2013-06-07

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1Hon. Joe Oliver:  moved that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House this morning to present the reasons I support Canada's economic action plan 2013, Bill C-60. This plan, introduced by the best finance minister in the world, is thoughtful and reasonable, and most of all, it will help Canada with its economic recovery. 
The global economy is still weak, and the economies of several European nations are very precarious. The economy of the United States, our biggest trading partner--
The Speaker: Order, please. 
I would ask the hon. member to hold off for a few seconds. I think we might be having some trouble with the interpretation. We are having technical difficulties with the French translation. Perhaps we could just wait a few moments to see if we can get this resolved. I will stop the clock. 
Is the French translation working now?
I invite the hon. member to start over, and we will monitor the French translation. If there is trouble again, I might have to ask him to stop while we get some technicians to look at it. 
The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans.
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House this morning to present the reasons I support Canada's economic action plan 2013, Bill C-60. This plan, introduced by the best finance minister in the world, is thoughtful and reasonable, and most of all, it will help Canada with its economic recovery.
The global economy is still weak, and the economies of several European nations are very precarious. The economy of the United States, our biggest trading partner, is shaky. Canada's per capita GDP has been higher than that of the U.S. since 2011. That is unprecedented. 
According to the highly reputable World Bank, Canada's per capita GDP was $50,343 in 2011, compared to $48,112 in the U.S. The performance in our country is 5% higher than our southern neighbour's. The World Bank also stated that Canada's per capita GDP growth outstripped that of our neighbours to the south. 
Since 2010, our per capita GDP grew by 8.9%, compared to 3.2% for our most important economic partner. According to Statistics Canada’s report “Canada at a Glance 2013”, our country’s per capita GDP is higher than that of Germany, France and the United Kingdom. However, the government does not boast about these achievements. I am probably the first intervener to share these statistics with the House. 
Canada is essentially an exporting country, so our economic recovery continues to depend on foreign markets. Nevertheless, since the depth of the recession, in July 2009, one million net new jobs have been created, the strongest economic growth of all the G7 countries. Ninety per cent of these one million net new jobs are full time, and 80% are in the private sector. 
Independent organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predict that Canada will have the strongest growth of all the G7 nations in the coming years. Canada’s economic action plan 2013 has been so successful that the opposition has not had any questions for the best Minister of Finance in the world for several weeks. This plan proposes no tax increases. Small and medium-sized businesses have therefore been able to breathe easier since 2006. 
In 2006, a typical small business with a taxable income of $500,000 paid, on average, nearly $84,000 in taxes. That amount has since dropped by $28,600, to $55,000. That is how we help businesses create jobs and drive innovation. While the opposition parties want to increase taxes on all fronts, the government has understood that low taxes are the best way to spur economic renewal. That is certainly why we were the last country to go into the recession and were the first to get out of it.
Thanks to our record of tax relief, a typical family will save more than $3,200 in 2013. One million lower-income Canadians will no longer pay taxes. We are on track to a balanced budget in 2015. That is great news. Thanks to measures to reduce spending and additional revenue, lower travel costs because of technology, the pursuit of measures to limit public service compensation and the elimination of tax loopholes benefiting a few taxpayers, we are even projecting a surplus of around $800 million in 2015-16. 
That is a cautious projection. I should also point out that the net debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest, by far, of all the G7 countries.
Moreover, before the economic crisis hit our country, the government paid down $37 billion of our debt, bringing it to the lowest level in 25 years, and we will balance the budget without doing so on the backs of the provinces, as the third party did in the 1990s.
In 2013-14, the federal government will transfer $9 billion more to Ontario than did the previous government. This funding will give Ontario a second wind, allowing it to pay for increasingly costly health care. By investing in transfers to the provinces, we will avoid the psychodrama that unfolded in Ontario with the closures of 44 hospitals in the 1990s.
At that time we almost lost the only francophone hospital west of Quebec, the Montfort Hospital. 
There is an old saying that you can tell a good workman by his tools. Canada’s economic action plan 2013 is there to give Canadians the right tools so they can stand out internationally. It is statistically proven that a number of skilled occupational groups are having a hard time recruiting workers.
We see that 6% of scientific jobs are unfilled. The figure for skilled jobs is 5.2%, and the national average is around 3.9%. If the companies that are having trouble recruiting staff were able to find what they are looking for, the unemployment rate would certainly reach record lows. That is why the government, under Bill C-60, aims to match Canadians with the jobs that are available.
By involving the federal and provincial governments, and with the participation of the private sector, we will be able to invest $15,000 per person to help job seekers gain the skills they need to fill the jobs that are in demand. I want to emphasize the word “invest”, since this is indeed an investment that will pay off in the medium and long term. 
We will also continue to invest in our youth, the future of our great country. Canada’s economic action plan 2013 will promote education in high-demand fields such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics and the skilled trades.
We want to support high school students at risk of dropping out with tutoring and mentoring. Giving these students a role model is one of the best things we can do so they can walk out of school with diplomas.
Because we need to prepare for the future, the government also proposes to support young entrepreneurs by awarding $18 million to the Canada Youth Business Foundation. Young entrepreneurs would benefit from useful advice through mentoring, learning resources and start-up financing.
The Canada jobs grant is not the only initiative that would make a big difference for the families of Ottawa—Orléans and elsewhere in the country. Before my first election to this House 2,693 days ago, I pledged to assist families who adopt children. Adopting a child is one of the noblest gestures someone can make in our society. It gives an often needy child a chance to find a home and role models, thereby giving the child a much brighter future.
Bill  C-60 will help families who want to change a child’s life through adoption. To help adoptive parents with the costs they face early in the process, certain adoption-related expenses that are incurred before a child’s adoption file is opened will be eligible for the adoption expense tax credit.
Under this tax credit, Canadians could claim adoption-related expenses from the moment they registered with a provincial ministry responsible for adoptions or a government-certified organization or from the moment an adoption request was referred to a Canadian court. The tax credit would apply to all adoptions completed after 2012.
It is my fondest wish that this measure will help more young children find a home.
Families would also be supported through various other initiatives, including our expanding tax relief for home care services, simplifying funeral and burial program for veterans, improving palliative care and combatting family violence.
I am not just talking about what this government has done since 2006, such as the universal child care credit, the family caregiver tax credit and the creation of the registered disability savings plan.
On the subject of job creation, we should highlight the Minister of State for Science and Technology and his tremendous work with the National Research Council of Canada, which will celebrate its centennial in 2016.
This agency, the National Research Council, employs 4,000 people in 50 locations across the country, one of which is at the doorstep of Ottawa—Orléans. The NRC is one of the pillars of Canada's innovation system. Unfortunately, over the past few decades, many innovations have languished on dusty shelves and have not been brought to market. Therefore, the NRC, an agency I value a great deal and have been supporting for several decades, would become more closely aligned with industry.
Global competition is intensifying and getting more complex, and Canada must carve out a place for itself. We have an enviable standard of living, but it comes with no guarantees.
 We need to take action: we must encourage business to invest even more in research and technology development so that our country can enjoy sustained economic growth.
In co-operation with Canadian industries, which are major job creators themselves, the NRC will address Canada’s technological gaps so that we can remain an economic leader.
As part of this new approach, the NRC would support Canadian industries in large-scale research initiatives. As stated in Canada's economic action plan 2013, the NRC would receive $121 million to support this new role, and under the economic action plan, the government would also invest in world-class research and innovation by supporting advanced research and business innovation and by enhancing Canada's venture capital system.
As many in this House know, the spirit of volunteering and community support burns brightest in the constituency of Ottawa—Orléans.
There are some 300 organizations in Ottawa–Orléans that run mainly on one of the country’s most precious resources: volunteers.
Some of these agencies support seniors, like the Club 60 Rendez-vous des aînés francophones d’Ottawa and the Roy G. Hobbs Seniors Centre. The Orleans branch of the Royal Canadian Legion is virtually at the centre of veterans' social life in east Ottawa. The list goes on. 
These agencies must raise funds to support their activities. In addition to the work of their dedicated volunteers, they need donations to survive.
It is important to encourage philanthropy. That is what economic action plan 2013 is doing with its first-time donor super credit. This is a sensible way of encouraging new donors to make charitable contributions. The super credit complements the charitable donations tax credit by adding a 25% tax credit for a first-time donation of more than $1,000.
It is also innovative that couples can share the super credit. 
With an economic recovery that was lagging due to economic instability in other countries, the government understood that it had to meet the demands of municipalities and move ahead with another plan for long-term investment in Canada's infrastructure. 
The city of Ottawa and the district of Ottawa-Orleans have benefited greatly from this economic stimulus program. We need only consider the construction of a light rail line in Ottawa. It will be a total investment of $2.1 billion, $785 million of which is from the federal taxpayers through the building Canada plan and the federal gas tax fund.
Economic action plan 2013 is proposing $53 billion over ten years. The city of Ottawa has been dealing with waste water pouring into the Ottawa River for several years. Although sewers are obviously a municipal responsibility, the federal government has a role to play, since the waste water from the city of Ottawa is going into an interprovincial river between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. 
Alas, water runs downhill. That is why the government has invested close to $33 million to help the city carry out the first two phases of the Ottawa River action plan. There is still work to be done. The third phase has not yet received funding. I sincerely hope that support can be provided through the revamped building Canada fund.
These measures will help the great residents of Ottawa–Orléans regain full use of Petrie Island, treasure of this community. When I was a child, we could swim in the Ottawa River. That is not a good idea anymore, and we have to do something about it.
Building Canada is not the only infrastructure program under economic action plan 2013. The government has introduced a community improvement fund, which will invest $32.2 billion over 10 years through the gas tax fund and GST rebates to municipalities. The government also plans to renew the P3 Canada fund, which would invest $1.25 billion over five years to support projects through public-private partnerships.
As the House knows, I am a passionate advocate of our two official languages. Canada's linguistic duality is one of its greatest assets.
That is why I have given my full support to Bill C-419, which was tabled by the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I congratulate her on this bill.
Canada’s economic action plan 2013 introduces the most far-reaching and generous initiative in our history to promote our two official languages. The new roadmap will continue to support the learning of English and French as second languages, and will continue its support for minority school systems so as to foster the development of citizens and communities.
In short, Canada's economic action plan 2013 meets the high standards that we have come to expect of our Minister of Finance. It is a plan that calls us to action through sensible and targeted measures.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your kind attention, and I assure you I will entertain my colleagues’ questions with the same respect.
Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition finance critic, I had the privilege recently of hearing the testimony of Sonia L'Heureux, the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, when she gave an update to the finance committee. She is the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, hand-selected by the Conservative government. 
I would like to quote what she said in her economic and fiscal update on April 29. She said, “The Canadian economy is currently 1.9 per cent below its level of potential GDP.” Our economy is underperfoming. Canadian households are at a level of all-time personal debt, companies are not investing, our exports are in the tank, but the government is happy to spend tens of millions of dollars of public money advertising programs that no longer exist or do not yet exist. 
I would like the member opposite to tell us why the government continues to put its foot on the brake, brings in austerity measures for Canadian households, but squanders tax dollars for its own self-serving advertising.
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured that the official spokesperson on finance should be the one to ask me the first question.
It is very unfortunate that members of the official opposition enjoy talking down Canada's economy. They do it here in this place, they do it across the country and they even do it in foreign capitals. This is shameful.
I appreciate that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has mentioned that we are not reaching our full potential. I mentioned this in my own speech. We can do better, but we have to pull together. However, while we are at it, would it cost so much to admit that, while we are not achieving our full potential, we are driving better than any of the other G7 countries? We have created over one million net new jobs since the depth of the recession, and 90% of those jobs are full-time with 80% in the private sector. 
While the NDP and the Liberals play partisan games, our government is focused on what actually matters to Canadians: helping to create jobs and promote economic growth. Job creation in the month of May is just another positive mark in this travel. 
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way keeps talking about how the Conservative government is lowering taxes. I wonder if he is aware that the Conservative $330-million tariff hike means that the cost of vacuum cleaners will go up by 5%; bicycles by 4.5%; baby carriages by 3%; plastic school supplies will go up by 3.5%; scissors will go up by 11%; ovens, cooking stoves and ranges will go up by 3%; coffee makers will go up by 4%; wigs, especially cosmetic wigs for cancer patients, will go up by whopping 15.5%. 
In light of all of these price hikes, how can the member possible say that the government is lowering taxes?
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy for people who need cosmetic wigs. I have decided that, in view of my own challenges, I would wear a beret. It was not made in China and I had to pay a tariff on it.
These tariffs that the third party wants to defend had been created and continue to exist for third world economies. The products the member just listed were at one time produced by a third world economy, the People's Republic of China. However, it has done so well, it is no longer a third world economy. Frankly, this government is focused on reducing taxes in Canada, not giving fiscal advantages to the People's Republic of China.
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my colleague that this bill was the subject of the government's 42nd time allocation motion. That is an abuse of our democracy. Muzzling the House to shorten debates and impede constructive debate is truly scandalous. To add insult to injury, third reading of this bill will last just two and a quarter hours.
Not only that, but the Conservatives are using this omnibus bill to sneak changes through. They make splashy announcements about their far-reaching economic plan, as my colleague put it, then they turn around and create more cabinet positions while telling Canadians that there is no money to provide them with services such as employment insurance and old age security.
Can my colleague explain what is going on?
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, basic democratic principles are very important. That is why we are all here. We are here because we were democratically elected.
Democracy is the reason that my colleague opposite has been here since May 2, 2011. She can call herself a champion of democracy all she wants, but she has to acknowledge that democracy is the reason the political party that sits to the right of the Speaker is the country's legitimate government.
Yes, for the past little while, we have had to take steps to speed up progress on the government's agenda, but there are no surprises there. We are doing exactly what we told voters we would do. Most of the issues we are debating now were debated during the 39th and 40th Parliaments, when the opposition parties conspired to block them.
Opposition members are a little sad and directionless now because they can no longer block the government's agenda as endorsed by the people. 
Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my riding of Okanagan--Shuswap is a retirement destination.
Our government is the first government to establish a Minister of State for Seniors. We have managed a number of initiatives to help seniors, such as income splitting, so they can afford to retire and initiatives to provide protection for seniors. Because they have become such a large portion of our population, we have incorporated that as part of our action plan and in our budget.
The member is a bit younger and is probably not familiar with seniors' issues, but could he please tell the House what is in the budget for seniors?
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my former seatmate whose wisdom always radiates in any room he enters.
In the 2012-13 fiscal year, tax breaks for seniors and retirees reached $2.5 billion. Some people cannot count that far. Thanks to the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, offenders who abuse seniors will receive harsher sentences. There is a $1.5-billion increase in the Canada income supplement over five years, which will improve the standard of living of nearly 700,000 of Canada's most vulnerable seniors. There is also a new tax credit of up to $2,000 for family caregivers. To build affordable housing for seniors, our government is investing $400 million over two years under Canada's economic action plan.
I could go on and on.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I know Canadians are riveted with what is happening in Ottawa with all the scandals around the federal government. Nevertheless, in spite of Conservative scandals, there is important business that is continuing in Parliament. 
I rise today to speak, once again, on Bill C-60, which is yet another Conservative omnibus budget bill. It was only weeks ago that the Conservatives brought Bill C-60 to the floor of the House and very quickly constrained debate with time allocation. They pushed it through the finance committee, allowing a total of only four meetings to discuss and study this bill. Here we are with a record number of debate limits due to time allocation by the secretive Conservative government. We are back with this omnibus budget bill and, again, it will receive only two and a half hours of debate.
While this is not the biggest budget bill ever, it is 115 pages and changes almost 50 pieces of legislation. This will have wide-ranging impacts on government departments, crown corporations, international trade, and foreign investment. It will affect the prices of basic household goods for Canadians. All the while, the Conservatives themselves are very secretive. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot find out what the government is cutting, and these cuts to programs and services and austerity measures continue.
This omnibus bill would make changes to the temporary foreign workers program and the Investment Canada Act. It merges the Department of Foreign Affairs with the Canadian International Development Agency. It also introduces significant tax hikes on credit unions, small businesses and tariff hikes on thousands of products. The Conservatives are raising the prices on more than 1,200 consumer goods, from over 70 countries, by increasing tariffs $333 million.
Bill C-60 also undermines the collective bargaining process at crown agencies, such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, VIA Rail, Canada Post, and many more crown corporations. It also raises serious concerns about the independence of institutions, including the CBC, where we prize journalistic independence and integrity, and also the Bank of Canada.
Canadians across the country have been writing to MPs to share their concerns about this omni-budget 3.0. If they are to be considered, these are changes that merit more debate, more time, and certainly due process. In year three of Conservative omni-budgets, Canadians should not accept this skirting of the democratic process and democratic oversight as the new normal.
Allow me to quote what National Post columnist Andrew Coyne said about omnibus budget bills. He stated:
 Not only does this make a mockery of the confidence convention, shielding bills that would otherwise be defeatable within a money bill, which is not: It makes it impossible to know what Parliament really intended by any of it. We’ve no idea whether MPs supported or opposed any particular bill in the bunch, only that they voted for the [omnibus] legislation that contained them. There is no common thread that runs between them, no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet. 
 ...there is something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government’s whole legislative agenda at one go. 
It was last year that Mr. Coyne wrote that opinion, and of course the government continues with its omnibus legislation, blind and determined as ever. 
The Conservatives do not trust Canadians, and Bill C-60, like the omnibus bills of years past, is evidence of their disdain for parliamentary process, the democratic process, and ultimately for Canadians. If they had been listening to Canadians, the Conservatives would be hearing the kinds of things I have been hearing from my constituents. Thousands of Canadians are writing to parliamentarians, telling us that sections related to the CBC alone are reason to stop this omnibus bill.
