2014-04-04

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An 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.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlottetown. 
I must say, it is a bit of a challenge to address such a large bill in only 10 minutes, but I will give it my best shot.
Within the Liberal Party, we have talked a great deal about the middle class over the last period of time. We believe that the government is not doing what needs to be done to assist the middle class of Canada. I would suggest that some of the questions we have raised, and the general of lack of a response from the government, speaks volumes about the way the government treats the middle class of Canada.
 I thought it was most interesting yesterday when my colleague from Toronto Centre made reference to median household income. The government really needs to understand how the middle class has been neglected. When we look at median household income, 50% of Canada's population has received an increase of $100 since the government took office. In fact, if we look at the bottom 20%, we are talking about a decrease of $500.
We need to put in proper perspective how difficult it is for our middle class today and why the government needs to give more attention to this issue.
Look at personal debt today. Never before has it been as high, and the government seems to pay no attention. The government has failed to address what are important and critical issues for our middle class.
 Health care is an issue all Canadians are concerned about. There is no issue more important in terms of a social service provided by the government than the issue of health care, with the possible exception of some of our pension programs and veterans' services. 
What have we seen? The government has dropped the ball in a significant way. It is a government that does not recognize the important leadership role it is supposed to be playing in what is one of the most important issues for Canadians, that being health care.
Why has the Prime Minister not met with his premier counterparts? Why have we not seen an attempt by the government to build on the 2004 health care accord? It was put in place under Paul Martin. Canadians and politicians from coast to coast saw the merits and benefits of that accord. 
What has the government done? It has let the clock run down. As of midnight, March 31, that ten-year health care accord has expired, and the government let it go without a whisper. There was no action. There was no indication that it really cared about the future of health care in Canada.
The Conservatives will say that they have increased health care spending to record highs. I will agree that health care spending from Ottawa going to our provinces is at record highs. I will agree on that point. However, it is not the Conservative Party that established the amount of money going to health care today. It was under Paul Martin that the Liberal Party of Canada signed off on the health care accord. 
It was the actions of the Liberal Party that allowed the government to claim that we have record amounts of health care dollars going to our provinces.
A member across the floor is heckling with regard to health care cuts during the 1990s. Let me remind the member and the Conservative government that prior to Jean Chrétien, we were allowing the transfer of tax points as a way to finance health care. During the 1990s, I was in the Manitoba legislature, and we were saying that if that was allowed to continue, the federal government would not be financing health care at all in the future. It was Jean Chrétien, during the 1990s, who established the floor and gave the guarantee of health care funding. 
No matter how the Conservatives try to rewrite history, former prime ministers Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin are the reason we have health care cash flowing. 
However, Canadians are saying that they want more than that. They want to ensure that the five fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act are being enforced. They want the federal government to demonstrate leadership on the health care file. There must be standards. 
Canadians are concerned about the number of doctors in our communities. They are concerned about wait times in our emergency wards. This is what Canadians want the Government of Canada to show an interest in, but it has not done that. For whatever reason, the current Prime Minister does not believe in the health care Canadians want. I find that most unfortunate. We will continue to push this issue.
Grain has been a very important issue over the last number of months in the Prairies and in my home province of Manitoba. I have had the opportunity to talk a lot about grain in recent months, because there is a crisis on our family farms in Manitoba and in the Prairies.
 Imagine having piles of grain in our fields, a lot of it just covered in plastic. Yet we have empty ships in the Pacific Ocean. The problem is that the Conservative government has failed to establish transportation to get that prairie grain to the Pacific Ocean. The people who are paying the price are the prairie farmers, the farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, because the government has not recognized that it needed to take action. Yes, it has taken some action, but the government has fallen short, and it is the prairie farmer who is having to pay the price.
I could talk about citizenship and the backlog in processing. It is absolutely terrible the amount of time it is taking to process citizenships. 
 On crime and safety issues, the government needs to do more in regard to getting tough on the causes of crime and on preventing crimes from taking place in the first place. 
As my time has expired, my last thought will be in regard to the size of the budget and the undemocratic actions of the Conservative government. It is wrong the way the Conservative government is compiling so much legislation and forcing it through. That is the reason I have only been given 10 minutes. The Conservatives are forcing things through on this important legislation, which is most tragic.
Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I too am very dismayed that the bill is being rushed through. After only 25 minutes of debate, the government gave notice to shortchange us on the amount of time we could debate it.
I notice that the budget does not include very much, if anything, on housing. Housing is a critical need in the city of Toronto, in my riding, and in many places across the country. 
The Liberals cut federal housing support in the 90s. It was only after Jack Layton convinced Paul Martin to not give corporate Canada a big bonus that we got a little housing money put into the budget in 2005. However, this government has really not done anything for housing. Would the member like to comment?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, housing has always been of high interest to me. There is so much more we could be doing to deal with housing programs, housing co-ops, lease programs, and home renovations. People, especially within the middle class, do not have the resources to do a lot of the types of changes that are necessary. Some of those renovations are critical. We are talking about water pipes, electrical work, roof repairs, and so forth. There are wonderful opportunities. If only the government would take an interest in that whole area, we could be doing so much more. 
The member made reference to the Liberal administration. I was a provincial critic for housing at a time when I was begging the provincial NDP to provide more for infill housing and renovation programs. They too fell short. 
 If we looked at the history of governments, we would see that the Liberal Party takes a back seat to no other party in terms of providing adequate housing. The reason we have literally hundreds of thousands of housing units across the country is in good part because it was Liberal administrations that provided the seed money to make that happen. 
Hon. Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the section on creating jobs and opportunities, on page 208, talks about how the government played a key role in addressing the recent economic downturn with housing-related measures in the action plan of 2009. I was parliamentary secretary for human resources at the time, so I know that the $2 billion to create new housing and to renovate existing social housing resulted in more than 16,500 social housing and first nation housing projects across Canada. 
Through the $2 billion for the municipal infrastructure lending program, CMHC provided 272 low-cost loans to municipalities for house-related infrastructure projects in towns and cities across the country. Our homelessness partnering strategy for housing first, announced in 2013, was renewed. 
I just wanted the member to know that if he read page 208, he would see that we have addressed housing. 
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member made reference to that. I would ask her to reflect on the issue of infrastructure when thinking of numbers presented in the budget, because it is a very deceptive budget. Let me use infrastructure as an example. On the one hand, the government says that it is doing such a wonderful job with a huge investment in infrastructure. When one reads the budget, what has the government actually done with infrastructure? It has decreased it. If we look at how much money we have spent on infrastructure last year compared to this year, there is a decrease of 80% plus. That is a cut. No matter what one calls it, a cut is a cut. That is what the government has done.
When the government says that it is doing a wonderful job in certain areas, I would remind people that they need to look at it year over year, such as with infrastructure. When the government says that it has actually increased infrastructure funding, it is not true, when we look at it from budget year to budget year. There is an actual cut. 
Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this budget implementation bill.
The government has introduced this bill in order to implement the provisions contained in the budget that was delivered just over a month ago in the House of Commons. The budget was the ninth budget from the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Whitby—Oshawa. I would like to take this opportunity to wish the minister well in his future endeavours, and to thank him for his service to Canada and his home province of Ontario, where he served for many years in the provincial legislature. The former minister has earned a great deal of respect on both sides of the aisle, including mine. That does not mean that I agree with everything that has occurred since 2006; actually, it is quite the opposite.
There has been much that has transpired since 2006 that has negatively impacted the Atlantic region of the country, my province of Prince Edward Island, and indeed my home city of Charlottetown, a city that is coined “the birthplace of Confederation”. It is a constituency for which I am immensely proud and honoured to serve.
