2014-10-31

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park had eight minutes remaining in her comments.
The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.
Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise once again on behalf of the riding of Parkdale—High Park and my constituents to speak to Bill C-43, which is the second budget implementation act introduced for the 2014 budget.
I would like to focus my remarks in my remaining time on three areas. First of all, I would like to focus on the nature of this omnibus bill that is before us and some of the problems I see within the bill. There are many, but I will focus on just a couple. Then I would like to look at some of the things that should be in this bill but are, in fact, missing. That is also extremely problematic.
Let us begin with the bill itself, Bill C-43, which is a rather large tome. Once again, it is 450-some pages. It is called the budget implementation act, but it actually contains a number of things that are not in the budget. It contains a number of items that ought to be separate bills and that have nothing at all to do with the budget.
My Conservative colleagues across the way will say that I am talking about process, that no one cares about process, and that I should be talking about substance. I will talk about the substance of the bill in just a moment, but let me say that what the Conservatives slough off as process is, in fact, the essence of our democracy. It is about the opportunity for parliamentarians, on behalf of the people of Canada, to adequately scrutinize, debate, and horror of horrors, on Halloween, possibly even amend some of the provisions in a bill.
The reason the government puts everything in one big omnibus is the following. There are two reasons. The first is that there are some changes the Conservatives would make that even they are embarrassed about. They do not want to shine the light of day on those changes, so they put them in an omnibus budget bill that faces very little scrutiny and that has time allocation so that the people of Canada will not fully see what is in the bill. At least, the Conservatives think they do not see what is in it.
The other thing is that, of course, there are some positive things in this massive tome. Goodness gracious, the dart has to hit the dartboard sometimes, and the Conservatives do actually have a couple of good things in there. However, they will then take this back to their communities and say that the NDP voted against x, y, or z, which we ourselves advocated.
For example, our New Democrat members for Sudbury and Davenport have been campaigning on behalf of consumers specifically to end the practice of pay-to-pay billing, where people have to pay a couple of bucks just to pay their bills if they do not want to do it online. The Conservatives are bringing in a half-measure. They are eliminating it for telecoms and utilities, which we of course support, but they are not going all the way and doing it for the banks. A member opposite was mistaken about that yesterday. Even he thought that they were, because there is so much in this omnibus bill.
Fundamentally, it is anti-democratic to have these omnibus bills brought before the House again and again. On this side, we say that it is wrong and it is undemocratic, and we will not stand for it. We will keep protesting that.
Let me move, in the limited time I have, to some of the problems in the bill as it is presented. I would like to spend time on two of them. 
The first one concerns refugee claimants. Canada has had a reputation in the past of being a compassionate country and one that cares about its role in the world. With so much conflict and so many natural disasters taking place, sadly, there are a growing number of refugees in the world, the majority of whom are women and children. The majority end up fleeing by foot or over land across the border, so they end up in a neighbouring country. Often these are countries that really do not have adequate resources to care for the number of refugees they have, but they are taking on the burden of the majority of refugees in the world.
Canada has to play a role in accepting refugees. I think even the Conservatives would agree that Canada has to play a role.
However, through the bill, the Conservatives would further crack down on refugees and their being able to survive here in Canada. In a past budget implementation act, the Conservatives removed the ability of some refugees to get health care, which the Federal Court called cruel and unusual. The medical community, human rights activists, and many others have been protesting against that. Now the government would impose residency requirements for people receiving basic social assistance.
I know what the Conservatives are doing. Someone asked me at a community meeting a week ago why it is that these refugees can come here and get money from the government, social assistance, when Canadians cannot. I told the person that it was because refugees cannot work, and if they do not get this money, they cannot live. The person said, “Oh, I didn't know that”. It is basic human decency and common sense that these people are able to get this help.
I also want to criticize and point out the small business job credit the Conservative government would implement, which has been condemned even by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It would take $550 million out of the EI fund, which is money that workers and employers have put in to get EI benefits, but it would create only 850 jobs. This is rather outrageous for that amount of money. My goodness, I do not think even the Conservative and Liberal senators cost us quite that much. There are many more effective job measures the Conservatives could be bringing in without taking money from the EI fund.
What is missing from this? The Conservatives would not create one job, except for their $550-million jobs, which is a ridiculous program. They do not have a manufacturing strategy. We have lost over 400,000 manufacturing jobs. They do not redress the cuts to EI; the vast majority of people who are unemployed do not get EI. They do not create one single child care space for Canadian parents. They do not address the housing crisis that forces too many people into poverty, especially in my community. There is nothing for the environment. They do not take away the more than $1 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas sector. 
The budget implementation bill, like the Conservatives' budget, is a failure. It does not address the key issues facing Canadians today. I am proud to stand here on behalf of my community and denounce the omnibus budget bill, denounce the contents of it, and say very proudly that we will be voting against it.
Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the comments of my colleague about the fact that the budget implementation bill is an omnibus bill.
 One of the things in the bill that was not mentioned in the budget is the repeal of the Canadian Polar Commission Act and the incorporation of the Canadian Polar Commission into the Canadian High Arctic Research Station. The new act would also remove the wording in the act that gave the Canadian Polar Commission the ability to take initiative. The new act does not use the word “initiate” or “on its own initiative” or any of these things. It seems to me that it is another example of the Conservative government taking more control of researchers.
I would ask my colleague to comment on the fact that this is another example of an abuse that is occurring in the omnibus bill. 
[Interjection]
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for that question, and he is quite right. I did not have enough time to address all the problems in the bill, but certainly the collapsing of these two bodies dealing with the Arctic is problematic.
 The Conservative government has a history of muzzling scientists and not allowing independent thought and independent action by government scientists. There is real concern, given the rapid environmental and development changes that are taking place in the Arctic. 
Will there really be independence for scientists? Will we get the information we need to make proper decisions? Because of the centralization of power in the hands of ministers that the government is well known for, there are real concerns, which I think may well be justified. 
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's framing of what is in the bill. She mentioned a few items that are supportable, like the DNA database for missing and murdered people and a couple of smaller items, such as cracking down on pay to pay, but not all pay to pay, because the banks are let off the hook yet again.
 There are a number of things in the bill that are just outright bad ideas, such as the employment insurance scheme, which is going to cost more than half a billion dollars to create so few jobs. It is more than half a million dollars per job. This is an outrageous offence to those who pay into the employment insurance program, which is every working Canadian and employer.
My question to my colleague is on the third phase of things that were not in the budget, the opportunities missed. Manufacturing is of great concern to those living in Toronto and southwestern and southeastern Ontario, who have suffered such great damage over the last number of years. She mentioned 400,000 lost manufacturing jobs, almost 700,000 lost in a decade. This is a failed opportunity to bring forward some kind of comprehensive strategy.
People are looking for proposals. What kind of ideas do we need to see that would help those value-added jobs, good-paying jobs, that have helped Canadian families for so many generations?
[Interjection]
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his pertinent question, because we see across the country far too many of what I would call precarious jobs: part-time jobs, temporary jobs, low-wage jobs, and jobs with no benefits. There is no hope associated with those jobs. I think of young people coming into the job market today who are sometimes carrying thousands of dollars of debt. They cannot afford to get a home or start a family, because they cannot get a decent job.
In most developed countries, governments prize their manufacturing sector. They defend it and fight for it. They work hard to make sure they have those jobs, because they are high tech jobs, value-added jobs. It is where they get the great spinoffs. For example, in the auto industry, there are seven jobs for every auto assembly job. 
Under the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government our country has fallen from one of the top four auto-producing countries to number 10. Australia lost its auto industry altogether. 
We do not see any plan. There is no auto strategy. There is no manufacturing strategy. We do not see anything except giving more money back to companies and hoping they have a nice day.
Mr. John Barlow (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in support of the budget implementation act and to talk about our economic action plan 2014. 
I am eager to support the budget implementation act today because it is an example of the commitment and focus we have had on the budget benchmarks and priorities that our government set earlier this year. 
Those priorities include returning to a balanced budget in 2015, creating jobs, economic growth, supporting small and medium-sized businesses, and ensuring that hard-working Canadian families have more of their own dollars in their pockets. In fact, the government's commitment to tax relief meant savings of about $3,400 for a typical Canadian family of four in 2014.
We reduced the GST from 7% to 5%. We introduced income splitting for seniors, tax-free savings accounts, and expanded on successful programs, such as the child fitness tax credit and the universal child care benefit. 
However, what is most exciting about our government's economic action plan is that we are able to offer these critical programs that Canadians have said they want and support, but at the same time pay down our debt, balance our budget, and make unprecedented investment into infrastructure and small business. 
We have been blessed as a result of the decisions that our government has made, and as a result Canada is the envy of the world. We have one of the strongest job growth rates of any G7 country, with nearly 1.2 million net new jobs since the end of the recession in 2009. In fact, Bloomberg ranked Canada as one of the best places to do business in the world, and both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are projecting that Canada will have among the most dynamic growth of any country in the G7 over the years to come. 
This success does not just happen. It takes hard work, leadership, sound financial planning, and, perhaps most importantly, decisive and timely decision-making.
We have shown good financial planning and we have shown good leadership. We reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, and we lowered the general business tax rate from 21% to 15%. We have expanded our global markets by reaching crucial free trade agreements with the European Union, as well as the Canada free trade agreement with Korea, which was just given third reading on Wednesday. 
The budget implementation act will continue to build on the successes that our government has achieved through our economic action plan, and that is important. The global economy remains fragile. We are not immune to the economic challenges around the globe and outside of our borders. Therefore, it is imperative that we continue to focus on building a strong, vibrant, and robust economy here in Canada.
A healthy economy starts at home. I am proud to stand in support of the bill today because I know it would benefit the families, the small businesses, and the communities in my southern Alberta riding of Macleod. 
Alberta is built on dynamic entrepreneurs, farmers, ranchers, and business owners, who are willing to take risks to find success. We understand that we must support the economic engine that is driving our country right now. To do this, we must continue to support small business, the economic backbone of our country. 
Our government is supporting small businesses through programs such as the recently introduced small business tax credit, which I believe is a vital piece of the legislation we are talking about today. The credit would lower small business payroll taxes by 15% over the next two years. That would be a savings of approximately $550 million for small businesses over the span of that two years. This initiative has been called a big win for small business by groups across the country, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
The introduction of this tax credit will build upon our government's strong support of small businesses since 2006. For example, we froze EI premiums to provide certainty and flexibility for small businesses. We have cut red tape by eliminating 800,000 payroll deduction remittances to the CRA each year for more than 50,000 small businesses. The results are clear: a typical small business in Canada is seeing savings of about $28,000 a year. In total, since 2006, small businesses have seen their taxes reduced by 34%. That is substantial
 Fittingly we celebrated small business week earlier this month, and, in speaking with business owners in my riding, their message was clear: we must continue to reduce their tax load and the red tape and bureaucracy that they face. It is important to do so because it shows our support for small business. The better off that our small businesses are, the better off the Canadian economy is as well. 
A healthy economy is vital, but so too are healthy communities. Time and time again, studies have shown that being active improves focus in the classroom, reduces crime, and aids in the development of vital social skills for the children in our communities. Sports contribute to healthy communities, and I believe being active should be a habit that is encouraged for all of us here today, but particularly children.
Knowing this, our government introduced the children's fitness tax credit in budget 2006, which provided a non-refundable tax credit of up to $500 for children under 16 years of age to register in sports and activities. I distinctly remember when this program was introduced and how important it was to my family. As a father of three, I know how expensive it is to pay for registration fees in hockey, volleyball, and dance, and to purchase equipment. I know how difficult it is on families to afford to keep their kids healthy and active. This tax credit provided a financial means to ensure that all of my children could participate in the activities they love. I want to ensure that other Canadian families share the same benefit that my wife and I enjoyed when our children were younger. 
Therefore, I was pleased when the Prime Minister not only committed to continue this program, but announced that our government is doubling the children's fitness tax credit from $500 to $1,000 and making it refundable. That means it will increase the benefits for low-income families who want to access this tax credit. This will help children across Canada to lead healthy and active lifestyles, and teach them the life skills that will not only benefit them and their families, but will also be of long-term benefit to the communities in which they live.
My colleagues in the House today understand the devastation that my riding in southern Alberta went through in June 2013. Albertans are resilient. We will come back stronger than ever. However, it is critical that we protect these communities long term, to ensure that we never have to go through a disaster of that magnitude again. Therefore, I was extremely pleased to see that the economic action plan included $200 million over the next five years to establish a national disaster mitigation program, as well as $40 million over that five years for disaster mitigation in first nations communities. This was one of the worst disasters in Canadian history. There were hundreds of people who lost their homes, and key infrastructure was destroyed when the waters overwhelmed our communities in southern Alberta.
The $200-million natural disaster mitigation program will provide vital funding to help these communities prepare for national disasters, prepare emergency readiness plans, and invest in innovative technology and infrastructure to protect these communities. It will give the residents of southern Alberta a renewed confidence, and will certainly play a key role in the recovery process. 
This program will not only help Albertans, as these dollars will also be available across the country. I know my colleagues from Manitoba and Quebec have faced similar flooding issues over the years and need our support as well. The mitigation funding is a critical investment from our federal government and will protect communities and infrastructure across Canada.
Macleod has a rich agricultural history, and the family farm continues to be a backbone in my riding as well as many others across Canada. The economic action plan includes a number of measures to support Canada's farmers, including an extension of the tax deferral program for livestock producers when they undergo drought or overland flooding. We have always offered farmers a tax deferral for up to 12 months if they have to liquidate their herds. However, rather than having to pay it off as income tax, they will have the cash on hand so they can purchase replacement stock, which is vital to the health of family farms.
In rural Alberta, access to high speed internet can be a challenge. If we want our small business owners, farmers, ranchers, and rural communities to succeed, they must be able to market their goods and services worldwide and online. Therefore, the connecting Canadians program, which commits more than $300 million to expanding broadband Internet services in rural communities across Canada, is a vital infrastructure initiative. This will provide residents in southwest Alberta with the keys to the global marketplace and will re-energize these economies and innovative communities who are eager to expand their horizons. 
The initiatives that this government has implemented in this budget will ensure Canada's economy remains vibrant and robust at a time of global uncertainty. I encourage all members of this House to support the budget implementation act. 
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in some ways, I appreciated my Conservative colleague's speech. I would like to ask him a very simple question, since he brought up the children's fitness tax credit. I encourage the idea of children participating in sports. I have children, and I am very happy that they can play sports. However, it needs to be made clear that this is a non-refundable tax credit. It will help only the families who already have the means to sign their children up for sports. 
I would like to know what his party or the member himself is proposing for people who do not earn enough money to pay taxes and therefore do not have access to this non-refundable tax credit. It is available only to some Canadians. However, for all the other families that would like to see their children do sports—
Mr. Pierre Poilievre:  It is refundable now.
Alexandre Boulerice:  Why, hello sir.
Mr. Speaker, since it is a non-refundable tax credit, how will it help families? I would like to hear his thoughts.
[Interjection]
John Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, but obviously he has not read the economic action plan or the budget implementation act that we are talking about today. The new children's fitness tax credit is refundable. It is $1,000, and low-income families are able to access that tax credit. It is refundable, and that is why I support this so passionately.
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, because we are debating an omnibus bill in which there are things that are not related to the budget, I have to ask the following question.
Budget 2014 says there would be some legislation to implement certain treaties, and in particular there is a piece which amends the Industrial Design Act. There is a part of this legislation we are debating today that says with respect to the Industrial Design Act,“A design is registerable if [...] the design is not contrary to public morality or order”.
 My question to the member is, are we implementing a treaty here, or is the government trying to say something about public morality and order?
[Interjection]
John Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague. I think he understands that this budget implementation act will focus on the economy, promote jobs, and be there to help young families and families across the country. 
If he reads that, he will see that in there.
Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week we learned the sad fact that 20% of children in Canada live below the poverty line.
I looked closely, but I did not see anything in this budget that will change that. The government supposedly has billions of dollars to give and is handing it to the rich, so why did it not simply raise the tax-exempt threshold for low-income individuals?
It is a very simple solution. That is all the government had to do to drastically reduce the number of poor children. Why did it not do that?
[Interjection]
John Barlow: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has an opportunity to look through the budget implementation act that we are talking about today, and the economic action plan, there are a number of programs and initiatives in there to help low-income families, to ensure they have the means and capabilities to pay their bills, and to ensure their children have the necessities of life, whether we are talking about increasing flexibility and access to employment insurance, providing more health care products and services, or expanding tax relief under the municipal expense tax credit.
There are a lot of opportunities and options in this budget, and I think it is worthwhile for my neighbour to stand up and supports this. This will support Canadian families, and that is what we are here to do today.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to share a few thoughts and express some concerns I have with regard to the general direction the Conservative government is taking Canada. I have a number of concerns.
First, when I listen to many Conservatives speak about the budget, I cannot help but notice that they talk a lot about the economic action plan. Whenever I hear the economic action plan being referred to, the first thing I think of are the hundred of millions of tax dollars being used to advertise the so-called action plan. If we look at the baseline numbers of the government's economic track record, nothing could be further from the truth of an economic action plan.
One thought I would like to share with members is the fact that the government spends a great deal of tax dollars trying to convince Canadians that it is doing a good job. I suggest that money could be far better utilized in supporting a wide spectrum of programs that are of critical importance.
I want to talk about the government's resistance to good ideas.
 Back in September, the Conservatives came up with the small business job credit idea to try to get small businesses to hire more people. The government talked about the potential of how it might be able to generate 10,000-plus jobs at a significant cost. The leader of the Liberal Party made an announcement about the EI premium exemptions for new hires. This program would create tenfold the types of jobs the government's initiative hoped to create. In fact, the government initiative, in a bizarre way, would be a disincentive for small businesses to hire and might ultimately lead to some small businesses having to let employees go. 
The Conservative plan was questionable at best, but that is not the case with regard to what the leader of Liberal Party was espousing, a plan that would have the potential to generate tens of thousands of jobs all across our land. It would take advantage of the greatest potential for growth in Canada, and that is small business.
We have emphasized how important it is that government policy start focusing more on the middle class. The middle class has not done well under the Conservative government over the last half dozen years. We are trying to get the government to recognize that fact, to start making policy decisions that are going to allow the middle class to do better, to prosper and have more hope going into the future.
The Liberal Party is committed to acting on this. We believe in the middle class and if we want the Canadian economy to do well, we have to start to focus more attention on that. That is one of the reasons we shared ideas with the government and encouraged it to adopt the EI premium exemption for all new hires that small businesses and others would engage in. Ultimately, it would lead to a great deal more jobs being created.