 Respected members of the Canadian media are telling Parliament that this omnibus bill needs to be intercepted. Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, the Canadian Media Guild, the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada and ACTRA are urging all of the Conservatives to use common sense.
The Canadian Association of Journalists has said that the provisions of Bill C-60 show the Conservatives' total lack of confidence in the ability of the CBC's board of directors and president to properly manage public broadcasting.
This bill is also the worst case of government interference in the CBC and its mandate as an independent broadcaster funded by taxpayers.
My office certainly has received countless letters, emails and phone calls from constituents concerned about how Bill C-60 will impact the CBC. Of course, Conservatives would have to talk to Canadians if they wanted to know this. Clearly, they are not.
Bill C-60 also phases out the credit union tax deduction that has helped foster diversity in our financial system in Canada. There is a great deal of concern from credit unions from coast to coast about the long-term effects of these changes. Fostering diversity in the banking and financial sector is a necessary element of a modern economy.
At the finance committee, we heard from credit union representatives about the concerns that this measure has raised in communities across the country. I would like to quote a couple of them.
Mr. David Phillips, president and CEO of Credit Union Central of Canada, told us:
 The provision as it is now is pro-competitive. So when you take the provision away, when you increase the tax rate, what you're really doing is supporting greater concentration in the Canadian financial services industry. It's really a tax on the growth of credit unions. 
Mr. David Phillips is saying that as it stands now it fosters competition. What the Conservatives are doing will eliminate competition, or greatly reduce competition. That was what Mr. Phillips said to the finance committee last month.
Mr. Garth Manness, CEO of Credit Union Central of Manitoba, notes that:
 Now credit unions alone face the possibility of having to pay more of their net income in federal tax. Just as the banks did before, it is no exaggeration to say that some may begin to question the future viability of credit unions in many communities in rural Canada. 
 In some cases, they are the only financial institution.
 Not only could people be left without access to a nearby financial institution, valuable and stable jobs at the credit union could be lost. 
Again, that is from Mr. Manness when he appeared at the finance committee last month.
As the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park, I know these measures will have a direct impact on my community. In my riding, the Ukrainian credit unions invest nearly $1 million annually in community programming, projects and educational initiatives that could simply disappear as a result of these tax changes. It makes no sense.
I recently met with representatives from the Council Of Ukrainian Credit Unions Of Canada which have a combined membership of over 63,000 people across Canada. The representatives I met with in Parkdale—High Park were shocked at the unexpected tax code changes for credit unions in Bill C-60. There was no consultation.
I share the concerns of my constituents, and many Canadians, that these new risk-reducing financial tools available to communities across the country threaten the overall diversity of the financial sector in Canada.
Bill C-60 is not what Canadians want. If the Conservatives were listening to Canadians, they would know that. If the Conservatives were listening to Canadians, they would be considering the advice of the very experts who appeared before the finance committee as witnesses on this bill.
For instance, labour relations expert George Smith told the finance committee that the changes in Bill C-60 fundamentally contradict the Canada Labour Code.
Now, Smith is not a union representative. For four decades, Smith was chief management negotiator for many businesses and crown corporations, such as Air Canada, Canadian Pacific Railway, and CBC. He was part of the privatization of Air Canada, the revitalization of the Canadian railway industry, including CN as a crown corporation, and the modernization of CBC's collective agreement.
George Smith, formerly in management at CBC, Air Canada and CPR, and now adjunct professor at Queen's University, stated:
 Collective bargaining is messy. Sometimes it causes inconvenience. Labour disputes, I would argue, are short-term pain for long-term gain. But the product of a freely negotiated collective agreement is an agreement that both sides agree to and both sides then commit to implement. That gives management the certainty, and it gives the employees and the unions certainty in the business environment. It doesn't mean that those negotiations aren't difficult. But mandated change, in my experience, wherever it comes from, doesn't work. 
Mr. Smith appeared at the finance committee last month. It is clear that his comments fell on deaf ears on the part of the government.
If the government were listening, it would hear the concerns of Chris Aylward, national executive vice-president for the Public Service Alliance of Canada, on the changes that would allow Treasury Board interference in labour relations at crown corporations. He said:
 These changes are problematic because it essentially gives Treasury Board unfettered authority to interfere in [collective] bargaining with Crown corporations, removing effective control from the parties most directly affected. This is not a recipe for healthy labour relations. 
These are the experts who are telling us this, and the government refuses to listen.
The message from Canadians on process for this bill and on the content is clear. It is, “stop this omnibus budget bill”. However, the Conservatives will not take their fingers out of their ears long enough to hear what Canadians are saying.
The changes proposed to Bill C-60 regarding Treasury Board interference with crown corporations do not stop at the CBC. There is also concern that they could impact the independence of the Bank of Canada.
I recently tabled a motion at the finance committee to study the impact of this bill on the Bank of Canada, but, of course, like every other motion that the NDP or other parties put forward, and every other single amendment, the Conservatives rejected it, voted against it, and refused to listen.
In a recent article in The Globe and Mail, Kevin Carmichael described the potential scenario that could arise following the Bill C-60 measures:
 Say the governor wanted to hire a talented banker who worked at an investment bank that had become the focus of public vitriol for its role in the global financial crisis. Would cabinet interfere with the appointment if there were a public outcry? Or to prevent one? 
Carmichael goes on to say:
 It is impossible to rule out the possibility. Yet such a scenario hardly is far-fetched. Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney hired Tim Hodgson, the former head of Goldman Sachs's Canadian operations, as a special advisor in 2010. Would Mr. Carney have thought twice if he knew his internal appointments risked political censure? Again, there's reason to wonder. And suddenly, we're on a slippery slope: a simple “accountability” measure risks hurting the central bank's reputation as an independent actor. 
Again, this is from an expert financial journalist at The Globe and Mail. The Conservatives are willing to risk the independence of the central bank if it means giving more power to the Prime Minister's Office.
Bill C-60 would also make the temporary foreign workers program correct some measures. However, they would be a band-aid solution and would not get to the heart of the government's mismanagement of the temporary foreign workers program. While the Conservatives like to crow about their record on job creation, there are still almost 1.4 million Canadians out of work. At the same time, the number of temporary foreign workers have tripled over the last decade. There are now hundreds of thousands of temporary foreign workers working here in Canada.
Experts and community groups across the country are speaking out against the band-aid solutions offered in Bill C-60. Gil McGowan, president of Alberta Federation of Labour, where many of these workers work, said: 
 The bottom line is that Canadians are being displaced by temporary foreign workers, wages are being suppressed and employers are being allowed to abdicate their responsibility for training Canadians. 
Miles Corak, professor of economics, has said:
 Flooding the market with workers from elsewhere year in and year out—even during a major recession—is not about an acute labour shortage. It is nothing more than a wage subsidy to low-paying firms, a subsidy that stunts the reallocation of goods, capital and labour that is the basis for efficient markets. 
What do the Conservatives have against free markets?
David Gray, a labour economist and professor at the University of Ottawa, said:
 The temporary foreign worker program has become a convenient “out” for employers unwilling to pay higher wages. It should just address only acute labour shortages. 
The Canadian Council of Refugees said: 
 [T]he CCR regrets the [temporary foreign workers] announcement did not address the rights abuses suffered by migrant workers, who are vulnerable to exploitation because of their precarious status. 
Again, this testimony was all ignored. Canadians told us about serious concerns about Bill C-60, and we in the New Democratic Party stand with Canadians in saying that we do not support this omnibus bill. We will be voting against it.
Despite what Conservatives claim, this budget will actually hold back the Canadian economy, instead of accelerating it. It is eliminating thousands of jobs, cutting direct program spending and weakening GDP growth. It does nothing to address unemployment, record levels of household debt or rising inequality. 
Putting people to work is clearly the best way to reduce our deficit, but instead, this budget is recklessly pursuing an austerity agenda that has made major cuts to services on which Canadian families rely. Now is the time, instead, to invest in the next generation that will lead the country. It is the time to meet the challenges facing Canadians head-on, but this budget shirks these responsibilities.
There is no need to risk journalistic freedom at the CBC. There is no need to trample on collective bargaining rights and processes that have served us well for decades. New Democrats know that investing in communities, pursuing sustainable economic development and supporting small and medium-size businesses is critical in creating high-paying jobs and in building a vibrant economy for generations to come.
Canadians are counting on us to listen, to understand the concerns of communities across the country and to put the public interest first. 
In that regard, I want to propose a reasoned amendment, and I will read the reasoned amendment now. I move:
 That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: 
 this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, because it: 
 (a) weakens Canadians' confidence in the work of Parliament, decreases transparency and erodes democratic process by amending 49 different pieces of legislation, many of which are not related to budgetary measures; 
 (b) raises taxes on Canadians by introducing tax hikes on credit unions and small businesses; 
 (c) gives the Treasury Board sweeping powers to interfere in collective bargaining and impose employment conditions on non-union employees; 
 (d) amends the Investment Canada Act to triple review thresholds and dramatically reduces the number of foreign takeovers subject to review; 
 (e) proposes an inadequate band-aid fix for the flawed approach to labour market opinions in the temporary foreign worker program; 
 (f) proposes to increase fees for visitor visas for friends and family coming to visit Canada; and 
 (g) fails to provide substantive measures to create good Canadian jobs and stimulate meaningful long-term growth and recovery. 
I will add that this reasoned amendment is being seconded by the member of Parliament for Saint-Lambert.
The Speaker: The amendment is in order.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the overall approach of the government in relation to budgets has been very harmful to our middle class. This is yet another budget that takes shots at our middle class.
My question is related to the tax increases in the form of the tariffs the government is proposing to increase and the profound impact that would have on small businesses and consumers.
What impact does the member believe this would have on cross-border shopping? We have many communities along the U.S. border where consumers would have to pay more for products as a direct result of this budget. Many people are concerned that more people in those communities would go to the United States to shop. Would the member not agree with that?
[Interjection]
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, yes, we heard from a representative of the Retail Council of Canada, at the finance committee, who stressed the anti-competitive nature of these tax hikes on Canadian consumer goods. The Conservatives are quick to point out that countries such as China and South Korea do not need these tariff exemptions anymore. However, in fact, what they would be doing would be increasing the cost to Canadians, which would mean that more Canadians would buy their products south of the border.

Statements By Members
Protection of ChildrenMr. Ed Holder (London West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand in solidarity with survivors of sexual abuse. One of the survivors I know is a little girl named Kealin Perkins. She calls herself not a survivor but a victor, which is why she led the Victor Walk in Huntsville last month. Kealin called this walk a “healing journey to squash stigmatism” of sexual abuse. Those are big words for a nine-year-old girl, but not for Kealin. Inside Kealin's heart is an invincible passion to help those who have gone through what she has.
 Kealin dreams of founding Little Warriors Ontario. She dreams of raising money for the Be Brave Ranch, a treatment centre for survivors of sexual abuse, the first of its kind in Canada, and she dreams of becoming a lawmaker against child sexual abuse.
I know Kealin, and know these dreams are dreams she will achieve. We will live in a better society because of her, one that provides a safer, more nurturing environment for kids like Kealin. 
I invite all of my colleagues to join me in honouring Kealin Perkins, who is with us today, as she continues her journey of inspiring others. I thank Kealin for showing us how the world can be a better place.
Chinese CanadiansMs. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): Mr. Speaker, many generations of immigrants have established themselves in Canada by operating restaurants, stores and supermarkets. They provide affordable food and household goods to thousands of families. They hire hundreds of workers and add to the vibrancy and vitality of many neighbourhoods. These small-business owners and workers often work 14 to 18 hours a day, arriving before dawn to pick up fresh produce, toiling in hot kitchens and serving their customers until late at night.
Today, in their busy lives, 25 Chinese business owners and workers are visiting the House of Commons. They wish for better policing support and easier and faster family reunification so that their loved ones can join them in Canada.
Let us work together to make their wishes a reality, and let us celebrate these unsung heroes in our communities and in our House of Commons today.
BaseballMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the Beachville District Museum, in my riding of Oxford, as it commemorates the 175th anniversary of the first recorded baseball game in North America last weekend.
I had the honour of throwing the first ball for the opening ceremonies, which, I might add, was a real hit.
Long thought to be a sport invented in the United States, Brian Chip Martin explains in his new book, Baseball's Creation Myth: Adam Ford, Abner Graves and the Cooperstown Story, that baseball can actually be traced back to a young boy named Adam Ford. On June 4, 1838, Adam sat and watched a group of men play baseball in a pasture in Beachville, Ontario. In 1886, Adam, now a doctor, wrote to the magazine Sporting Life explaining the game and its rules. From there, baseball evolved into the game we know and love today.
There were several exciting events that celebrated the anniversary of this great sport, and I would like to congratulate all those involved who made this momentous anniversary one to remember.
Pillitteri Estates WineryMr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to the Pillitteri Estates Winery, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year. Founded by my friend Gary Pillitteri, former Liberal member of Parliament for Niagara Falls, the Pillitteri Estates Winery has become the world's largest estate producer of icewine.
The Pillitteri Estates Winery has its roots in Sicily, where Gary helped his father and grandfather tend the vines on the family farm. In 1948, Gary came to Canada, and he married Lena Agro in 1960.
 In 1965, the Pillitteris bought a farm and settled down to raise their family, but their dream of opening a winery remained strong. In 1988, Gary won a gold medal for his icewine in Niagara's amateur wine competition and knew he could make his dream come true, but only with the commitment of his family. With Gary and Lena's children Charles, Connie, Lucy, son-in-law Jamie and grandson Richard forming the executive team, the Pillitteri Estates Winery is indeed a family affair. Even the grandkids chip in when school lets out in the summer.
As a visitor to the Pillitteri Estates Winery, I can attest that this is a Canadian success story and a tribute to the power of dreaming big, the devotion of family and decades of hard work.
 [Member spoke in Italian as follows:] 
 Tanti auguri alla famiglia Pillitteri. 
Relay for LifeMs. Kellie Leitch (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak about a great charity event that occurs nationwide, the Relay for Life. 
The relay is an inspirational 12-hour overnight event that brings our communities together to fight cancer. At the Relay for Life, teams gather with cancer survivors on their local tracks and walk or run throughout the entire evening.
This year is the 75th anniversary of the relay. For 75 years, the Canadian Cancer Society and the Relay for Life have been battling against cancer.
I want to commend the following individuals in my riding of Simcoe—Grey: Sarah Marrs-Bruce, who on Friday, June 14 will lead the charge in Alliston, and Brenda O'Neill, who on July 12 will lead the charge in Thornbury, making sure we are battling cancer in our local area.
Every dollar raised through the Relay for Life helps the Canadian Cancer Society create a more meaningful impact in local communities. These are fabulous volunteers, and I encourage everyone to get out and participate in the relay and help fight against cancer.
Water ManagementMr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, like thousands of my Laurentides—Labelle constituents and hundreds of thousands of Canadians, I live close to a lake and I have boats that I use for fishing and recreation.
At the moment, there are practically no rules governing these vessels. Nothing is off limits, including boats with 300-horsepower engines on a 1 km2 lake. The lakes here and there that do have legal restrictions were affected by amendments to the regulations made under section 4 of the shipping act, which set out a complex and costly procedure that can take years.
Small communities cannot afford this. That is why I moved Motion No. 441, which calls on the government to simplify the procedure that allows local communities to create their own rules that are right for them.
This motion is in response to a request from a large number of citizens and elected municipal officials in Laurentides—Labelle who want to resolve the conflicts related to the use of these waterways, preserve their tranquility and maintain peace in society. I hope that all of the members here in the House will support my efforts.
Parks CanadaMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Sable Island. Last night, Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada's national parks act, finally went through second reading in the House to allow the bill to proceed to committee.
Sable Island is a unique spot off the east coast of Atlantic Canada, 300 kilometres off the shore of Nova Scotia, 42 kilometres long and about 1.5 kilometres wide at its widest point. Most people know Sable Island for the Sable Island horses and as the graveyard of the Atlantic. It is an absolutely unique spot off the coast of Nova Scotia. It should become Canada's 43rd national park. 
I urge the committee to pass the bill as quickly as possible and to send it back to the House for third reading. We can pass this legislation before the House rises for the summer. I urge all members of the House to work in a co-operative manner to do exactly that. 
Conservative Party of CanadaMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, recently we have been called trained seals and it has been said we do not have any choice in representing our constituents. Let me set the record straight. It has been a privilege to represent my constituents who elected me based on the policies we put forward. These policies are made by grassroots members and elected members together. This is teamwork. We do not campaign on our personal agendas.
During my time in Parliament, since 1997, both in opposition and government, I have had numerous opportunities to put views forward and have input in public policy. Through caucus and direct access, we can influence policies on behalf of our constituents. This is teamwork. This approach is what makes one a very effective representative. It has been an honour and a privilege to do this. 
Let me say, this statement is mine, my own sentiment and not approved by the PMO, or anybody else. 
Quebec City Summer FestivalMs. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, North America's largest outdoor music festival is starting to take shape in Quebec City today. 
 Unisson Structures is providing its engineering expertise and Quebec know-how to the famous Festival d'été de Québec, which will host international artists such as Stevie Wonder, Rush, Coeur de pirate and even Guns N' Roses from July 4 to 14. The festival is also a wonderful showcase for such new artists as Lisa LeBlanc and Karim Ouellet.