Canada is an enormous country. Sometimes it is worth remembering just how large it is. It is home to a proud people from diverse backgrounds. We are a country of languages, culture, and geography, but we are bound together by a common citizenship. We have a duty to strengthen the bonds of that shared citizenship, if for no other reason than to enhance our sense of unity. I believe that the Canadian government has a critical role to play in this regard.
When I think of citizenship, I think of rights. I think of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the diversity of our languages, our culture, the anthem, and, yes, hockey. For those reasons and many others, we have managed to maintain, in difficult times and in good times, the sense of Canadian pride. I am further reminded of this as a member of the House of Commons, where I see individuals from across the country, from all parties, all cultural and ethnic backgrounds, attempting to do their best for Canada.
When I think of citizenship, I think of shared responsibility. A budget, any budget, whether it is a family budget or a federal budget, is constructed on the basis of one's means, the amount of income one has, and the obligations we all have that require certain expenditures. A federal budget provides insight into the values of the government of the day. It certainly provides insight into its priorities. It gives insight into whether or not it seeks to strengthen the spine of our citizenship. Do we craft a budget to leave out the vulnerable, to pit one region against another, to pit one Canadian against another, or do we seek to strengthen the spine of our citizenship?
The Canadian government is the only government with the obligation to act in the interests of all Canadians and, in the case of the budget, to allocate its collective resources in a way that signals we are all equal and we are all to be treated fairly, knowing that every region and province has particular needs. I am sorry to say that much of what the current government has done since 2006 has hurt people. It has hurt good people in my community and province. Much of what it has done has loosened the bonds of unity and shared citizenship. Allow me to give a few examples of what I mean by that.
I believe it is the role of the Canadian government to provide services that are equal and accessible to all Canadians, regardless of where they reside. That, to me, is fundamental. I reject the notion that the role of government is to get out of the way, that there is no role in levelling the playing fields of opportunity. This idea has seeped into our national discourse over the last eight years.
I reject the notion that we are merely taxpayers and not citizens, implying that the only voices that matter are from those whom the Conservatives call taxpayers. We are more than taxpayers; we are Canadians. There is a large number of fellow Canadians who do not pay income tax simply because they do not make enough money to pay taxes. For example, there are seniors who have spent their whole life contributing to Canada and who now, perhaps in the twilight of their years, do not pay taxes because of their low income. Are they any less Canadian? 
Are the poor to be left out of the national conversation simply because they do not fit the definition of the so-called taxpayer? Is that really the central component of our citizenship? Our shared citizenship is much more meaningful than this myopic view. Unlike the members of the current government, I do not want a government that always gets out of the way; I want a government that makes a difference for all Canadians, not just those who are successful in life or who have means.
 We have a serious issue in Canada as it relates to the incomes of most Canadians, and the widening gap between those who are doing well and those who are living paycheque to paycheque or worse. We do not knock success. We do not knock the people who work hard and have done well in life. Nor should we knock those who have not had the same opportunities in life, who struggle in poverty, sometimes generational poverty. We should not knock those people, then, who look to government to give them a hand up, not a handout, but a hand up. It is a message that we are all in this together and that when a large swath of our fellow citizens find themselves in a vast and wealthy country with little opportunity or hope, we have a duty to intervene, to help create opportunity. 
I am reminded of the great work of community-minded people across the country, and in my hometown, who day in and day out help and advocate for more opportunities for those who are less fortunate. For over two decades, and I include my own party in this regard, we have failed to adopt a real national anti-poverty strategy. Despite the best efforts of the previous government, we did not do enough. We should have a comprehensive anti-poverty strategy, but we will not under the current government, for no other reason than that with the wave of an imperial hand, the Prime Minister of Canada has declared that caring for the poor is a provincial responsibility. It is so myopic and so unwilling to take leadership to make a difference for those in need.
The Conservative government has all but abandoned its role in health care in Canada. In doing so, the Conservatives have abdicated the Canadian government's historic role and responsibility to ensure equal and universal access to health care. That is what I mean by shared citizenship, the programs and the values that drive them and that strengthen our shared citizenship.
Then there is the matter of unemployment insurance, a program that has been decimated by the current government. In the case of my home province, the recent changes that make it harder to qualify have hurt families, caused hardship and worry. In far too many cases, they have left too many Canadians feeling left out, rejected, or, worse, made to feel like the members of the government think they are lazy or cheaters. Is this the type of shared citizenship that Canadians want or expect from their Canadian government? Is this what Canadians deserve?
What about the matter of infrastructure support and nation building? We embrace today, with a sense of reverence and sentimentality, the notion of nation building as reflected in the railroad, a railroad that linked Canadians from coast to coast to coast. When it was not possible to link islands like Prince Edward Island on land, we were linked by ferry. Or, in the case of another significant investment in infrastructure, we are reminded of the Trans-Canada Highway, again, a big and ambitious endeavour that links Canadians. These great projects helped build, literally and figuratively, this country and provide in part that sense of shared citizenship. The current government has cut its build Canada infrastructure fund by 87%. It is astonishing to think that the Conservatives would allow these cuts to occur and then cynically open the spigot for an election campaign.
 On Prince Edward Island, we expect that the Canada jobs grant will be exactly like per capita funding for health care, exactly like the civil service cutbacks. The provinces that have less will be penalized and the richer onces will benefit. This has started to play out. We feel kicked to the curb, again. Never in the history of this country have we had such a narrow view of the role of the Canadian government. In the Conservative view, people are on their own. If they succeed, “Great. You're welcome”; if they do not, well that is their fault. 
We can do better and we must do better. This budget is an abject disappointment for the people of Prince Edward Island and Charlottetown.
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was very kind of the member to acknowledge the best finance minister, probably in the world, that Canada has ever had. I believe it is very honourable that he would mention how because of that finance minister we have one of the best places in the world to do business. We have a stable economy and low taxes. In fact, the overall tax rate on new business investment is the lowest in the G7. We have the soundest banking system, the best net debt to GDP ratio in the G7, and are one of the few countries in the world with the highest credit rating possible.
The member fell short when he spoke about the best finance minister. What he said about infrastructure is false. The finance minister and the Prime Minister made it law that the gas tax is shared; it had never been shared before. It also goes with inflation. I would like the member to please acknowledge that.
[Interjection]
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I was badly misquoted. I certainly did indicate that the finance minister is to be commended for his service to the citizens of Canada, but his record, unfortunately, is extremely disappointing. I pointed that out in the speech.
In terms of regional disparity and income inequality in this country, those two problems continue to plague us and are particularly prevalent in my part of the country. While the former Minister of Finance is to be commended for his service to Canada and the fact that he has won respect across the aisle, there have been a lot of people left behind, and they certainly include the constituents in my region.
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, after only 25 minutes of debate, the government imposed a gag order on one of the most important bills of the year. There was only 25 minutes of debate.
I would like to thank the hon. member for pointing out a few things that I feel are important, including the fact that the budget does nothing to address poverty.
I would argue that nothing is being done for public transit either, and that includes rail transit. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. 
[Interjection]
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat difficult for me to provide any insight on that issue since there are no rail lines in Prince Edward Island anymore. They were abandoned about 40 years ago. It is true that we need a national transit plan, and it is true that our infrastructure is too old. This country has an infrastructure deficit. It is true. Unfortunately, railways are now a part of P.E.I.'s history.
Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the chief government whip.
I rose this morning, before rising here, thinking about how grateful I am to be in this wonderful institution in this amazing country of ours, how grateful I am just to be standing here, and what an honour it is to represent the people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and to be with colleagues who champion the interests of Canadians day by day.