The Liberal Party has talked a great deal about the importance of infrastructure. The government says that it is investing record amounts in infrastructure. When it says that, what it is really saying to Canadians is that it has a plan where it will spend billions of dollars in infrastructure, but what it does not to Canadians is that plan does not kick in until two or three years from now. The infrastructure is needed today, but that does not necessarily fit the political agenda.
Come springtime, the Prime Minister  wants to say that the Conservatives will spend $100 million here, $50 million there on infrastructure. He want to make these commitments in the 2015-16 budget, as opposed to doing it when it is really necessary. It should have been brought into this budget.
We have municipal elections. Toronto has talked about the importance of infrastructure dollars and how badly it is needed. The successful mayoral candidate in Winnipeg, Mr. Bowman, has said that infrastructure is the number one issue. We need infrastructure dollars.
However, instead of trying to deal with the issue that Canadians need addressed, not only in this budget but even in the previous budgets, the Prime Minister 's objective is to put a hold on projects, not spend money and wait until the election year before committing to spend this money.
If we can learn anything by previous expenditure promises by the government, all we need is to reflect upon the current budget. We have passed budgets that have allowed the government to deliver on projects, but it does not spend the money, so the money lapses. On the one hand, the government gets to say that it will spend millions of dollars on this or that, but when it comes down to the actual reporting, we find out that it has not spent that money.
Infrastructure is important because it generates opportunities, such as opportunities for businesses to look at and expand upon exportation, which generates literally thousands of jobs. It contributes to valuable GDP increases, such as dealing with the real issues of potholes in the streets. These are the types of things which we believe are important, and the government has missed the mark by not investing in Canada today.
I talk a lot about health care. I know my constituents of Winnipeg North. I often canvas their opinions through petitions and questionnaires. They have emphasized how important health care is to our country. They want strong federal leadership.
We saw that when Jean Chrétien got rid of the tax point shift in the favour of direct cash, which saved indefinite financial contributions going from Ottawa to the provinces. The provinces need the cash to sustain their health care systems, but they want us to do more than that. They want to see a stronger leadership role coming from Ottawa. Paul Martin brought in the health accord 10 years ago. That accord expired this year. 
 Every time the Minister of Health and the government talk about record dollars going into health care, it has absolutely nothing to do with them. It is 100% because of Paul Martin and the health care accord that was signed 10 years ago. The Minister of Health has done nothing to protect health care going forward. Canadians are concerned about that.
 I challenge the Minister of Health. Where is the new health care accord? Where is the federal commitment going toward health care?
 The government has been found wanting on the important issues, whether it is the infrastructure, or health care or the unemployed. We challenge the government to step up to the plate and start to address the needs of Canadians.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that was interesting at the least. It is important to understand that infrastructure generates economic activity and that is exactly why, since forming government in 2006, this government has invested more money in infrastructure spending than any other government in the history of our country. We are proud of that, and we understand the value of investing in infrastructure. That is why we are committed to investing even more.
However, we will not invest this money on the Liberal schedule, because they have shown very clearly in the past that they do not have a schedule that makes sense. We will be investing it on our schedule because it does make sense and it is going to go directly to infrastructure that is badly needed in our country. We understand that, and we are going to do it.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member says the Conservatives are not going to invest it on the Liberal schedule. The Liberal schedule is the Canadian schedule, and that is when the need is there. The need is there today. That is not the Liberal schedule, that is the reality. 
The government should have been investing in infrastructure today. The Conservatives actually cut back 90% in terms of expenditures going into infrastructure for this year. That is, as the member has pointed out, because they want to base their expenditures on the Conservative schedule. The Conservative schedule deals strictly with political re-election in 2015. That is their schedule. We are suggesting they have missed the mark.
 When he talks about the economic activity, we talk about the freer trade agreements signed with Korea, the European Union and so forth. If we had a better, healthier infrastructure, we would even be able to do that much more in terms of exportation. 
Why do we have to wait for the election year for that to take place? Cities are demanding and need the infrastructure dollars today. They do not have to wait until the next federal election. The Conservative Party has the wrong agenda. The Liberal Party is challenging the Conservatives to do what Canadians want, and they want the money now.
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, in a way, I did appreciate the speech by my colleague from Manitoba, but I have to say that he was stepping a little out of line with his party. 
He talked about the Liberal Party, its values and the importance of taking care of people and giving power and money to the provinces so that we can have effective health care services in this country. He also said a lot about former prime minister Paul Martin. I would just like to remind him that it was the Liberal government that slashed provincial health transfers.
The Liberals saved money at the expense of the people of this country by downloading their deficit onto the provinces. That is exactly what the Liberal Party did when it was in power.
I think that the member is in no position to talk because his own party did not do what he is talking about today.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, that is not necessarily true. I was in the Manitoba legislature when the issue came to the provinces. The issue in the 1990s, in good part, was that if Mr. Chrétien did not change the funding formula on health care, there would be zero contributions coming from Ottawa to the provinces by the time we reached to 2015. That is the reality.
 Mr. Chrétien changed the formula that enabled guaranteed cash flow for health care transfers indefinitely from Ottawa to the provinces. If we have health care transfers today, it is because Jean Chrétien and the Liberals during the 1990s are the ones who put it into place, and guaranteed it. The member might not like that, but that is the reality.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak this morning in favour of Bill C-43, economic action plan 2014 act no. 2, and specifically division 3, which includes the proposed Canadian High Arctic Research Station act.
The establishment of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, more commonly referred to as CHARS, is yet another example of our government's record investments and our ongoing commitment to promoting the Canadian Arctic as a vital part of our national identity, our sovereignty, and our economic security, as outlined in our 2007 northern strategy.
I am thrilled for the people of Cambridge Bay, who will benefit from our government's investments for years to come. As the member of Parliament for Nunavut, as someone who was born and raised in Canada's north, and as someone who still calls the north home, I know first-hand how this vision for a strong and sovereign Canada has benefited northerners in our day-to-day lives and continues to do so.
As the minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, I am particularly excited about the leadership role that this new world-class research facility located in the Arctic will play in the development and dissemination of Arctic research, both at home and abroad.
The Canadian High Arctic Research Station will serve as a year-round hub for scientists and scientific research and will anchor an existing network of smaller northern research facilities. This network, with CHARS at its centre, will allow Canada to exercise stewardship and sovereignty over our northern lands while strengthening Canada's role as a global leader on Arctic issues. It will also seek to establish partnerships and bring together industry, academics, aboriginal and northern governments, and international stakeholders to leverage their expertise, experience, and resources.
CHARS will not only promote Canadian sovereignty and stewardship of Canada's Arctic lands, waters, and resources but will also support the local economy by generating employment and service contracts in the region.
It is estimated that the construction phase will introduce 150 jobs across the north and in various other specialized sectors throughout Canada. Of the 15 construction subcontracts tendered to date, over $18 million has been awarded to Inuit-owned companies or Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated registered firms.
Once CHARS is in operation, the research, capacity-building, and outreach activities will provide northerners with the skills and experience to better participate in the labour force, from mining and energy through natural resources and wildlife management to health and life sciences. CHARS will also develop highly qualified personnel and leadership in the north and across Canada. 
 CHARS will also build upon the work of the existing Canadian Polar Commission. The commission works to promote the development and dissemination of knowledge in respect of the polar regions, which strongly complements the research and infrastructure aspects of the CHARS mandate and aligns with the goal of mobilizing Arctic science and technology.
 The proposed act will combine the Canadian High Arctic Research Station with the existing Canadian Polar Commission under the name of CHARS to create one larger, stronger champion for polar knowledge and Arctic science and technology in Canada. 
CHARS will function as a departmental corporation, just like the CPC. This is also in line with other organizations that perform world-renowned research in Canada, such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. This model will provide CHARS with the necessary flexibility to compete on a global scale with other science organizations, but also with the resource development sector operating in Canada's North. 
In addition to allowing CHARS to become a viable destination for world-class scientists, our government will ensure CHARS is positioned to address any Inuit employment and training requirements, including those arising from the Nunavut land claims agreement.
I would like to briefly review the steps that our government has made and is making to move this project from its initial inception to the establishment of this world-class research centre.
In the 2007 Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister committed to build a world-class high Arctic research station that would strengthen Canada's sovereignty over the north and raise the profile of Canadian Arctic research both at home and abroad.
Since that time we have moved quickly. In 2008, consultations were held with partners and stakeholders, leading to a needs assessment. This brought together northerners, aboriginal organizations, research organizations, and territorial governments to share their ideas, their values, and their vision for this institution. It was at this stage, arising from discussions with stakeholders, aboriginal people, and northerners, that the vision for CHARS began to come to light. 
In 2009, Canada's economic action plan provided $2 million for a CHARS feasibility study and $85 million for the Arctic research infrastructure fund. This infrastructure fund was a significant investment toward maintaining and upgrading key existing Arctic research facilities in order to improve the network of science and technology facilities that deliver benefits to northerners and all Canadians.
Following consultations and assessments in 2010, the Prime Minister announced that the CHARS facility would be built in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. I was pleased to be in Cambridge Bay, joined by the Hon. John Duncan, Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs Development at that time, to make the announcement in the community—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. I would remind the minister that she cannot refer to her colleagues by their given names.
[Interjection]
Leona Aglukkaq: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. 
The Prime Minister made the same announcement from Churchill, Manitoba, due to unforeseen weather conditions.
Cambridge Bay is an ideal place for the construction of this new world-class facility. It is centrally located and provides easy access to all parts of the north. It is also located right on the Northwest Passage, an invaluable location for the purpose of demonstrating our Arctic sovereignty.
The community itself is also very excited about the station. They see CHARS as creating economic opportunities, strengthening community infrastructure, sharing knowledge, and opening the community of Cambridge Bay to the world.
I would like to quote a friend, Fiona Buchan-Corey, a Cambridge Bay resident, who works at the Nunavut Arctic College. She said: 
 This multimillion dollar project is going to have a huge economic impact on Cambridge Bay, and we have been very proactive as a community in terms of trying to maximize the benefits to it.... 
 And we're excited about the employment opportunities, not only during the construction stage, but also afterwards.... 
During the construction of the CHARS facility, it is anticipated that 150 people will be employed locally across the north and in more specialized sectors across Canada, and there will be permanent jobs when the station begins operating.
More recently, on the Prime Minister's ninth annual northern tour this past August, I was privileged to be back in Cambridge Bay with the Prime Minister to witness the launch of the construction of CHARS with a groundbreaking ceremony.
Once built, the station, which incorporates Inuit-inspired design principles, will be one of the largest buildings in the territory. These buildings will showcase green building technologies and serve as a test bed for future research and technology testing for infrastructure and renewable energy approaches from the north.
The day when the CHARS facility will be completed is coming more quickly than many people believe. Already the steel structure for one of the first buildings of the CHARS campus has been erected. I was very excited to see this in person while attending the Kitikmeot Inuit Association annual general meeting just a few weeks ago.
Establishing the governance for this facility is the last key piece that needs to be put in place in creating this important new institution in order to have it fully operational by 2017. 
I urge all members in the House to take another important step by passing this important legislation and supporting Canada's vision for a strong and sovereign Canada.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member was in a very interesting position when she was the former minister of health. Given the importance of health care to all Canadians, Paul Martin, back in 2004, signed a health agreement with the provinces that ultimately led to what we have today. Those were the highest health care transfers in the history of Canada, all because of Paul Martin working with the provinces and getting that agreement.
When the member was the minister of health, she had the responsibility of coming up with the next agreement, or an agreement that would provide assurances to the provinces that Canada would continue to support health care. Within this particular budget, there is no indication of it whatsoever, even though many Canadians, my constituents included, as shown through petitions and surveys, all want to see a higher priority.
Why does she believe, as the previous health minister, that the government just does not seem to understand the importance of health care?
[Interjection]
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to receive that question from the member and to clarify the record. 
During the discussions related to the cuts made by the Liberal government to health care, education, and infrastructure, I do not know if the member is aware that I was the finance minister for Nunavut and dealt with the issues resulting from the cuts Liberals made to health, education, and transfers.
I am very pleased to report that our government took the opposite position and did not cut transfers to the territorial and provincial governments. Since our government has been in place, for my riding alone the transfer payments have increased by over $500 million. Second, the infrastructure investments, guaranteed for ten years, have increased from $50 million to $419 million.
Under the Liberals, we experienced cuts to transfers and education and no increase in infrastructure budgets. I was the finance minister for Nunavut. I was also the health minister for Nunavut who was dealing with the Liberal cuts. We have restored that funding so that the territorial governments and provinces can make the investments according to their own priorities within their respective jurisdictions.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. minister for her speech relating to division 3 of part 4 of an omnibus bill. 
I would like to ask her if the act for the creation of the Canadian high Arctic research station is important. I believe it is important. It winds up, and it is confusing in relation to the role of what used to be the Canadian Polar Commission, so there appears to be some transition. There is no reference in it to research on the climate crisis or the loss of ice in our Arctic region.
This bill is sufficiently important to have been a stand-alone piece of legislation, not buried in an omnibus bill along with measures to get rid of paper bills and extra billing and dealing as well with revolving funds, the banning of jammers, money laundering, and extractive sector transparency. In other words, this omnibus bill is a dog's breakfast of over 450 pages.
I ask the hon. minister why she would not have preferred to have this Canadian high Arctic research station bill dealt with separately so that it could be properly studied. 
[Interjection]
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, I can say that people in Cambridge Bay are very excited about the creation of the Canadian high Arctic research station. I can also say that the people of the Arctic are very excited about having a stand-alone institution in the Arctic to conduct Arctic research, as opposed to research done down south, far from the people. This new institution will bring researchers to the north to conduct research in the Arctic with people in the Arctic.
In terms of why the two organizations have merged, as defined by the proposed legislation, the purpose of the new organization, CHARS, would be to advance knowledge of the Canadian Arctic in order to improve economic opportunities, environmental stewardship, and the quality of life of northerners and all other Canadians, and promote the development and dissemination of knowledge of the polar regions in the Arctic.

Statements By Members
Airline Services in PentictonMr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday for the very first time I flew from Penticton in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla to Ottawa with WestJet. 
This is not the first time I have flown to Ottawa via WestJet but it was from Penticton. Why? Because on Sunday, for the first time in WestJet's history, a new daily service between Calgary and Penticton began using the made-in-Canada Bombardier Q400 aircraft. This was an extremely exciting day for Penticton and for the Penticton Indian Band who have been working toward this daily service for years.
I mention this because now there is yet another way to come and visit Okanagan—Coquihalla. I would like to invite all members of this place to come by for a visit. This new service is a reminder of the importance of tourism and also increases opportunities for interprovincial trade, labour mobility and investment.
I would like to thank the many community leaders past and present who worked tirelessly to make this WestJet Encore service possible.
1984 Anti-Sikh AttacksMr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the tragic massacres of 1984 that targeted Sikh men, women and children in New Delhi and many other parts of India.
The NDP stands in solidarity with Sikh communities across our country in seeking justice. At times when innocent lives are lost with no accountability nor explanation, we have an obligation to ask why and to seek honest answers for our friends and fellow citizens.
The victims and the survivors of 1984, in particular, the many widows, require support and recognition. The actions of the police and allegations regarding the role of congress members must be examined. The truth must be brought to light and most importantly, the guilty must be brought to justice.
Today, as we mark the events of 1984, beyond seeking justice, remembrance is the tie that not only binds us to our past; it also guides us through the challenges of our future.
TaxationMr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's announcement of yet even more tax relief and increased benefits for families is great news for parents in my riding of Richmond Hill.
This historic plan will put over $1,100 each year back into the pockets of every hard-working family with children. According to the 2011 census, 35,000 families with children in Richmond Hill will benefit from these new measures to help make life more affordable. That means nearly $40 million will go back to Richmond Hill families alone.
My constituents are thrilled, including those who were in attendance at yesterday's announcement. Parents like Mehrdad Sabouhi and Ellie Moaveni, who commend the government for helping families with the costs of raising children, and Ernie Henderson of the Richmond Hill Soccer Club that will see its 6,000 or so families with children and youth directly benefit.
Richmond Hill and all of Canada is benefiting from our government's continued focus on helping hard-working Canadians make ends meet.
Ronald “Rannie” MacDonaldHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Ronald MacDonald, also known as Rannie, who recently passed away on October 13.
Rannie was a World War II veteran with the West Nova Scotia infantry division. Upon his return from Europe he continued onward and volunteered in the battle of Japan. He retired with full honours and achieved the rank of captain. He was also a stationary engineer and was always helping others.
Rannie became a proud member of Legion Branch 126 in Westmount. He also became an active member of the Coxheath Volunteer Fire Department in 1967, dutifully contributing up until his illness in 2012.
Rannie will be humbly remembered by his wife of 67 years, Norma, and their remaining seven children, along with 21 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. He lived a full life in Cape Breton surrounded by his loving family and friends and was often regarded as a gentleman's gentleman.
As we approach Remembrance Day, Mr. MacDonald will remain close to our hearts as we commemorate all veterans, including Rannie, for their great service to our country.
Acts of BraveryMr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on October 27, 2011, Chilliwack resident Shawn Nagurny, along with five others, saved six people from a burning aircraft that had crash-landed on a highway in Richmond, B.C.
Ignoring the intense heat and dense smoke enveloping the aircraft, the rescuers entered the plane several times to help pull the injured passengers out. For their heroics they were presented with the Medal of Bravery by His Excellency Governor General David Johnston.
I had the honour of witnessing the poignant ceremony at Rideau Hall where the Governor General spoke of these wrong-way guys and wrong-way gals, heroic men and women who in the face of danger ran toward it rather than away from it.
The very next day, Canadians witnessed the same sort of bravery from first responders, including our House of Commons security team and our own Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, as they responded to a terrorist attack.
Whether they be brave civilians, or brave men and women in uniform or ceremonial robes, we salute those among us who run toward danger, rather than away from it, to keep us safe.
Moisson Outaouais Regional Food BankMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the holiday season approaches, we are going to hear more and more appeals to people's generosity. In the Outaouais, however, much like across the country, the needs are urgent all year round, not only in December. Any time, then, is a good time to provide support to families in need.
With today being Halloween, I invite everyone, young and old, to join me in collecting non-perishable food items, which will be given to Moisson Outaouais, a wonderful organization. Our tour will begin at my constituency office at 5 p.m. We will have a team there all evening to accept food donations. Last year we collected 300 pounds of food. 
I am putting this challenge out there to all the witches, goblins and monsters in Hull—Aylmer. This year, let us do even more to help families in our own community.