The Festival d'été de Québec hosts 1,000 artists, 300 shows on 10 different stages and more than one million festival-goers every year.
With picturesque Quebec City as a backdrop, the festival is a must-see event for music lovers everywhere. As the member for Quebec City, I am proud of this success and I am calling on the government not to give up on our major international events.
On this 46th anniversary of the festival, I invite you to attend Canada's largest outdoor musical event, which will thrill you like nothing else. On that note, enjoy the festival.
Radio-CanadaMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I contend that our crown corporation has shown a lack of respect for us and that it has eroded our trust and our sense of belonging.
Radio-Canada is a crown corporation and also a cultural and heritage institution. It engages French-speaking Quebeckers and Canadians of all ages. 
It is completely inconceivable and unacceptable to spend taxpayers' money to change what belongs to all of us as a community and linguistic minority. The more than $400,000 could have been spent on a cultural or educational program for our young people. That is why our government funds CBC/Radio-Canada across the country. 
MalvernMs. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to the S.P.O.T, a tremendous organization in the community of Malvern, in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge River. Success, power, opportunity and teamwork are the tenets of this community organization, which had its grand opening in front of the Malvern Public Library this week.
As a safe, youth-led space, this creative and dynamic organization hosts a media lab, dance studio, and recording studio and offers free programming for young people. I have had the privilege of participating in the R.I.S.E. poetry sessions hosted there. This is a Scarborough-bred movement that promotes positive ideas and opportunities for youth to express themselves through the spoken word throughout the community.
In addition, Onelove Malvern is a local youth-led campaign effort that provides a platform to represent the Malvern community in a positive light and showcase our pride in our neighbourhood. This movement highlights the positive contributions Malvern residents have provided to the city of Toronto. It showcases many of the positive attributes and inclusivity of our neighbourhood.
These are just some of the local initiatives in my community, where our youth and others are empowering themselves to celebrate our neighbourhood, promote safety in our community and show the city of Toronto that Malvern is a great place to live.
Conservative Party of CanadaMr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last night, the CBC ran a false story by reporter Greg Weston. The CBC claimed that there is a secret Conservative Party fund, run by the PMO. This is false. The CBC claimed party funds are hidden from Elections Canada. Once again, this is false. 
All Conservative Party expenses are paid by one account, controlled by the Conservative Party. All funds are properly reported to Elections Canada and audited annually. The Conservative Party ensures that non-governmental activities undertaken by our Prime Minister are never billed to the taxpayers. CBC failed to mention that this is standard practice for all political parties. The NDP and Liberal Party have both confirmed that they also maintain funds to cover expenses that should not be charged to the taxpayer. 
The CBC's Peter Mansbridge and Greg Weston misled Canadians. They should retract this piece of shoddy journalism. We will be taking this matter to the CBC's ombudsman.
Gaston IsabelleHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were saddened to learn of the death of a man of vision from the national capital region, Dr. Gaston Isabelle. He was a Liberal member from 1965 to 1988, successively representing the ridings of Gatineau, Hull and Hull-Aylmer. Dr. Isabelle passed away on Monday.
During his long career, he played a key role in the project to transform downtown Hull through the construction of federal buildings, which resulted in a better distribution of federal jobs on both sides of the Ottawa River.
He also campaigned vigorously for a monorail linking Ottawa and Gatineau. If such a monorail is ever built, it should certainly be dubbed “the Doc”. Dr. Isabelle never stopped practising medicine throughout his life. Even while serving as a member of Parliament and parliamentary secretary, “Doc” Isabelle was a fixture in the region.
He was a generous, intelligent man who loved life and was attuned to the world around him. In short, he was a fine member of Parliament who made a lasting impact on his community. Rest in peace, Dr. Isabelle.
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader is constantly playing divisive politics. The Liberal leader is constantly trying to divide the country by pitting one region against another. The Liberal leader said, "I'd think of wanting to make Quebec a country". The Liberal leader said, “We have 24 Senators in Quebec and there are only 6 for Alberta and British Columbia. That benefits us. To want to abolish it, that’s just demagoguery…” He also said that, "Quebecers are better than the rest of Canada". 
The Liberal leader takes potshots at the west and then he comes to the House and pretends to be defending its interests. However, western Canadians know better. 
While the Liberal leader is playing divisive politics, our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs and economic growth. I am pleased to inform the House today that thanks to our strong economic measures, we have created 95,000 net new jobs in the month of May alone. Canada has now created over one million net new jobs since the depth of the global recession in July 2009.
That is commendable, even by opposition standards.
Conservative Party of CanadaMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the words of the newly independent member for Edmonton—St. Albert, the Conservative Party of Canada has “morphed into what we once mocked”.
First, we learned of a secret $90,000 payout orchestrated by the PMO. Now, we hear troubling allegations of a secret slush fund controlled by the Prime Minister's chief of staff. They have improper Senate expense claims, a cover-up orchestrated by the PMO, fraudulent election calls, Elections Canada trying to remove two Conservative MPs and now allegations of a secret fund controlled by the PM's former chief of staff, Nigel Wright.
While our leader has repeatedly asked direct questions, the Prime Minister refuses to give straight answers. No wonder the MP for Edmonton—St. Albert resigned; the Conservatives have a “lack of commitment to transparency and open government”. 
The Prime Minister can take the "air force run” to Europe, but he cannot hide. The NDP will keep asking tough questions because Canadians deserve to have answers.
Leader of the New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians. With last month's almost record job growth, we have now achieved a million net new jobs since the depths of the recession in 2009. Ninety per cent of these jobs are full-time and 80% are in the private sector, a great record of growth.
While we continue to focus on economic growth, the NDP leader continues to protect the tax offenders who lie within his caucus.
 One of these tax offenders' tax issues was a matter of public court records, so how could that member possibly be selected to run as a candidate? Why was he named as a critic, and how can he possibly still sit in the NDP caucus? Obviously, the NDP leader thinks there is a higher priority in defending the tax evaders within his caucus than in standing up for Canadian taxpayers.

Oral Questions
EthicsHon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians want answers about the secret million-dollar fund being run out of the Prime Minister's Office. Canadians deserve answers. 
Where is the Prime Minister?
Where is the Prime Minister? Canadians deserve answers from their Prime Minister.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants answers, he should not ask factually inaccurate questions. 
The story upon which he bases his question is false. There is no such fund. In fact, all Conservative partisan expenses come out of a single bank account that is controlled by the Conservative Party of Canada. When the Prime Minister incurs partisan expenses, instead of going to the taxpayer to pay for them, he goes to the Conservative Party, and that is exactly the way it should be.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, only the Conservatives have a secret fund controlled by their chief of staff and only the Conservatives have a—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver East.
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence to the contrary and simply nothing that they say in the House is believed because they have not disclosed anything.
Only the Conservatives have $90,000 payouts orchestrated out of the Prime Minister's Office.
Could the Prime Minister tell us if any other staff in the Prime Minister's Office have access to this fund? Does Ray Novak have access to this slush fund?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, on the question of a fund, let me tell the House a bit about it, and I quote: “There is a fund which is used for party-related leader travel and expenses.” 
Who said that? It was Nathan Rotman, the NDP national director. He was speaking about a fund to cover that party's leader's partisan expenses. 
If he thinks there is something so nefarious about this practice, why does he engage in it?
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I repeat: it is only the Conservatives who have a secret fund that is controlled by—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, they do not want to hear what is going on, but let us be very clear. Only the Conservatives have a secret fund that is controlled out of the Prime Minister's Office. We will continue to hammer away at getting answers to these questions.
I have another question. If the government is so certain that Mike Duffy was paid by a personal cheque, why can it not produce it? When will the government provide us with documents to support the claims that it is making?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wright has said clearly that he paid the expenses of Mr. Duffy with his own personal funds, and he will not be reimbursed either by the government or the Conservative Party of Canada.
The reason the Conservative Party has no such cheque is that the Conservative Party wrote no such cheque. The story on CBC yesterday was false. We gave CBC the information to show that it was false. There is no separate fund. There is the Conservative Fund of Canada, which covers all partisan expenses, including those of the Prime Minister, because he just happens to be the Conservative leader.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, those kinds of answers led to the resignation of a member of their caucus. 
Does the government understand that donations to political parties generate a special tax credit, and that its secret fund, managed by the Prime Minister's chief of staff, is therefore funded in part by taxpayers?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is false. The CBC's report is also false.
There is the Conservative Fund of Canada, which covers all Conservative Party-related partisan expenses. When the Prime Minister of Canada, who happens to lead the Conservative Party, incurs partisan expenses, the party pays for them. There would be a scandal if we did otherwise. If we tried to put those costs on the backs of taxpayers, that would be wrong, but instead we engage in the accountable practice of having the party pay for partisan expenses.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt: only the Conservatives use public employees to manage a secret partisan fund.
Was it the Prime Minister who asked that a secret fund be established? If so, when?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP can talk about the CBC report, which is false, but that will not change the fact that it is false.
The reality is, there is no such separate fund. There is one Conservative Party fund that covers all partisan expenses, including those incurred by the Prime Minister. That is exactly the way it should be. It turns out it is exactly the way it works in the New Democratic Party. Let me quote Nathan Rotman, NDP national director: “There is a fund which is used for party-related leader travel and expenses”.
The NDP practises the exact same approach that we do.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. There is a hidden fund to pay for private matters and to give out for secret missions or payouts. What is going on here?
Conservative ministers claim that the $90,000 that was paid by Nigel Wright was his own personal money, but how do they know? Have they seen the cheque? When will the government release it and all the information it has on hand so that Canadians can actually see the proof?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote Postmedia on June 6, 2013: 
 Liberal Party spokesperson Kate Monfette said the party pays for expenses for its leader that are “strictly partisan in nature” and unrelated to parliamentary duties “so as to ensure the separation between parliamentary activities and political activities.” 
That is precisely what the Conservative Party of Canada does. When the Prime Minister has exclusively partisan expenses, they are paid by the Conservative Party of Canada fund, which is controlled by the Conservative Party itself.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, the stories keep changing. 
Canadians are demanding answers from the government, and they—
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel now has the floor.
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are demanding answers from the government. All they are getting are more stories about secret deals and secret funds. Even the formerly Conservative member for Edmonton—St. Albert said, “I think Canadians want to know what was the quid pro quo.... It’s inappropriate at so many levels.”
 The PMO fund was likely secret for two reasons: the Conservatives did not want Canadians to know who was handing out the money or who was getting paid. 
When will the government release even one piece of evidence to back one of its many stories?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is that the Conservative fund, just like the funds for all political parties, are audited every single year, that our finances are submitted to Elections Canada for approval year after year and that all of the expenses in question are covered by a single, solitary fund.
 That might seem like a strange idea to the Liberal Party, because when it was in government it used taxpayer money to engage in partisan activity. In fact, we still have $40 million in taxpayer money that is missing because of an elaborate kickback scheme designed to steal money from taxpayers and put it into Liberal Party coffers. 
That is not how we do business on this side of the House.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his team decided set up a secret fund.
Canadians are wondering whether the money in that fund was reported according to Elections Canada rules. Will the Conservatives publicly release the expenses related to this fund? If they do not want to tell us what this fund is for, are we to assume that it is used for illegal purposes?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to know if this money is reported to Elections Canada. The answer is yes.
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, how much money has been spent from this secret fund, managed by the Prime Minister's chief of staff, since the Conservatives have been in power?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the fund in question does not exist.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, did Nigel Wright say good-bye to his boss because there was no more money in the secret slush fund?
How many PMO employees were aware that this secret slush fund existed?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, people cannot be aware of something that does not exist.
Annick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: the NDP does not have a slush fund to buy the silence of fraudsters, because Canadians know that the NDP is all about transparency.
How much money was in the slush fund that was controlled by Nigel Wright and is now managed by Ray Novak?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, there is no such fund.
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a one million dollar slush fund cannot change the world, but it can help to buy the silence of senators who cheated the system.
I have another very simple question, and we will see whether the Conservatives will continue to deny the facts and the evidence, whether they will complicate their lives or whether they will finally answer the question.
Has the Conservative slush fund ever been used to resolve a dispute with members of the Prime Minister's Office? I am waiting for an answer.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP is asking questions without getting their facts straight. I have answered a number of times that there is no such fund. The NDP should listen to the answers so that they do not keep asking misguided questions.
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am listening. Let us look at the reality. 
Conservatives are skipping town to evade accountability and they do not understand the difference between the Government of Canada and the Conservative Party, which they treat as a branch, so it is no wonder we do not believe their denials today.
My question is simple: was Nigel Wright reimbursed in whole or in part from this fund, either before or after he gave $90,000 to Mike Duffy?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, if I were a Conservative—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. 
Order, please. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.
[Interjection]
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, I am still proceeding on the premise that the government is not believable until it produces proof.
I note that the parliamentary secretary failed to answer the question, even though he thought he answered it. His track record on behalf of the government speaks for itself. 
There is one follow-up question about the slush fund. Does this fund hold any equities or investments?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, there is one Conservative Party fund that reimburses all partisan expenses related to the Conservative Party of Canada. It is controlled by the Conservative Party, in contrast to the false reporting from CBC yesterday.
We have been clear about this today and we were clear about this yesterday, and let me say that there is stated evidence from both parties that they use exactly the same practice.
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister's Office keep any records about disbursements from this fund, and will the government make these records public?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, that is the job of the party. The party keeps track of the expenditures on its fund, and then all of those expenditures are audited annually and reported to Elections Canada.
Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, only the Conservatives have a secret fund controlled by their chief of staff and only Conservatives—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order.
Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina now has the floor.
[Interjection]
Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, obviously keeping Mike Duffy's expenses quiet is a partisan move, and only Conservatives have a $90,000 payout orchestrated out of the Prime Minister's Office.
Since he acted alone, how does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport know about this secret fund and about this payout?
My question is simple. Is the secret fund in the PMO a trust account?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, she is asking how I know about a secret fund that does not exist. Those members are getting a little metaphysical over there.
Let us go from fictional news to good news. Today we had one of the biggest-ever one-month job creation results, 95,000 net new jobs, the biggest job creation result for our youth in 30 years, bringing the total to one million net new jobs.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, never mind the $90,000 mystery cheques. I wonder how it feels for grassroots Conservative MPs to be forced to defend using tax dollars to play Pimp My Ride with the Prime Minister's flying Taj Mahal.
Did the Conservatives use the PMO's slush fund to re-brand “air force run” in Conservative Party colours?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, what I do not understand, quite clearly, is what the problem is with the New Democratic Party that every time we start to do anything good for Canada, it opposes it.
Speaking about this Airbus, it will carry Canadian national symbols. I do not understand why those members have a problem with Canadian national symbols.
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all we get from the Conservatives are weasel words, and their actions are not passing a smell test with Canadians. The Prime Minister's legal counsel, Benjamin Perrin, denied negotiating the cheque for Mike Duffy.
This is a simple question for the government. Was Mr. Perrin involved in any aspect of negotiating the terms between Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, these questions have already been answered. The opposition members continue to pose questions founded on false premises. They should, instead, take a moment to ask questions about the well-being of everyday Canadians.
Today we learned that there have been a million phone calls across our country when people have picked up the line and heard the good news, “You're hired. You got a job.” The pride of work, food on the table, improved well-being for kids and family is good news. We are working on that on this side of the House.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, there are millions of Canadians wondering about the ethical behaviour of the government.
As a lawyer, Mr. Perrin has a sworn duty to uphold the law. Could the government explain why, when Mr. Perrin eventually learned that the source of the $90,000 was Nigel Wright himself, he did not blow the whistle to the appropriate authorities at that time?
Millions of Canadians want to know that answer.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright has taken sole personal responsibility for his decision. He said that it was a mistake. He offered his resignation to the Prime Minister and that resignation was accepted.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, in the wake of scandal after scandal, ethical Conservatives are now fleeing the Conservative Party.
With the PMO's $90,000 cheque to a Conservative senator, guilty in the in-and-out scandal, engaging in trench warfare against the courts, using the robo database to commit election fraud and allowing two Conservative MPs to sit and vote in the House when they have no legal right to be here, how can any Conservative serve under a Prime Minister with such low ethical standards?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we know that once again the Liberal Party is throwing mud because it is losing ground. The Liberals do not have anything to offer the Canadian people. They have absolutely no policy to improve the lives of everyday Canadians.
On this side of the House, our policy speaks through results. We have a million net new jobs, almost all of them full time and almost all of them in the private sector. We had the biggest one-month increase in youth employment in three decades. That is hope for our young people. That is hope for our future.
International TradeMs. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the trade agreement that Canada is about to sign with Europe is the most important such agreement in the last decade.
However, the only reason the Prime Minister is rushing off to Europe is to distract attention from the scandals that are undermining his credibility and that of his government. The Prime Minister is not taking this seriously. Canadians do not even know what was put on the negotiating table.
Will the government commit to consulting with Canadians regarding the terms of this agreement?
Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, these negotiations are the most open and transparent that Canada has ever undertaken. In fact, the provinces are at the negotiating table when it comes to matters within their jurisdiction. Our government is committed to keeping Canadians informed and to consulting extensively on this agreement.
I would also remind the member that this agreement will be Canada's most comprehensive ever, one that will open up new opportunities for Canada's exporters and manufacturers. It is expected to increase our GDP by $12 billion a year, which is the equivalent of 80,000 new jobs in Canada, or $1,000 for each Canadian in extra income per year. Those members should get on side with this program.
Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, CETA negotiations have been the least transparent negotiations that our country has ever seen. The New Democrats support a trade deal with Europe that advances Canada's interests, but no trade deal should be signed in desperation just to cover up for Conservative scandals.
