talk about just how we would create the vehicles, the instruments, to help Canadians understand the reason they have to prepare for their retirements, and also provide the vehicles necessary for them to do that.
I thank all hon. members for their participation and for the opportunity to present the bill. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  It being 2:15 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. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, November 26, 2013, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions. 
It being 2:16 p.m, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:16 p.m.)