Expression of ThanksMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is not very often we get an opportunity to thank people who work extremely hard to support us in our roles as members of Parliament and help serve our constituents, under extremely stressful situations at times.
First I want to thank my staff here in Ottawa, Patrick, Graham and Phil, and also in the Brampton office led by Ninder Thind, Jasleen, Jessica, Mandeep, Evan, Sarah and Tanya.
I also want to thank my family, my wife, of course, Amarpal, my daughter Parmeet, my two sons Damanjit and Ramanjit, my brothers Manjeet and Ranjit and sisters-in-law Rasbinder and Dolly, my sister Karamjit and brother-in-law Kamaljit, and all of my nephews and nieces. I have an amazing family.
Most importantly, I want to thank my mother. It is all due to her love and the tremendous sacrifices she has made over the years that has allowed me the opportunity to serve my amazing constituents. It is truly an honour.
Natural Disasters in South AsiaHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, On October 17, I visited Jammu and Kashmir in India. On my visit, I announced Canadian support to communities affected by devastating floods through providing clean water sanitation units for approximately 20,000 families for a year through GlobalMedic, a Canadian NGO.
I was saddened to witness the crushing devastation caused by the disaster.
I visited a gurdwara in Srinagar and was impressed at how the community had converted their temple into a large and effective relief centre to assist those displaced by the floods.
Recently, another natural disaster struck South Asia. On Wednesday, a devastating landslide in Sri Lanka destroyed over 63 homes, damaging over 140, with 192 people missing and at least 15 confirmed dead.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to convey my heartfelt condolences to all of those affected by this terrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this time.
Remembrance DayAlain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, last week, Parliament, the most important place in Canadian democracy, was attacked.
This attack left us in mourning. Soon we will be celebrating Remembrance Day. Unfortunately, we will have to add two more soldiers to this commemoration. We will remember not only their valour in uniform, but also their everyday lives. The members of our military are fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, who spend Halloween with their children and watch a hockey game with friends. They are true Canadians who care about us and share our desire to defend our rights and freedoms. 
In their memory, I invite everyone in my riding to show their support on November 8 by taking part in the Remembrance Day parade in Sainte-Thérèse, organized by the Canadian Legion.
Last week's events serve as a reminder of what is essential: together, we will continue to protect democracy and we will prevail against those who spread fear.
TaxationMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister announced tax relief that puts money back in the pockets of Canadian families.
For example, Paul, a single parent with two children, earns $30,000 a year. Thanks to the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday, Paul will receive $1,218 back in his pocket. That is real money making a real difference for his family.
This is what Canadian families can continue to count on from our Conservative government.
Vandalism of MosqueNathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, today I rise not to pay tribute to the good people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley but to salute a group of remarkable Albertans.
After the tragic and violent events of last week, two fatal attacks on Canadian soldiers and an assault here in Parliament itself, there was a callow and racist attack on a mosque in Cold Lake, Alberta.
When the mosque windows were shattered, the proud people of this community came together to repair them. Citizens, military personnel and civic officials brought paint, brushes and ladders to cover up the hateful graffiti that had screamed, “Go home”.
A member of the local mosque, Mahmoud Elkadri said, “When I came this morning...I felt the support of Cold Lake.... I am in my country, in my home”.
In such times we are all laid bare and our true selves are shown. The people of Cold Lake met hate with kindness; ignorance they faced with love. We say thanks to these people in Cold Lake who showed us the very best of this country.
TaxationJohn Barlow: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister announced fantastic new measures to help make life more affordable for families with children. Our government unveiled an opportunity that is wonderful for all Canadian families, especially low- and middle-income families who will see significant tax savings in 2015.
For example, Macleod resident, Mary, has a two-income household with her husband Bob. She earns $96,000 a year. Bob makes $24,000 a year. Because of the Prime Minister's announcement, through the family tax credit, they will earn an additional $3,000 in tax relief.
Under this plan, every family in Canada with children would have more money in their pockets. We balanced our budget and now we are helping Canadian families balance theirs.
Alphonse VautourHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am rising to pay tribute to Alphonse Vautour, originally from Petit-Cap, who joined the Canadian Armed Forces before turning 19 and fought in France on D-Day.
To honour his courage and contribution to the liberation of France, Mr. Vautour was made a member of the National Order of the Legion of Honour on October 23. 
Mr. Vautour is 95 and was accompanied by a large number of his children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren, who watched as a member of their family was thanked by the Republic of France. As the consul for France said, France will never forget his efforts on its behalf.
Canada will also not forget Mr. Vautour's sacrifices. That is why I am congratulating him and asking the other MPs of this House to congratulate Mr. Vautour for this well-deserved honour.
Poppy CampaignMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of the Royal Canadian Legion poppy campaign.
Indeed Canada's remembrance ceremony began earlier this year and will be anything but routine. That's because Canadians are united today, united in our rejection of aggression here at home and abroad, united in our common support of Canadian values and our appreciation of veterans for protecting those values here at home and around the world.
 Dare I say that this year's campaign will mean something more. I encourage all Canadians to wear a poppy in the name of our veterans who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
 I call on all Canadians to attend a remembrance ceremony in their community. Join your neighbours, friends and family as we as a country stand together, united in remembrance. Lest we forget.
Alain GervaisMr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, when Alain Gervais used his body to block the door to our caucus room during the gunfire last week, he showed incredible courage and composure.
When we met with him this week to thank him, our caucus chair, the hon. member for Sudbury, aptly described how we all felt.
He said that we just need to constantly make sure that person never has to pay for a beer at any pub in the country for the rest of his life.
This wish did not fall on deaf ears. People began talking and laughing about it on Twitter, and Mr. Gervais's wife, Kerry, tweeted that her husband really likes Rickard's White. That is all it took for Molson Coors to decide to send dozens of cases of beer to Mr. Gervais's home.
Although the NDP's wish was to ensure that Mr. Gervais would never again have to pay for a beer, there is no real way to express our gratitude to this hero and all the heros that dark day on the Hill.
Thank you once again, Alain, and thank you to the entire House of Commons security team. I raise my glass to all of you.
TaxationMr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on helping hard-working Canadian families make ends meet by making important priorities like child care and after-school sports more affordable. 
Ben and Sally are a young, two-income family with two kids, Joy and Alex. Sally earns $48,000 a year managing a small local business. Ben earns a second family income of $12,000 working a part-time job while devoting most of his energy to raising their young, active children, who also benefit from the children's fitness tax credit. Through the government's new tax relief measures, which were announced yesterday in Vaughan, Ontario, Ben and Sally's family will receive a benefit of just under $1,200. This represents 36% of their federal tax bill and a huge, deserved tax break for a young, hard-working family. 
All families with children will benefit from the new measures introduced by our government.

Oral Questions
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what we just heard, the Conservatives have presented a plan that will do nothing for the vast majority of Canadians. They were warned by their own finance minister that it was bad policy that would increase inequality, but yesterday they announced that they plan to do it anyway.
Why are the Conservatives deciding to spend billions on a plan that will do nothing for 80% of Canadians?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under the strong and dependable leadership of our Prime Minister, our government is focused on helping hard-working Canadian families make ends meet by making important priorities, like child care and after-school sports, more affordable. Under this plan, every family with children will have more money in their pockets to spend on their priorities as a family.
Our government is fulfilling its promise to balance the federal budget. We are now in a position to fulfill our promise to help Canadian families balance theirs.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has to be kidding. This multibillion-dollar scheme will leave the majority of Canadians falling further behind. Who will not get any benefit at all? It will be single mothers, couples with no kids, parents who are divorced, couples making less than $44,000, and the list goes on. Who will benefit? Well, it will be many of the finance minister's former colleagues on Bay Street.
Will the Conservatives back down from their wasteful and ineffective scheme?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, under our plan, every Canadian family with children will have more money in their pockets to help make ends meet. Over four million Canadian families will see an average benefit of $1,140 due to these measures. Two-thirds of the benefits will go to low- and middle-income families. Our plan will help families pay for priorities like groceries, after-school activities for their kids, and saving for post-secondary education.
Only our Conservative government knows that Canadian families know how to best spend their hard-earned money.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' plan will not just increase income inequality, it will also push us backwards on gender equality. Countless economists have shown that this type of policy will push women out of the workforce, erasing the gains in workplace participation that women have fought hard to achieve over many generations.
Why are the Conservatives so intent on pushing forward with such a backward plan?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, we understand the rising cost of raising a family today. That is why we are putting money in the pockets of parents to make it easier for them and to allow them to spend on their priorities as a family. All families with children will benefit from the new measures introduced by our government. The average tax relief and benefits for these families will be $1,140 in 2015. Two-thirds of the benefits will go to low- and middle-income families.
The Liberals and the NDP will reverse these measures. Only our Conservative government is standing up for Canadian families.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, income splitting is a regressive model that encourages women to stay at home.
That is the last thing we want to do when our country is in desperate need of workers and the labour force is aging. Furthermore, the wealthy are the ones who will benefit from this. Why are the Conservatives proposing a model that is so unfair and paternalistic and puts additional barriers in a woman's career path? 
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, the member could not be further from the truth. If the New Democrats had their way, they would spend $5 billion creating a massive new bureaucratic one-size-must-fit-all child care program. 
We are providing cash back directly into the pockets of Canadians so they can make their own child care choices. Our government is expanding the universal child care benefit to provide $720 for every child from six to seventeen years old. This will be a huge relief in the daily pressures ordinary Canadian families face.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' proposed income splitting plan is costly and ineffective. It will benefit few families, and only well-off families will be able to take advantage of it. This plan is based on a paternalistic and regressive ideology that does not consider the realities facing women and the labour market in the 21st century. Even the former finance minister said that this plan was unfair and too costly.
Why do the Conservatives insist on continuing down this reckless path?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, our government has committed to bringing in income splitting of $50,000 for families. This is precisely what we are doing. It is good policy for seniors, and it will be good policy for families to help make life more affordable. The measures we have introduced will benefit low- and middle-income families the most. A promise made, a promise kept.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a fundraising email, the member for Durham bragged about how great this tax cut would be for him. He forgot to mention that as a parliamentary secretary, he earns $180,000. That is twice as high as the median family income.
Why is the government proposing to help the wealthy instead of addressing the real problems facing the middle class?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, he could not be further from the truth. Our government is fulfilling its promise to balance the federal budget. We are now in a position to fulfill our promise to help Canadian families balance theirs.
All families with children will benefit from the new measures introduced by our government yesterday. The average tax relief and benefits for these families will be $1,140 in 2015 alone. Two-thirds of the benefits will go to low- and middle-income families. 
The Liberals and the New Democrats will reverse these measures. Only our Conservative government believes that Canadian families know how best to spend their hard-earned money.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, there was no answer, so I will try again.
Last night the member for Durham bragged in a fundraising email about how great this tax cut would be for him. He neglected to mention that as an MP and parliamentary secretary, he makes $180,000 a year, which is more than twice the median family income. 
Why do the Conservatives insist on helping well-off Canadians instead of addressing the real needs of the middle class?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, two-thirds of the benefits will go to middle- and low-income Canadians. 
Under our government, middle-class Canadians are better off under our Conservative government. The median net worth of Canadian families has increased by 45% since we have taken office. For the first time, middle-income Canadians are actually better off than Americans. The average Canadian family paid nearly $3,400 less in taxes two days ago. Now it is more than $4,500 less in taxes. Canadian families are better off with a Conservative government.
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, even if they include these other measures, the Conservative plan gives middle-class Canadians a small fraction of what it gives to the member for Durham.
 What do 85% of families get from income splitting? Nothing. Single parents? Nothing. Two teachers in the same tax bracket? Nothing. Seniors with older children? Nothing. Young people? Nothing. The member for Durham? It is $2,000. Is that fair?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, our government is moving back to a balanced budget while creating jobs and economic growth. The Liberals have been clear that they will repeal our tax cuts and take money back from Canadian families to pay for their reckless spending schemes.
 Only our party understands that Canadians want their lives to be more affordable. Our plan would help families pay for priorities like groceries, after-school activities for their kids, and saving for post-secondary education.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are pushing an income-splitting scheme that helps the wealthiest families, actually discourages women from working, and fails to help low- and middle-income families. It is a scheme that was panned by conservative thinkers at the C.D. Howe Institute and the late Jim Flaherty. This was an awkward photo-op designed to bury their unfair scheme.
 Conservatives are keeping their promise to help wealthy families with income splitting but breaking their promise to all Canadians to create 125,000 child care spaces.
 When will the Conservatives stop picking winners and losers and withdraw this wasteful and ineffective income-splitting scheme?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, under our plan, every Canadian family with children will have more money in their pockets to spent on what is important to those families. That is over four million families. Canadian families will see an average benefit of over $1,140 due to these measures. Two-thirds of those benefits will be for middle- and low-income Canadians. Our plan will help families pay for priorities like groceries, after-school activities for their kids, and saving for post-secondary education. I recommend the member opposite get on board and support this plan.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I notice that they really cannot talk about income splitting all that much anymore, because they know what the facts actually tell us, which is that it is an unfair scheme that helps the wealthiest families in Canada.
 Here is the difference between us and them. The Conservatives broke their promise to create 125,000 child care spaces. The New Democrats will bring in a plan to create up to one million affordable child care spaces for all Canadians. The New Democrats believe in fairness and universality. The Conservatives push an income-splitting scheme that does absolutely nothing for up to 85% of all Canadians.
Rather than a wasteful and ineffective $2.5-billion boondoggle that actually discourages women from working—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, income splitting was good for Canadian seniors, and it will be good for Canadian families. In fact, I have had seniors come up to me in my riding of North Vancouver and say that income splitting was the best thing we have ever done for seniors. 
Here is what people are saying: the family tax cut “levels the playing field” for Canadian families. That was the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.
The NDP would reverse these measures and take money out of the pockets of hard-working Canadian families. Only our government can be trusted to stand up for Canadian families. 
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, income splitting is a terrible policy. Even the former finance minister disagreed with it.
The C.D. Howe Institute has found that this measure is too expensive, unfair and will benefit the wealthiest tax payers. What is more, it will act as a deterrent to women's participation in the workforce.
The parliamentary secretary knows full well that the only group that came to the Standing Committee on Finance to propose income splitting was the very right-wing Institute of Marriage and Family.
Why is the government so dead set on proposing income splitting, an expensive policy that will accentuate the inequalities between rich and poor, men and women?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I have another one as well. Income splitting, as I said, was good for Canadian seniors and it will also be good for Canadian families. 
Here is what others are saying about it. “[The] strong majority of CFIB members...support income splitting. A good move”. Who said that? It was Dan Kelly of the CFIB.
The NDP will reverse these measures and take money out of the pockets of Canadian families. Our government can be trusted to stand up for Canadian families. 
Manufacturing IndustryPeggy Nash:  Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives are happy to help the rich get richer, they completely abandon middle-class Canadians. 
Four hundred thousand good manufacturing jobs have disappeared under the Conservatives, 4,100 in the city of Peterborough alone, yet they cannot seem to stir themselves to action. Last week we lost out on another 1,000 jobs because the government refused the investment needed to get another Ford assembly line in Windsor. 
How many good manufacturing jobs do we have to lose before the Conservatives are going to do something about it?
Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to give some statistics to our hon. member so that she gets a strong sense of how good manufacturing has become in our country.
We have leapt from sixth to second place in ranking as one of the most attractive destinations for business. That is according to Bloomberg. Our manufacturing sales have bounced back and are 25% higher since the start of the recession, which was the worst recession we have all experienced in our lifetimes.
We understand well that manufacturing employs close to two million Canadians, and almost all of those are full-time jobs. That is a record that we are proud of. 
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, let us talk jobs. Four hundred thousand lost manufacturing jobs speak for themselves. Eleven hundred jobs have been lost in Leamington, 600 lost in London, 550 lost in Bradford, 300 lost in Mississauga, 300 lost in Bramalea, and 525 jobs have been lost in Oakville. That is just part of the losses from last year. 
Communities across southern Ontario are being devastated by these cuts. Families are struggling to pay the bills. Where is the Conservative strategy to create good manufacturing jobs?
Ed Holder: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some confusion on the other side, from this perspective: They believe it is government's responsibility to create the jobs. From our side, we believe that we need to create the conditions for business to create the jobs. That is, the full-time permanent jobs that matter. 
It is those conditions for success that we are implementing: low taxes, global trade opportunities, investment policies, and a skilled workforce. When we get that, we get those good jobs. 
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry can hide behind statistics all he wants, but the sad reality is harder to hide.
In 10 years, under the Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada has lost nearly 600,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. Six hundred thousand jobs means that 600,000 families have been affected by unemployment, hundreds of communities are getting poorer and municipalities are facing budget challenges.
What is the government waiting for? Does it want to see the entire manufacturing sector disappear before it takes action?
Ed Holder: Mr. Speaker, actually we do not mind relying on statistics from this side of the House. 
However, there are a couple of things that they need to understand. Since the worst recession in our lifetimes, the business community has created more than one million mostly full-time, mostly permanent, jobs in the country. That is since the worst recession. That is a record that Canada can be proud of. I wish the member opposite would accept that as very good news.
TransportationAnne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, on another topic, Thursday, the Minister of Transport reiterated in the House that she was not aware of the Chevrolet Cobalt's ignition switch issue before GM issued the safety recall.
 A Fifth Estate report clearly showed that Transport Canada was aware of the problem eight months before the recall. GM has admitted that 29 deaths were caused by the faulty switches in its cars.
Will the Minister of Transport do the same and assure us that this type of information will no longer be hidden from Canadians?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, she found out about the notice of defect in February 2014 when GM issued the recall. Further, Transport Canada officials confirmed that it only became aware of the notice of defect in the same period, February 2014.
With respect to the accident in June 2103 in which an ignition switch was found to have moved after the collision, officials confirm that the investigation was reviewed in light of that notice of defect from February 2014. The investigation concluded that the ignition switch did not cause the accident.
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, we were all able to see just how inadequate self-regulation and self-inspection are.
Again yesterday, George Iny, spokesperson for the Automobile Protection Association, indicated that there is a lack of inspectors to ensure the safety of Canadians.
Will the government finally commit to reversing course and ensuring that we have enough inspectors to keep Canadian drivers safe?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I will continue. In June 2013, Transport Canada received a report of a crash in Quebec in which the airbags did not deploy when a vehicle went off the road late at night and struck multiple trees.
Transport Canada commenced an investigation. After receiving the notice of defect from GM in February 2014, Transport Canada looked at the June 2013 fatal collision in a new light. This was when the minister first learned of the accident investigation by Transport Canada.