A good deal with Europe would be positive for Canada, but a bad deal could mean more expensive prescription drugs, harm to our dairy farms and the weakening of our banking regulations without gaining the market access our exporters need.
Are the Conservatives preparing to sacrifice Canada's interests in order to sign a deal at any cost?
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. We have made it clear time and again that the standard we have set is that we will only sign an agreement that is in the best interests of Canadians.
It is pretty rich for the New Democrats to get up in the House and claim to be the great born-again free traders of the world. That is the party that sends its leader into the United States to bash our resource industry and to bad-mouth our economy. The New Democrats have no credibility on trade; they are anti-trade, anti-investment.
Canadian Food Inspection AgencyMr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's response to the XL report is irrational. He promised $15 million in new monies and yet cut $56 million at the same time. Then he announced a brand new program, but no new staff. He is literally moving some from here to there or maybe over there too. Who knows? He is playing a shell game with Canada's food safety in an attempt to hide his mismanagement.
 Canadian families cannot wait five years for the next audit. The need for an audit is now. Will the minister order a comprehensive audit of CFIA immediately?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, given that the member was talking about resources, I would remind the House that under this government we have increased front-line inspectors for CFIA by 750 net new inspectors.
 In our previous budgets, we have provided hundreds of millions of dollars in new funding for CFIA and for food safety. The member and his party have voted against each and every opportunity and initiative that we have put forward to increase resources and finances for CFIA.
Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, two major crises occurred on his watch.
It is high time he started taking some action, but his solution is to cut funding to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and make the already overworked employees take on additional tasks, rather than hiring more staff. If the minister continues down that path, we are surely headed for a third major crisis.
Will the minister allow the Auditor General to conduct a comprehensive review of operations at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, Canadian families trust our food safety system. Following the XL Foods recall, the government launched an independent review to get to the bottom of what happened. We accept all of the recommendations made by the review panel.
The EconomyMr. Kyle Seeback (Brampton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is not immune to global economic challenges from beyond our borders, especially from our most important trading partners like the United States and the European Union.
In economic action plan 2013, we have continued our commitment to grow the economy and create jobs. For example, the Canada jobs grant is going to train more Canadians for skilled jobs. We also have the largest federal investment ever in job creating, infrastructure and new tax relief.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance update the House on the government's actions to grow the economy and create great jobs for hard-working Canadians?
Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC): Mr. Speaker, because we have remained focused on the economy, 95,000 Canadians are working today who were not working a month ago. That is very important. 
That brings us to a total, since the depth of the recession, of one million more Canadians working. That is what matters to Canadians. That is indeed the best job growth record in the G7 and, for Canada, it is the second best growth in jobs for any month in recorded history. 
Government ExpendituresMr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board still does not appear to have found the $3.1 billion he lost track of, so I would like to come back to that. Maybe he should look for it in the secret fund controlled by the Prime Minister's chief of staff.
My question is simple: is the government still spending money from the $12.1 billion set aside for public safety?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has it wrong. The Auditor General clearly stated, “We didn’t find anything that gave us cause for concern that the money...was used in any way that it should not have been”. 
These are the facts. These are the words of the Auditor General.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the fog of the Senate scandals and the PMO secret slush fund, the Conservatives still have not answered a very simple question. Just where did that $3.1 billion go? If the money was in the public accounts and earmarked for public safety, then every penny of that money must have already been spent and tracked.
Again, has the government spent all that money or is it still looking for it?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is trying to mislead the House. Departments have always been, and are still, responsible to report to Parliament through the normal processes: the public accounts, main estimates and the quarterly financial reports. The Auditor General reaffirmed that in committee when he said “We didn't identify anything that would cause us to say that we felt that anything was going on outside of those processes”. 
These are the facts. Those are the words of the Auditor General. 
Mining IndustryMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Cameron, at the upcoming G8 summit, will be pushing for transparency. He wants to shine a light on company ownership, land ownership and where money flows from and to. The United States has tough legislation on transparency for mining companies and the European Union will be close behind. However, the Conservatives have pushed back on transparency. When will they get on board and push for more transparency for Canadian extractive companies?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to openness and transparency and we continue to take Canadians' right to access very seriously. In fact, we are making it easier for Canadians to access information by filing their requests online. The government completed a record 43,000 access to information requests in 2011-12, nearly double that of a decade ago. 
However, the real important information here is that one million more Canadians are working today than during the recession. 
International Co-operationMs. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria contributes more than any other organization to reducing the number of new infections in developing countries. We are at a turning point right now, a point where we might finally be able to control these diseases. That is why the fund has asked donors to increase their efforts. The United States and Switzerland have already committed to increasing their contributions significantly. Will Canada follow suit?
Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that our development is focused and effective. Canadians expect accountability with that. This is why we have untied our food aid and at the same time we have doubled our aid to Africa.
Our contributions to the global fund to fight TB, AIDS and malaria are at unprecedented levels. Canada is paid up on all of its contributions to the funds that we have designated. In fact, the minister contributed an extra $20 million just last week. 
Government ExpendituresJohn McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I am impressed. I did not think the government could come up with one action that would waste money, hurt the Canadian Forces, and inflate the Prime Minister's ego all at once.
The new Conservative blue paint job on the Prime Minister's plane means the Canadian Forces can no longer use it for military operations.
Will the Conservatives use some of their secret party money lying around the PMO to reimburse Canadian taxpayers for this wasted $50,000?
Mr. Chris Alexander (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as has been explained in this place very often, the Airbus had to go through routine maintenance. This repainting had to be part of the routine maintenance. It is a small proportion of the overall cost. And it was done with a view to promoting Canada, promoting Canada's interest abroad, in our best traditions, as we have always done. 
We have spent 80% less on Challengers and transport for ministers than that party. We will take no lessons from the Liberals.
International TradeHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is widely known that Nigel Wright, prior to his removal from the Prime Minister's Office, was really the one in charge of the CIDA and the TPP trade files.
We also know, by Premier Dunderdale's statement, that in meetings with her, Nigel Wright tried to draw concessions out of the province on the fisheries.
Who is in charge in the Prime Minister's Office of the trade files now, and will thePrime Minister assure us that there will not be concessions on fisheries, on supply management, and on drugs?
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member has it all wrong. There has been no linkage between the Churchill Falls issue and our trade agreement.
In fact, the trade agreement with the European Union is going to produce significant benefits for Atlantic Canada. That member should know that. He is from Malpeque, from Prince Edward Island. He should understand that there is going to be a very significant seafood and fish package that would be made available to fishers in the region.
It is expected that this agreement would add $12 billion to our GDP. It is expected to add 80,000 new jobs to our Canadian economy. That is—
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
PrivacyMs. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in her report released yesterday, the Privacy Commissioner was clear: Canada has fallen behind when it comes to privacy matters. 
The law is quite simply archaic, because it was designed before Internet fraud, cyberbullying and the theft of personal information, which now dominate the headlines.
The NDP introduced Bill C-475, which seeks to bring the Privacy Act into the digital age.
Why not support these practical solutions?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, naturally we thank the commissioner for her report. Our government is truly determined to protect Canadians' privacy.
That is why we introduced Bill C-12, which strengthens guarantees to protect personal information and implements the committee's recommendations. With all due respect, the bill introduced by my colleague does not cover all these aspects. 
We will take the time to carefully study the commissioner's report. However, I would ask the NDP to support Bill C-12, which addresses the committee's findings.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Conservatives do not take the privacy of Canadians seriously. The commissioner herself has raised concerns about Bill C-12. To paraphrase the Privacy Commissioner, the Conservatives are taking a soft approach when it comes to protecting Canadians' privacy online.
The commissioner made it clear. The present lack of oversight for online snooping is putting Canadians' privacy at risk.
When will the Conservative government agree that we need a tougher law, better oversight, and reporting mechanisms? When will the Conservatives start protecting Canadians' privacy online?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, we thank the Privacy Commissioner for her report, and we indeed have taken measures to have tougher measures. That is why we introduced Bill C-12, which would improve privacy safeguards.
It is unfortunate that the opposition decided to play political games and needlessly delayed the bill.
We seek the support from the opposition. Everything covered in this bill is in response to what was recommended by the committee. I urge the opposition to support Bill C-12 immediately. 
International TradeColin Mayes: Mr. Speaker, Canada is known around the world for its top quality beef and pork. Unfortunately, despite several rulings by the World Trade Organization, the United States has failed to abandon its discriminatory country of origin labelling requirements, hurting industry and workers in both our countries. 
Could the Minister of International Trade please share with the House how our government is standing up for the beef and pork sector and hard-working Canadians who depend on it?
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Okanagan—Shuswap for his tireless efforts in standing up for our Canadian beef and pork producers. Today our government is launching the next phase of our fight against discriminatory county of origin labelling rules. Our government, with the full support and active engagement of Canadian industry, has fought against unfair treatment since the very beginning. Canada's beef and pork exporters can count on our government to continue to stand up for their interests.
HealthMs. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the overwhelming clinical evidence is that safe injection sites like Insite save lives. Canada's highest court unanimously said that the Conservative government's efforts to shut down Insite broke the law. The Minister of Health, who has never bothered to set foot into Insite, decided to double down on Conservatives' ideologically driven war on drugs, with rules that would make it harder for new centres to open.
Why does the minister continue to let ideology rather than evidence dictate health care policy in Canada?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government believes that it is important that local voices be heard before decisions are made to put a supervised drug consumption site where illegal drugs are used, in any neighbourhood. Yesterday, I was proud to announce that we have introduced the respect for communities act, which makes certain that local voices are heard. We do not think a supervised drug consumption site should be created in any residential neighbourhood without consultation.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada is sadly lagging behind other nations in its research funding as a percentage of GDP, and with productivity and research so directly related, how can the government make such drastic cuts to basic research and say with a conscience that it is focused on productivity? Why is the government not listening to the B.C. fruit growers, and others in the agriculture sector, about the need for federal investment and basic long-term research? What is the government's long-term planning process to fill critical research positions at the Summerland Research Station?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to identify that the department is committed to research, and as programs sunset other priority areas, such as innovation, markets and competitiveness continue to be supported in our agricultural policy framework called Growing Forward 2. 
Growing Forward 2 has announced a $3 billion investment, over five years, in science and innovation, markets and competitiveness. The department will continue to perform research in areas where it is needed and of higher risk, and the department will collaborate with its partners in industry and academia to leverage priority research.
The EconomyMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wonder on what exact date the Leader of the Opposition travelled to Alberta to deliver his now infamous Dutch disease speech. I am wondering if he can confirm that he personally approved of that text and, I wonder, did his principal secretary Karl Bélanger pen any of those remarks. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment can confirm that our government will not set up a $21-billion taxpayer-funded super secret slush fund, which the NDP has so strongly advocated for.
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Peace River for his Perry Mason-like crisp and focused questions. 
Our government's sector-by-sector regulatory approach has helped to virtually stop the growth of greenhouse emissions in this country. But instead of wanting to raise a $21-billion super secret slush fund to increase the size of government on the backs of Canadian families and industry, have no fear, our economic action plan has helped to lower taxes and create over one million net new jobs since the depths of the recession, including over 54,000 new jobs for young Canadians in May alone.
HousingMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week, we learned that the Shawinigan hospital is having issues with pyrrhotite. The Conservatives will probably try to pass the buck by saying that hospitals are under provincial jurisdiction. However, I urge them to read the National Assembly's unanimous motion calling for federal help on this matter. The federal government compensated pyrite victims, so there is no reason that pyrrhotite victims should not be compensated too. All levels of government are responsible for supporting people in crisis.
Will the government stand by as a hospital deteriorates to the point where it has to be closed?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, the pyrrhotite issue falls under provincial jurisdiction.
In August 2011, the Government of Quebec launched a provincial program to provide financial assistance to homeowners coping with pyrrhotite damage. People concerned about the pyrrhotite problem should contact the province's housing corporation, the Société d'habitation du Québec.
EthicsMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives refuse to say what the secret one million dollar fund managed directly from the Prime Minister's Office was for.
Was it used to pay back Senator Duffy's illegal expenditures, the irresponsible expenditures of former minister Oda—who was buying $16 orange juice—or the $45,000 in illegal contributions received by former minister Penashue?
One cannot help but wonder whether this secret fund is used to cover up the scandals tainting the Prime Minister and his entourage.
Will the Prime Minister show some transparency and tell us what this fund was used for?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Bloc member missed question period today, but if he had been here, he would know that there is no secret fund.
The Prime Minister is the leader of the Conservative Party. When he does partisan work, any related expenses are paid by the Conservative Party. However, we better not tell the CBC because it is a secret.
Intergovernmental RelationsAndré Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, the government continues to use taxpayers' money to promote its Canada job grant, a program that does not exist and that was created unilaterally by Ottawa, without any input from Quebec.
Two Quebec government ministers have written to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to reiterate the unanimous position taken by the Quebec National Assembly, which is that job training is Quebec's responsibility and Quebec should remain in complete control of it.
Will the federal government stop intruding and transfer—without conditions and in full—the money that belongs to Quebec for job training?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, we want to work with the provinces so that training flows from the government to employers and available workers. There are too many jobs sitting vacant in Canada because employers cannot find workers with the right skills.
Our initiatives will help employers fill available positions by hiring Canadians who want to work.
Points of OrderThe Speaker: Yesterday afternoon, following question period, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel rose in the House to request that I make available to all members correspondence I have received from the Chief Electoral Officer in relation to the election expenses of certain members. I explained to the member that the matter referred to is currently the subject of a question of privilege on which I will return to the House with a ruling. I also indicated to the member that, in any case, the letters he is seeking are available through Elections Canada and that he should contact that office to obtain copies.
Some time later, the hon. member for Malpeque rose in the House to restate the request made earlier by the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and asked the Chair to reconsider. Commenting on the Chair and what he considers to be the Chair’s responsibilities, he argued: 
 A letter with that kind of content, referring to the ability of members to sit in this House of Commons...is...a letter to all of us. That letter should be tabled...by the Chair. 
I wish to review for the House the role of the Chair with regard to the tabling of any document. 
The Speaker, like ministers and parliamentary secretaries, generally tables documents in accordance with statutory requirements or the Standing Orders. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at pages 435 and 436, lists the kinds of documents the Speaker is normally called on to table. 
Outside of the sorts of documents enumerated in O'Brien and Bosc, the Chair is not aware of any precedent or practice that would suggest that letters to the Speaker, even letters from an officer of Parliament, are, de facto, letters to the House, as has been suggested. The Chair does not know of any statutory or Standing Order authority that would lead to letters of this kind being tabled.
The Canada Elections Act is explicit in prescribing what reports and documents the Speaker must table and when they must be tabled. As an example, earlier this week, on June 5, pursuant to provisions of section 536 of the Canada Elections Act, I tabled a report of the Chief Electoral Officer regarding the qualifications and process of appointment of returning officers.
 The Chair is mindful of its responsibilities to all members, that is, to the House as a whole and to each member as an individual parliamentarian. Similarly, every exchange with an agent of Parliament is one that I take seriously, and this is perhaps especially true of the Chief Electoral Officer, who oversees the very processes by which Canadians elect us. It seems to me all the more important that our respective roles and responsibilities be understood and respected when we are dealing with difficult issues, issues on which there is heated debate.
In the case before us, I believe that the responsibility for putting into the public domain the correspondence initiated by the Chief Electoral Officer rests with the Chief Electoral Officer. This he has done and continues to do on an ongoing basis by making available for consultation in his office a wide range of documents that it is Elections Canada's practice to make public. I trust this clarifies the Chair's approach to the situation for all hon. members.
Finally, let me say that I will return to the House as soon as I can with a ruling on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Avalon and, until I do so, I urge members to be judicious in their interventions and to avoid making erroneous assumptions.
I thank the House for its attention.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
Committees of the HouseDave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 60th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House and I should like to move concurrence at this time. 
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsRathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to deposit a petition on behalf of environmental activists to protect the Rouge River and the park surrounding it.
 This is a 100-square-kilometre public land assembly surrounding the Rouge River and Duffins Creek watersheds in Toronto, Markham and Pickering. The publicly owned, provincial, federal and municipal land is predominately dedicated to a provincial greenbelt and a natural heritage system. It is home to the endangered mixed woodlands and Carolinian forests, and one-third of Canada's endangered species. It is also the ancestral home of the Mississauga, Huron Wendat and Seneca First Nations and their sacred burial grounds and village sites.
The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to protect the irreplaceable 100 square kilometres of public land assembly within a healthy and sustainable Rouge national park; ensure that the Rouge national park strengthens and implements the ecological visions, policies and integrity of the approved Rouge park plan, the provincial greenbelt plan, the Rouge natural heritage action plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine conservation plan. The petitioners are also asking to protect and restore the 600 metre-wide wooded main ecological corridor linking Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine in the Rouge national park.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, I have a few petitions here with over 400 signatures from Victoria, Abbotsford, Vancouver, Langley, Ottawa and Manitoba on establishing a department of peace.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to establish a department of peace, headed by a minister of peace as a senior cabinet position, so that this department can reinvigorate Canada's role as a global peace builder and work toward developing a culture of peace and non-violent resolution of conflicts as a top priority.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, the second petition has over 600 names from British Columbia. 