It is also my honour to express support for a bill that keeps Canada on track. I am speaking of economic action plan 2014, tabled by our Minister of Finance.
Our government has charted a course for this nation that has led us through uncharted waters, namely the fragility of the global market. However, despite this uncertainty, there is no doubt that we have emerged triumphant, as our nation's economy continues to thrive.
This is not a coincidence. Our government has, since 2006, relentlessly pursued job creation and economic growth with the full intention of creating a stable, sustainable, and prosperous Canada.
In my remarks today I will focus on four aspects of budget 2014, which illustrate this focus and commitment. I will be drawing direct ties to the people of my constituency who brought their interests to me and to this Parliament through me.
Canada's economic success manifests a vision set forth by our Prime Minister. We cannot witness the transition from a multi-billion dollar deficit to a predicted multi-billion dollar surplus next year without first acknowledging the efforts of this Conservative government.
With the elimination of our deficit, Canadians can anticipate lower taxes, a higher standard of living, greater opportunities for job creation, and a significantly smaller financial burden on our children and grandchildren.
Canada has already leapt from number six to number two in Bloomberg's annual ranking of the most attractive countries for doing business in the world, just behind Hong Kong. A reduced deficit will continue to attract investment and signal our nation's stability on the global stage.
What I see in front of us is a budget that reflects the priorities of our citizens. I know for a fact that this budget addresses four key areas that interest my constituents and other Canadians: the environment, the economy, health and fitness, and search and rescue. I am equally confident that it will reflect the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast.
We have seen a growing number of Canadians voice their concerns regarding our environment. Today I am proud to tell these Canadians that their government has listened. It is my long-held belief that the economy and the environment are inherently entwined. In fact, in my speech to this House last year, entitled “The environment is the economy”, I relayed the concerns of The Future of Howe Sound Society and other constituents that we must embrace the two in tandem.
Economic action plan 2014 follows the lead of innovative Canadians who continually find ways to stimulate the economy while protecting our natural resources. The economy and the environment are not at war, so the advancement of one should not prejudice the other. This is evident in B.C., where a great number of people, including constituents of mine like CaroleAnn Leishman, have expressed their concerns over proposed pipeline projects, despite their potential economic rewards.
This budget will fund the National Energy Board to review pipeline projects so that Canada's economic pursuits can be reconciled with the protection of its natural resources. Our government will not commit to specific energy transportation projects, but will sustain dialogue with the aim of reconciling economic potential with environmental restraint.
As our Minister of Natural Resources recently declared: 
 No project will be approved unless it is safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. 
Energy exports will continue to grow and create many great jobs for Canadians, but the government remains committed to ensuring safe and responsible resource development.
Economic action plan 2014 will also invest in environmental sustainability by protecting Canada's recreational fisheries, so brilliantly championed by organizations in my riding such as the Sea to Sky Fisheries Roundtable, the West Vancouver Streamkeepers, the Squamish Streamkeepers Society, and the Squamish River Watershed Society.
Last year, the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program received $10 million, and this year the government is renewing its commitment to environmental sustainability, another demonstration of our government's ability to balance both economic and environmental goals.
The recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program commenced last year at the urging of organizations like the ones I mentioned and people around the country who care about the recreational fishery.
I congratulate the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette for his championing of this program. This is a strong encouragement to show our government has listened to and acknowledged the voices of people who are passionate about salmon and other fisheries in B.C. and throughout the country.
Increasing financial support for another great organization, the Pacific Salmon Foundation, responds effectively to advocacy by fellow Conservative B.C. members. I am proud to have championed the PSP cause along with them. It is another great aspect of budget 2014.
With our government's devotion to environmental sustainability in mind, Canadians can anticipate more economic progress without great cost to the environment. My constituents in Powell River and the Sunshine Coast and the mayors who have been so powerful in advocating for new jobs, like Wayne Rowe in Gibsons, John Henderson in Sechelt, and Dave Formosa in Powell River, can look forward to adding more jobs in their areas as Canada's economy continues to strengthen.
More than one million net new jobs have been created since the recession. When compared with other G7 nations, Canada's economic performance is among the best, leading the pack in job growth.
In this budget, the government has re-emphasized its desire to find employment for every Canadian and reduce job vacancies.
Internationally, I commend our government for securing free trade agreements with other countries. When our government came into power, Canada had three established FTAs. This number has now grown to 44, including the recent Canada-Korea trade agreement—to which the Speaker has contributed—our nation's first official trade agreement in Asia.
Under our government's leadership, Canada will continue to bolster its economy by trading with other nations in a way that is mutually beneficial.
Within our borders, our government also commits to the future employment of our youth, through its youth employment strategy. This program aims to provide young Canadians with real-life work experience that aligns with the evolving realities of the job market. We need to ensure that young Canadians can access employment in high-demand fields, like science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and trades. The government has recognized this need and proposed a $40-million investment to support 3,000 full-time internships, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. Allowing our youth to gain work experience is a worthy investment and a proactive step toward reducing future unemployment and strengthening our economy.
I am also excited to see how our government has recognized health and fitness as a priority in its 2014 economic action plan, a priority I have championed, to reflect the emphasis on this area shown by my constituents in the Olympic riding.
I applaud the government's initiative to increase the rate of excise duty on tobacco products as a viable method of increasing federal tax revenue. This measure illustrates our government's desire for fiscal responsibility and, more important, for a healthy Canadian population.
This budget also addresses prescription drug abuse, another concern shared by my many Canadians, including West Vancouver police chief Pete Lepine, who has worked closely with me to bring about a national prescription drug drop-off day, which will occur this year on May 10.
The new economic action plan proposes to invest $44.9 million, over five years, to expand the focus of the national anti-drug strategy, so we can also address this emerging health and safety concern. This investment would serve a diverse Canadian population, by enhancing education on the safe use, storage, and disposal of prescription drugs, among other things.
Having watched our Olympians and Paralympians demonstrate the ultimate in health and fitness in Sochi, I am delighted to see our government's continued desire to support Canadian athletes of all levels. Sport promotes leadership. It plays a vital role in our culture, both as an expression of our national identity and as a means of inspiring more Canadians to become active and healthy. This budget would maintain our government's record level of investment for athletes without leaving anyone behind.
While our Olympians are supported through initiatives like own the podium, our government supports Paralympians, amateurs, and Special Olympics athletes, as well.
The last provision upon which I would like to touch is the search and rescue tax credit. This commemorates Tim Jones, the amazing revered volunteer who led the North Shore rescue team for 26 years and who participated in over 1,600 rescue operations. The search and rescue tax credit would recognize the important role played by volunteers who put themselves at risk for the sole purpose of serving their communities.
In conclusion, I see Canada's 2014 economic action plan as another step in the right direction.
Today, I have highlighted four of the many aspects of budget 2014 that are particularly relevant, not only to my constituency but to the whole country: environmental sustainability, economic prosperity, health and fitness, and the recognition of our nation's search and rescue volunteers.
The return to a balanced budget is the fulfillment of a long-term goal. The proposals I have mentioned are examples of our government's commitment to Canadians. It is a good time to be a Canadian. This budget would help ensure good health for our people, our environment, and our economy.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech read by my hon. colleague opposite.
My question for the member, through you, Mr. Speaker, is what are his views on the appropriateness of the government introducing a motion to limit the debate after 25 minutes on another monster omnibus budget bill, a bill that is over 350 pages, with almost 500 clauses that would amend dozens of bills, some of which have nothing to do with the budget?
I would ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, to hear his views on the appropriateness of that in a democratic parliamentary system.
[Interjection]
John Weston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
Where I would focus in terms of the democratic aspect of the budget is how it links the aspirations of Canadians from coast to coast, how individual Canadians and agencies have seen their aspirations realized in this budget.