 Again, Transport Canada has determined that the loss of control was not caused by the ignition switch.
Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the serious defect in the Chevrolet Cobalt put the lives of Canadians at risk, yet the minister would have us believe that even though her department investigated a fatal accident and specifically examined the role that a faulty ignition switch might have played, she was never briefed, even though she might have been able to warn Canadians.
Is the minister not aware of what is going on in her own department, or did she mislead this House about what happened?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that the investigation in 2013 centred around an airbag that did not deploy. It was determined at the time that the ignition switch in fact was not the cause of the accident.
Transport Canada went back subsequently, after the notice of defect was served in February 2014, and looked at that accident in a new light. Again, it determined that the loss of control was not caused by the ignition switch.
Public SafetyHon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every time we ask why the 80 individuals who are currently in Canada and who broke Canadian law by participating in terrorist activities in the the Middle East have not been apprehended, the minister dodges the question.
We are not asking him to interfere in the investigations. We are asking him why dangerous terrorists who have broken the law are allowed to go free instead of being taken into custody as required by law.
Canadians have the right to a clear answer from the minister. He must give them one.
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as that member knows, decisions to lay charges are with law enforcement, policing agencies across this country, and they are not made by politicians.
Politicians, as legislators, bring forward laws that provide the tools for security agencies and policing agencies across this country to do their job. That is precisely what this Conservative government is doing.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was certainly no answer there. We do know that the government has blindly cut resources all across government in order to trigger a budget surplus for election purposes.
 We now know that both the RCMP and CSIS, as a result of those cuts, have had to allocate their scarce resources. Yet, the Public Safety report on the terrorism threat to Canada states that the government is aware of 80 individuals who have returned to Canada after suspected terrorist-related purposes abroad.
Is the real reason that current laws are not being acted upon because of the government's cutbacks to security and policing agencies?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, as I just stated, it is law enforcement agencies, policing agencies, across this country that actually lay those charges. What we as politicians and legislators must do is to bring forward measures to ensure that they have those tools.
I want to bring forward the clear fact that since our government took office in 2006, we have actually increased investments in CSIS and the RCMP by almost one third—
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: You have cut back in the last two years.
[Interjection]
Roxanne James: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 
If the member would like to ask another question, I can actually bring those figures forward.
HealthHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the wake of SARS, the Naylor report made it clear that Canada needed a public health agency headed by a chief public health officer who could speak directly to Canadians. 
Buried in the latest omnibus bill is the demotion and muzzling of the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada. He has been stripped of his abilities to set priorities, determine appropriate resources, and speak directly to Canadians without political interference.
Will the government reverse this latest act to muzzle science?
Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary, the role of the Chief Public Health Officer is to engage and communicate with Canadians on matters of public health. This change reflects the unique nature of the position to focus exclusively on medical expertise. The role of the administration is to oversee the day-to-day administration.
The Chief Public Health Officer is supportive of this change.
National DefenceMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Conservatives have a budgeting problem at the Department of National Defence. On average, over the last 7 years the Conservatives have underspent 23% of funds allocated to defence. 
It is a major part of the surplus, but it is happening while mental health services are chronically understaffed; critical procurement, like the joint support ships and fixed-wing search and rescue, have been delayed for years; and while soldiers are being forced out of service before they qualify for pensions.
Does the minister really think that is good planning?
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the end of the Afghanistan mission naturally led to a drawdown in the defence budget. The fact remains that in the last year that the Liberals were in office, DND's budget was around $13 billion, and now the budget is well over $18 billion and is scheduled to increase.
When we first took office we made several purchases, including four C-17 Globemaster strategic lift aircraft, 17 Hercules tactical airlift craft, 15 Chinook helicopters sitting in Petawawa, and we have new Leopard 2 tanks. All of these purchases have greatly increased the capabilities of our forces in Afghanistan, and of course here at home.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, 23% a year for 7 years, but it is not just budgeting at DND that is not working.
The minister has yet to explain what he is going to do about the over 6,000 combat uniforms that were lost or stolen last year. This is a serious security concern, given that an individual could use these uniforms to gain access to secure facilities. Even more disturbing, what about the 10,000 weapons and other accessories that are also on the missing list?
What does the minister plan to do to address this problem and deal with the serious security issues involved?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, in cases where there is serious theft or loss of public property—there is an offence here that is an illegal act—a thorough investigation is conducted. The total value of the public property lost due to illegal acts this year was $7 million less than the year before, and the majority of losses that can be attributed are due to damaged aircraft and not stolen equipment.
The Canadian Armed Forces have instituted force protection measures to ensure the safety and security of our men and women in uniform.
Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the theft of 6,000 combat uniforms and thousands of firearms is not just a matter of money. Of course it is a great financial loss, but it also threatens the safety and security of our soldiers and of Canadians. Clearly, there was negligence, and the minister must be able to explain how this happened.
The thieves now have thousands of military uniforms and could very well use them for malicious purposes. What measures will the minister take to ensure that this situation is brought under control?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, improvements to the inventory management process have been made and are reflected in the significant decrease in lost items this year compared to the previous year.
With respect to equipment, the thefts of a reported 3,815 stolen items were actually empty magazine cartridges. The remaining items were low-sensitivity items, such as holsters, field packs, cases, and training aids, and not actually weapons.
As I have said, all cases of theft or loss result in a thorough investigation by military police.
Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers have been waiting over six years for the government to refurbish the Quebec City Armoury. They have been waiting six years for an answer that would enable them to go ahead with other tourism and cultural projects.
Having waited over six years, can they finally believe the minister when she says that the work really will begin in 2015 and will be completed for the 150th anniversary celebration in 2017? When will we see a backhoe on the armoury grounds?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, these types of infrastructure are very important to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. We will be working with the department to ensure that this is looked at in a very expedited manner.
TaxationMr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister announced fantastic new measures to help make life more affordable to Canadian families right across the country.
 Could the very hard-working Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance update the House on how the government is putting more money in the pockets of Canadian families so they can best raise their families themselves?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton—Leduc for the excellent and hard work that he does on the finance committee.
 The new tax cuts will help all Canadian families prosper. We are increasing the universal child care benefit for children under age six. We are expanding it to children aged 6 to 17. We are increasing the child care expense deduction dollar limits by $1,000. Thanks to our government's tax cuts, two-thirds of the benefits flow to low and middle-income families.
 The Liberal leader does not understand the basics of our policy. There are just too many tax savings for him to count.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, after months of dragging their feet and making excuses, Conservatives reluctantly agreed to stand up to the rail companies. Despite Conservative promises though, the rail companies have not hit their targets for three weeks and no fines have been issued, not a single one.
Why is it so complicated? The rail companies clearly have not delivered. Why has the government not followed through on its commitment?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think the House knows the history of this file. The rail companies failed to transport grain from western Canadian grain farmers to their clients and to destinations in an expeditious manner. The government moved expeditiously with the support of the House.
 The grain movement is being reviewed to ensure that the rail companies do meet their targets. I know the Minister of Transport is looking at this very question the member has raised in the House today.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the history of this file is the government has dropped the ball completely.
 Grain transport is important. It is important to farmers, it is also important to port communities and it is important to local economies across the country, like Vancouver. Now the minister clearly promised $100,000 a day fines and then mysteriously they were reduced to $100,000 a week and even that is only in theory because the government actually has not levied any fines despite the continuing problems.
Canadians want a government that will stand up for them. Why are the Conservatives so reluctant, so resistant to stand up for grain farmers and port cities across Canada?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. In fact, an enforcement process is under way, given CN's failure to meet the minimum grain volume requirements. That company is in fact facing fines and the enforcement process, as I said, is under way.
 To clarify this, the maximum fines are $100,000 per violation. We use all means available to our government to defend farmers and all shippers to ensure our economy is well served by Canada's rail logistics system.
CBC/Radio-CanadaMs. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP): Mr. Speaker, CBC executives announced yesterday that 392 jobs will be cut by next March. These cuts will primarily affect regional news rooms and programming in minority language communities.
How can the minister say that the CBC has the resources it needs to carry out its mission when it will be cutting a quarter of its positions by 2020?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the changes that are being made by the CBC are as a result of declining advertising revenue and declining viewership in key demographics. Our government provides significant taxpayer funds to the CBC and we believe it can, and should, operate within its existing budget. 
Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is Halloween, but CBC creators and friends really have nothing to celebrate. The broadcaster shut down its props workshop last year and will be closing its costume warehouse in Montreal next spring. This is the largest collection of its kind in North America. It includes 90,000 pieces of clothing, some of them from the 19th century.
Does the minister realize that this closure will have a significant impact on the entire Quebec television industry?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat this again. The CBC runs the operation, it is responsible for it and it is arm's length. It is up to the CBC to provide programming that Canadians actually want, fulfill its mandate under the Broadcasting Act and deliver those services to all Canadians across the country.
InfrastructureMr. Arnold Chan (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while today my be Halloween, municipalities across Canada know that there are no treats coming from the Conservative government. In fact, the government's infrastructure program is just another trick. The party opposite talks of large numbers over 10 years, but it masks the scary truth that this program will only invest $210 million in our trains and bridges this year.
 When will the Conservative government stop dressing up the truth and invest in our towns and cities before they turn into pumpkins?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to infrastructure, the provinces and municipalities have never had a better federal partner than our government.
Since coming to power, we have introduced countless initiatives to support them: the 2007 building Canada plan, the 2008 economic stimulus and the new 2014 building Canada plan, which is a 10-year plan.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, that is just not true what the minister stated. Quite frankly, the Conservative government has put into place a 90% spending cut on infrastructure.
Infrastructure matters to our cities. They cannot do it alone. They need co-operation with the federal government. Infrastructure means potholes, streets, sewer lines and so much more.
Why has this cruel Conservative government cut back on spending on infrastructure, when Canadian municipalities across this land need that money spent today?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, even though it is Halloween, the Liberals should stop trying to scare Canadians.
 Since we came to power, we have tripled investments in infrastructure. The new building Canada plan, with an envelope of $53 billion over 10 years, is operational. A number of projects have already been announced, and we are working with the provinces and territories on their priorities.
Rail TransportationMr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, be it grain transport or rail safety, the Conservative government continues to drop the ball.
The people of Jeanne-Le Ber are worried. Since 2011, we have had three derailments in our community. Last April the minister promised to remove all DOT-111 tank cars, which played a huge role in the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, from service within three years. The Americans said they would do so within two years.
Can the minister tell us exactly where this file stands and when the process for removing these time bombs will be complete? 
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, this government has taken a number of important rail safety measures, both before Lac-Mégantic and after the tragedy there. 
The member will have heard our response to the interim measures put forward by the TSB in its interim report, which includes removing the least crash-resistant DOT-111s from service, and that has been delivered. We are taking additional measures such as emergency response action plans for those that are carrying even a single tanker of crude. We are putting in important new science classification—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Lac-Mégantic is in a good position to attest to the disastrous and catastrophic consequences of self-regulation in rail transportation. 
Today she is disappointed by the lack of commitment shown by the minister and this government. The recommendations made by the Transportation Safety Board should have been adopted a long time ago. The people and the mayor of that town want more and deserve more. 
Will the minister finally commit to seriously inspecting rail companies and putting more inspectors and investigators on the ground, where it counts?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, we continue to hire more inspectors all the time. In response to the TSB's final report, we have announced additional auditors as well to enhance our audit capability to ensure that our railways have a safety culture and that they do not just obey the rules. 
This is what the FCM said, and I will quote it in response to our announcement to the TSB:
 FCM welcomes today's announcement by Minister...of additional safety measures that respond directly to recommendations made by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada as part of its investigation into the Lac-Mégantic derailment. 
That is what the head of the mayors are saying in our country.
National DefenceMr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today, Reuters reports that at least 220 Iraqis were executed by the terrorist group ISIL near Baghdad. Two mass graves were discovered and evidence has suggested that men between the ages of 18 and 55 were shot at close range.
This is yet further proof that ISIL is a murderous, barbaric terrorist threat, not only to the Middle East but to Canada. It is incumbent on all civilizations to do their part to counter this threat. 
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence please update the House on Operation Impact, and Canada's ongoing efforts to fight ISIL?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the House that all Royal Canadian Air Force assets are in theatre and that combat operations have begun. Our CF-18s stand ready to engage the enemy. Our CP-140 Auroras are conducting surveillance. Our Polaris refuelling plane is supporting coalition efforts.
Canada will not stand idly by while this terrorist threat runs rampant across the region, spreading its poisonous ideology and inspiring would be terrorists around the world.
As always, we thank and commend the honourable brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces for all the work that they do.
TaxationMark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's announcement on income splitting did nothing for single seniors or many families, whether they are in Cape Breton or across the country.
For instance, for a couple with two children where one spouse works at Canadian Tire and the other spouse works at Tim Hortons making similar incomes for a combined income of $65,000, there is nothing in this announcement that would help to pay for their mortgage, car payments or even day care.
Why do the Conservatives leave these Canadians out?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, every Canadian family with children under the age of 18 would benefit from these measures, a total of 4.1 million families.
Let me give some examples. The universal child care benefit would provide $720 a year for every child under the age of 18. This monthly cheque would help Canadians make ends meet and pay for priorities like groceries, after school activities for their kids and saving for post-secondary education.
There is more. The child care expense deduction has been increased for the first time in decades to help Canadian families.
TelecommunicationsMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 2011 the Conservative government promised to give power to the regions. Instead, it has given them the shaft.
In the Pontiac, less than 100 km from Ottawa, many of my constituents still do not have access to a high-speed wireless network. The absence of high-speed Internet access is impeding economic development in the entire region and preventing many businesses from being truly competitive.
What is the Conservative government doing to ensure that regions like the Pontiac will get access to a high-speed wireless network soon?
Ed Holder: To share some good news with that member, Mr. Speaker, he knows clearly that we live in a digital world and what connects our digital economy is the opportunity for Canadians right across the country to benefit.
We have put in place the Digital Canada 150, intended to take full advantage of that digital economy. Over the next couple of years that will be fully in place across the country.
Warrant Officer Patrice VincentMr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today, as we prepare to bring Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent to his final resting place, words cannot express our gratitude for and our recognition of his life of service to others. 
Would the parliamentary secretary kindly say a few words about Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, as a friendly, kind and strong Canadian, Patrice Vincent fought fires and saved lives during the majority of his 28-year career.
He spent his life helping and inspiring others, so it comes as no surprise that in his death, he inspired and united an entire nation.
The sacrifice of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent on behalf of our country is something I will never forget.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman is complaining about the supply management system, describing it as an obstacle to concluding the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement.
The United States is not shy about saying that it just needs Japan to make concessions to try to put pressure on Canada.
Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food promise not to give in to U.S. pressure, and protect the 7,200 family farms under supply management in Quebec?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, our government has always defended Canada's supply management system, and we will continue to do so in our relations with our partners.
Unlike the NDP, which failed to mention supply management in its election campaign in 2011, the Prime Minister was clear on this issue at election time.
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary can try to reassure farmers, but we have reason not to believe him. 
We heard the same soothing speech when the Canada-European Union agreement was being negotiated, but the Conservative government opened up the supply management system. Cheese producers can attest to that, and they are still waiting for confirmation of the compensation they were promised. 
Will this government, which once again has put supply management on the table in negotiating the trans-Pacific partnership, undertake not to make the same mistake and avoid dismantling the supply management system?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, our government has always defended Canada's supply management system, and we are continuing to do so with the European Union agreement.
The three pillars of our national supply management system remain intact. We will monitor the potential impact of this historic agreement on dairy producers' income. If production levels are adversely affected, we will help the producers financially.
We have a strong record of protecting the supply management system.
The EnvironmentElizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of the Environment.
There are only about 30 days to go until the Conference of the Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change begins its meetings in Lima, Peru. Would the minister be in a position to let us know today if opposition members of Parliament will once again be included in the government's delegation, as is the case in every other country around the world and was the case under every previous prime minister?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to reaching a new global climate agreement in Paris next year. We want a fair agreement for Canada that includes all the emitters and all economies. Every country, big or small, has a role to play. That is what we will continue to push for at the meeting of the top 20. 
We will continue to make progress domestically in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have taken action in Canada to reduce coal-fired electricity greenhouse gas emissions.
I also want to thank the member for her support in our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. This concludes question period for today.
Point of OrderPeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order, but I understand very well, given the importance of the point of order I am making, that you are not in a position to respond right away. I hope that you will be able to respond later today or on Monday.
This concerns the guilty verdict that was just handed down against the former parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Peterborough. He was convicted this morning of violating the Canada Elections Act.
The Prime Minister's former parliamentary secretary has been found guilty on three counts: exceeding spending limits during the federal campaign in 2008, failing to report an illegal personal contribution of $21,000 to his own campaign, and knowingly submitting a falsified document.
As we know, this has been part of a pattern of behaviour we have seen from the current government, tragically, with the in-and-out scheme, the robocall scandal, and former Conservative minister Peter Penashue, who was found by Elections Canada to have broken the rules in the 2011 campaign.
The statutory provisions that render a member of Parliament ineligible to sit in the House of Commons are unambiguous, as we know. The Canada Elections Act, subsection 502(3), stipulates that a person who has been found guilty of an illegal or corrupt practice cannot be elected to or sit and vote in the House of Commons.
O'Brien and Bosc makes it clear that the decision to remove a sitting member is one for the House. I will quote from page 244:
 By virtue of parliamentary privilege, only the House has the inherent right to decide matters affecting its own membership. Indeed, the House decides for itself if a Member should be permitted to sit on committees, receive a salary or even be allowed to keep his or her seat. 
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, understanding that this is unprecedented and that you will want to perhaps take some time to reflect, I would like to ask you to clarify what next steps should be taken by the House to ensure that we are abiding by these statutory provisions.
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is quite right. The question of whether a member can continue to sit is one for this House. I think he is also right in his suggestion that we take some time to reflect, in fact I think we all do, to be able to make that decision.
My understanding, if the decision is based entirely on media reports and social media tweets, is that they have already been proven to be contradictory in a number of ways, so there is a lack of clarity. For example, it is my understanding that two of the guilty findings were stayed. I do not understand what the implication of that is. I do not understand on which charges that was, so it is very difficult for us to make a decision at this point. 
I think the counsel the hon. member has offered, which is that we have to consider this at one point, is correct, but I also think we need to take some time to actually have the information and reflect on it properly before that is done. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair thanks both the opposition House leader as well as the government House leader for this point. The Chair was aware that the court ruling had been delivered earlier today relating to the member for Peterborough. As has been stated by the government House leader, at this point, the Chair has only heard second-hand media reports in terms of what happened. However, we will certainly get the primary documentation. We will consider it, as important as it is, and we will get back to this House as quickly as possible as it relates to this matter.