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament to work with the provinces to ensure that federal and provincial laws are constructed and enforced to ensure that those responsible for abusing, neglecting, torturing or otherwise harming animals are held appropriately accountable.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is in regard to Bill C-257 with close to 100 signatures from Alberta.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact Bill C-257 to require mandatory labelling of all food in which the presence of genetically modified ingredients can be detected.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, the last petition has over 100 names in support of my Bill C-322 mainly from Calgary, Alberta.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act thus prohibiting the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption as well as horsemeat products for human consumption.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by British Columbians, mostly from Vancouver, who draw attention to the fact that ultrasounds are being used in Canada to tell the sex of an unborn child so that expecting parents can choose to terminate the pregnancy if the unborn child is a girl.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex selective pregnancy termination.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I present a petition which was provided to me by a group of young people with a very strong social conscience. 
The petitioners were dismayed to learn about the harsh and degrading conditions under which many people work at extracting resources in other parts of the world. In particular, they have become aware of dangerous working conditions, low wages and the near slavery of many. The petitioners would like to have the minerals from these extraction practices called “conflict minerals”.
 It is great to table this petition, which was spearheaded by a great group of young people from a school in Winnipeg's north end.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition concerning the full funding of Development and Peace.
Some of my constituents got together, including people from the parishes of Saint-François-de-Sales and Saint-Noël-Chabanel. Hundreds of people signed this petition in the spirit of global solidarity to urge the government to restore in full the $49.2-million funding requested by Development and Peace over the next five years.
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of qualified petitions on employment insurance. These people are calling for a reform of the current employment insurance system, since it must serve the people who need it.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is from a number of people in my riding and outside as well. 
In view of the cluster munitions bill that is coming up before the Senate, Bill S-10, the petitioners are reminding us that cluster munitions cause great harm to civilians at the time of their use. In view of the fact that the majority of our NATO allies actually signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, they want an amendment of Bill S-10 to close the loopholes to make it clear that no Canadian should ever be involved in the use of cluster munitions at any time, anywhere or for any reason. 
They also ask for a mention of the positive obligations Canada has assumed by signing the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Bill S-10.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is a very important one as well. These petitioners are reminding us, in view of the fact that we have equal protection and the equal benefit of law in Canada, that at birth or before birth, baby girls are sometimes targeted by sex-selective abortion. That is an affront to the dignity and equality of women and girls.
Sex-selective abortions have denied millions of girls in Canada and throughout the world the chance to be born, merely because they are girls. The petitioners call upon the House to condemn that discrimination against girls through sex-selective abortion and do all it can to prevent sex-selective abortions from being carried out in this country.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to represent the most diverse part of all of Canada. I would like to present a petition today that has been signed by many residents of Burnaby—New Westminster, as well as other communities in the lower mainland with diverse origins, on the issue of remittances. 
I would like to underscore the work of ACORN Canada in this regard . As the House may know, for many Canadians and new Canadian families, the remittance cost can be up to 25% of what they send overseas to their country of origin and to their families and friends in that country. 
Today I am tabling a petition signed by many of my constituents, who are calling on the Government of Canada to take action and to cap remittance fees to only 5% of the overall remittance that is sent abroad. This is a way of ensuring that new Canadians and new Canadian families in ridings like mine can send remittances overseas without being gouged and charged unfairly.
Questions on the Order PaperPaul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 1321.
Mr. Jean Rousseau:  With regard to the 2013-2014 Main Estimates for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec: (a) how many positions will be cut, broken down by program; (b) what will the sources of professional and special services expenditures be, broken down by (i) service, (ii) contractor, (ii) amount; and (c) what are the eligibility and assessment criteria for projects submitted under the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund? 
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the 2013-14 main estimates for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, with respect to (a), there were no positions eliminated following the 2013-14 main estimates. 
With respect to (b), the agency confirms that the amount allocated for expenditures on professional and special services would be based on estimates. Actual expenditures, including the details requested, will only be available once the year is over. 
With respect to (c), information on the eligibility and assessment criteria for projects submitted under the community infrastructure improvement fund can be found on its website at http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca/eng/programs/qedp/ciif.html. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnPaul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1318 and 1320 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately. 
The Speaker:  Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Hélène Laverdière:  With regard to projects funded through the Global Peace and Security Fund, for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2012-2013, how many projects were funded, broken down by (i) recipient of project, (ii) description of project, (iii) location of project, (iv) length of project, (v) value of project, (vi) sub-program and thematic area of project, (vii) type of funding?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Kirsty Duncan: With regard to ongoing investigation into habitat conservation in Canada, and particularly the proposed National Conservation Plan: (a) what research, including all studies, findings and recommendations, and investment has the government undertaken to assess the full potential of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), in its current form, to contribute to national habitat conservation objectives; and (b) what research, including all studies, findings and recommendations, has the government undertaken to assess what will be required to ensure that the full potential of SARA to contribute to national habitat conservation objectives is realized?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. 
The Speaker:  Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Points of OrderLois Brown: Mr. Speaker, during question period, I was asked a question about the global fund and I responded about the contributions that Canada has made.
Erroneously, I made the statement that the Minister of International Cooperation had given an extra $20 million just last week. Indeed, the money was contributed, but it was May 13 when it was contributed. 
We have been sitting for so many hours that it felt like last week.
PrivilegeMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to Wednesday's question of privilege from the hon. member for Avalon.
The hon. member argues that subsection 463(2) of the Canada Elections Act should apply to me as a consequence of a request made under subsection 457(2) of the act. 
As the government House leader said Wednesday, this issue is effectively a question of accounting interpretation. Some reports have erroneously speculated that the contentious issue between my 2011 campaign and Elections Canada is in relation to transfers between the Selkirk—Interlake Conservative Electoral District Association and my campaign. I can tell the House that this is not accurate.
Elections Canada is in receipt of all documentation relating to these transfers. These transfers include election costs incurred by our campaign but paid for by the association and reimbursed by the campaign. These costs include sign inventory, telephone bills and installation, office rent, new signs, a website and office equipment.
My campaign has complied with the Canada Elections Act. My campaign has been straightforward with Elections Canada and has worked in good faith. All of my documents have been filed in a timely manner, and appropriate amendments were made in accordance with the rules laid out by the act.
This is an accounting dispute between the campaign and Elections Canada regarding the value of certain used highway signs that were originally installed several years ago.
Elections Canada approved my campaign returns for the 2006 and 2000 elections but has now changed its interpretation and is contradicting its own ruling, which is not consistent with the act's provisions.
The Canada Elections Act provides me with the legal ability to challenge Elections Canada. I will be exercising my right to be heard by a court of law. My campaign will be challenging Elections Canada's new interpretation and looks forward to having our return properly adjudicated in a court of law. 
As such, I have brought an application to Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench under section 459 of the act. That application was filed on May 23, 2013 in Selkirk, Manitoba. I look forward to receiving a judicial ruling on my campaign return, which will ultimately provide direction to Elections Canada and my campaign to resolve our impasse. 
Paragraph 459(1)(a) of the act provides that a judge may make an order “relieving the candidate or official agent from complying with a request referred to in subsection 457(2)”. 
Should the court grant my application under section 459, it dispenses with the requirement of section 457(2). In other words, it would be as if there never was any condition precedent triggering subsection 463(2) of the act.
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that you have adopted, in my view, the clearly correct position that the bringing of proceedings under section 459 acts as a stay on subsection 463(2).
Page 307 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, describes the Speaker's role:
 ...to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution. 
I believe that your position on section 459 upholds the rights of members under the Canada Elections Act and as members of the House. In any event, Mr. Speaker, you would not be alone in that interpretation of the effect of section 459.
In the Chief Electoral Officer's May 23 letter to you, a document that is circulating in the public domain through the media, Marc Mayrand appears to agree that an application under section 459 has that material impact, namely that subsection 463(2) is put into abeyance pending the resolution of a court challenge.
In the fifth and sixth paragraphs of his letter, Mr. Mayrand says:
 A person who has received a request under subsection 457(2) may make an application to court seeking relief from the requirement to make the correction. However, to my knowledge, no application has been made in this case. 
 In the event that the corrected returns or an application to a court is subsequently filed, I will advise you accordingly. 
Later, on May 27, Stéphane Perrault, the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, wrote to you. My counsel was copied on the letter, so I have a copy. I am hesitant to quote from private correspondence, but I think it is important in making my case. 
In the last paragraph of the first page, Mr. Perrault said of the letter from May 23 I quoted earlier:
 The purpose of the letter was to provide to you, as Speaker of the House of Commons, the information that would assist you in taking whatever action or position you believe to be appropriate in the circumstances. This includes whether it would be appropriate for [me] to continue to sit pending the outcome of an application under s. 459, should one be filed (to date, we have not received notice of such an application). 
When I say “me”, I mean me as the member for Selkirk—Interlake.
As I said earlier, my application was filed on May 23. Mr. Speaker, the filing of my application was finally confirmed to you by the Chief Electoral Officer in his letter to you dated May 30.
My application is now before the courts. Therefore, I would respectfully submit that the sub judice convention should be respected. 
Citation 505 of Beauchesne's parliamentary Rules &amp; Forms for the House of Commons of Canada, sixth edition, advises that:
 The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play. 
O'Brien and Bosc, at page 100, comment on the sub judice convention in the context of questions of privilege:
 The sub judice convention is important in the conduct of business in the House. It protects the rights of interested parties before the courts, and preserves and maintains the separation and mutual respect between the legislature and the judiciary. 
Meanwhile, Erskine May, 24th edition, at page 441, succinctly lays out the following proposition:
 Subject to the discretion of the Chair and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to discuss any matters of delegated legislation, matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate. 
Mr. Speaker, your own ruling on March 27, 2013, at pages 15292 and 15293 of the Debates, described a very clear parallel to my circumstances today. You said:
 As Speaker, I must endeavour to find a balance between the right of the House to debate a matter and the effect that this debate might have. This is particularly important given that the purpose of the sub judice convention is to ensure that judicial decisions can be made free of undue influence. 
Later in your ruling, sir, you concluded the following:
 ...the fact remains that the heart of this question of privilege is still before the courts, which have yet to make a finding. I believe that it would be prudent for the House to use caution in taking steps that could result in an investigatory process that would, in many ways, run parallel to the court proceedings, particularly given that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is already a party to the court proceedings and would be a central figure in any consideration the House might give this matter. 
Like the hon. Attorney General in the case from three months ago, I am clearly a party to these court proceedings, and I have a very clear interest in their outcome, an interest that is of proportionally greater personal significance to me than the Attorney General's in that case.
In this instance, though, any finding of a prima facie case of privilege would not only amount to a parallel proceeding but would also interfere with the outcome of my court application. A decision by this House would clearly prejudice my interest in court, which prompts me to reference the sub judice convention.
The torqued rhetoric from some members in this chamber and outside crosses the line on two fronts. I think it violates my privileges as a duly elected member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake, and it jeopardizes my right, guaranteed under the Constitution, to a fair court process. 
The opposition parties always say they respect the law and stand up for the Constitution, and they cry foul whenever they think their parliamentary privileges have been violated. However, they never think, not for a minute, about throwing all of that out the window for partisan purposes when they try to deny me my basic rights and compromise my due process in court.
Let me be very clear. I have not broken any law. I believe that I am in compliance with the Canada Elections Act.
My election as a member of Parliament was confirmed by the returning officer and the Chief Electoral Officer. The return of the writ is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the accounting method that should be applied to used highway signs, and that matter is before the court. This dispute does not change the fact that I have been returned as the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake.
In conclusion, I would respectfully submit that the chair can dispose of this issue on the grounds of the role section 459 of the Canada Elections Act plays, an interpretation apparently shared by the Chief Electoral Officer, an officer of Parliament, and his deputy, and also under the sub judice convention.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to reject the baseless and cynical question of privilege claimed by the hon. member for Avalon.
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I also rise to respond to the question of privilege by the hon. member for Avalon.
Having heard the arguments of the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, I will simply set out the relevant facts of my own circumstances. I agree with the procedural arguments advanced by my hon. friend. They would also apply to my own circumstances, so I would associate myself with them. 
All available information has been provided to Elections Canada by me and by my campaign. Ultimately, the issue in dispute is simply a disagreement between my campaign and Elections Canada as to interpretations applicable to certain expenditures.
In the interest of maintaining my legal position, I too brought an application in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba under section 459 of the Canada Elections Act. My application was filed on May 24, 2013. 
For the same reasons argued by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, it is my view that bringing proceedings under section 459 of the act puts subsection 463(2) into abeyance, pending the court's disposition of my application.
Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer sent you a notice similar to that which he provided you respecting my caucus colleague. The filing of my May 24 application was confirmed by the Chief Electoral Officer in a May 30 letter addressed to you. 
Like the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, I believe that I am in compliance with the Canada Elections Act. I did not break the law. For the House to be called upon to debate and decide upon a motion in this matter, which is what the hon. member for Avalon is seeking through his question of privilege, would undoubtedly prejudice my interest in the currently pending court proceedings.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that clear grounds to dismiss this question of privilege are before you. First, the impact of section 459 of the Canada Elections Act is very clear, and this is, as we just heard, an interpretation that is apparently shared by the Chief Electoral Officer. Second, the sub judice convention is an equally compelling reason to reach such a decision.
Therefore, I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to reject the question of privilege put forth by the hon. member for Avalon, and I thank you very much for hearing my argument.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, when we first raised this issue in the House, the government House leader said that the suspension was too harsh in this case. However, he forgets that the said suspension was what the House of Commons wanted when it passed the provision of the Elections Canada Act. It is Parliament that passed the act, not Elections Canada.
Suspension is designed to pressure the MP in question into obeying the order of the Chief Electoral Officer, who has no other way of making a candidate provide the information required by the act.
Suspension is not a sentence to be appealed to a higher court, as the government House leader has suggested. It is a way of saying that member is suspended until he or she provides the corrected information ordered.
The two MPs should have gone to court earlier to settle their disagreement with Elections Canada.
Further, it seems we are currently treating this matter as if the MPs have been charged with an offence and the Chair has to wait until their appeals are exhausted before dealing with them in the House. They have not been charged with any offence. They are being pushed to provide the correct documentation as demanded by law and should suffer the appropriate consequences as outlined in the law that was passed by Parliament.
Also, I would argue that these members have been sitting and voting in the House for several days now without the right. Indeed, they should have been prevented from doing so the moment the House received notification from Elections Canada of their infractions. This then requires for not only their immediate suspension, but that their names should be struck from the record of all votes in the House since the time of notification. That includes 47 votes so far.
I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Bourinot, fourth edition, page 390, which states:
 If it should be decided that a member has no right to sit or vote in the House, the votes he may have given during that period of his disqualification will be struck off the journals. 
The argument put forward by the government House leader for avoiding immediate suspension is that the members have appealed to the Federal Court. I would like to respond to that specific argument.
The decision of Speaker Lamoureux in 1966 dealt specifically with this issue. He quickly put this argument to rest, referencing page 60 of the May 17th edition, stating that one of the privileges of parliament is for “each House to be the sole judge of the lawfulness” or the legality, “of its own proceedings” and “This holds even where the procedure of a House or the right of its members or officers to take part in its proceedings dependent on statute”. 
Speaker Lamoureaux went on to reference a ruling by Justice Stephen in the Bradlaugh case, which defined the relation between the jurisdiction of the courts and that of the House of Commons. Justice Stephen's ruling stated:
 I think that the House of Commons is not subject to the control of Her Majesty's Court in its administration of that part of the statute-law which has relation to its own internal proceedings....It seems to follow that the House of Commons has the exclusive power of interpreting the statute, so far as the regulation of its own proceedings within its own walls is concerned... 
It continues:
 —for the purpose of determining on the right to be exercised within the House itself, and in particular the right of sitting and voting, the House and the House only could interpret the statute... 
With this, I look forward to your ruling. It is further requested that, if it is possible, to ask for a copy of the letters that were referenced in the previous statements from members.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, the NDP would like to have another day on this and to present on Monday. I think it is very important to recognize that there is some legal complexity here, that the automatic operation of section 463(2) is not as straightforward as is being made out and that we do have to look back at what happened with the Elections Act in 1966, section 63 of the act then, and ensure there is the same parallel that is being asserted. We just have not had the time to do that adequately.
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond very briefly to the intervention by the member for Winnipeg North. The fact is that there is a very simple path set out by the Elections Canada folks on how this matter can be dealt with. One option is for the members in question to submit returns that comply with the Elections Canada interpretation. The other option is to file an application with the courts. Failing either of those actions, the third subsequent event would be suspension from the House. 
We have heard from both members in question that such an application has been filed. This is one of the two alternatives that would be sufficient to stay the suspension mechanism in the act. As such, it is a very simple question. It is obvious that having satisfied one of those two conditions, that of making an application to get the proper interpretation, the suspension should not be in effect. 
To rule otherwise would be to say that members in circumstances such as theirs really only have one option, and that is to accept the interpretation of Elections Canada, that they would be barred from resolving it through an application to the courts. That would be seen by all of us as a failure of natural justice and an inordinate power upon Election Canada which was never intended by the act and never intended by any of us and certainly should not be created through your ruling, Mr. Speaker. 
Therefore, the question is a very simple one. The condition has been satisfied and, as a result, the suspension should not take effect. 
The Speaker: I thank hon. members for their further contribution and I look forward to the intervention from the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment. 
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.
In my time, I would like to focus on two main items. The first is the contention we hear all the time from the government that Canada is doing relatively well. It is quite easy to be doing relatively well compared with the eurozone for example, which is in recession. However, I would acknowledge that relative to many countries, Canada is doing—
The Deputy Speaker: Since the member is in the first round of debate on the bill, splitting his time requires unanimous consent from the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I want to start with a bit of a history lesson. To the extent that Canada is doing relatively well, it has nothing to do with the current government and everything to do with the previous Liberal governments. Members may laugh, but it happens to be true, and let me explain it.