We have seen, for instance, health and fitness, something that is a concern for all Canadians. We have seen specific things that were voiced by Canadians from coast to coast; we have seen the fulfillment in the budget. The $44.9 million for prescription drug abuse is something that was put on the table by individual Canadians in round tables here in Ottawa and in my constituency. My colleague, who is also from British Columbia, will know that it is the search and rescue volunteers who enable people to enjoy the great outdoors of British Columbia.
These are the kinds of things; Canadians rejoice to see their parliamentarians take their needs, put them into policy, take the policies, put them into law, and implement that law through the budget.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, under a former Liberal government, health and social transfer payments were dramatically cut to the point where it really affected youth training and post-secondary education. I am very proud that this government is focusing on jobs and connecting and helping to train our youth through universities and also through trade schools and the Red Seal program. The government has created more than one million net new jobs since the depth of the recession.
Yesterday, we heard there were more than 42,000 new jobs last month; so we are on track. Things are fragile, but we are on track. 
What does the hon. member think about focusing on youth and helping them through the creation of the Canada apprenticeship loan to help our youths who are going to post-secondary and trade schools? What does he think about that?
[Interjection]
John Weston: Mr. Speaker, we have seen time and again how the government has supported youth—for instance, at Vancouver Island University, the Powell River campus in the riding I represent. The $40 million investment in this budget will support 3,000 full-time internships for small and medium-size enterprises.
This is a government that walks the talk. We talk about the amazing youth. For instance, some youth in my riding have created HEY Day, Helping Every Youth Day, which is an opportunity every year for youth to come together, and they bring in the top volunteer organizations from around Canada and showcase them to inspire other youth.
There are the MP book awards, something I had the honour to initiate in my riding, which challenge our young people to show their writing skills. These are young people, the leaders of tomorrow, who produce essays that address things like the economy.
From the budget through what our parliamentarians are doing, I see that we revere our youth. We know they are the leaders of tomorrow. We are behind them, and this budget supports them.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the notion of apprenticeships. We have been pushing very hard in Toronto, in my riding in particular, for apprenticeships as a result of infrastructure building that is going on—some of it federally supported, but most of it provincially supported—and the province is not being very helpful. 
I was encouraged in 2013 when Mr. Flaherty suggested that future federal infrastructure spending would actually require apprenticeships. Nothing happened in the 2013 budget implementation bills 1 and 2, and nothing is in this budget implementation bill.
I wonder if the member would be able to tell me why the government makes promises in budgets but does not follow through.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before I go to the hon. member, I would remind all hon. members that they ought not to refer to their colleagues or ministers by their given names, but rather by their title or riding.
The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.
[Interjection]
John Weston: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague raised the question, because I am sure his intent is virtuous, but his facts are ill-informed. In fact, in this budget we see $40 million invested in our youth, and the genius of that investment is that the money is to go through small and medium-size enterprises so it can be leveraged.
 These youth will gain experience through internships and apprenticeships that will enable them to broaden their life experience, which is even more valuable than the money that will come to them. The money is essential as well, and the money will certainly enable those small and medium-size enterprises to hire the students. It is a boost to the economy. It is a boost to the specific companies that take advantage of this benefit. Most importantly, it is a support for our youth who are the leaders of tomorrow.
Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak in support of the budget implementation act. This is a very significant budget. There are two things that I would love to highlight in the budget that are particularly meaningful to me.
This year's budget is a major step forward in balancing Canada's books, and its success is a direct result of the Prime Minister's leadership, good judgment, and world-leading economic stewardship. Having created 1.1 million jobs since the recession, today Canada has the strongest job record in the developed world. We have almost balanced the budget, and we have done so while increasing transfers to provinces, investing in infrastructure and skills training, delivering real support for families, and keeping taxes low. This is a remarkable achievement.
For the sake of the members opposite, and particularly for the leader of the Liberal Party, I would like to clarify that balancing the budget did not happen all by itself. It happened because the Prime Minister has remained focused on the economy and on the priorities of our families and our communities. It happened because we have looked for ways to use taxpayers' money more responsibly and more effectively.
Even as we have focused on bringing the budget back to balance, we have continued to look for new opportunities to invest in meaningful measures that accomplish a lot with a little. It is two of these measures that I wish to emphasize today. They are two measures included in budget 2014 that are very meaningful for me and for many others, and for which I strongly and actively advocated.
The first is Lindsey's law. In budget 2014, our government committed up to $8.1 million over five years and $1.3 million per year on an ongoing basis to create a national DNA-based missing persons index. 
My connection with this issue began in August 2013, when I met Judy Peterson for the first time at a teddy bear picnic in my riding. The picnic was in remembrance of her daughter, Lindsey, and took place in the community where Lindsey had disappeared 20 years earlier, in 1993. By the time this community was added to my riding in 1997, Judy had already moved away. By the time we met last summer, she had been championing a national DNA-based data bank of missing persons for most of the intervening years.
We had the opportunity to talk. She told me about what she has been through since Lindsey went missing in 1993 and how a national data bank would allow the DNA of missing persons to be compared with DNA collected through crime scene investigations. 
I was shocked to learn that without a data bank, every time investigators want to test DNA from a crime scene, they have to ask the family's permission. The family does not have the option of providing blanket permission to compare against an existing sample, so they have to go through the roller coaster of emotions between hope and disappointment every time the cross-reference fails to end in certainty.
Even worse than getting these calls is not getting them. Without a data bank in place, it is much harder for investigators to link an individual crime scene with missing persons. Even when provinces have good cross-checking systems in place, they currently do not extend beyond the provincial border. Even if the missing person's family can have confidence that their loved one has not been found in their own province, there are currently too many barriers to have the same confidence with crime scenes in another jurisdiction.
A national missing persons index would solve these problems. Investigators would automatically be able to run crime scene DNA against the missing persons index all across the country and with other jurisdictions. The families would not have to go through the pain of wondering every time a search was done. In addition, this measure would be an important tool for solving crimes related to missing persons.
 It was impossible not to be moved by this message, and I promised Judy that I would advocate for it in Ottawa. That job was, of course, made much easier by the fact that my colleagues quickly saw the merit in the approach and supported my efforts to move this measure forward. I will admit that when the budget speech was read and I saw Judy in the House of Commons gallery as the finance minister acknowledged all of the work she had done, it was the most memorable and emotional moment of my 20 years in Ottawa.
There was a second item in the budget that was also meaningful to me. I was an early supporter of the idea of the volunteer firefighters tax credit and was proud when our government was able to introduce this measure. However, even from the earliest days I believed that it should also include search and rescue volunteers. 
Over the years, I have gotten to know a number of ground and marine search and rescue volunteers in my riding. I know how dedicated and passionate they are about what they do. They give their time, juggle their training commitments with their family, friends, and work life, and make significant personal investments in gear and training, all so that when the phone rings Sunday night at midnight, they can gear up and head out into the rain instead of going back to sleep. They are volunteers who will not hesitate to head into inclement weather and dangerous environments. They work in rough seas, swift water, high-angle terrain, mountains, and forests. They develop and maintain a high skill level as well as a profound sense of professionalism that is not diminished at all by the fact that they are not paid.
In the early fall of 2013, I was approached by search and rescue volunteers in my riding. They made such a strong case for recognition that I felt I had to take a more active role in promoting a search and rescue volunteer tax credit. Again I enjoyed great support among my colleagues, and together we were able to make it happen.
The search and rescue volunteer tax credit is not about paying volunteers. It is about recognizing the unique role that search and rescue volunteers, like volunteer firefighters, play in our communities and the sacrifices they make to keep us safe. I am proud of these volunteers in my riding and across Canada and I am happy to see their efforts recognized. 