Routine Proceedings
ImmigrationCostas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 94(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2014 annual report on immigration.
Committees of the HouseMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP):  moved that the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food presented on Thursday, March 27, be concurred in.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to participate in the discussion on this particular concurrence motion. Yesterday I had the opportunity to share some thoughts on this.
It is always encouraging when we follow parliamentary process. We have a couple of dozen standing committees that do a lot of wonderful work. They hold government accountable. There is a lot more transparency. Are they perfect in terms of the operations of the discussions? They may not be in all ways. There is a lot of room for improvement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The opposition House leader is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to hear the member for Winnipeg North, but yesterday, he did not actually reference the concurrence report he said he wanted to speak to. He is doing the same thing today. Yesterday we gave him some latitude, but I think today he has to speak to the concurrence report. If he has opinions on it, we would be very pleased to hear them. However, he cannot just wander off onto whatever he wants to talk about today.
 We have a concurrence report before us. We would like to ask that the member actually stick to it and speak to the report.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, you will find that there is a great deal of latitude in addressing topics.
 I was talking about the process of receiving the different reports. It is completely relevant to talk about how reports come to this House. If I want to pre-empt my discussion, nothing prevents me from doing that. The member just needed to be a bit more patient and listen as I continued to provide comment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The opposition House leader raised a point of relevance, which is always in force, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North also makes a good point, which is that there is some latitude given. 
Perhaps this is an opportunity to remind all members of the House that when they rise to speak, they ought to be speaking to whatever matter is before the House. In that context, I give the floor back to the hon. member for Winnipeg North to continue his discussion regarding the motion that is currently before the House.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, we have an agriculture committee that meets and deals with a report. It is important that Canadians are aware of just how much work goes into all reports, including this particular report. Committees meet twice a week. They go through a litany of different things. The same principle applied for this report. The last time this committee met could have been months ago, depending on the committee.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. We have important legislation before the House that all members want to comment on. I am always interested in hearing the member for Winnipeg North, but one thing he has just said is incorrect, of course. The agriculture committee is meeting.
 However, he is not speaking to the report. If he does not have anything to say on the report, he should just allow us to move on to the important business before this House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before I go back to the member for Winnipeg North, I just remind all hon. members, as I think all are aware, of the issue of relevance. I understand that I have ruled, and other Chair occupants have ruled, that there is some latitude and have asked members to respect that process and speak to what is before the House. At the same time, I would also encourage all other hon. members to give their colleagues some latitude as well and to recognize the fact that it may take them a few moments to get to the specifics of what is actually being discussed. I am quite confident that the member will do that. 
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, if you were to look at my comments from the beginning, maybe I had the opportunity for one or two minutes to reflect on the report and the processing. It has not been more than that, because I have been interrupted on two occasions within just a few minutes.
Agri-Food is an important area of discussion. It was discussed at length by a committee, as committees play a very important role. Part of the point I want to emphasize is that even though we have had the report brought forward today to be concurred in, that does not necessarily end the discussion. The discussion needs to continue. The discussion can continue at committee. However, unfortunately, because of a lack of work ethic from the New Democratic caucus, what we find is that the New Democrats are not allowing—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The opposition House leader is again rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I think we have been really patient. I do not think the member has the slightest clue of which report is before the House. We have offered him three opportunities to speak to the relevance of the report that has been moved. He continues to refuse and seems to be throwing out gratuitous insults. He is not respecting the rule of relevance in any way. Therefore, I would ask him to allow the important other items before the House to move forward.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Winnipeg North on the same point of order.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, just because the NDP House leader does not like my comments it does not give him the right to stand up on a point of order. Actually, he has the right to stand up on a point of order any time he wants but it does not necessarily give him the right to abuse that right to rise on a point of order, when in fact my comments are relevant. All we have to do is take a look at the budget bill that we are debating and the issue of time allocation and so forth. It is totally relevant.
Just because you do not like what it is that I am saying does not make it irrelevant.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. On top of everything else, I would also remind members to address their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues.
I think the point has been well made that there is a rule of relevance. I think a second point has been made that members are given latitude to speak in context before they get to the matter before the chamber. Having said that, there remains a requirement that the member gets to the matter that is before the House. 
Therefore, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor. There is a specific committee report that is before the House and the Chair would encourage that member and indeed all members to make their comments relevant to the report that is before the House.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments. I can assure the members that when we talk about the agriculture report what we are really talking about is an industry that is important to all Canadians.
The NDP House leader sits, stares and concentrates in the hope that I will say something about process so he can jump to his feet on a point of order. I must say that I appreciate how attentive the NDP House leader is.
Having said that, if I could send a very strong message to the member, that message would be that we need to recognize that agriculture is very important in Canada. It affects all of us.
[Interjection]
Nathan Cullen: Is that so hard?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member asked if it was so hard to say that. No, it is easy to say that because the member does not mind me talking about that.
Where the member gets sensitive is when we acknowledge that if we do not show up for work, we cannot expect to get—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. The Chair has been quite lenient in terms of this discussion. The member for Winnipeg North had risen to discuss the matter before the House rather than to continue debating with the opposition House leader as to whether in fact what he was saying was relevant or not.
When the Chair says that the members must speak with relevance to the matters before the House that leniency does end at some point. Therefore, perhaps the member for Winnipeg North could in fact address the substance of the motion to remove all doubt from his colleagues who think that he only has procedural argument. It would appear that possibly he may be ready to do that at this time.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I stood to raise this issue because it is important that we all recognize, in looking at agriculture and this particular report, that there are two areas that I want to address, the area of process and the area of agriculture to Canada. I have attempted to do it in terms of—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. The Chair is going to give this member 20 seconds to address the substance, and failing to do so, the floor will be taken from him. There will be no more tolerance for this ongoing conversation.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised, but let me get right to the essence of it, just to make sure that everyone is happy.
Pork is a very important industry in the province of Manitoba. This report deals with trade and CETA, and so forth. Take a look at the pork industry in the province of Manitoba. New Democrats might laugh, but I can assure them that it is an important industry in the province of Manitoba. It is an important industry to all Canadians. They should be ashamed of their behaviour in not allowing for legitimate debate on reports and the airing of opinions.
I look at the pork industry as an industry that employs hundreds of people in the province of Manitoba and as the official opposition House leader laughs, I can tell him that the hundreds of people who are employed in the pork industry would not believe the NDP's approach in dealing with this particular report is funny. It brought the report forward today without any real tangible notice or anything of that nature. It brought it up right after question period and now I want to be able to address the report and—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. The member has been warned twice that he has worn out his introduction to this matter and that he ought to be addressing the substance. He has failed to do so on three occasions. Consequently, we will resume debate.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that agriculture is very important and many in the government caucus feel the same way. 
However, I am cognizant of the fact that we should, right now, be in government orders debating a budget bill that has time allocated to it and people want an opportunity to speak to it. I have consulted briefly with the opposition House leader and I hope we have an arrangement that will allow the debate that I know many on my side want to participate in to take place, without further detracting from the budget debate, and that is to support the following motion. I move:
 That the debate be now adjourned. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsDan Harris: Mr. Speaker, for the past several months, my office has been regularly receiving petitions from constituents opposed to the cuts by Canada Post to home delivery. I submitted 1,000 such signatures in June and let me say that the residents of Scarborough Southwest were not amused by the government's response.
Here are 1,000 more signatures and a second chance for the government to show respect to my constituents in Scarborough Southwest.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
The first petition calls for the labelling of genetically modified foods. The petition has been signed by residents on Vancouver Island from within Saanich—Gulf Islands, as well as from Nanaimo and other locations.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for the ban of a pesticide, which has been in the media quite a lot and is having significant impacts on the mortality of pollinators, the neonicotinoids. The petition has been signed by residents from my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today that I am going to present that calls upon the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts announced by Canada Post.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to again add my voice to the debate about Canada Post. I have a petition with well over 200 signatures regarding the reduction of hours of service, specifically for Saturday. In a lot of the smaller communities, the hours have been eliminated, quite frankly, for Saturday service. Other communities are suffering problems due to the elimination of the entire operation, but this petition comes from the town of Peterview in my riding.
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, even though I represent an urban riding, I have a petition here signed by over 100 people who are citing the right to save seeds.
We have a number of farmers' markets in Montreal, and these residents want to make sure that farmers are allowed to save seeds and reuse seeds at their will.
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition that has been organized and collected by The Big Carrot in Toronto—Danforth that has shown long-standing concern about genetically modified organisms.
The petitioners, hundreds of them from across Toronto, note that Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are reviewing a request to approve a GM non-browning apple. They note that the BC Fruit Growers' Association has requested a moratorium on the same.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to stop the approval and release of these kinds of genetically modified apples.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 670 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Mr. Pierre Nantel: With regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage: (a) does the Department have an internal policy on the processing times for grant and contribution applications for the various program components administered by the Department, and if so, (i) does this internal policy set out the maximum processing times for the Department and for the Minister’s office, and if so, what are they, (ii) are internal or external evaluations done to measure the Department’s compliance with its policy on processing times for grant and contribution applications for programs administered by the Department; and (b) for all of the Department’s various program components, what is the average processing time for grant and contribution applications between the time the Department receives the grant application and the time the Department publicly announces its final decision to the applicant, broken down by program component and quarter, for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski:  Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to a topic as important as the act to implement certain provisions of the budget.
That said, I must stress that I think it is shameful that as we debate such a broad and complicated bill, we are under our 83rd gag order. The Conservatives have imposed this gag order, and the Liberals are complicating things even more by making irrelevant objections that prevent us from having real discussions.
As I mentioned, today we are debating a document that is around 460 pages long, includes 400 clauses and amends several dozen pieces of legislation. This document even includes measures that were not mentioned in the budget speech.
This bill is the kind of thing we have come to expect from the Conservative government. The government ignores middle-class families, workers and people in need. Instead, it manages to find a way to help out the banks. 
The content of the bill is worrisome, and so is the way it is being presented to us. By refusing to split this omnibus bill, the government is once again demonstrating how little respect it has for our democratic institutions. On that note, I would like to quote Manon Cornellier, who writes a blog for the well-known magazine, L'actualité. This is what she had to say about the government's practice:
 For the Conservatives, the omnibus bill process is too useful to step away from. It is the perfect way to succeed without having to be overly accountable. The fact that Parliament feels marginalized is the least of their worries. 
How can the government ask MPs, who represent millions of Canadians, to make a decision on dozens of legislative measures with one single vote? 
The Conservatives know all that. It was not that long ago, when they were in opposition, that they were the ones tearing their hair out over Liberal omnibus bills. In fact, the Prime Minister himself made a passionate argument against these types of bills. I would like to quote what he said in 1994, when the House was debating a 21-page bill, not a 400-page bill like the one we are looking at now.
 ...in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns? 
 We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill. 
When I look at the 460 pages of this bill, I wonder whether, after 10 years in power, the student has managed to surpass the teacher in the art of holding this Parliament in contempt.
We must also talk about some of the measures that we support and that is what really does not make sense in this whole undertaking, in this entire exercise. We could easily work together to pass measures that both parties support.
Nevertheless, it is true that the Prime Minister's comments apply to the current situation. There are indeed some measures in this bill that meet the NDP's demands. For example, since 2007 we have been calling for the creation of a DNA data bank to help the authorities solve missing persons cases. I am pleased to see this measure in Bill C-43, even though we can question why it was included in a budget implementation bill.
The government has finally admitted that it was time to put an end to pay-to-pay fees, the fees charged to consumers who want to receive a paper rather than an electronic invoice. These fees are being abolished for broadcasting and telecommunications companies, but, and this is very odd, not for banks.
That is about it for the good things. This bill has dozens of problematic measures though. For example, the government is using this mammoth bill to sneak in its private member's bill to let the provinces restrict access to welfare for refugee claimants and people who are not permanent residents.
This measure is a direct attack on women, men and children of all ages who are already vulnerable. Over the past three years, I have met a number of refugees and asylum claimants at my riding office. These individuals have often gone through incredible ordeals, and when they get here, they have to keep being brave so they can integrate into our communities
Considering that it takes months or years to process asylum claims in Canada, it is not surprising that some claimants might need a little help from time to time while they wait. If the government wants to scrimp and save at someone's expense, maybe it should start by asking corporations and banks to do their fair share rather than go after the poorest people around.
I will give another example of worrisome measures included in this bill. The Conservatives decided to go forward with their plan to introduce a tax credit to create jobs in small businesses. Let us be clear. The NDP has been saying for a long time that the government needs to provide proper support for small and medium-sized businesses, which make an enormous contribution to our economy.
However, the Conservative Party is whistling in the wind with this measure. We already know that it will not be effective even though it has not even been implemented yet. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already warned the government that its plan will create at most 800 jobs in Canada.
The current government is certainly not behaving responsibly by spending $500 million to create 800 jobs. We have said this a number of times and we hope that the public will hear this message: spending $500 million to create 800 jobs is not at all effective. Why are the Conservatives insisting on moving forward with this bad idea?
I could go on and on listing examples of the negative measures set out in this bill. When it comes to a budget or a forecast for the coming years, it is really important for the parties to work together to find solutions to our economic problems, particularly with regard to stable jobs and lower-paying jobs. Unfortunately, we cannot do that because of the gag order and the attitude of the Conservative government.
I could also talk about what these 460 pages do not contain, namely initiatives to address youth employment, increase access to social housing, improve our health care system or protect our environment, for example.
This bill once again proves to Canadians that they cannot count on the Conservatives to stand up for their interests and respect our democracy. Canadians know that they deserve better than what we are currently seeing in this bill.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.
In this huge, 460-page omnibus bill, the only measure that has to do with the economy or the budget is a program—perhaps that is not the best word—that takes $550 million out of the employment insurance fund, even though that is not the government's money. Who is it for and what is it for?
Is it fair that the government is using that much in contributions to create only 800 jobs? We have a problem with that number. This will hurt our economy. We need a government that believes in the role of Parliament and small business in Canada.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising the issue of the money being siphoned off the EI fund. The Liberals did it, and now the Conservatives are doing it, all at the expense of workers. 
At the same time, EI services have been cut back. Workers have unstable and poorly paid jobs, and are often entitled to fewer weeks of EI benefits. It is very unfortunate, especially knowing that 800 jobs are going to cost $550 million. 
It is unbelievable and unacceptable that the Conservatives are doing this and are governing a country this way. It is very unfortunate, particularly when we could be improving our legislation and regulations. That would help Canadians, and especially the manufacturing sector, which my colleague talked about this morning.
Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was very interesting.
 Yesterday I listened to the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. He wondered whether some of the members opposite actually knew what was in their omnibus bill, because they did not seem to have an answer to the more specific questions we were asking them. 
 I think that my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley even said that not a single government member showed up to the technical briefing that was offered. Only opposition members did. 
Does my colleague have the same concerns as I do regarding the government introducing an omnibus bill without seeming to grasp the seriousness of the situation?
For example, it was clear that some aspects of the last omnibus bill had nothing to do with a budget. Take, for example, the issue of appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court. I heard a Conservative member say that the Conservatives had talked about it eight months ago. No, eight months ago was when the budget was tabled.
As my colleague just mentioned in her speech, there are some things in this bill that were not in the budget speech. Could she talk about these concerns?
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his observations on the current situation, on previous budgets presented here and on the fact that Conservative members are not responding to this.
I cannot believe that the members opposite are not getting any feedback or questions from their constituents. How can they explain to their constituents that the government is making cuts everywhere, preventing new jobs from being created and introducing unethical regulations or rules?
We cannot forget that the Conservative government was elected with just 39% of the vote. In other words, there are a lot of people who are opposed to this government's policies.
I am very concerned that the government is not showing any flexibility or any semblance of respecting democracy.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about the big vision that millions of Canadians will be able to carry out in their own lives as a result of the tax relief that would permit them and empower them to make decisions about their own futures.
Let me set the context for the conversation about taxes and families from the outset. Before I can talk about the Prime Minister's family tax cut yesterday, or his increase in the annual child care payments that he announced less than 24 hours ago, it is important for me to discuss where he started off. 
Prior to that announcement, this government had already cut taxes 160 times.One million Canadians had been removed from the tax rolls as a result of the government's decision to raise the amount of money that people can earn before federal taxes kick in at all.
The government increased the amount that families in the lowest personal income brackets could earn before paying taxes. As a result, 380,000 seniors no longer pay any taxes to the federal government. That is in addition to targeted tax breaks for bus passes, children's sports, and students' textbooks. It is in addition to the elimination of all taxation on scholarships for hard-working, high-achieving young people who are rewarded for their academic achievement.
That was the status of our tax changes prior to yesterday. 
What were the results at the end of the line for the Canadian taxpayers? What did it mean for families? The median net worth of Canadian families had increased by 45%. For the first time, and this is according to The New York Times, middle-income Canadians are better off than Americans. As well, prior to yesterday, the average Canadian family paid $3,400 less in taxation. 
The Parliamentary Budget Officer, often a critic of the government, acknowledged that this tax relief had actually been targeted at low- and middle-income families. He said, “Cumulative tax changes since 2005”—which is when this government took office—“have been progressive overall” and most greatly impacted low-middle income earners, meaning households earning between $12,000 and $23,000, effectively resulting in a 4% increase in their after-tax income. 
The Parliamentary Budget Officer also said:
 In total, cumulative changes have reduced federal tax revenue by $30 billion, or 12 per cent. These changes have been progressive, overall. Low and middle income earners have benefited more, in relative terms, than higher income earners. 
 As a result, real after-tax disposable income has increased by 10% since 2006. 
I will return to quoting The New York Times article on the very question:
 After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada—substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States. 
Often we ask ourselves how the lowest-income earners among us are faring in this society of ours. How are they doing, particularly during the aftermath of the global recession that struck so terribly all around the world not so long ago? We can ask UNICEF, which studied the matter and concluded that Canada's child poverty rate decreased during the recession, pulling 180,000 children out of poverty. 
UNICEF's president said that the report attributes the decrease in Canada to initiatives by both the federal and provincial governments, such as Ottawa’s National Child Benefit supplement, which gives monthly payments and benefits to low-income families with children. 
He said, “[These benefits] kept money in circulation. ... Money goes to poorer families, and that tends to be spent on children, and then it kept money circulating in the economy as well. That kind of investment in children is so important.” 