 One reason Canada is doing well is because our fiscal house is in order. A second reason Canada is doing well is because we did not deregulate our banks as the Americans and British did. The third reason we are doing relatively well is because of our strong resource set.
I do not think the members of the Conservative Party of Canada can say that they put all the oil and minerals in the ground. Neither can the Liberal Party, nor can the NDP. That is what we might call “an act of God”, so no political party can claim credit for that. However, the other items, putting the fiscal house in order and keeping strong regulation of banks, were both achieved by the Liberals in the 1990s.
 Thinking back to 1993, we might remember that Canada had a deficit of $43 billion, which was inherited by the new Liberal government and there was a state of fiscal crisis in the air. There was the idea that Canada was becoming an honorary third world country and the IMF would have to come in and clean up the mess. That is why the Chrétien government, with Paul Martin as finance minister, acted swiftly to eliminate that deficit in a period of about two years and then proceeded to pay down debt for close to ten years.
 Whereas at the beginning, in 1993, we were the basket case of the G7 fiscally speaking, by the time the Conservatives came to power, we had the strongest record of the G7 and it was thanks to those actions taken by the Liberal government.
 The Conservatives like to criticize the Liberal government for cutting so much so quickly, but if they think back to that time, they will remember that the Reform Party of the day was telling the Liberals to cut more, not to cut less. That is point number one.
Point number two has to do with banking. Partly the reason why the Americans and the British got into so much trouble is that they went down the path of deregulating their banks, or allowing their banks to regulate themselves, whereas, in Canada we did not do that. As a consequence, our banks remained more conservatively managed. The other thing was that the federal government of the day said, no, to the proposed bank mergers. Even though I worked for Royal Bank at that time, I became convinced after the financial crisis that it was certainly the right decision. Otherwise, the banks would have become bigger and more international, more like the big American and British banks.
There are three reasons Canada is doing relatively well. First, we balanced the budget and reduced the debt-to-GDP ratio. Second, we refused to allow the banks to regulate themselves. Finally, we have a robust resource sector.
Therefore, when Conservatives say that Canada is doing relatively well, they should add this sentence: “Thanks to previous Liberal governments”. That would be my humble suggestion for the government, which I understand is likely to fall on deaf ears.
The next section of my comments is about the government's budgetary management, which I would contend has not been good, and there are several points on this.
 First, the Conservatives are assuming that the growth rate next year will just jump right back up to 2.5% from its much lower level today. I cannot totally blame the government for this because admittedly those are private sector forecasts and private sector econometric models typically do project growth rates jumping back. However, this seems to be a recession unlike others, where I think we might get into trouble if we simply assume growth rates jump back and that helps to reduce the deficit. Therefore, that is a risk for the current government.
Second, the Conservatives have not done their prudence very well. I remember back in the 1990s, when I was at the Royal Bank, having a meeting with Paul Martin and other economists about how we should deal with this prudence. I remember suggesting a very scientific idea: prudence of $1 billion in year one; $2 billion in year two; $3 billion in year three; $4 billion in year four. I do not know if they did exactly that, but the idea is that the further out into the future we get, the more risky and the less certain things are, so they should have the amount of prudence in the budget going up over time into the future. The government just keeps it flat, so that displays a lack of fiscal prudence.
 On catching tax cheaters, I think the Conservatives are making an overly optimistic assumption that they will get $500 million in taxes next year that should have been paid but were not, while at the same time cutting the staff and budget of CRA. I do not think that makes any sense whatsoever.
I think it is wrong for them to boast about their multiple-billion, 10-year infrastructure program when nothing significant will happen until several years out. It is very much back-end loaded. In fact, in the near term they have actually cut the amount that is devoted to infrastructure.
The final point I would make is that they simply lost $3.1 billion, the money that was to have been spent on anti-terrorism activities. The Auditor General says the information does not exist to find it. I do not understand that. I will be meeting with the Auditor General's office later today, and I hope to understand better how it is possible to lose track of $3.1 billion.
This is a government that prides itself on its fiscal management. How can one be proud of one's fiscal management if one loses track of $3.1 billion?
I would argue that this has been a government characterized by sloppy fiscal management, inadequate prudence, and other matters that do not add up to a prudent management of the budget.
The last point I would make is on this business about jobs without people and people without jobs. It is a really important issue. Attention should be directed to it. What the government has done is a total sham because it is not putting one more penny into it. Right now, the government transfers $2.5 billion per year to the provinces for training. It appears it is going to take that money back, or some of it, and then require the provinces and companies to put up more money.
How is that going to work? Often the provincial governments are in a worse deficit situation than the federal government. I know, for example, that the Government of Ontario is very concerned that the federal government will take away money that Ontario uses to train very disadvantaged people and then use it for other purposes. This would mean that the training for those disadvantaged people, who are probably not in the Conservative core, would simply disappear. The Ontario government's fiscal position is certainly less strong than that of the current government.
In closing, what I said is quite simple. First, when the government says that Canada has managed quite well, it should add “thanks to the actions of the previous Liberal government”. Second, the Conservatives have not done a good job of managing the budget.
Finally, there is actually no money in the program for training. The thing is a sham. It is not even clear if it will get off its feet. A number of provinces have already said that they have no interest in participating.
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to look at history when we are looking at it in hindsight from the perspective of that member.
The employees do not say thank you to the previous Liberal government because that government stole $52 billion out of the EI fund to pay down the debt. It took $25 billion in transfer payments in health care and education from the provinces to pay down that debt, so it put it on the backs of the provinces.
However, the employees of today are saying thank you to our government, for jobs, for growth, for long-term prosperity. Today we heard that a net million new jobs have been created in this country since the worst of the downturn.
I wonder if that member would like to speak to how that has been generated in these last few years under this government.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should understand when she complains about us cutting transfers to the provinces, that we did, but we also cut federal government spending in a proportional way. She should remember that her colleagues in those days did not say “cut less”; they said to us “cut more”. The Reform Party of the day said Liberals were not cutting enough. That made it politically easier for us to do. However, she should not rewrite history. She should understand that her own colleagues of the day were telling us to cut more and not to cut less.
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.
I would like to draw his attention to a specific item in the bill, namely co-operatives. We know that the government has decided to treat co-operatives like the big banks, despite their very different structure.
Can he say a few words about this aspect of the budget?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with what my colleague said.
I am not going to say much because I think my colleague is going to elaborate on this issue in a few minutes.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague ran out of time, and toward the end he mentioned that this training credit is not going to be available. We are seeing a whole bunch of money that is being spent by the present government on these economic action plan ads that say the new training credit is now available subject to parliamentary approval. If the bill does pass in the next couple of days or so, will Canadians have those training credits available to them? Could he comment on that?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, there are two barriers to this program. One barrier is passing it through Parliament, and I am sure it will. The second is whether they will be able to get agreements with the provinces and whether it will ever happen. Even if the law passes, there is no guarantee that the provinces would agree. Therefore, it still may never happen, even when it is the law. That is why I think it is totally inappropriate to advertise a program that may never come to pass.
[Interjection]
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, this time I will try to get a lengthier response from the hon. member. I want to talk about organizations, including the CBC.
The Conservative government is going to interfere in the CBC's negotiations when most of the CBC's budget is allocated by the government.
Does he agree that this is unnecessary interference?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the member has chosen the second subject my colleague will be addressing.
I will be brief. I fully agree that it is inappropriate. In the past, crown corporations like VIA Rail and the CBC have had some independence from the government, and the fact that the government plans to send a Treasury Board official to these negotiations, to my mind, qualifies as interference.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Markham—Unionville for sharing his time with me. I also wish to inform the member for Louis-Hébert that the two subjects I plan to discuss have to do with credit unions and crown corporations. I will begin with credit unions.
The matter of credit unions is rather troubling, in the sense that we have a very adequate system. Credit unions have been able to offer services in communities where sometimes the banks do not go because the profit margins are not sufficient for the banks in small towns throughout this country. Yet, they are going to be suffering a rather dramatic setback because of the implementation of Bill C-60. When I asked why the government had chosen to do this, the Minister of Finance and others suggested that it is because the credit unions are now sufficiently large enough to compete and that the banks have to be protected. Though they did not quite say this, it was almost insinuated in their responses.
I need to provide some information about the relative comparison of the banks versus credit unions. The top five banks in this country, in 2012 numbers, have dramatically different sized assets than credit unions. The Royal Bank, in 2012, had $455 billion of assets under management; TD had $429 billion; Scotiabank had $347 billion; CIBC had $327 billion; and BMO had $278 billion. The largest credit union, Vancity, had $17 billion. I keep going back to the smallest one, which is First West, also in B.C., which had $5.9 billion. The other three are Coast Capital, at $12.6 billion; Servus, in Alberta, at $12.2 billion; and, finally, Meridian, in Ontario, at $8.8 billion. These numbers have been provided to all parliamentarians. If they have not, I would be quite prepared to share them. This has come from the Credit Union Central of Canada and these are publicly available numbers.
The largest credit union, Vancity, is 16 times smaller than the fifth largest bank, BMO. To say that we have to change the rules to allow for competition is ludicrous. The corporate structure of the two institutions is totally different. Because of the co-operative structure of credit unions, they cannot issue share capital. Basically, they have to accumulate capital through retained earnings; whereas the banks can issue share capital, as they do on a fairly regular basis. Forty years ago governments accepted that to enable the credit unions to function properly and build up capital, they would be treated as small businesses, and the tax rate of small businesses would apply to them. 
I found it rather ironic during question period that one of my colleagues asked the Minister of Health a question about a bill that was introduced yesterday and the need for voices of communities to be heard. The government introduced this change in taxation of credit unions without any consultation whatsoever. Last summer there were five days of hearings that were held by a specially constituted committee of the House. They were unanimously agreed to, as per a motion that I put forward. The committee heard from the government, credit unions and the banks, and nobody at any time suggested that should be done or hinted that it might be happening. So much for consultation. Only when it suits the government, it seems, will it consult.
To do what the government has done, not consulting and then proposing that it is to allow for a level playing field, is absolutely not accurate. The consequence of this is that $200 million, which is basically the increased taxation that will be applied to credit unions over the next five years, will be that much less for small businesses in these communities and community economic development. This totally goes against the grain of what the government is trying to say in its budget. It says it welcomes competition, especially in the banking and financial sectors, and by introducing this measure it has actually reduced the competition and the ability of small institutions, the largest being 16 times smaller than the smallest of the big five, to compete.
Liberals do not understand what has driven the government to do this and whether it might be the banks saying that they do not need competition whatsoever. If that is the case, Canadian consumers, especially rural Canadians, will actually be negatively affected by this measure. That is certainly why I intend to vote against this measure, and I suspect most people on this side will vote against it as well.
The second issue has to do with crown corporations and section 17 of Bill C-60. Basically, the government is granting itself the power to interfere in crown corporations. It is absolutely incredible that this government wants to do such a thing. I think this shows utter contempt for the usual governance practices.
All crown corporations have an executive and a board of directors and that is usually appointed by the government. Perhaps one or two members may already be in place before the government makes it appointments, but that is how the government delegates it authority to manage crown corporations.
I would like to read some parts of the bill currently before the House, a bill that amends the Financial Administration Act. The first excerpt concerns the amendment cited in subsection 89.8(2):
 If the Governor in Council directs a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved, the Treasury Board may impose any requirement on the crown corporation with respect to that negotiating mandate. 
The bill then goes even further on another matter. It gives the government the right to attend the negotiations. We are talking about collective bargaining and therefore unionized workers. However, there is also subsection 89.9(1), which states:
 The Governor in Council [cabinet] may, by order, direct a Crown corporation to obtain the Treasury Board’s approval before the Crown corporation fixes the terms and conditions of employment of its non-unionized employees who are not appointed by the Governor in Council. 
Thus, the government decided that it wanted to give itself the authority to bypass the boards of directors that it appoints, and to directly interfere in and infiltrate crown corporations. To start out with, that is already too much. It is totally inappropriate for any crown corporation.
More than anything else, what really crosses the line in a democratic society is the fact that the government wants to give itself the right to interfere in CBC/Radio-Canada. The Canadian public should really wake up, because we are dealing here with a measure that undermines the democratic capacity of a society.
I will also read section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 
Section 2 sets out fundamental freedoms, which include:
 (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 
This government wants to give itself the right to interfere in CBC/Radio-Canada, which is a public news and broadcasting corporation. I hope that this bill and this division will be challenged in court, if the bill is passed, as we expect it will be. It has a majority in both chambers.
If the bill passes, we will have taken more than just a small step down a slippery slope. We will be undermining our democracy and our freedom of the press, and allowing the government to give itself the right to interfere in a crown corporation that has the responsibility to communicate with Canadians. This is unprecedented, and I hope that this will never happen again.
The Deputy Speaker: Before we go to questions and comments, the hon. government House leader.
Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill S-17, An act to implement conventions, protocols, agreements and a supplementary convention, concluded between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the said stage.
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment. 
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, although the Conservative government promised not to raise taxes, its 2013 budget contains several hidden tax hikes that will cost taxpayers dearly. The increased cost of parking at the Saint-Eustache hospital, which will rise to $7 per day, is a concrete example of this new policy. The Conservatives are putting a tax on illness by targeting the families who use the hospital. While the Conservatives' patronage gravy train is going full speed, they are penalizing Canadian families.
Would my Liberal colleague comment on that?
[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to do so.
Indeed, this is happening as well in the riding I have the honour to represent. There is a hospital in my riding, Montfort Hospital, that made headlines quite recently. A provincial Conservative government in Ontario tried to close it, but the community rose up and fought back. Those people not only saved the hospital, but also made it twice as large and improved it. However, anyone who uses this hospital will have to pay another hidden tax.
Ultimately, this is not where the real problem lies. I understand that government must have sources of income, but the problem with the Conservatives is their lack of transparency and honesty towards Canadians. They even lost one of their own this week, a member who decided to leave because of their lack of transparency.
When a government is committed to being honest, it must tell taxpayers that it needs to raise government revenues and explain how it will go about it. We understand that not too many people want to pay more taxes, but the government must be honest and admit to what it is doing with its budget. 
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
When he spoke about credit unions, he spoke mainly about their size, which corresponds to their value and their revenues.
However, there is another factor that is also important. It applies particularly to caisses populaires, among others. According to the model, the transactions are carried out only by the caisses populaires and not the federations. That means that the taxes will not necessarily apply to the federation, but to the small caisses populaires. The latter will have to do all the additional paperwork.
What does my colleague think of that situation?
[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the member for Louis-Hébert is absolutely right.
I did talk primarily about credit unions, but what I said applies to caisses populaires as well. I am not talking about Desjardins Group; I am talking about caisses populaires. I belong to one of them, a small one that will have to pay more taxes. Nobody consulted my caisse. In fact, it found out about this on the news because the government is not interested in consulting people when it knows they will not say what it wants to hear.
My caisse is in a big city, but I know that there are a lot of small towns in northern and eastern Ontario, across Quebec and throughout regions that are far from major centres where the only financial institution is a caisse. I would not be surprised if some of them have to close their doors because of this tax hike. Small Canadian communities are in danger of losing access to local financial services because the government did not talk to anyone about its decision to hypocritically—yes, hypocritically—cover up the fact that it is just trying to boost its revenues. 
The government is justifying the fact that it did not have the decency to consult people by saying that it is trying to level the playing field between banks and caisses populaires. That is hogwash. I looked at the numbers. Caisses and credit unions are not even on the same playing field. Unlike banks, they do not have the ability to issue share capital. They have to accumulate capital through retained earnings. If the government taxes those earnings, caisses populaires and credit unions will no longer be able to help communities as they do now, or at least, they will be less able to do so. 
Let us hope they can survive this. If they succeed, it will certainly not be because the government did anything to help the co-operative movement. It will be because communities rallied behind their co-operative financial institutions—their caisses populaires and their credit unions.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary for international co-operation.
I will advise the hon. parliamentary secretary that she will have just six or seven minutes.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of the wonderful residents of Newmarket—Aurora to speak on economic action plan 2013.
This is an excellent plan that supports my constituents by its focus on the issues that are important to them.
Each spring, I have an MP booth at three very popular community events in my riding: the Newmarket Home Show and the Aurora Home Show, which take place in April, and the Aurora street festival, which is held the first weekend in June. These events combined attract over 30,000 people, so I have the opportunity to speak with an incredible number of residents and businesses from all walks of life on the issues of the day.
I can report to the House today that from the thousands of discussions, the most top-of-mind issues for my constituents are jobs, the economy and taxes. These are exactly the issues that economic action plan 2013 addresses. People in my riding cannot wait for the measures it contains to be passed and worked through the system so that they can start to benefit.
Let me mention just a few of these initiatives. One would extend for two years the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investments in machinery and equipment by Canadian manufacturers. I am very pleased to see this initiative continue for Newmarket and Aurora businesses to help them grow and create jobs.
Another is indexing gas tax fund payments to better support job-creating infrastructure in municipalities across Canada, which builds on our government's previous work to assist municipalities with their infrastructure requirements. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, we doubled this fund and made it permanent. The municipalities of Newmarket and Aurora rely heavily on this stable, predictable source of funding to help ease the burden imposed by municipal infrastructure renewal on local taxpayers.
Another initiative is the reform of the temporary working program to ensure that Canadians are given the first crack at available jobs. Economic action plan 2013 announced the need for remedial action in this program and would put steps in place to crack down on the abuses of this program.