These are two examples that are meaningful to me, but I would like to point out that many items in the budget are there because MPs listened to their constituents and brought their message back to Ottawa. It is a testament to our budget process that items highlighted in the budget speech in front of the nation can begin with a conversation, with consultation, and with thoughtfulness and compassion. 
For all that we do here, it is very satisfying to see the ingenuity of ordinary Canadians find its way to the national stage and to know that as members of Parliament, we had an opportunity to play a small role in making important and progressive changes happen.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The time for government orders has expired, so the questions and comments for the Minister of State and Chief Government Whip will take place when this matters returns before the House.

Statements By Members
Human TraffickingMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, sexual trafficking is a global scourge, and Canada is not immune to this crisis against women. With the member for Kildonan—St. Paul and Senator Jaffer, next week I am co-sponsoring the viewing of Red Light Green Light, a documentary exploring the problem of sexual trafficking across 10 countries.
Nations around the world are trying to address this scourge. The member for Kildonan—St. Paul has been a leader in keeping it at the forefront of public policy in Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently struck down Canada's prostitution laws, so Parliament has to rewrite the law. Our government has launched online consultations with respect to Canada's prostitution laws.
 Red Light Green Light is a Canadian production. It is an important tool in this battle against prostitution and sexual trafficking as it seeks to answer the question of how we can prevent sexual exploitation before it happens in the first place. 
Governments and all Canadians must participate in the battle against sexual trafficking, and I urge all my colleagues to contact the office of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul to confirm their attendance at the screening next Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. in the East Block.
Canada PostMrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the week, Canadians have been forced to pay $1 to mail a standard letter.
In addition to endorsing this staggering 58% increase, the Conservatives have agreed to let Canada Post stop door-to-door mail service, reduce hours at rural outlets and cut thousands of good jobs that support local economies. Here we have the Conservatives at their best: radical price increases and radical service cuts.
This unilateral decision was made without consulting the communities that will be most affected by it, it was announced very quietly, and it has made Canada the only G8 country that no longer offers home mail delivery. 
Never before have so many people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles spoken out against draconian cuts to their essential services. I am one of the thousands of people in my community who find these decisions repugnant. The NDP will keep fighting so that these people can have a decent, viable public postal system. 
Human Rights in IranHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on April 2, 2014, I welcomed Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 
The situation of human rights in Iran has worsened and our government is deeply concerned about the increase in the number of executions. Many of the executions are taking place without due process and are not justified under international law. A recent case is the deeply worrying example of a 24-year-old woman who was sentenced to be executed for attacking her rapist. 
It is important for the victims of human rights violations to know that the international community stands with them in solidarity and will hold Iran and its leadership to account with respect to their rights and dignity.
I am proud that our government has sustained and continues to lead the United Nations resolution on human rights with respect to Iran. 
Dr. Shaheed also thanks Canada for our continued support for human rights in Iran.
Sickle Cell DiseaseMr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to raise awareness about sickle cell disease. It is a disease of the blood that causes chronic anemia, periodic episodes of pain and other health-related complications.
Approximately 10,000 Canadian children are seriously ill from this hereditary disease. At this time, there is no cure for sickle cell disease, but adequate medical care can prevent its effects.
On April 12, as I do every year, I will be attending the fundraising gala for the Sickle Cell Anemia Association of Quebec. This year's theme is “Courage and Perseverance”.
I wish to congratulate the association's members and its president, Wilson Sanon, for their hard work in providing assistance to people who have the disease and their loved ones, and for the excellent work they do in raising awareness and educating high-risk populations.
I salute the entire medical community, including doctors, researchers, nurses and other caregivers who support patients and their loved ones. I also salute the sponsors and Héma-Québec for holding blood drives. Long live the association. 
National Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing Heritage DayMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, later today I will rise in the House to address my private member's bill, Bill C-501, which would designate the third Saturday in September each year as Canada's national hunting, trapping, and fishing heritage day.
Hunting, trapping and fishing historically set the tone and direction of our nation's economic and social development, as these activities were the first forms of trade and currency. 
The purpose of this bill is twofold: to honour the heritage of those who have gone before us and to bring special recognition and encouragement to those who participate in hunting, trapping, and fishing today.
These activities are part of my family's heritage, and I encourage all my fellow Canadians to explore this wonderful country of ours by getting outdoors and doing a little fishing and hunting.
I ask all the hon. members here today to continue supporting this bill.
Ovarian CancerDenis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, imagine a young mother being diagnosed with a type of cancer that usually affects older women.
Imagine that there is no reliable early detection screening and that the average survival time is less than five years in 75% of cases.
Imagine that this same woman is resistant to the most effective chemotherapy and that her survival depends on experimental research protocols.
Imagine that one of the drugs is not covered by her insurance company and costs her $4,000 every three weeks. Imagine the pressure on her family's budget.
Imagine that the benefits from treatment will not be permanent and that she will soon have to travel if she wants to live longer.
That is the true story of a young mother in Louis-Hébert with ovarian cancer. What she wants is quite simple: to watch her daughters grow up for as long as she can. We can help her if we improve our research capacity and allow physical and financial access to experimental treatments.
IranMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, despite President Rouhani's charm offensive, the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to violate human rights and persecute political prisoners at an accelerated rate. Over 50 executions were reported in the first month of 2014. In 2013, 660 prisoners were executed in Iran, with 430 of them put to death after the June 14 election charade, often in horrific public group executions to intensify the atmosphere of terror throughout Iran. 
Additionally, there are recent reports that Iraq is in negotiations with Iran to extradite the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, who are Iranian refugees. The MEK would become political prisoners if deported to Iran to face torture and execution by Iran's clerical regime.
Finally, Ms. Reyhaneh Jabbari is at risk of imminent execution for defending herself and killing an attacker who was attempting to rape her. The regime tortured her until she confessed to the murder. This is just another example of Iran's flagrant abuse of human rights. 
We must not forget the daily atrocities going on inside Iran. The Iranian people deserve the dignity, respect, and freedom they have been denied for far too long. 
International CooperationMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been following with great interest the events taking place in the Philippines since the devastating Typhoon Haiyan. Shortly after the disaster, the Minister for International Development visited the region to assess the damage. 
When catastrophes strike, Canadians have always shown themselves to be extremely generous. Recognizing their willingness to help, our government acted swiftly and announced the Typhoon Haiyan matching fund. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that $85 million in eligible donations will be matched by the government. It means clean, safe drinking water; nutritious food; warm, dry clothing; and shelter. Much of that money has already been put to use in the Philippines.
I am very proud of our government's leadership on this file, and Canadians can be proud of their response to this tragedy. 
HomelessnessMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Monday in the House, I asked the Conservative government if it planned to reverse its cuts to funding for the fight against homelessness. I was told that there had been no cuts. 
Yesterday, when I met with the minister responsible for this file, I was told once again that there had been no cuts. However, in the Outaouais, the situation is very clear. Funding for organizations has been cut. For example, funding for Entraide familiale de l'Outaouais has been reduced by more than $14,000.
We have been told that budgeted amounts are being redistributed and that other moneys will be available soon. Homelessness must be addressed right now.
People who do not have a roof over their heads need help right now. 
Community organizations working with the most vulnerable in the Outaouais are having trouble meeting their commitments right now.
The federal government must clarify the situation and honour its commitment to fund the fight against homelessness right now.
International TradeJohn Weston: Mr. Speaker, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...”. So wrote Charles Dickens at the beginning of his book, A Tale of Two Cities. When it comes to the economy, the worst of times may be when a leader really believes that the budget balances itself, as the Liberal leader has recently concluded. However, the best of times is when a country in the midst of the most ambitious trade expansion in its history. That is where we Canadians are today.