In other words, when we brought in the universal child care benefit, the $1,200 a year we send to every family per child under six, the opposition said that it was only going to help the rich. UNICEF now says precisely the opposite. It says that people who were most in need benefited the most. 
NDP members get very angry when our free enterprise policies lift people out of poverty, because it takes away their arguments to control people's lives with big, costly, bureaucratic government programs. They want more of the problem so that they can declare themselves to be the solution. We understand that Canadian families are the solution. We understand that the best social program is a strong family and the best anti-poverty program is a good job. 
There is good news on that front as well. There are one million net new jobs in Canada since the depths of the recession. That is the best job creation record of any of the G7 countries.
What is it doing to our nation's books? Are we drowning in deficit and debt like the entire European continent and the states to the south of our border? Are we facing the kinds of downgrades that, for example, the Liberal government in Ontario faces? The answer is no. We are on track to balancing the budget in this coming year. In fact, according to all the experts, our budget is in even better shape than promised by our government originally.
To whom does that future surplus belong? It does not belong to the politicians who want to spend it on behalf of Canadians; it belongs to the hard-working men and women who pay the bills. 
Luckily for them, our government will give it back. We will allow them to keep that money so that they can invest in their communities, raise their families, and help create local jobs.
That brings me to yesterday's announcement.
Yesterday the Prime Minister announced three things. First, he would increase the universal child care benefit from $1,200 a year to just about $2,000 per year per child. Second, no longer would that benefit be restricted to families with kids under six. All children would qualify for the universal child care benefit, and every child six or over would be entitled to receive $720 per year.
Just as an example, the universal child care benefit for a middle-income family with a stay-at-home parent and two kids will be worth $4,000 per year. Those are important dollars that they can invest in raising their children, whether through a stay-at-home parent who works hard to keep the home strong and the kids healthy and active or through a daycare like the one I was raised in during my early years as a child in Calgary. The reality is that we are giving the choice to parents, which brings me to the next item in the proposal. 
Families will be allowed to share their income. The spouse with the higher income will be allowed to give up to $50,000 to the one with the lower income to save up to $2,000 per year on taxes.
Finally, the amount of money that families can claim in child care expenses such as daycare will go up by $1,000. Whether a parent chooses daycare or a stay-at-home option or something in between, the money will go into the pockets of parents. There are millions of child care experts in this country, and their names are mom and dad. 
Parents, not politicians, should decide how to raise children, and that is the fundamental debate in this country. I appreciate that the other side wants big, unionized, institutional, one-size-fits-all daycare, but on this side we trust parents, and our tax cuts allow them to make their own decisions.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, but not so much the particularly jingoistic, offensive ones in the last couple of statements. 
He is suggesting that parents who choose a child care option are somehow, in his words, institutionalizing their children, that the two-thirds of Canadian families who choose to put their kids in either public or private child care are somehow not being, in a sense, good parents, which I do not think he was meaning to insinuate. This institutionalized aspect of child care I find offensive, as someone who has used child care services in the past and who seeks out, as many parents do, good child care options for their children. We are not bad parents. We believe in choice.
The member kept raising the prospect or the spectre of income splitting as one of the options for the government, a $2.5 billion program it overwhelming favours. However, in the budget bill of 460 pages, we find so many items that have nothing to do with the budget at all.
When the Conservatives were in opposition, they hated omnibus bills. They said they were undemocratic and unfair. What changed? What happened to those Conservatives, like the Prime Minister and all his ministers, who said that it was a bad way to govern and was unfair to MPs representing their constituents?
[Interjection]
Pierre Poilievre: Actually, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my own remarks, when I was a child, I went to a local community-based child care centre. No, it was not institutional. It was not a government-run day care program, as the member across the way suggests.
 He believes that parents who have a stay-at-home mom or dad are not doing their jobs. That is what the NDP believes. The member believes that community-based neighbourhood child care providers are not good enough. He believes that grandmothers, aunts, and uncles who step in to raise children throughout the day, while parents are at work, are not of high enough quality. 
The NDP and the Liberals believe that there is only one kind of child care that is acceptable, and that is government-owned, government-run, government-provided bureaucracy that in the past has not only failed to meet the demands of people but has failed to actually meet the promises of the politicians who made them.
The Liberals promised such institutional day care. Over 13 years, they did not create a single space. They spent billions of dollars, but it did not result in any benefit for parents on the ground.
We believe that regardless of the choice parents make, the dollar should go in their pockets, and they should decide how to raise their own kids.
Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will turn the question back to my colleague. Do you not think that there are people who would like to have a universal system and that the the way you are presenting things is not—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I want to remind hon. members that they must address the Chair and not their colleagues directly.
The hon. Minister of State.
[Interjection]
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not believe there is a one-size-fits-all method for raising children.
In fact, that is the whole idea behind our position. We are giving money directly to parents so that they can decide for themselves what is best for their children. It is the opposition, the Liberals and the NDP, who believe there is just one way to raise children. The opposition wants all the money to go toward a bureaucracy that excludes the vast majority of the choices parents are making.
If a family has one parent who stays home to raise the children, that family is excluded by the NDP and the Liberals. If an aunt, a grandmother or a grandfather does the job, that family is excluded. If a neighbour provides the child care, the family is excluded. All the options, except one, run by government officials, are excluded under the costly plan proposed by the NDP and the Liberals. Only the Conservative Party provides parents with real choices as to how to raise their children.
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is a little hard at times to sit here quietly and respectfully when members get up and say some of things like the previous speaker said. 
He spoke about choice and grandparents, aunts and uncles raising and helping to raise children. At the same time, his government has prevented thousands of parents of new Canadians to come into our country and participate in that process of raising children and imparting the cultures from back home into the next generation. The government is taking choices away from families by not allowing them to be reunited in Canada for that better life. 
He spoke about how the provincial government in Ontario was facing some financial struggles. At the same time, it is because the federal government has cut health care for refugees and the provincial government has had to pick up the slack. As the court said, that was cruel and unusual. That is what we get from the government. Time and time again, every budget, we find things that are cruel and unusual in it. 
Now we have these new schemes coming from the government. It is hell-bent on ensuring that the cupboard is bare by the time the election happens, because another government of another sort might want to take a different approach. 
He talked about being opposed to universality. We brought universality to health care and it transformed the country. From that point, no family had to decide between putting food on the table, or bringing a loved one to a hospital or to a doctor to get medical care.
 That is what we want to do for child care. We want to ensure that families do not have to decide whether to work, whether to put their child into care, whether to feed their family, whether to put a roof over their heads. The government has actually taken choices away. 
He mentioned that this would put money into the pockets of parents, that it would help fund child care. Child care in the Province of Ontario, depending on where one goes, costs on average between $1,000 and $2,000 a month. The government's plan, if it does everything it says it does, which it does not, would help to pay for child care for one to two months out of the year. What are parents supposed to do the rest of the time? 
The government wants to expand the child fitness tax credit. That is great if one has the money. Single parents living in poverty already do not have money to put their kids into sports programs or arts programs. They want to but they are unable to. By putting all the money there, the government takes the choice away from those parents. They are forced to not put their kids into sports or arts programs. The government is in fact taking choices away. 
I have sat here for the last three years, and time and time again I have heard the government boast that there are a million less people on the tax rolls. If they are for good reasons, I applaud it for that. However, a million less people are on the tax rolls because they are in fact too poor to pay taxes. Instead of focusing on a jobs plan to help get some of these people back to work, or to give them a living wage, like the NDP proposed with a $15 minimum wage, the government ignores them. It just takes them off the tax rolls and leaves them to fend for themselves. 
That is un-Canadian. We look out for our neighbours, the less fortunate and those in need. A society is judged by how it treats and takes care of the least fortunate and the most vulnerable. The government, like some Conservative governments, particularly the Mike Harris government in Ontario, has really shown great disdain for people living in poverty by cutting their supports and services, and treating them like criminals. It has no place. We need to move on from that kind of behaviour.
Bill C-43 has shown to be yet another anti-democratic omnibus bill that subverts our traditional way of government and completely dismisses the role of the House in providing considered oversight and debate. The bill, as has been said, over 450 pages long, has more than 400 clauses, amends dozens of acts and contains a variety of measures never mentioned in the budget.
The Conservatives' anti-democratic haste has meant that the previous budget bills have been forced through the House and committees without adequate study, and we lament the fact that this will likely recur again. How are parliamentarians, Canadians and the people in my riding supposed to give considered thought and feedback to such Trojan horse bills that get rammed through the House by the government?
Now many of the measures contained within the bill are fixing the problems created by the Conservatives ramming through the previous bill, the one before that and the one before that. If the government would actually stop to take the time to do things properly, it would not have to spend so much time fixing problems it has created. It seems the Conservatives enjoy creating new problems, much to the contrary of what the parliamentary secretary said a few minutes ago.
We are not able to properly study these bills and the finance committee, which does very good work for the House, is then overburdened by the fact that the budget bill comes with so many clauses, amendments and things that have nothing to do with the budget. That makes the job of the committee chair for finance even more challenging, and I have to admit he does a very good job at committee. However, then he has to spend time, like committee members, dealing with amendments and clauses that have nothing to do with the budget, things that should be going to the environment committee, the industry committee, the transportation committee or to the agriculture committee. There are many things in the budget that have nothing to do with the budget itself.
It means we end up wasting a lot of time because of it. Then the government has to come back and fix it again next time. I am very curious when we get to the spring and there is a new budget and an implementation act, how many things in that implementation act will be put in to fix the problems created with this one.
The Conservatives used to lament omnibus bills, but when they came to power, instead of changing Ottawa as they said they would, Ottawa seems to have changed them. They have become exactly like the governments that came before them with respect to omnibus bills, and they have taken it, frankly, to a whole new level.
The Prime Minister used to stand when he was leader of the opposition and get very angry at the fact that there were Liberal bills that were 80 pages long. Eighty pages sounds like the good old days. Now we are dealing with omnibus bills that are 400 or more pages long, that are 370 more pages than that bill was. However, the Prime Minister has no problem with those now.
We do have a well spelled out and reasoned amendment that has been brought forward by my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in which he states that: 
 —this House should decline to give second reading to Bill C-43,...because it: a) amends dozens of unrelated Acts without adequate parliamentary debate and oversight; b) fails to address persistent unemployment and sluggish economic growth; c) aims to strip refugee claimants of access to social assistance to meet their basic needs; d) imposes a poorly designed job credit that will create few, if any, jobs while depleting Employment Insurance Funds... 
On that point, the parliamentary secretary talked about how the government wanted to keep money in the pockets of people. The government was complicit with the Liberal government before it in raiding the employment insurance fund, the fund and money owned and contributed by workers and employers, a mere $60 billion. That could have gone back to workers, that could have gone into skills development and training. They could have made sure that more than half of the people in Toronto, who are unemployed, could actually qualify for EI. 
The Conservatives talk about employment and growing jobs. Unemployment in my riding is over 12%. It is a far cry from where it was when the Conservative government came to power.
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, my colleague started by talking about our great announcement yesterday to help families. I have done a few rough calculations, and I would like the member to respond.
If a child under the age of six roughly gets $2,000 a year in tax credits, over six years, that would be close to $12,000. Then, from the ages of 7 to 17, another 10 years at about $720 a year, that would be another $7,200. We are talking about a child from birth through to the age of 17 and helping that family financially with tax credits worth up to $19,000. If we take a family with three children, we are talking about the government helping that family by close to $60,000.
I am the father of five children. When I was raising my young children, all I got from the government at that time, which was Liberal, was higher taxes. I am almost convinced that what I would get if we had an NDP government would be even higher taxes.
I would like to know how the member could possibly put down a government helping a family with three children by close to $60,000. Two-thirds of Canadian families will benefit from the measures that we announced yesterday, so I do not want the member to say this would just benefit the rich, because that is absolutely false.
[Interjection]
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, that is perfectly fine. I do not need to say that. The member just laid it out himself when he talked about the amount of money that would come back to a family for children up to the age of six.
I did some rough calculations and based on the numbers that the member himself used, it would take six years of what the Conservatives are prepared to give to parents to pay for one year of child care in Ontario. What about the next five years? Then where are they going to find the money to help them with child care? 
This is where the NDP's universality in child care would actually help to provide the money to pay for child care for a child's years from the age of six, when they go to school.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is on the nature of the budget being very lengthy, and he made reference to that. It has numerous pieces of legislation, some of which could have been stand-alone legislation and introduced by separate ministers, which would have had more debate inside the chamber. However, the Conservatives snuck them in through a budget bill.
 Then we have time allocation that has been put on the bill, which will again prevents the opportunity to have more dialogue. Then we have committees that are no longer meeting because the NDP will not allow them to meet.
To what degree does the member believe members are losing the opportunity to ultimately hold government more accountable when we see measures of this nature being taken?
[Interjection]
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, members of the House definitely lose the ability to address the issues that matter to Canadians and deal with these budgets in the proper way when they are introduced through omnibus legislation. 
However, I would quickly point out for the member that committees just require the committee chair to call a meeting. Therefore, if committees are not having meetings, maybe the member should ask the Conservative committee chairs why not.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Conservatives come out with a wasteful and ineffective income splitting program that will benefit only the most wealthy 15% of Canadians. The Conservatives will try to spin it that it is not what their income splitting program is, but anyone who examines it will know that. 
Could the member describe the benefit of having a universal child care program? I know that people in my area are paying tens of thousands of dollars every year to get good quality care for their kids, if they can find it. The NDP will fix that. Could he describe how?
[Interjection]
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, I spent the first five years of my working life in child care in a daycare teaching kids how to count to 10 and write their names. It is a very rewarding endeavour, but people are not paid very well in it. 
The NDP's plan would create up to a million new child care spaces so parents would have the choice of whether to put their children into care or to take care of them at home. 
Governing is about choices. The Conservatives call us tax and spenders, but their plans to spend money in this reckless fashion make them tax and wasters. They tax Canadians and then waste the money on the people who need it the least. 
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today to talk about how our Conservative government is successfully implementing the initiatives in our economic action plan in order to promote jobs and growth and support families and communities.
Our initiatives greatly benefit Canadians and families in rural regions such as my riding, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.
Now that we are on our way to keeping our promise to Canadians to return to a balanced budget, our government is focusing on moving forward with our initiatives so that hard-working people can also benefit from the surplus.
The Liberal Party and the NDP both want Canadians to pay more taxes. They want more revenue so that they can turn around and spend it.
The Conservatives believe that Canadians need to keep more of their hard-earned money.
It is because of the Conservatives' economic management skills that the initiatives we have already implemented are producing such positive results. Thanks to our action plan, the Canadian economy has already created more than a million net new jobs since 2009. Our country has ascended the ranks and our middle class is now among the wealthiest in the world. Considering the economic challenges that exist outside our borders, we can be proud of what we have achieved as Canadians.
We know that urban and rural businesses are crucial to our economic prosperity and growth. The 2014 budget and Bill C-43 focus on the needs of small businesses. We want to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, and we are clearly offering additional support to small business owners.
One of my goals, as the MP for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, is to bolster local economies within my riding because they create jobs and employ the people living in the region.
I hope to see the local businesses in my riding succeed because when they are successful, they grow, and when they grow, they create new jobs and hire more people.
According to a study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, small and medium-sized businesses employ 70% of Canada's entire private sector workforce.
Thanks to our job credit aimed at small businesses, these companies and their employees will soon benefit from a tax credit that will lower small business employment insurance premiums by 15% over the next two years.
More than 90% of Canadian companies will benefit from this initiative, which will save them $550 million. They can then use that money to solidify their business or expand it and create more jobs.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has estimated that 25,000 person-years of employment will be created due to our EI credit.
I had the pleasure of joining the Prime Minister in a trade mission to the United Kingdom in September. There, I had the opportunity to meet with Dan Kelly, the president of CFIB, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, to discuss the needs of small and medium-sized businesses, particularly in rural economies such as Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.
This is what Mr. Kelly said in support of our EI credit. The small business job credit “will make it easier to hire new workers or invest in additional training to help entrepreneurs grow their business.”
It is plain to see that our Conservative government is indeed supporting small businesses in very concrete ways in order to ensure that Canada's economy continues to thrive.
As I had previously mentioned in the House in the last budget debate, the launch of the Canada apprentice loan, a key initiative identified by employers and various organizations with which we have consulted, would provide apprentices in Red Seal trades with access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year. This is important in communities such as my riding, which has a great demand for skilled trades, for example, related to agriculture. 
Family farming is an integral part of our rural communities and our country. Farmers and producers have greatly contributed to our many successes and have the well-earned reputation of growing extremely high-quality product, both for Canadians and international consumers.
As part of economic action plan 2014, we have allocated over $3 billion, including provincial and territorial contributions, toward investments in innovation, competitiveness, and market development for our Canadian agricultural sector under Growing Forward 2. Now we are implementing further measures to support farmers by making the tax system simpler and fairer for farmers who already work very long hours to provide what goes on our tables at every meal. Many farms, in fact, will benefit from the small business tax credit, which I mentioned earlier in this speech.
Another important initiative that I would like to highlight is the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit. We have heard the concerns of Canadian families regarding the rising cost of raising a family, and we understand that organized sports in our day and age play an important role in the health and growth of our children. Our federal government is taking concrete steps to make life more affordable, especially for low-income families. Canadians saw this with the Prime Minister's most excellent and well-received announcement yesterday concerning income splitting between parents, increasing the universal child tax benefit, and increasing child care deduction limits. 
However, I digress. I actually wanted to speak of us having doubled the child fitness tax credit from $500 to $1,000. To us, it is important that we promote a healthy and active lifestyle, especially with children. It is vital that all children of all walks of life have access to sports and athletic activities. Our youth have access to many great sports, including hockey, which, as Canadians, we consider to be our national pastime. Our child fitness tax credit would help ensure that future generations continue active participation in sports and recreational activities.
I am encouraged by our Conservative government's initiatives to create jobs and encourage economic growth, as well as long-term prosperity, all while returning to balanced budgets. Unlike the opposition, which votes against measures to strengthen our Canadian economy, our federal government continues to take action in implementing initiatives, such as supporting families and communities, and improving the fairness and integrity of the tax system, among many others. In addition, we have been transparent. The budget was tabled in the House long ago, back in February. We value democracy and have been openly debating inside and outside the House.
I urge the opposition to join us in helping hard-working Canadians. I urge them to stop stonewalling and voting against important measures that will create jobs, strengthen our economy and alleviate some of the financial challenges facing Canadians.
I know that the Liberals and New Democrats love nothing more than imposing taxes and increasing spending, but I urge them to make an exception and to vote in favour of Bill C-43.