As another example, our government is proposing to extend for one year the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors. Another example is promoting adoption by enhancing the adoption expense tax credit to better recognize the cost of adopting a child. Adoption is a time-consuming and often costly process, and this new measure will be very meaningful to Canadian families who opt to take this path.
We also want to introduce a new temporary first-time donor super credit for first-time claimants of the charitable donations tax credit. As well, we propose to extend tax relief for home care services to better meet the health care needs of Canadians and to remove tariffs on imports of baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment.
Residents in Newmarket and Aurora have confidence that our government is on the right track for them. Why? It is because we have delivered on our promises for the past seven years. We have created jobs and grown the economy. Employment in York region grew by 2.3% in 2012 from the year before. Aurora alone grew by 8.7%. I am particularly pleased to see Aurora's manufacturing and construction sector rebound with a 4% expansion last year alone.
Statistics Canada recently released its latest economic update. The Canadian economy grew an outstanding 2.5% in the first quarter of 2013. This is the strongest quarterly growth Canada has seen in nearly two years.
Today we learned that 95,500 net new jobs were created in May, the overwhelming majority of them full time and private sector employment. We also learned that youth employment increased by 54,400 jobs, the biggest monthly job gain for young Canadians in nearly three decades.
In addition to the timely and targeted measures we have enacted and will enact, we are on track to balance the budget. We are increasing federal transfer support to record highs and keeping federal taxes at their lowest level in 50 years.
I would like to elaborate on our support for municipalities. Many community leaders and organizations in Newmarket—Aurora have been calling on the upper levels of government to provide predictable funding for infrastructure. The Newmarket Chamber of Commerce, the Aurora Chamber of Commerce and town councils for Newmarket and Aurora are among them. 
I am very pleased to tell them that our government has listened and acted. Economic action plan 2013 includes the highest infrastructure commitment in the history of Canada through the historic building Canada plan, worth an enormous $70 billion in federal dollars for Canadian infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you have given me the sign that my time if almost up and I have much more that I would love to tell the good people in Newmarket—Aurora from this chamber. What I can tell them is our government is focused on creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for people across the country. We have reduced taxes over 150 times since we took government. That has put more than $3,000 extra in the pockets of families in our communities. They are the ones out there working every day, trying to put food on the table for their kids and give them opportunities. We want to continue that, to ensure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast have the opportunity to succeed. 
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, June 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. 
[Interjection]
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been around this place a long time, but I am not clear on this fact. I would have thought the mover of the amendment is required to be here in the House at this time. I await your advice on that. 
The Deputy Speaker: It is not necessary for the mover to be in the House at this time of the motion. 
[Interjection]
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure of the procedure here either, but do members not have to be in their own seats in order to cast their vote, even on a voice vote?
The Deputy Speaker: No, they do not have to be in their seats at this stage. This is not a vote.
Let us try again. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joe Comartin):  The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joe Comartin):  All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joe Comartin):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joe Comartin):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
The Deputy Speaker:  And five or more members having risen:  
 Pursuant to a standing order made on Wednesday, May 22, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 10 at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.
Offshore Health and Safety ActJoe Oliver:  moved that Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to congratulate the hard work of our government and especially the Minister of Finance for the work that has led to the creation of over one million net new jobs for Canadians. This is a great achievement and demonstrates that our economic action plan is working.
We are here today to talk about the new legislative provisions to amend the Atlantic accord implementation acts, in order extend occupational health and safety jurisdictions to Canada's offshore areas.
Before we talk more about these legislative provisions, I would like to set the stage by emphasizing how vital the natural and offshore resources industry is to Atlantic Canada and to our country's economy.
There is no question the offshore oil and gas industries have made an enormous economic contribution to Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that these industries have transformed the economy of eastern Canada. Not long ago the province of Newfoundland and Labrador was receiving the highest per capita equalization payments in the country.
 Today it is among our strongest provincial economies and now contributes to the equalization program. Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP has performed at or above the national average in 9 of the past 13 years. A large part of that success comes from offshore oil and gas, which accounted for 33% of Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP in 2011.
Resource revenues, again primarily from the offshore, have allowed the province to steadily pay down its debt. The total provincial debt was almost $7.7 billion in 2012, down from a high of $12 billion just eight years ago.
Simply put, offshore energy development has given Newfoundland and Labrador more jobs, lower taxes and new investments in services and infrastructure that play such an important role in building stronger communities. These benefits will continue to grow.
As members knows, Hibernia was the largest project of any kind ever undertaken in Newfoundland and Labrador. As valuable as Hibernia has been, the Hebron project may be even bigger. Hebron represents a capital investment of as much as $14 billion. It could deliver $20 billion in taxes and royalties to the province over the 30-year life of the project.
Just a few months ago, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board announced its latest calls for bids for exploration licences in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, netting $117 million in work commitments by major players in the oil industry.
Nova Scotia's offshore area also offers enormous potential. The Play Fairway Analysis undertaken by the Government of Nova Scotia estimates that the offshore area may contain 8 billion barrels of oil and 3.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The Atlantic offshore is a major gas producer with three gas fields serving Atlantic Canada and the U.S. northeast. In the past two years, the Nova Scotia offshore area has seen the largest bids ever for offshore parcels in Atlantic Canada with more than a total of $2 billion bid for 12 parcels of land. Shell Canada and BP Exploration clearly see the potential that exists in the Nova Scotia offshore.
 Meanwhile, there is an estimated 120 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and production continues to grow. Sable Island's 270 million cubic feet a day will soon be joined by 200 million cubic feet a day from Deep Panuke.
It is essential that Canada continue to ensure that our offshore industries carry out their activities safely by abiding by the most stringent environmental standards. Canadians expect to see a world-class regulatory body. Our government is taking the measures necessary to ensure Canadians' continued satisfaction in this regard.
That is why we are bringing in new legislation. We want to clarify provincial and federal responsibilities when it comes to occupational health and safety in offshore areas.
The accord's implementation acts are the cornerstone of all oil and gas activities in the offshore area. They give the boards the legal authority to regulate oil and gas activities on behalf of the provinces.
Every day, Canada's offshore workers have to deal with a difficult work environment. The harsh weather conditions in Atlantic Canada and the remoteness of their workplace are just two difficulties that come to mind. The safety of the courageous men and women who work in this environment must and always will be our main concern.
The changes we intend to make need to be mirrored by provincial legislation in order for the amendments to come into force. Our government has been working closely with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to achieve this. Both provinces introduced their legislation in May, and both have given royal assent to their respective bills. At this time, they must wait for the legislation to pass our federal Parliament for the new regime to come to fruition. 
The proposed amendments will address gaps in the current legislation. They will vest authority for offshore occupational health and safety in the accord acts.
There are two safety regimes that apply to workers in the offshore. Occupational health and safety pertains to the workers, in the sense of the hazards they may face, their protective equipment, and the safeguards on the equipment they use in their functions. It also pertains to three essential worker rights: the right to refuse dangerous work, the right to information, and the right to participate in taking decisions on workplace health and safety.
Under the current regime, occupational health and safety is a jurisdiction of the provinces. Operational safety pertains to the workplace systems, facilities and equipment, as well as the risk management and integrity of those systems, facilities and equipment. Examples of this are the prevention of gas blowout, ability of a facility to withstand storms, and fire suppression systems. This was included in the accord acts and provided that the offshore petroleum boards be responsible on behalf of both levels of government.
Following a tragic accident where a worker was killed due to an improperly installed door, the overlap of occupational health and safety and operational safety created a grey area. It was not clear whether the door's installation fell under one jurisdiction or the other. The lack of clarity prevented any party from being liable, as it was unclear under whose jurisdiction the incident should be regulated. The provinces and federal government agreed that the best course of action was to eliminate the grey area and incorporate the power for occupational health and safety directly in the accord acts.
For the section on occupational health and safety, which typically would fall under the purview of the Minister of Labour, the legislation specifies that the Minister of Natural Resources may receive advice from the Minister of Labour, and any regulations related to occupational health and safety must be made on the recommendation of both ministers.
In addition to fixing this historic issue, the legislation establishes a hierarchy of responsibility that makes—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The time for the debate has expired. The minister will have 10 minutes at the time this debate resumes.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Old Age Security Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-480, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (funeral arrangements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if adopted, this bill will allow guaranteed income supplement recipients to withdraw up to $2,500 from a registered retirement savings plan to pay for funeral arrangements in advance without having their GIS reduced.
Let me start by saying that, while it is clear that the proposed legislation has some serious shortcomings, I can understand the good intentions of the member for moving the legislation. All members on both sides of the House want to ensure Canadian seniors obtain financial security. However, there are several reasons why we cannot support the bill.
First, it would leave the majority of seniors who do not have RRIFs or RRSPs out in the cold. Second, it would generate additional costs to Canadian taxpayers. Third, and more important, there are better ways for low-income seniors to pre-arrange their funeral expenses. While the hon. member is commended for wanting to help these seniors, we cannot agree with the methods he proposes. Therefore, we cannot vote in favour of this bill.
The OAS program is one of the cornerstones of Canada's retirement income system. It provides seniors with a minimum income so they can maintain a decent standard of living and it helps reduce the incidence of poverty among the retired. The program provides over $38 billion annually in benefits to five million seniors. This includes, $8.6 billion in GIS benefits to 1.7 million low-income pensioners.
Based on 2009 data from the Office of the Chief Actuary, it is estimated that only 10% of all GIS recipients have RRSP or RRIF income in any given year. This means that a very limited number of seniors could benefit from this bill and it would not be fair to other low-income seniors, 90% of whom do not have RRIFs or RRSPs. These seniors would get no assistance whatsoever under this bill.
Strictly from a cost perspective, the Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that the bill would increase the program costs by up to $81 million in the first year. In other words, it would cost up to $81 million for a measure that would benefit only one out of every ten low-income seniors who decided to pre-pay their funeral in this fashion.
 There are other ways of paying for funerals and they do not cost as much. For example, the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan already provide a one-time death benefit of up to $2,500 to, or on behalf of, the estate of the deceased contributor. In 2011-12, 54% of all GIS beneficiaries who passed away had a CPP death benefit paid to their estate and the average benefit received was $2,150.
 Also, some provinces and territories already offer grants and subsidies to low-income seniors to help them make funeral arrangements. For example, the province of British Columbia offers assistance of up to $3,000 to those who have little or no assets. Similar benefits are also available in Alberta, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and for first nations peoples living on reserve. As well, some municipalities, including Toronto, offer similar assistance to cover funeral expenses. This bill would duplicate public assistance with respect to the same funeral expenses.
Here is the bottom line. If people are concerned about funeral expenses, they are much better off leaving their money in their RRIF or RRSP. This way, the money can accumulate on a tax-deferred basis and they can arrange to have their estate pay the funeral expenses out of any remaining RRSP or RRIF savings upon their death. As an alternative, since withdrawals from tax-free savings accounts are not included as income for the purpose of determining GIS entitlements, GIS recipients may pre-pay their funeral and other expenses out of TFSA savings, with no impact whatsoever on their GIS benefits.
Let me explain. The Old Age Security Act uses income as defined under the Income Tax Act to calculate GIS benefit entitlements. This includes any money that a pensioner receives, other than basic OAS pension, from the Canada pension plan, Quebec pension plan, employer-sponsored pensions, employment insurance benefits, RRSP withdrawals, interest, dividends, capital gains, employment income, annuity payments and RRIF withdrawals. Therefore, withdrawals from RRSPs and RRIFs are considered as income for the purposes of GIS. As long as savings held in RRSPs and RRIFs are not withdrawn, the beneficiary pays no taxes. However, as soon as the monies are withdrawn, the funds are considered as income for the purposes of calculating the GIS.
 There are exemptions under the Old Age Security Act, but they generally relate to earnings and receipt of provincial, territorial and social assistance.
The GIS earnings exemption, which allows an exemption of up to $3,500 of annual employment income, allows low-income seniors who choose to work to keep more of their GIS benefits. However, the Old Age Security Act does not provide expense-related exemptions. Bill C-480 would therefore introduce a new type of exemption in the Old Age Security Act by allowing for an expense-related exemption.
The proposal to exempt RRSP and RRIF withdrawals when used for funeral arrangements would open the door to calls for similar exemptions for GIS purposes on other compassionate grounds, such as accidents, illness and medical expenses and other reasons. As we mentioned earlier, the bill would raise equity issues, as it would only benefit those seniors who use RRSPs or RRIFs to cover their funeral expenses and do nothing for those seniors who have no savings or use different types of savings vehicles.
Not only that, but the bill could possible create pressure to exempt a portion of RRSP or RRIF withdrawals as income for the purpose of determining other income-tested benefits and credits such as the Canada child tax benefit and the goods and services tax credit. In addition, those without RRSP or RRIF income could argue that a basic exemption for all sources of income for all income-tested benefits and credits should be introduced. Such exemptions would increase program and tax expenditure costs associated with income-tested benefits and credits.
Since we formed government, we have taken 380,000 seniors off the tax rolls entirely. We have increased the GIS benefits by the largest single top-up in 25 years. The increase in benefits will help more than 700,000 low-income seniors.
I can appreciate the good intentions of the member in moving this legislation. I am sure we all can. However, the cost and inequity of the legislation is not something I can support. Our government has acted to help the poorest of our seniors. Poverty among seniors is at an all-time low, thanks to the investments our government has made. For these reasons, I would encourage all members of the House to vote against this legislation.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to debate Bill C-480 and voice my concerns or support, depending at which point I will be discussing the bill. However, in the end, I will be supporting Bill C-480 so that it can be examined in detail and costed at committee.
 When I say “costed”, I mean looking at both the economic value and benefit, and performing an analysis that is sometimes not done in this place based on the estimates we sometimes get from the Department of Finance, being just one number with no backup or calculations. Therefore, we will probably look to the Parliamentary Budget Officer for backup to this bill once again and have to rely on those calculations and analysis. I have not seen that yet, but I hope it is available. Perhaps the sponsor of the bill would be able to comment on that in his final comments. 
As the Conservative government continues to implement its plans to slash seniors' income support benefits such as old age security, I am especially keen to discuss measures like this. We need to find ways to help low-income seniors rather than hurt them.
The only caveat I would offer is that we must make sure we are getting the greatest benefit for any public investment we may make. If Bill C-480 is passed at second reading and sent to the House of Commons committee on human resources, the committee to which I believe it would be sent, the economic cost of not passing the bill should also be looked at and thoroughly reviewed, because there is a cost in not adopting bills like this. 
I understand that many of my colleagues on the other side of the House like the idea of finding ways to reduce what we provide to baby boomers and seniors, which is their position and approach, but it is one that I do not share. Liberals know that seniors deserve better.
I would argue that the true value of a society can be gauged by the manner in which it treats the most vulnerable of its people. This adage is perhaps most appropriate in the context of how we collectively show compassion and care for our elderly parents, grandparents, friends and neighbours who require simple accommodations to live in a dignified and financially independent manner. Having our elderly population live in poverty is simply not acceptable in a country as wealthy as Canada. No one should have to decide between food and rent and other basic necessities.
The Liberal Party is known for its leadership role in defending the rights of seniors, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale. 
Bill C-480 constitutes another useful tool for seniors who struggle to make ends meet because of the Conservative government's mean-spirited cuts to income support measures.
The proof is that the Liberal administrations of the past have clearly understood and acted upon this belief. Whether we were referencing the Old Age Pensions Act, delivered by the former Liberal Mackenzie King government; the Old Age Security Act, delivered by the former Liberal Louis St. Laurent government; or the Canada pension plan and guaranteed income supplement, both delivered by the previous Liberal Lester B. Pearson government, the Liberal Party of Canada has a collective legacy of valuing the long-term pension security of Canadians, a belief that is upheld in both word and deed.
It is within this context that both the Liberal critic for seniors and pensions, the member for York West, and the Liberal finance critic, the member for Kings—Hants, support the underpinnings of Bill C-480. We will vote accordingly at second reading. As always, the Liberals seek to balance compassion and social justice with a strong sense of fiscal responsibility.
As we have already heard, Bill C-480 amends section 10 of the Old Age Security Act to permit pensioners to withdraw an amount not exceeding $2,500 from an RRSP or RIF for the purposes of paying for advanced funeral planning. That amount would not be considered income for the purpose of the guaranteed income supplement. This sounds like a case of allowing seniors to use their own savings for an important life expense without penalizing them.
I support this, but there are outstanding legislative as well as economic and monetary questions that need to be addressed. Therefore, once again there is the need to send this bill to committee for further study, and hopefully improvement. The considerations would be looked at during the committee process. 
Some of the considerations the committee could look at were highlighted on March 25, when the Speaker expressed concern as to the spending provisions contained in Bill C-480. Specifically, the Speaker encouraged members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation to accompany the bill to do so at the earliest opportunity.
Likewise, on April 18, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a letter which stated, “it is possible that Bill C-480 may have a material impact on Canada's fiscal framework if passed in its current form”. This is again why we state that we are looking for some amendments. I am not suggesting this is definitely the case; I am saying that there are outstanding questions. 
This is why at this point of the legislative process for Bill C-480, our support is only for second reading. We will see what the reactions are from stakeholders, see if the government is open to amendments, and see if committee members can improve this bill.
The sponsor of this bill has touched on an important issue that the Liberals have long supported. At the 2012 Liberal Biennial Convention, the Liberal membership expressly supported the idea of using the Income Tax Act and other legislative measures to help bolster the income security of low-income seniors. Assuming Bill C-480 is respectful of the basic concepts of fiscal responsibility, members should be anxious to explore it once again at committee and going forward.