When our Conservative government came to office Canada had only five concluded free trade agreements. Our government has added 38 signed or concluded agreements. The results are clear. Statistics released yesterday show that Canada's overall trade balance returned to a surplus in February of $290 million. 
With 38 countries, our government has added more free trade agreements than there are Liberal members. 
Chinese VeteransMs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour a fellow Londoner whom I have known since I was four years old. Hank Wong is a veteran who served during World War II. He, along with 12 other Chinese Canadian men, was trained as part of British special operations. Their mission was to go behind enemy lines.
Hank is the last remaining survivor of Operation Oblivion. His story, and that of his fellow Chinese Canadian recruits, is only now being told. Earlier this year, a television documentary film aired their experiences during the war. Even after Canada had stripped away their rights as citizens and essentially left them excluded from much of society, these brave men were still willing to enlist and serve the country that exposed them to racism and marginalized them.
There is now a campaign to have a permanent commemoration for Operation Oblivion at the Canadian War Museum to finally acknowledge their contributions to the war. I truly hope that the heroism and dedication to Canada of Hank Wong and his colleagues will be honoured.
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaMrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberal leader has demonstrated that he is in way over his head. He recently called on the government to keep an open line of communication with the Iranian regime. As members know, the Iranian regime constitutes the greatest threat to global peace and security. This is a continuation of a troubling trend that Canadians have seen from the Liberal leader. 
Let us examine the record. Last year the member made excuses for the Boston marathon terrorist bombers. Last year he said that he admired China's “basic dictatorship”. He also joked about the crisis in Ukraine and said that the Prime Minister's recent visit to Ukraine was no more than a three-hour photo-op.
The Liberal leader does not have the experience, substance, or judgment to lead Canada in uncertain and challenging times.
Michel PicardHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank a man whose community is very important to him and whose career is coming to an end. After working at Radio-Canada for 41 years, today, Michel Picard is retiring, thus ending a remarkable career in the media.
Michel is known for his professionalism, volunteer work and warmth and, over the course of his career, he attracted the interest of an ever-growing number of people who watched and listened to his programming on Radio-Canada.
I would like to recognize and thank his wife, Brigitte, for agreeing to share him with us for so many years.
Although tomorrow is the first day of his retirement, Michel plans to remain closely and actively involved in our community. By way of evidence, I will be seeing him tomorrow at lunchtime as he judges a pancake-eating contest taking place near the Vanier sugar bush—North America's only urban sugar bush—as part of the 28th edition of the Maple Sugar Festival. 
The EconomyMr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today we have more proof that our plan to create jobs is working. StatsCan has announced that job growth beat expectations in March, increasing by over 42,000 jobs. Indeed, under the strong leadership of the Prime Minister, Canada has created over one million net new jobs since the depths of the recession. 
However, the global economy remains fragile. We know that good economic management requires tough decisions and sound judgment. Unfortunately, the Liberal leader consistently displays a total lack of judgment. While collecting his taxpayer-funded salary, he also padded his personal wealth by ripping off charities with excessive speaking fees. With judgment like that, it is no wonder he thinks that budgets magically balance themselves and that he has no plan for the economy.
Despite the Liberal leader, our government remains focused on balancing the budget, keeping taxes low, and creating jobs for all Canadians.
Elections ActMr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for electoral “deform” insists on misinterpreting quotes from the Neufeld report, even though Neufeld himself has tried to correct him.
The minister turned a deaf ear to the concerns of the Chief Electoral Officer. He fought tooth and nail to defend the tall tales told by his colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville, even when it became clear that the so-called fraud he was talking about was a product of his overactive imagination. Most of all, he did nothing as everyone pointed out that the new law would do nothing to stop the Conservatives' fraudulent calls or to help the criminal investigation into these calls. He proved, once again, that a criminal can get out of anything if he pulls out a Conservative Party card.
It is no surprise that a bill based on a satirical TV show has become a running gag. The minister needs to stop joking around and start taking this seriously.
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in an interview with a Toronto Farsi-language media outlet, the leader of the Liberal Party called on Canada to take a more balanced approach to the Middle East. So what balance would he be talking about?
Balance, by joining the hordes who condemn Israel for the sake of anti-Zionism, rather than standing up for the only liberal democracy in the Middle East? Balance, in approaching Hamas, because somehow a murderous, terrorist enemy bent on the destruction of Israel will respond to a kinder, gentler approach? Balance, by joking about Crimea in the midst of an invasion that destabilized global peace and security? Balance, by empathizing with the Boston Marathon bombers? Or balance by believing that the Iranian supreme leader has somehow magically become a moderate? Has the leader of the Liberal Party forgotten that the government of Iran has murdered more, not fewer, political prisoners since Rouhani was installed as president?
Clearly, the Liberal leader is in over his head.

Oral Questions
Democratic ReformMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Sheila Fraser did not pull punches when she was investigating Liberal corruption during the sponsorship scandal. She is a Canadian hero, and she has been clear on the Conservatives' unfair elections act. She calls it an attack on democracy. She is particularly troubled by limitations imposed on the Chief Electoral Officer's independence.
 Independent officers of Parliament and the government is now restricting what they can say? It's just so inappropriate. 
Does the minister finally understand that his changes are inappropriate and unfair, and will he withdraw his attack on democracy?
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, we already knew Elections Canada's position on this. We just disagree with it. Elections Canada and the government disagree on the view that Canadians should present ID when they vote. The everyday Canadian voter has no problem presenting that ID. It is a reasonable position, it is common sense, and the Canadian people support it.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the minister should stop attacking Sheila Fraser and chief electoral officers from across the country, and witnesses as well, and he should start listening to Canadians.
The minister has been answering questions about Sheila Fraser's stinging criticism by attacking this trusted public figure. We are seeing this again now. He is trying to demonize Elections Canada and attack the credibility of Sheila Fraser. 
Sheila Fraser deserves our country's thanks. She stood up against Liberal corruption, and she is getting shameful treatment by the Conservatives. Will the minister now stand up and apologize to Sheila Fraser for his inappropriate comments?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, it is entirely appropriate for an elected government, based on reason and common sense, to disagree with Elections Canada. Elections Canada serves Parliament, not the other way around. That is the way it works in a democracy. Elected officials listen to the views of all Canadians and then make decisions in their interest. That is what we have done with the fair elections act. It is based on common sense, it is reasoned, and the Canadian people support it.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, Canada's former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, who exposed the Liberal sponsorship scandal, feels that Bill C-23 is an attack on Canadian democracy.
When it came time to go after the Liberals, with good reason, the current Minister of State for Democratic Reform mentioned the former auditor general's name 65 times in the House. Today, he is acting as though she does not even exist.
Will the minister listen to Sheila Fraser and withdraw his bill?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we have already listened to officials from Elections Canada, but we do not agree with their proposals.
We do not agree with Elections Canada when they say that people should be able to vote without ID. It is not that we did not listen. Quite the opposite, actually. We listened closely. It is because we listened that we disagree with Elections Canada's proposals. Our bill is reasonable, it makes sense and Canadians support it.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the Native Women's Association of Canada provided an eloquent reminder of the significant barriers to the electoral participation of aboriginal women.
By eliminating Elections Canada's education and awareness initiatives, Bill C-23 will exclude even more aboriginal women who are already wary of our electoral system and a government that does not care about their needs.
The government should withdraw its bill and come up with a totally new approach to reform. Will it?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the education function and the advertising function of Elections Canada are not being limited. They are being focused on their real purpose, and that is to inform Canadians of the basic information about voting. 