Canadians can rest assured that our Conservative government will continue to move forward and take the necessary action to create jobs and promote economic growth, while still working toward a balanced budget.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.
Of course, when we are debating a bill as important as a budget bill, like Bill C-43, we need to look at the whole thing before deciding whether we will vote in favour or against it. That is what I have done, as have many in this House, and I am sure that the parliamentary secretary has done so as well. 
That is why I would ask him to talk about the fiscal and budgetary implications of the measure in part 4 that amends the fiscal arrangements between Canada and the provinces.
I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on this extremely important and specific measure in the government's Bill C-43.
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleague that when we take the Conservatives and how we have implemented transfers to provinces, we have significantly increased the amount of federal funding that we transfer to provinces. I will give an example from here in Ontario. When we were first elected in 2006, the federal government was transferring approximately $11.9 billion to Ontario every year. That amount has now climbed to close to $20 billion. This has been an increase for Ontario of almost 75% to 80%.
He is asking what the tax implications would be. If the provincial government spends that money wisely, then it, too, could lower taxes for Canadians. This is what Canadians want. Certainly when I am in my riding, Canadians have had it with high municipal taxes, provincial taxes, and federal taxes. I am proud to be part of a government and of a party that is focused on lowering taxes for Canadians.
Ted Hsu: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of a senior MP on the Conservative side, so I am glad to have this opportunity. It is a question that I asked earlier in the day and I did not get an answer. It is about the legislation, and in particular, the Industrial Design Act. I have to ask this question because this bill is an omnibus bill, so it contains things that were not in the budget.
In budget 2014, it said that there would be legislation to implement treaties. In proposed subsection 7(e) of the new Industrial Design Act, it says that a design is registerable if the design is not contrary to public morality or order. That is new.
Would this be implementing a treaty or something else that the Conservative government is trying to do?
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition member for his very narrow question on the budget. I think it is important that Canadians look at the budget in its entirety and what it would do for them and for our economy.
As I pointed out, this is a good budget for Canadians. This is a good budget for our Canadian economy. As Conservatives, we have a very strong track record, in terms of creating jobs or putting in place the policies that allow the creation of jobs. We have a very strong record on lowering taxes for Canadians.
While I appreciate the question, the fact that it is so narrow makes me wonder why he is ignoring all of the other very positive measures that are contained within the budget, those types of benefits that Canadians want and ask for, that we promised to deliver and that we are indeed delivering.
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of things for families in the budget. There are also a lot of things for small businesses.
 I know the parliamentary secretary is very engaged on the agriculture file. Maybe he would talk about some of the tax relief for small businesses, including for farms. I know in the budget there is an extension of the lifetime capital gains exemption for farming properties, for example, and some of the other small businesses.
Would he comment on that and the host of measures for farming and other small businesses?
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, certainly, I have been in contact with farmers within my riding. It is a very agricultural region. 
There are several measures contained within the budget. One was just mentioned, which is the extension of the capital gains exemption, which of course is financially advantageous to parents who sell their farms to their children. This is advantageous for getting youth and young people involved in farming, which is one of the challenges that our farm sector faces today.
I also spoke about the small business tax credit that is related to EI. Many of our farms are, indeed, small businesses. They employ less than 15 people. They will benefit from that tax credit regarding EI.
Last, in wrapping up, I will mention that we have lowered taxes and the tax burden on small businesses. I believe, if I remember correctly, that the budget contains wording about small businesses now paying about 30% less or the cost of doing business with the government is about 30% less for—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please.
Resuming debate, there are three minutes remaining this afternoon for the hon. parliamentary secretary for public safety. 
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to speak for those three minutes.
Our Conservative government's proposal for a missing persons index is being brought forward as part of the economic action plan 2014. Every year in Canada, approximately 60,000 Canadian men, women, and children are reported missing. While 85% of those missing are found within a week, the tragic reality is that some 100 new missing person cases go unsolved each and every year. This means that there are thousands of families across Canada who wait in the dark for years, wondering if their family member will ever come home. In other cases, knowing that their loved one has been murdered, they wait in vain for closure and for justice to be delivered to whomever has harmed their loved one.
This is why DNA can play a vital role. DNA analysis is one of the most powerful tools that police have at their disposal when they investigate crime. Unfortunately, as it stands today, our national DNA data bank has limited use in the investigations of missing persons. Under current and existing laws, using DNA for national identification purposes is strictly governed by the DNA Identification Act. Through the national DNA data bank, police can only access two different indices. These are the convicted offenders index, which contains court-ordered DNA profiles of individuals convicted of a designated offence, and the crime scene index, which contains DNA profiles from biological material found at crime scenes of designated offences.
This information is critical to police investigations, and the national DNA data bank has been highly effective in helping to bring criminals to justice, exonerating the innocent, and linking crime-related incidents together. However, the act does not allow DNA to be added, retained, or matched to support missing persons or unidentified human remains investigations. In other words, there is no mechanism by which DNA, on a national basis, could be used to help advance missing person cases and hopefully bring that closure to grieving families.
For several years, Canadian families have called for changes to the system. They have advocated for a system in which DNA analysis could be used to link missing persons to unidentified human remains to help reveal their identity and their location. With Bill C-43, we will move ahead with these changes to help bring closure to these families and help our police with their criminal investigations.
We would amend the DNA Identification Act to create a new humanitarian application of the national DNA data bank. This would include creating three new indices. As I just mentioned, we would create the DNA-based missing persons index, which would contain the DNA profiles of biological material found on personal effects of missing persons. This index would be used to help find missing persons and identify previously unidentified human remains by comparing these profiles with profiles contained in all of the other indices.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I must interrupt at this point. The hon. parliamentary secretary will have seven minutes remaining in her speech when this matter returns before the House.
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
Amendments to Standing OrdersMr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, FD):  moved:
 That the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be amended: 
 (a) to add the following after Standing Order 14: 
 “14.1 For the purposes of interpreting the Standing Orders, at the commencement of each session or from time to time as necessity may arise, the Speaker of the House of Commons shall, upon receipt of a letter from the leader of a party or caucus signed by an absolute majority of party or caucus members, announce to the House the names of the House Leaders, Deputy House Leaders, Whips, Deputy Whips and caucus chairs.” 
 (b) to add the following after Standing Order 37: 
 “37.1 (1) Except as provided for in Standing Order 10 and Standing Order 11, and notwithstanding the usual practice of the House regarding allocation of a specific number of oral questions to Members of the governing party, each opposition Member shall have the right to ask at least one oral question per week or four oral questions per 20-day cycle during a session, as provided for in Standing Order 30(5). 
 (2) Upon at least two hours’ written notice to the Clerk prior to the time allocated for Oral Questions, opposition Members may: 
 (a) exchange this right with another Member; 
 (b) ask the Whip of their party or caucus to designate another Member for this purpose. 
 (3) Exchanges are recorded daily at the Table. Party or caucus Whips are required to ensure that their members comply with this Standing Order.” 
 (c) by deleting Standing Order 104 and replacing it with the following: 
 “104. (1)(a) At the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which shall consist of a minimum of eleven Members and a maximum of twelve Members when an independent Member wishes to sit on the committee, and the membership of which shall continue from session to session, shall be appointed. The said Committee shall report to the House, pursuant to section (2) of this Standing Order, within ten sitting days after the establishment of the List for the Consideration of Private Members’ Business provided for in Standing Order 87(1)(a)(i), and thereafter within the first ten sitting days after the commencement of each session and within the first ten sitting days after the second Monday following Labour Day, lists of Members to compose the standing committees of the House pursuant to section (5) of this Standing Order and to act for the House on standing joint committees; provided that the Committee shall not present a second report pursuant to this Standing Order between the second Monday following Labour Day and the end of that calendar year. 
 (b) When, pursuant to Standing Order 104(1)(a), more than one independent Member wishes to sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the Speaker shall consult with the independent Members and announce to the House the name of the Member selected to sit on this committee. A motion proposing that the Member be appointed shall be deemed to have been moved, seconded and adopted without debate or amendment. 
 (2) Based on such considerations as the proportionality of the parties and caucuses represented in the House, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs shall prepare the lists of Members designated to sit on the standing committees of the House provided for in section (5) of this Standing Order using, in reverse order, the results of the random draw to establish the List for the Consideration of Private Members’ Business stipulated in Standing Order 87(1)(a)(i). After removing the names of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House as well as the names of the Ministers of the Crown, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs shall ask each Member whose name is on the List, including independent Members, on which standing committee they would like to sit until all positions on the committees have been filled. If required, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs shall follow the procedure again to complete the lists of members. 
 (3) For each standing committee and standing joint committee provided for in this Standing Order, a list of associate members deemed to be members of this committee for the purposes of Standing Orders 108(1)(b) and 114(2)(a) and who may act as substitutes on this committee pursuant to Standing Order 114(2)(b) shall be established in accordance with the procedure stipulated in section (2) of this Standing Order. 
 (4) Notwithstanding the process provided for in section (2) of this Standing Order, when two Members of the same caucus or two independent Members have given at least 48 hours’ written notice to the Clerk stating that they wish to make a permanent exchange in the membership of the committee, this exchange shall come into effect once the said notice has expired. 
 (5) The standing committees, which shall consist of a minimum of eleven Members and a maximum of 12 Members when an independent Member wishes to sit on a such a committee, and for which the lists of members are to be prepared, except as provided for in section (1) of this Standing Order, shall be on: 
 (a) Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; 
 (b) Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics; 
 (c) Agriculture and Agri-Food; 
 (d) Canadian Heritage; 
 (e) Citizenship and Immigration; 
 (f) Environment and Sustainable Development; 
 (g) Finance; 
 (h) Fisheries and Oceans; 
 (i) Foreign Affairs and International Development; 
 (j) Government Operations and Estimates; 
 (k) Health; 
 (l) Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities; 
 (m) Industry, Science and Technology; 
 (n) International Trade; 
 (o) Justice and Human Rights; 
 (p) National Defence; 
 (q) Natural Resources; 
 (r) Official Languages; 
 (s) Procedure and House Affairs; 
 (t) Public Accounts; 
 (u) Public Safety and National Security; 
 (v) Status of Women; 
 (w) Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; and 
 (x) Veterans Affairs. 
 (6) The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs shall also report lists of Members in accordance with the same procedure provided for in section 104(2) of this Standing Order to act for the House on the Standing Joint Committees on: 
 (a) the Library of Parliament; 
 (b) Scrutiny of Regulations; 
 Provided that a sufficient number of Members shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion therein as between the memberships of both Houses. 
 (7) If a seat on a standing or standing joint committee becomes vacant during a session, the first member of the caucus to which the seat has been designated who decided to become an associate member pursuant to the process provided for in section 104(3) of this Standing Order is automatically appointed to the committee, and that member’s name is removed from the list of associate members of that committee. If no member of this caucus is an associate member, the party or caucus whose member vacated a seat on the committee shall appoint one of its members to sit on the committee and shall provide the Clerk with written notification of the member’s name within 48 hours of the position becoming vacant. A position on a committee that has been left vacant by an independent Member shall be filled by the first independent Member who chose to be an associate member, pursuant to the process provided for in section 104(3) of this Standing Order. The name of the Member thus appointed to the committee is removed from the said committee’s list of associate members. If the said committee has no independent Members on its list of associate members, the committee will henceforth be composed of 11 members until a new list of members is established pursuant to section 104(1) of this Standing Order.” 
 that the new Standing Orders 14.1 and 37.1 come into effect on the first sitting day following a scheduled adjournment of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 28(2)(a); 
 that the amendments to Standing Order 104 come into effect at the commencement of the next session or on the first sitting day following the next Labour Day, whichever occurs first; 
 that the Clerk of the House be authorized to make any required editorial and consequential alterations to the Standing Orders. 
Mr. Speaker, we live in a time of political cynicism. People are losing interest. Nearly 40% of them no longer vote. Many wonder why they should bother electing an MP if that MP is expected to represent the party he belongs to rather than the people who voted for him. The big parties have lost sight of their fundamental role and that of MPs, which is to serve the people, represent them and express their desires.
If the House of Commons is supposed be a place where we lead by example and where democratic principles are rigorously enforced, we are way off the mark. The practices of the House do not measure up. The parties' practices do not measure up.
Even here in the House, some members are more equal than others. Some have the right to be on committees while others do not. Some have the right to ask one or more questions every week while others cannot ask any. Some, like party leaders, have the power to deprive their caucus members of all of the tools that enable them to represent their constituents and act on their behalf. It is time to fix that and fight the cynicism that is so pervasive in the political class.
That is why I am so proud to be debating Motion No. 535 today. This is a binding motion to amend the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. If passed, it would immediately result in positive changes giving each MP the power to properly represent his or her constituents. If passed, this motion would strip leaders and their entourage, the unelected people who surround them, of the power to legally deprive MPs of the tools they need to do their work.
Basically, this motion would free MPs from the undue influence of their parties. It relates to a fundamental aspect of every MP's work: the ability to effectively represent the people of their ridings in the federal Parliament.
Over the past few years, many of us have noticed that the power of individual members in the House of Commons has been eroding. Power is becoming increasingly concentrated within the political establishment and the inner group that surrounds each party leader. They now have so much power that they can impose their will, depriving members who are not in their good books, or those who are not part of an immediate political ploy, of precious time that should be reserved for members for championing the needs of those who elected us. Membership on committees, the opportunity to speak in question period and the choice of House leaders and whips are all decided by the party leaders and their elite group.
 It is not right that an MP's ability to do his or her job properly depends entirely on the goodwill of party leaders; nor is it right that an MP's ability to do his or her job properly can be negatively affected by considerations as frivolous as support during a leadership race or partisan motives to win votes.
My motion contains three parts but basically has one single objective: to take away from the political establishment the power to push members aside and arbitrarily deprive them of their ability to act. This motion reflects the discussions that many members who have already pointed to this worrisome phenomenon have had among themselves. Furthermore, since it was announced that this motion would be moved, many Canadians, as well as many members of the House, have approached me to learn more or to express their support.
This is what my motion is about. The first part deals specifically with the House leaders, deputy House leaders, whips, deputy whips and caucus chairs. My motion proposes that these House officers not be recognized as such by the Speaker of the House unless they are elected by the absolute majority of their caucus members. This approach is more democratic. It would prevent situations where House officers are imposed on members without their consent and where they participate in controlling the party with their unelected advisors.
House leaders and whips should not be tools to be used by party leaders and their entourage. Rather, they should ensure that caucus members' rights are respected and help those members act in the best interest of their constituents.
The second part is about each member's ability to ask oral questions and hold the government to account during question period. It is time for questions to come from the members, rather than the parties, so that everyone can participate in this fundamental democratic exercise.
My motion gives every opposition member the right to one question a week, so all members will have the opportunity to rise in the House at least once every week to hold the government to account on any subject they wish. To ensure flexibility for the members and the parties, the motion also includes a mechanism that will allow members to exchange or give away their right to a colleague, depending on the interests of members. Simply put, if this motion were adopted, opposition members would have control over their questions themselves in the future. They would not be bound by the total control currently exercised by party leaders, House leaders and whips.
The third part deals with members' involvement in committees. As is the case for oral questions, the party leaders, House leaders and whips are all-powerful and dictate which members sit or do not sit on parliamentary committees.
We had a good example yesterday when the NDP tried everything to take away the member for Repentigny's right to sit on the Standing Committee on National Defence. 
Motion No. 535 would introduce a simple new mechanism, a fair approach to committee membership. At present, the order of precedence for private members' business is already determined by a draw. Those who are unfortunate to be picked last have no chance of introducing a motion or bill.
Without affecting each party's proportion of seats on a committee, my motion suggests that the last member to be picked to introduce a bill be the first to choose which committee to sit on. 
As for oral questions, the motion proposes a simple mechanism so that members who have professional experience or expertise on a specific matter can trade places with one of their colleagues.
The motion also proposes adding one or two seats to every standing committee given the fact that 30 new MPs will be elected in the next election. That would allow all of us, even independent members—who are just as legitimate as the other MPs, do not forget—to sit on committees and advocate for our constituents.
At the end of the day, I am not proposing anything radical. On the contrary, I want to get back to basics, to the real role of MPs, which is to represent their constituents and bring their legitimate requests and their hopes to the House of Commons.
We need to be able to speak freely on behalf of our constituents. Members should not be muzzled by the party establishment. We need to have the tools to do our jobs without being constantly exposed to arbitrary sanctions imposed by the group that surrounds the leaders, House leaders, whips and caucus chairs.
That is one of the basic philosophies of Force et démocratie: respond to the public's desire to have elected representatives who are independent enough to advocate for their interests and beliefs.
Too many people are cynical about partisan politics. They want and hope for a party where each member's loyalty lies first and foremost with the people of their riding, their region, whether they are workers, unemployed, men, women, seniors or young people.
They are frustrated by rigid party lines expressed as canned speeches in bafflegab. The people want an opportunity to take back political power through MPs who refuse to play by the traditional rules of power. 
They want a party that will change the concept of politics and the real role of an MP to break with cynicism and bring meaning back to politics. They want MPs to have their hands free so they can facilitate and develop their communities and work as partners with civil society. That can only happen if MPs can act unencumbered by the abusive control of party leaders and their entourage. 
I believe that this will improve the political climate and help put an end to the permanently antagonistic atmosphere among the parties. Voters want MPs who are ready to collaborate and work with other political parties to make real progress for people in all regions. They want us to share our strengths in order to build a better democracy.
Through Motion No. 535, I am offering parliamentarians in all parties the opportunity to regain full control over and the full extent of their duties. I am doing so to help them better serve their constituents and the common good. After all, they are at the heart of the democratic process.
I am appealing directly to the leaders of the parties in the House and calling on the leaders of the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois to give their members the chance to vote without restriction on this motion. 
I am asking them to live up to their duties and call for a free vote. I am also asking them not to spread misinformation about this motion and claim that there are technical obstacles where there are none. This is a simple motion that can be applied without delay. This is a fundamental principle and a commitment to democracy.
This is an opportunity for them to show today that they refuse to buy into the ambient cynicism and they trust the elected members of their caucuses. Doing the opposite would further prove the need for this motion.
To sum up, I hope that all parliamentarians will have a chance to take the time needed to carefully analyze this motion. It is long, but simple. It aims to bring democracy back to the House. As many may recall, even if they were not here at the time, members from all regions used to scamble to defend their constituents and their region and speak on their behalf. Over time, political parties began taking over, for reasons of cohesion and organization, among others. They have taken over too much. Now political parties are undermining democracy. We have to get back to basics, to fundamentals.