The Liberal Party of Canada has a long and proud history of enacting, preserving and strengthening Canadian social structure such as pensions and retirement income options. The Liberal Party, its general membership, the Parliamentary caucus, and its various leaders, both past and present, have underscored an unreserved belief that protecting and helping seniors to live with independence and dignity are necessities that deserve attention and protection in the years ahead. Bill C-480 is potentially part of the process, though not the total solution, and we are pleased to lend our support.
I wish the Conservative government would act in a similar manner and look at supporting the bill by sending it to committee. 
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today to the bill introduced by the member for Laval—Les Îles.
Members are no doubt aware that the bill's sponsor represents the riding next to Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. We often participate in activities together, so I can attest to her community involvement and the fact that she is often featured in community media as well. I would like to thank her for her dedication and her contribution to righting the wrongs committed against guaranteed income supplement recipients.
Basically, the bill introduced by my colleague aims to amend the Old Age Security Act so that seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement have the option of taking $2,500 out of their RRSP to pay for funeral arrangements without it affecting their GIS benefits.
When a loved one dies, the family must pay for the funeral. This represents a significant financial burden for low-income households. This bill is important for the dignity of our seniors. It gives them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they will not be leaving their family with the burden of paying for their funeral. 
My colleague's bill provides our seniors with an incentive to prearrange their funerals and protect themselves from the increase in the cost of living.
The Conservative government has indicated that it will not give a royal recommendation to the bill because of the cost. Quite frankly, that is ridiculous.
According to the Library of Parliament's estimates, this bill will cost the federal government only $132,000 a year. This is very little given that it would help more than 300,000 Canadian seniors. Come to think of it, $132,000 is about what Senator Mike Duffy makes, and this would be a much better use of that money.
I believe that it is better to spend public funds on a program that makes it possible to prepay for funeral arrangements without a penalty than on an archaic and undemocratic Senate that abuses public funds. However, those are not the Conservative government's priorities. The Conservative Party's gravy train is chugging along, but the Conservatives are asking seniors who live in poverty to tighten their belts.
Although poverty is a problem in many Canadian households, single people who are 65 and over are particularly susceptible to poverty. The universal pension program accounts for 77% of these seniors' income.
Among seniors, poverty strikes more women than men. This is due to the fact that, in the past, many women stayed in the home to take care of their families. Although many went back to work afterwards, their careers were much shorter and they therefore did not have enough time to accumulate sufficient assets to provide themselves with adequate incomes when they retired.
In Quebec, seniors are getting poorer and poorer and accumulating more and more debt. The percentage of seniors' households carrying debt has more than doubled in 17 years. A study by the Institut de recherche et d'informations socio-économiques published in 2011 found that, in Quebec, the number of seniors living below the low income cutoff tripled between 1996 and 2008. This segment of the population increased from 4.6% to 12.3%.
In the Laurentides region, the Agence de la santé estimates that 7% of seniors aged 65 and older are living below the low income cutoff. This represents about 4,000 people. The Conservative government is only adding to the problem.
According to the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations, by raising the eligibility age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67, the Conservative government will drive up the number of people living under the low income cutoff from 6% to 17%.
By changing the eligibility age for old age security, the federal government will download responsibility for more seniors onto Quebec and the other provinces, which will be forced to spend more on social assistance. 
In fact, once the change is made, the Canadian government could save $6.9 billion a year while the provinces will lose more than $450 million a year and will have to increase spending on social assistance by $164 million in 2030.
As economics professor and co-author of the study, Jean-Yves Duclos, said:
 The main problem with the reform is that it disproportionately attacks the poorest people and will have less of an impact on those with means, who do not often receive old age security benefits or the guaranteed income supplement. 
The fight against poverty, particularly among seniors, is is central to our political action. In February 2011, the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard moved a motion in the House of Commons that called on the Prime Minister to lift seniors out of poverty in the next budget. The motion read as follows:
 That this House reject calls by the Prime Minister to balance the Conservative deficit on the backs of Canada’s seniors by means such as raising the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and call on the government to make the reduction and eventual elimination of seniors’ poverty a cornerstone of the next budget. 
Unfortunately, and this does not surprise me, the motion was rejected by the Conservative government. It is clear that guaranteeing a suitable retirement for our seniors is not the government's priority.
Unlike the Conservatives, who increased the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67, the NDP is proposing real measures for improving financial security for seniors. We understand how exasperated and frustrated seniors are about the cost of living and the lack of support during the aging process. We are fighting relentlessly to protect pension plans so that people with disabilities, seniors and all Canadians can live with dignity and security in their retirement. 
To that end, we have come up with a plan for fighting poverty and helping seniors. We are proposing that the federal government improve the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan by gradually doubling the amount of benefits over seven years from 25% to 50% of pensionable earnings.
What is more, we are calling on the federal government to gradually improve the guaranteed income supplement. We are calling for investment in home care and services, through the public health care system. Measures for making prescription drugs safer and more affordable should also be adopted.
Finally, we call for investments in social housing and, of course, in public transit. In fact, my colleague's bill is part of a larger NDP program to help Canada's seniors.
Poverty is a big concern for me, especially poverty among seniors. I was particularly shocked to learn that because of the dithering of the Liberal and Conservative governments in contacting those entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, 160,000 seniors eligible for the supplement were not receiving any payments. The government had known about this problem since 2011, but it insisted on maintaining its red tape. It is estimated that, for the whole of Canada, this helped the government generate savings of $300 million on the backs of its poorest seniors.
In March 2012, I proposed amendments to the Old Age Security Act to provide for automatic enrollment for the GIS. My bill forced the federal government to take the necessary steps to reach recipients. A few weeks after I introduced my bill, the government finally picked it up and proposed a proactive mechanism to contact eligible seniors.
In conclusion, I urge all members of the House to support the exceptional bill introduced by my colleague from Laval—Les Îles to ensure that all seniors can age with dignity.
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Laval—Les Îles for introducing this bill, which addresses a very significant problem for seniors.
While it is not illegal for guaranteed income supplement benefits to be reduced if recipients take a small amount of money out of their RRSP to prepay for a funeral, it is morally unacceptable.
The member for Laval—Les Îles tried to limit his bill to something quite reasonable and suggested a $2,500 maximum withdrawal. Once taxes are withheld—because money taken out of an RRSP is taxable—the remaining amount can pay for cremation. I am not talking about an entire funeral, just something very simple.
That is why I feel this bill is reasonable. The bill is designed to keep guaranteed income supplement recipients from seeing a drop in their benefits the following year. That is important, not from a taxation point of view, but from the recipients' point of view.
It is important to understand what these people want to do. They feel it is important not to burden the next generation with their personal problems. It is a question of dignity. They simply want to avoid problems for their children when they pass on. It is not complicated. That is all they want to do. Can we support them in this simple human wish? That is what I am asking.
We have to remember that these people do not have a lot of income. To be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, a single person's taxable income cannot be more than $16,600. For a couple, the figure is a little less than $22,000. This is not asking too much. These people are living in poverty.
What is more, we cannot forget that the $2,500 they take out is taxable. On top of that, their guaranteed income supplement benefits would be cut. According to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, which oversees the program, I believe, how much money would they lose out on each month?
Depending on the individual's or the couple's income, that would be between $50 and $100 per month. That means that a person who withdraws $2,500 will keep just 20% or 25% of that amount to pay for a pre-arranged funeral. To me, this smacks of double taxation, the kind of double taxation that even the wealthiest are not subject to.
I would like to talk about costs. The Library of Parliament estimates that this would cost $132,000 for a very simple reason. Not everyone is going to rush out to pre-pay their funeral the day this bill is passed. That is not how it works. It was determined that some people would do so over the next 10 years. That is why the costs are so low.
It is important to remember that only 11% of retirees at all income levels pre-arrange their funerals, and 47% of them use their RRSPs to pay for it. That is about one person in 20, which is relatively few people. I am not suggesting that this is a measure for everyone. 
Had the government listened to our proposal to get all seniors out of poverty by enhancing old age security, my colleague would not have had to introduce his bill. The problem would have solved itself.
According to the government, the Office of the Chief Actuary determined that this measure would cost $81 million plus $12 million in administration costs. The government might have exaggerated a little and spoke about $100 million. That is a lot of money.
Considering what I just said about individuals who pre-arrange their funerals and about how much of their RRSPs they use to pay for it, and considering a third element, their income, I doubt it will cost that much. It looks like somebody wanted to do the math quickly. 
I would like to know how they came up with $81 million. Even more surprising is the $12 million it will cost to say that the money is not taxable income.
Some were saying that people would be receiving money from the government twice, because, on the one hand, the guaranteed income supplement is not taxed, and on the other hand, there are various public pension plans that pay benefits for funeral costs. However, as I said earlier, personally, I think this smacks more of double taxation, rather than double payments to people. 
At one point, someone else said that this would introduce a new method for calculating GIS income. Basically, that is false. Technically, all this would do is stipulate that when the RRSP is cashed out for this purpose, it would not count as taxable income. It is as simple as that. Not everyone seems to understand the tax mechanisms. The RRSP counts as a deferred tax. In some cases, the government could even withdraw some money, but we are not talking about those kinds of calculations.
I would like to point out that we are talking about a population that spends 60% of its income on housing and food. These people want to make an additional effort. In fact, all they want to do is sacrifice part of their future income to pre-pay for their own funeral.
I think it is only reasonable to support this bill at second reading. As I said, the parliamentary committee can look into the real costs associated with this measure, and we can then further debate its merits at third reading. I think this deserves further consideration. A parliamentary committee could look into this matter, call in some experts and thoroughly examine the issue—all in the name of dignity for our seniors.
I would like to close by thanking my hon. colleague from Laval—Les Îles for addressing one of the concerns of those less fortunate. I thank him very much.
By passing this bill here in the House, we have an opportunity to show the most financially vulnerable people in our country that Parliament is here to help them. I therefore invite everyone to support this bill at second reading.
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker, I want to sincerely thank the NDP member for Laval—Les Îles. I was the critic for seniors and pensions following the 2008 election. Jack Layton asked me to take on this file. I travelled over the next two and a half years to 57 town hall meetings across the country. I listened to seniors and heard stories about how difficult it was for them to get along in society. They had contributed to this society, but in many ways, they were excluded from the benefits of society.
Before I go further, a previous speaker for the Liberals, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, talked about what the Liberals had done for seniors. I want to add a little more. Yes, the Liberals brought in OAS and CPP, but OAS was proposed to them by J.S. Woodsworth of the CCF, following the fact that on the Prairies, in those days, many farmers and their families were actually starving. 
Again, in the 60s, in a minority situation in Parliament, Stanley Knowles, who was like the dean of this place, par excellence, brought forward the concept of the Canada pension plan. In both instances, we worked together to bring these forward.
 I just thought it would be worth putting that on the record for people to hear to remind them of the participation and leadership shown by the CCF and the NDP in the House when it comes to seniors. 
The member for Laval—Les Îles, who brought the bill forward, is actually moving forward on things we had in our 2011 platform. 
I want to speak to a statement made in the House by a Conservative speaker about how they increased the guaranteed income supplement. Yes, they did do that, and we will give them some credit for that. However, in our proposals in the 2011 election, we proposed an increase of $200 a month for seniors on OAS and GIS who had a combined income of approximately $1,400 a month, just to bring some 300,000 of those folks to the poverty line. 
I have spoken many times in this place of the hardships people face when they are on such a meagre income. Yes, the Conservatives brought in their $50 a month, but it is nowhere near what is needed to address the situation. 
It has been stated by others in this place that it would benefit members to take the bill to committee to examine the pros and cons. If there are improvements we can make to the bill, that is the appropriate place to do that. However, we should think for a moment about the intent of the legislation. 
The people I have spoken to and have listened to are in their senior years. I know that when members of their families pass away, and they are suddenly hit with $8,000 or $10,000 in costs, and for a number of reasons they have not set aside any money earmarked specifically for that but have perhaps put aside a little in an RRSP, to be able to take out $2,500 and put it toward that cost would take the edge off the stress during that time of loss.
 It really needs to be stressed that it is not intended to do anything to replace the benefit from CPP, which some people are able to get. 
There is another issue it is important to talk about. Some people who are on GIS have gotten part-time jobs and have earned a little money. The following year, after they have honestly filed their taxes and have brought that to the attention of the tax folks, their GIS has suddenly decreased. The provisions in the bill would ensure that this is not the case. In fact, their GIS would not go down, and they would not be penalized.
 There is a reality, though. The bill says that the $2,500, when put to use, would have to have taxes paid on it. That is only fair to other Canadians. 
Going back to the financial burden on seniors, oftentimes, when they have lost a lifelong mate, it is a burden. This is just a small way we can help these seniors deal with those times of trial. 
Again, I spoke about the fact that in the 2011 election, my office and staff put together our platform on pensions and for seniors. I am very pleased to see the member for Laval—Les Îles bringing forward a concrete measure to this House in line with our thinking of that time.
I cannot say the same for the Conservatives. They are increasing the eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67, and adding another two years of burden on workers who perhaps works in a mine some place or as a waitress who has been on her feet all the time. I have had people actually say to me, “I do not know whether I can do it.”
 I recall in my days at Bell Canada, there was a gentleman who worked to about 68 years of age. We were frightened every day, because he would go out and climb poles. He strapped spurs on his legs, and his legs were so spindly the spurs hardly even fit him properly. It was his choice to work that long. However, the government is saying, “You have reached 65 but you must work two more years” in either a hazardous job or one that is strain, like for the waitress. People just do not know how they are going to do this.
Some things are crucially important to seniors. We know how seniors tend to worry a bit more about some things in life, such as whether the kids in the neighbourhood are putting up too much graffiti. These things look larger to seniors. If the noise level of the party next door is too much, things like that bother them. We can imagine the feelings of loss of a family member, and then the additional sorting out of the finances. If this, in some small way, helps then I think it is well worthwhile.
Again, we are simply talking about sending this bill to committee to study. I look forward to our people from the NDP on that committee working with the government side. Perhaps there are ways to improve the legislation to make it better for seniors. We will be pleased to do that.
Some of the speakers on the government side today sounded somewhat reluctant. They have proposed some reasons why they have concerns about it. That is fair.
However, let us send it to committee so that it is studied properly. Experts can be brought in and we can look at this in a comprehensive fashion. Then, whatever comes back to the House will be as good a bill as we can possibly make it. I think it is a responsibility of all of us at committee. Sometimes we do not live up to that responsibility for a variety of reasons.
I want to stress that from those 57 town hall meetings that I attended, we brought notes back to my office and shared them with our colleagues. We set our agenda for the last election.
It also carries forward beyond that, because the problems that were there have not yet been addressed. For us, this is a continuation of ensuring that senior Canadians understand that they are a priority to the NDP. They should be a priority for this entire House.
There are some programs, like CPP or the Quebec pension plan, that have similar credits to this. Again, I want to stress this is not intended to compete with them in any way. It is intended for a very simple, direct purpose. It is to assist seniors in a time of need, both financially and emotionally.
I have brought up, a number of times in my remarks today, the importance of doing what we can to add peace to the life of seniors who have had a loss.
Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the Conservatives' approach to my bill, something struck me.
The Conservative approach does not take into account the fact that every retiree who receives the guaranteed income supplement can already deduct $3,500. What is more, the Conservative approach does not take into account the fact that not all retirees are fortunate enough to have an RRSP. Finally, this approach assumes that all eligible retirees would prearrange their funerals in the first year.
That is not what my bill is about at all, even though I would certainly like to be able to give our retirees $81 million. By the way, $81 million is only 1% of the total envelope.
Unfortunately, my approach just seeks to correct a glaring injustice done to some of the least fortunate retirees. Let me explain. If tomorrow morning, every Canadian withdrew money from an RRSP in order to prearrange their funeral, only 9,000 of them would take a hit to their income in 2014. You heard right: out of 37 million Canadians, only 9,000 of the least fortunate would be penalized, according to official data from the Library of Parliament.
To me that is unfair and unacceptable. This bill is about those 9,000 people, and that is where the $132,400 figure comes from.
Why take two different approaches in the same bill? For the simple reason that we did not have the time or the opportunity to sit down together and take a close look at the purpose of my bill. That is why all of the parties in the House should at least have a chance to take a thorough look at my bill in committee.
I am therefore asking all members of the House to give this bill a chance to go to committee for thorough study and debate. The committee is the only place where we can make amendments to align the two objectives in my bill and find a solution that makes everyone happy.
As I have been saying since the beginning, I am open to amendments because my goal here is not to make political hay; it is to help Canadian seniors who really need help. Let us not forget that, as I have said, this bill targets a small number of people who unfortunately belong to one of the neediest groups in society. These are people who built our great country, who made it what it is today. They deserve all of our respect, and they especially deserve to have us find a solution to a problem that affects only the poorest seniors.
As I said earlier, no other Canadians are penalized income-wise the year after they withdraw money from an RRSP to pay for a pre-arranged funeral. Only these nation-builders, who worked so hard their whole lives and managed to put some of their hard-earned money aside in their RRSPs, are penalized. If they want to help their families cope with the grieving process once they depart for a better world, they will be penalized.
I am therefore asking all members of the House to set partisanship aside and support my bill so that we can work together to find a way to help our poorest seniors enjoy their well-deserved retirement a little bit more.
In closing, I would like to thank all of the members who spoke to my bill. I appreciate that very much.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Deputy Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Deputy Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Deputy Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Deputy Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Wednesday, June 12, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions. 
 It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)