For example, I think it is a terrible failure of the election agency that it failed to inform three-quarters of aboriginal youth that they can vote early if those aboriginal youth happen to be working on election day or are busy with their studies and cannot make it to the polling station. They missed their chance, because Elections Canada failed to inform them in the last election that there are other opportunities to vote. We are going to fix that by requiring that the agency provide people with information.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, this week, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform pulled another rabbit out of his hat.
He said that his electoral reform was needed to protect stay-at-home moms from administrative headaches when they make calls for political parties. That statement is unacceptable.
Can the minister tell me where he found even one stay-at-home mom who was concerned about the administrative burden of call centre operators? Maybe on Infoman?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, what the NDP is proposing is that if a volunteer is making phone calls from home or from a local community campaign office to a group of other volunteers to organize putting up lawn signs or some other local campaign initiative, they would first have to fill out a full registration with the national telecommunications regulator.
That is outrageous. If there was one way to drive people out of the democratic process, the NDP has found it.
InfrastructureHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after two months of denial, the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs is starting to fess up.
In his last answer in the House, about the building Canada fund, he finally admitted that it has, in fact, been chopped from $1.6 billion down to just $210 million. That is an 87% reduction. 
This is the major fund for big municipal projects: just $210 million for the whole country. What portion of that small amount will be available for infrastructure in places like Fort McMurray and Wood Buffalo regional municipality? Precisely how much for them?
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what the member said is completely false. The infrastructure plan consists of a number of components. He wants to isolate just one to make himself look good, but what he is saying is incorrect.
Canada's municipalities are already benefiting from the gas tax, which brings in $2 billion a year. We indexed it, we doubled it and we made it permanent. These are unprecedented measures.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the minister should check his own budget, at page 178.
Cutting this fund by 87% makes no sense. The finance department itself says that infrastructure funding is the most cost-effective way to drive future growth. Investments now capture low interest rates and transform that value into long-term capital assets, but the vast majority of the building Canada fund is postponed. Three-quarters of it will not happen until after 2019, and municipalities cannot get answers.
I ask again, of the small amount that is available, how much is earmarked specifically for Fort McMurray?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, he talks about the building Canada plan. That is the building Canada plan.
Once again, the opposition is misleading the House. Canadian municipalities will have access to over 71% of the new fund in the building Canada plan, and that is $53 billion over 10 years. The largest component of the new plan is the gas tax fund. He is not speaking about that. It is 100% dedicated to municipalities.
Emmanuel Dubourg: Mr. Speaker, after denying reality for two months, the minister responsible for infrastructure is finally acknowledging the facts. In the answer he just gave about the building Canada fund, he finally admitted that the fund has been cut by 87%. He is allocating only $210 million for the entire country. What proportion of that $210 million is available for infrastructure needs in Montreal and Quebec? Exactly how much?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, the member can make up all the stories he likes, but he is completely mistaken. The infrastructure plan that we just tabled is the longest and biggest in Canadian history.
The gas tax, the GST rebate, the national infrastructure fund, the infrastructure fund projects with the provinces and territories and the part involving public-private partnerships will all help municipalities build infrastructure. The government is investing over $2 billion a year. We did not make cuts to the fund as the member is claiming.
Rail TransportationMike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, when rail companies started to run trains with only a single operator, they did so without approval from Transport Canada, because they did not need any approval. Companies make their own rules and simply give Transport Canada a heads-up afterwards.
In the aftermath of Lac-Mégantic, when a train run by a single operator derailed and exploded, killing 47 people, it is obvious to everyone that our rail safety system is broken. 
Why will the minister not admit it and fix it?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the member will know that the minister issued a protective direction after the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, which is doing exactly that, ensuring that there are two-person crews for trains carrying transportation of dangerous goods.
Those rules are now permanent. The member should support that.
Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, that is proving that the system did not work. 
It is not just New Democrats asking the government to act on rail safety. Rail companies themselves are now saying that if the government does not act now and eliminate the use of the unsafe DOT-111 rail cars, there is no telling when they will be replaced.
The minister appears to be more concerned about the strain it will place on the manufacturers. This is about the safety of families who live near the tracks. Where is the minister's concern for them? When will she act?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, obviously we commend CN and CP for taking action on, I think, about 300 of the DOT-111 cars. As for the remaining 90,000 or so that are out there, newer DOT-111s, the member will know, are already being built to higher standards. On the phase-out of the older DOT-111s, we are working not only with stakeholders here in Canada but with our U.S. counterparts to ensure that we have a comprehensive solution.
As the minister has said, some of the long-range timelines that have been floated out there are simply not acceptable. We will find the right solution.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a year before the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, Transport Canada gave MMA permission to have a single conductor on board, despite the known dangers. MMA provided documentation regarding how it would manage the risks involved in its plan to cut staff, but the department refuses to make those documents public. Even worse, the department is saying that it never really gave its consent and that MMA simply informed the department of its plans to go with a single conductor. 
Will the Minister of Transport accept her share of responsibility for this fiasco?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, it would seem apparent that the rules were not followed. Rail safety regulations exist to ensure the safety and protection of the public. If these regulations are not followed, we will not hesitate to take whatever course of action is available to us.
We will await the results of the investigation into this tragedy.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, in committee yesterday, the rail companies said that there are limits to safety. This kind of talk is troubling and unacceptable. The people of Lac-Mégantic deserve better. Conservative and Liberal governments have left the industry to decide everything for itself. They have allowed rail companies to operate with a single conductor and to use DOT-111 cars despite the known risks.
When will the government finally take responsibility and reject the fatalistic rhetoric being used by rail companies?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, the member actually was not at the committee yesterday, but let me say what is happening here.
We have not only made these rules permanent with respect to two-man crews for trains carrying dangerous goods. The Conservative government has taken a number of very important actions. We have strengthened information-sharing with respect to municipalities with dangerous goods going through their communities. We continue to hire inspectors on the ground to ensure that the trains and the track and everything that goes on are safe in this country. Currently, the standing committee on transport, at the minister's request, is looking further into whether there are even more actions we can take.
The member and her party should get on board with that.
Democratic ReformMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of State for Democratic Reform know Sheila Fraser? If so, has he read her position on Bill C-23? If so, what does he think about the former auditor general's criticism of the electoral reform?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we are very familiar with Elections Canada's position. There is nothing new there. Elections Canada does not agree with our position. We believe that Canadians should show some ID when they vote. That is reasonable, but Elections Canada disagrees.
We believe that the commissioner who conducts investigations under the elections act should be independent. He disagrees. The reality in a democracy is that from time to time there are going to be officers of Parliament who disagree with parliamentarians.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has used the former auditor general's name in the House 65 times. Now, he pretends not to know her and that he knows nothing about her criticisms.
It is much easier for him to attack elections experts than someone he has blithely used for political purposes.
Sheila Fraser is saying exactly the same thing as Neufeld, Côté, Mayrand, Corbett, and the list goes on. What does the Minister for Democratic Reform think of Ms. Fraser's criticisms?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the question. Elections Canada just happens to disagree with us on this point. We believe that people should present some form of ID. 
Now, it does not have to be photo ID. They can choose from a list of 39 different forms of ID that include everything from a utility bill to an Indian status card to a student card to a letter from a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter or a student residence. These are all forms of identification that people can use to identify themselves. 
Most Canadians think that is very reasonable, and on this point we are just going to disagree with Elections Canada.
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, across the country, first nations communities run into serious problems when it comes time to vote. As we heard in committee, it is hard for many members of these communities to obtain the type of ID card that will be required under Bill C-23.