Some members have told me that their parties were trying to claim that this motion is not enforceable. I drafted this motion with the help of the Law Branch of the House of Commons. We looked at everything that could present an obstacle to its practical application. This motion is enforceable; it will not have to be debated in committee. It will be enforceable immediately. It will allow MPs to take back their power and exercise their full fundamental role as representatives of their riding and their region. 
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for his speech
Members on this side of the House have and will continue to advocate for greater independence for members in the House. One measure instituted by the Prime Minister's Office at various committees was designed to prevent independent members from introducing amendments to different bills at report stage in the House, as was their right. As a result of a ploy used in committees, this power was taken away from them. So, we decided to fight. We have a very thick file about this.
When I studied the motion, I noticed that a basic reform that we had asked for was not included. I am referring to the issue of parliamentary secretaries who sit on committees. That was previously not the case. It was not a tradition, on the contrary. Parliamentary secretaries are members of the executive, even if they have a peripheral role.
I would like to know why this particular item is not included in a motion to introduce reforms and to increase the independence of members.
[Interjection]
Jean-François Fortin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. We are good friends from neighbouring ridings.
It is important to understand that this is a step in the right direction. Many things could have been added to this motion. This is a fairly long motion, as we noted when the Speaker read it earlier. It had to be long in order to be detailed, enforceable and put in place without delay.
Other aspects could be dealt with by introducing other reforms or motions, but this is a step in the right direction. I truly hope that the members of all parties will examine its merits. I am available to meet with any member who may have questions and I will take the time to provide a proper answer.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, in the past, whenever we have put forward motions or bills that have affected the Standing Orders, in a lot of cases, as a preamble, we have recommended that they go to the procedure and House affairs committee for study first and that members come back with a proposal. They would then put forward a motion based on the findings of experts, parliamentarians, former parliamentarians, and even Speakers of the House.
I have no doubt that what the hon. member has before us stands in good order, but I wonder if he considered that as a first option.
[Interjection]
Jean-François Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.
Indeed, there were two possibilities: the motion could be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or it could be binding, that is, enforceable immediately after the vote. We chose to make it enforceable, because in the past, we have often seen motions referred to committees, especially the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, only to be eviscerated. We wanted to ensure that the motion could not come back, be accepted and then debated.
The purpose of this binding motion is to give all members the right to rise freely and say they want to effectively bring democracy back to the House.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
His efforts here are very important. I am proud to support him, because in the Parliament of Canada, real democracy is being threatened by the extraordinary power held by the major parties
We are here now as members of Parliament. Those of us who are in smaller parties, such as the Green Party, are also joined by those who are independents. We are now 12. We are not just 12 individuals. That is 12 ridings across Canada, all equal but with unequal rights in this place, without any justification.
Surely we should be at least able to get the rights this member has put forward in this motion.
[Interjection]
Jean-François Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the leader of the Green Party.
The fundamental role of an MP, regardless of party, is to stand up for his or her constituents. All members of the House have the same rights and should have the ability to articulate their constituents' desires.
It is therefore important that all members regain the power that has been taken away from them by the political parties so that we can, by establishing new Standing Orders, restore democracy and return to members the privilege of effectively representing their constituents.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the private members' business motion brought forward by the member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. 
This rather lengthy motion would amend the Standing Orders to provide the following. House leaders, deputy House leaders, whips, deputy whips, and caucus chairs would need to be endorsed or elected by an absolute majority of party or caucus members. Each opposition member would be entitled to one question in each question period per week, with rules established for the transfer of that entitlement to another member if desired. Committees would be expanded from 10 to 11 members, or 12, if an independent member wishes to sit on a committee. 
Members would indicate their desired committee assignments, and taking into consideration the proportionality of the parties and caucuses represented in the House of Commons, the right to pick committee assignments would be based on the reverse order of the lottery of private members' business. In other words, the last person on the list for consideration for private members' business would have the first choice of committee assignment.
The 40th and 41st Parliaments have seen a number of proposals to reform the Standing Orders. There have been proposals to reform question period, the rules on time allocation and closure, the means for electing the Speaker of the House and the chairs of committees, and the system of petitions. 
I would like to speak first to the motion's proposal to reform question period. On April 24, 2013, the House debated a Liberal opposition day motion concerning the reform of members' statements. The proposal would have changed the Standing Orders to require an alphabetical rotation, subject to an exchange mechanism respecting each party's share of members' statements. 
The key points that were raised during the debate on the above-mentioned opposition day motion applied to the debate on the motion before the House today. First, the proposal appears to fetter the Speaker's authority and discretion to recognize members. At pages 594 and 595 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states:
 There is no official order for the recognition of speakers laid down in the Standing Orders; the Chair relies on the practice and precedents of the House in this regard. The Standing Orders simply authorize the Speaker to recognize for debate any Member who seeks the floor by rising in his or her place. [...] Although the Whips of the various parties each provide the Chair with a list of Members wishing to speak, the Chair is not bound by these. [...] While the Speaker has complete discretion in recognizing Members, the Chair may follow such informal arrangements as may be made... 
The motion seeks to establish rigid rules on the operation of question period. The vast majority of the rules for question period are not established in the Standing Orders but rather in other practices of the House. The rules governing question period have developed through traditional and practice, and occasionally have been clarified through a Speaker's ruling.
For example, the current practices for the length and order of questions were developed in 1997 after consultations between the Speaker of the House and House leaders of the recognized parties, and are renegotiated at the beginning of each Parliament. Specifically, the motion's proposal to reform question period would provide each opposition member with the right to ask at least one question per week, and members could exchange that right with another if they so desire. 
The result would be considerably less control over question period by parties. It would thereby reduce an opposition party's flexibility to manage questions by its members as part of its role of holding the government to account, including limiting the central place of party leaders and critics in an opposition party's question period strategy. If adopted, the proposal could create an uncoordinated and possibly ineffective series of unrelated questions to the government, with little to no opportunity for supplementary questions.
Further, the motion does not contemplate any extension of question period beyond 45 minutes, as is the current allocation. This would have the effect of limiting or, worse, reducing the time allocated to party leaders and recognized parties more generally.
The proposal would appear to hamper each party's ability to manage its internal affairs and could potentially disrupt the effective functioning of the House of Commons. Of course, these points are directly applicable to the opposition parties, so I will be listening attentively to see what views they will be sharing on these matters after I sit down.
The first point to make with respect to the effect of this motion on the effective functioning of the House of Commons is that two hours of debate is not a lot of time to assess the implications of the motion. As we have seen with other private members' business motions concerning changes to the Standing Orders, those motions have called on the procedure and House affairs committee to study proposals.
Let me turn next to the portion of the motion related to the participation of independent MPs at our committees.
 The Standing Orders provide that any member may participate in the public proceedings of any committee but may not vote, move motions, or be counted for the purpose of quorum. Moreover, independent members have had increased participation at committees. For example, each of our standing committees has adopted a motion that allows independent members to submit their recommended amendments for consideration during the clause-by-clause study of a bill at that committee.
Last year, when the procedure and House affairs committee was given an order of reference to study the role and mandate of the Board of Internal Economy and its potential for replacement, the House made special provisions to allow independent MPs to participate in that study, given that the changes to the arrangements for members' offices could have had an unforeseen impact on those MPs who do not sit in a recognized caucus.
Political parties have also made arrangements to accommodate independent members. For example, in the 39th and 40th Parliaments, the Conservative Party gave one of our committee spots to André Arthur, the then independent member for Portneuf—Jacques Cartier. 
Motion No. 535 also provides, as mentioned earlier, that membership of committees should be determined by using the reverse order of the list for the consideration of private members' business. However, parliamentary secretaries are ineligible, by virtue of their offices, to move private members' business items for debate in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 87.1(a)(ii). As a result, Motion No. 535 appears to prevent parliamentary secretaries from being members of committees. Maybe that was not the mover's intention, but it seems to be the effect of his motion. If it was not his intention, that goes to my earlier point about major changes to our rules being proposed yet being subject to only a two-hour debate.
This seems odd, since parliamentary secretaries perform the important role of assisting ministers in the discharge of their parliamentary duties. They also serve as a key conduit for information from parliamentarians, especially opposition MPs, to the minister. Certainly the conversations between parliamentary secretaries and opposition critics, collectively the subject matter experts, help inform the conversations that take place among our House leaders.
Finally, speaking of House leaders, that brings me to the aspect of the proposal in the motion that would provide for the election of House leaders, whips and their deputies, and caucus chairs.
The member wrote to all members of the House to inform them of his motion and to seek their support for the motion. In the member's letter, he characterized this element of his proposal as an election. However, the way the amendment to the Standing Orders is worded, it is unclear that an actual election would be required. Specifically, the proposal would add a new standing order to require an absolute majority of party or caucus members to endorse the appointment of the party's House officers by co-signing a letter, with the party leader, to the Speaker naming that party's House officer.
Therefore, the election process contemplated in the motion would effectively provide a veto power to party or caucus members, as opposed to directly requiring an actual election. I would add that the election process for House officers would not prohibit parties from conducting elections if they wished.
I would like to draw to the attention of the members the situation that could arise through such an—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The member's time is expired.Could he quickly wrap up? 
[Interjection]
Gary Schellenberger: I can do that: thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, that was probably the most gracious wrapping up I have heard in ages.
First, we need to remember and take note of the context in which our colleague opposite spoke. This motion is a take it or leave it deal.
We are voting on a motion that, if adopted, will immediately amend the Standing Orders. These amendments will not be sent to committee and will not undergo a more in-depth legislative review.
That is quite important, because my hon. colleague across the way has already pointed out a couple of problematic parts of the motion that are not mere technicalities, as I think the sponsor might suggest they are. Rather, they are mistakes in the drafting of the bill, which suggests there may be others that we have not yet found.
The motion seeks to increase the independence of members who belong to a recognized party in the House and the rights of independent members. These are principles worthy of our support.
However, this motion does not give sufficient consideration to the legitimate and critical role that parties play in the Westminster system and tradition. It therefore does not establish a fair balance between the rights of members as individuals and the effective operation of the parties and thus of the House of Commons and this Parliament.
The motion does not make it possible to strike a fair balance between promoting the independence of members and maintaining the legitimate role of parties in our British-style parliamentary system, which is party-oriented. This is particularly true when it comes to the changes proposed to the methods used for selecting committee members.
I would like to point out that the NDP has been proposing democratic reform initiatives for years, the most recent of which sought to give the Speaker more authority. We are working on more practical and balanced reforms that will increase the independence of members while still allowing this Parliament to operate.
This includes defending the rights of independent members, as we did when the government wanted to restrict the right to propose amendments at report stage and when we supported the amendments to Bill C-23 proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert, which would have allowed independent members to form riding associations and raise money between elections.
The NDP continues to work on other balanced reforms in order to increase the independence of members, including during question period and in the work in committees, and to make Parliament work. We will present those in due course.
Let us now talk about fairness. The lotteries form the basis for the proposal by the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for forming committees. The lotteries are purely formal exercises of fairness, because they leave no room for a conscious effort to promote real equality. It would be impossible for a party like the NDP to ensure that both sexes are equally represented in committee with the hon. member's proposed reform.
The whip and the House leader pay attention to these criteria when they designate members for the committees. We would not be able to be as proactive when it comes to other considerations regarding diversity, including regional representation, and the ability to communicate in both official languages.
We can also consider things that have an impact on the effectiveness of Parliament. In our system the opposition—especially the official opposition—must be in a position to resolutely hold the government accountable for its actions. In many ways, the domination of the executive, primarily as a result of the combined powers of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office, has so compromised the role of the House of Commons during times of majority government that we need to protect the remaining tools the opposition has to remain effective. We need to ensure that the most informed opposition members sit on the committees that study the issues they are knowledgeable about or that are related to their role as critics. We also need to ensure that the role of oral question period is not compromised by a weakening of the coordinated strategies that the opposition parties sometimes use during this period to ensure that the questions being asked of the government—sometimes over a period of several days or weeks—are consistent and persistent.
One recent example was Bill C-23, the so-called Fair Elections Act. Members of the NDP asked questions every day for weeks. The government ended up making concessions in some areas, which is very important. 
My colleague's motion would hurt the opposition's ability to hold the government accountable during question period by making this period less organized and less effective.
I would finish by returning to the point made by my colleague across the way. There is a drafting problem in the motion, which basically says the lists for composing committees are taken from the list for the consideration of private members' business. The member's draft then says that ministers, as well as Speakers and Deputy Speakers, shall be removed from the list. 
In fact, ministers would not be on that list in the first place, because it is the list for private member's bills. Also, parliamentary secretaries now appear not to be part of the list draw because they would not be part of private members' business, but it was clearly not the intention of the member to exclude them. Therefore, my worry is that there are other drafting problems, and that is certainly one of them. 
I would end by saying that probably the most important reform, apart from reforms that we will be bringing forward on question period and on the composition of committees, has to be how we structure the House of Commons in the first place. 
In the NDP we believe strongly that our electoral system is broken and is unfair. We believe that if we had a proportional representation system, the way in which the House is elected would profoundly change the way the House works. That would include how question period would work. It would create a rebalancing of the power of MPs within parties and it would create a more collegial environment that would be more open to compromise. 
At some level, the member's motion has to be lauded, because the underlying concern is real. He is concerned about Independents who are not part of a recognized party in the House, and he is obviously also concerned about the independence of members who are in a party but who at any given time may feel they are not getting the roles they would like, either in question period or at committee. 
These are real concerns and they do have to be addressed, but I firmly believe that the way that the motion has been drafted and the fact it would be immediately implemented if we voted for it mean that we have to wait for reforms that will accomplish some of what the member is trying to do with a differently drafted reform.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Resuming debate, there are eight minutes remaining today for the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, within the eight minutes, I hope to shed some light on the debate. However, many of the points that I wanted to bring up have already been covered by all three of my colleagues here in the House, including the mover of the motion, the member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. 
There was certainly a lot of work involved in this proposal. The motion is quite broad in scope, with sweeping measures that would be brought in with one particular vote. 
For that reason, I share some of the concerns of my other colleagues, outside of the mover of the motion, in that once it is done, it is done, and then the changes would take place within the Standing Orders. It has been common practice here to take reforms of this magnitude before the procedure and House affairs committee to study. The committee then calls certain experts in the field, along with former parliamentarians and Speakers of the House. Once that is done, the procedure is to come back and report the findings to the House of Commons, and at that point any of the members, excluding cabinet and the Speaker, could produce a motion that picks up on it. 
I have no problem supporting some motions that would make changes to the Standing Orders. Some of the particular instances that the member has here have quite a bit of merit and I would vote for them outright, but on others I would want to have more answers before I could decide to move on them.
For example, the hon. member from Ontario, the mover of Bill C-586— the reform act, as it was called across the country—brought in measures prior to that pertaining to question period and its function. The hon. member who spoke on behalf of the government also brought up that point. He quoted from O'Brien and Bosc and talked about how the conduct of question period is based more on precedence and tradition than on what exists in the current Standing Orders. However, my hon. colleague from Ontario was talking about the fact that at the end of question period there would be more flexibility to allow an individual member to stand up and ask a question. Most likely it would pertain to the member's particular riding, as opposed to a particular strategy or news of the day that was national in scope. That is something I would vote for outright.
The allowance for individual members' questions is outlined here in O'Brien and Bosc and our current Standing Orders, which describe the function of question period and how it operates. The motion before us would codify some of what has been performed more by tradition than anything else, and for that I congratulate the member, because more clarity around how we behave is certainly welcome.
The member talked about the three main measures. I spoke about the one pertaining to question period. Another measure is the constitution of certain committees.
As others have said, and as I thought when I first read it, it is a novel concept, because people who do not have first chance at bringing private members' bills would, at least on the other end of that, have a chance to sit on the committee that they desire.
For example, the largest industry in my sector is the fishing industry. I would love to be on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, but it is difficult because we only get one seat. This measure would give me a better chance of doing that. For that reason, yes, I would agree with it.
 However, the problem is that parties here in the House have to weigh the national interest with regional interests, gender interests, and so forth. For instance, if someone in the caucus is a member of a visible minority, that person would be beneficial on a particular committee.
 By way of another example, if a member formerly served in the Canadian Forces and has a genuine interest in sitting on the veterans affairs committee, I think it is legitimate to ask to do so. However, it is best for that member to make the case in front of people who make the decision and not do it through a draw or a lottery. That said, these are the two ways that we deal with it. 
Again, I applaud what the member is trying to do here, because the power of the individual member of Parliament has been eroded for quite some time. 
I defend what he is doing, which is why sending it to the procedure and House affairs committee would have probably been a better route. Certainly whether this motion succeeds or it does not, maybe we should consider asking the procedure and House affairs committee to go forward with a study anyway, to see how we can increase the role or the powers of individual members of Parliament.
Again, I would turn to the example about interest: regional interests, gender, and visible minorities. This is what we do in selecting cabinet. When the governments of the day select a cabinet, they use those criteria. It is not just about a particular person who is well suited for that job; they have to consider regional interests. 
Right now there is nobody sitting in cabinet from Newfoundland and Labrador. That is because there is nobody on the government side who was elected from Newfoundland and Labrador. There are no Conservatives who have been elected there. I have always said they are a smart bunch in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have always given them credit for that, and I continue to do so, of course. 
[Interjection]
Gary Schellenberger: Well, that is just rude.
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I went off on a bit of a party tangent.
However, I will say that we do this for a reason, for national interest, to allow someone to sit at cabinet from any particular region of the country, in the same way that the constitution of committees would also benefit from that. I do understand that he is saying they can trade, if need be. A lot of that might happen under his particular motion. However, it is rather prescriptive in how it handles this. Remember, we only get one vote for this and then all of the rules are changed instantly. I would go back to that argument about the procedure and House affairs committee.
 The other part with regard to committees is that I have no problem with there being more members, allowing for the fact that there are 30 new seats coming into this House. That is right: we are going to go from 308 members to 338 members across this country.
My final point is that I agree with my colleague from the official opposition. On Bill C-23, we also supported the voice of the independent member of Parliament by allowing that person to have more power within the committee structure. It is a bit difficult to do, but nevertheless it is legitimate. When that person runs as an independent member of Parliament, some of the freedoms and obviously some of the rules that benefit certain parties should benefit that member as well.
 As the Liberal Party, we have made moves lately for reform, such as transparency of all of our expenses. We would take the partiality out of the Senate.
 We look forward to this debate, and hopefully within the next hour of debate we will also shed more light on all of the topics that my hon. colleague has brought forward, because it is quite—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The Chair must interrupt at this time. The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor will have two minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.
However, it being 2:30 p.m., the motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, October 27.
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)