Why is the minister refusing to amend his bill to prevent thousands of Canadians from losing their right to vote?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the fact that all Canadians can use government-issued ID and photo ID when they vote, there are 39 different alternatives that people can choose from. For example, an Indian status card is acceptable. An attestation of residence issued by the responsible authority of a first nations band or reserve is also acceptable.
I think Elections Canada has done a terrible job of informing people of what acceptable forms of ID are, and that is why the fair elections act would require the agency to start to inform people of what they are.
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Sheila Fraser has said that the unfair elections act will exacerbate problems with money in politics, despite the minister's absurd and contradictory rhetoric about this bill somehow taking big money out. Sheila Fraser said that new fundraising exemptions give advantages to some parties, and Conservatives, of course, get the biggest advantage of all.
Ms. Fraser warned about the potential for abuse of these rules. Why will the minister not listen to her? This is not about vouching. Why is he making election fundraising less accountable and less transparent?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the member does not want me to talk about vouching anymore. I think that as time has gone on, the NDP is starting to hear from Canadians who do not agree with their position that voters should show up and cast a ballot without any ID whatsoever. That position is not supported by the Canadian public. The NDP has lost that debate. 
On the issue of fundraising, the reality is that in its leadership race the NDP allowed its candidates to exclude all fundraising costs from spending limits. We have a much more narrow exemption in the fair elections act. It is fair, it is reasonable, and we are moving forward.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, the minister truly is delusional. Back in 2004, the Prime Minister said Sheila Fraser's “competence and her courage have shone a bright light on the mismanagement, incompetence and corruption that this Liberal government has been trying to hide for more than a decade”. Almost 10 years later, once again she is shining a bright light on a government gone seriously wrong. 
Will the minister acknowledge and accept her critiques of the unfair changes to the act? Will he present a bill that actually promotes democracy, rather than attacking it on multiple fronts?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed proposed a fair elections act. It does promote democracy. It keeps everyday Canadians in charge of democracy by putting special interest groups on the sidelines and putting rule-breakers out of business altogether. It closes loopholes to big money. It prevents fraudulent voting. It creates a new registry to track calls so that we can prevent rogue callers from impersonating political parties' candidates and Elections Canada. 
It is a fair, reasonable, common sense bill, and that is why we are moving forward with it.
Rail TransportationKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, except for our railways, every witness—and I repeat, every witness—that appeared before the agricultural committee on the grain transport bill said that amendments are necessary to make service contracts mandatory, to better define what service means, to provide an objective way to measure performance, and to make penalties reciprocal.
Is the government prepared to accept amendments along these lines, or will the power continue to be concentrated in the hands of the railway duopoly?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the fair rail for grain farmers act is good legislation, and it is decisive legislation to help with the challenges facing the supply management sector. 
I would ask the member to support this legislation. He asked about amendments, so let us allow the committee to do its work. 
Members of the committee heard from witnesses this week. They have not seen any amendments yet, so let us allow the committee members to review the amendments that are proposed and to do their work.
Aboriginal AffairsHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we approach National Victims of Crime Awareness Week, it is time that we highlight the problem of the victims forgotten by the Conservatives' agenda and shine a light on this issue.
Will the minister meet next week with the members of aboriginal families who have lost their mothers, wives or daughters to violence in order to hear their poignant stories and calls for justice?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the time for talk is long past. As a government we have made significant investments, including recent investments in the budget to provide renewed funding for the aboriginal justice strategy. Millions of dollars are flowing directly to programs that assist women and girls on reserve. We made it a priority as a government to ensure that matrimonial property rights applied to women on reserve, a measure that was opposed by members of the opposition. 
We will continue with community programs and with tougher justice initiatives that hold offenders accountable. This is real action, as opposed to the talk offered by the member opposite.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, yesterday aboriginal organizations were very clear that the government's proposed elections law will have devastating impacts on the democratic rights of indigenous people in Canada.
The law will undermine the important work NAOs and Elections Canada are doing to reach out to first nations, Inuit, and Métis to increase voter participation. The removal of vouching will disenfranchise many aboriginal people in Canada.
How can the minister justify this attack on democracy and its blatant discrimination?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we in the Conservative government do not believe that Canadians necessarily have to bring photo identification or even government-issued identification. There are 39 different options that Canadians can use to present to Elections Canada officials as proof of who they are and where they live. Those things include everything from an Indian status card to correspondence from an aboriginal band. If one is a student, one can get a letter from student housing or bring a student card. 
I could go on, but unfortunately there is not enough time to list all the options that are available to Canadians.
Search and RescueMs. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, an internal memo states that the Canadian Forces do not have the equipment required to successfully conduct search and rescue operations. They cannot afford to make mistakes in such operations, which are highly dependent on the equipment available. Lives are at stake. The Conservatives continue to repeat that they have put an end to the Liberals' decade of darkness, but the situation has not improved. 
Why have the Conservatives not been able to correct the Liberals' mistakes? Why have they allowed the situation to deteriorate to this extent?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be proud that this government has ensured that we have a robust search and rescue system that is always standing on guard and ready to help individuals in need of life-saving assistance.
Since 2006, our government has increased investments into the Canadian Armed Forces by over 27%. The Chief of the Defence Staff said in the same report that the Canadian Armed Forces are currently resourced and able to deliver on their assigned tasks within the federal search and rescue mandate.
That being said, search and rescue remains a top priority for this government. We are always exploring ways to improve our capabilities and equipment to provide the best possible search and rescue services to Canadians in times of need.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the Auditor General delivered a stark warning. Search and rescue services were in dire need of serious work. Now, a year later, a new report confirms that there are still major problems with the availability of planes, proper equipment, and trained and experienced personnel. 
This is about saving lives. What is the minister doing to immediately and urgently correct these dangerous deficiencies?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, first of all, as the report said, we are resourced, we are capable, and we are delivering search and rescue services across this country. We do take this as a responsibility, and it is paramount in the services provided by the Canadian Armed Forces. 
I would remind all members that search and rescue is a shared responsibility that includes several federal departments, including the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard. It includes provinces and territories, municipalities, and thousands of volunteers across this country.
We did create a quadrennial review for search and rescue practices to enhance the integration and alignment of our search and rescue partners. We expanded the search and rescue posture shifts to maintain flexibility for seasons.
Veterans AffairsIrene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, instead of passing the buck, let us see if we can get a real answer to this question.
Caring for our veterans is a responsibility that we all share, but apparently some Conservative MPs do not agree. Senator Roméo Dallaire said he has heard some of them complaining about money spent on veterans. These comments would be shocking were it not for the fact that the Conservatives have an abysmal record when it comes to veterans' issues.
Why do the Conservatives think that lip service is the only service that our veterans deserve?
Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no other government in the history of our great nation has done more for Canada's veterans than this government under the leadership of our Prime Minister. We have invested almost $5 billion in additional funding since coming to office in 2006.
 I would like to ask the opposition parties why they have voted against every single initiative that we have brought forward. It is about time that they should stop playing politics with our veterans and get on board.
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the late Corporal Leona MacEachern's husband sent a strong message to the Conservatives who would like to turn their backs on veterans. 
He revealed that his wife had not received help from any specialist for her post-traumatic stress disorder and that she had to fight with Veterans Affairs to obtain help. This is a tragic story that, unfortunately, is not an isolated case.
When will the minister stop shortchanging veterans and start providing the services they need?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, first, our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the MacEachern family, and our government takes this issue of member suicide very seriously.
 In fact, no government has done more when it comes to the care of our ill and injured men and women in uniform. We have increased our annual care expenditure by over $100 million, to a total of $420 million each and every year. Today the Canadian Armed Forces have nearly 400 full-time mental health professionals, and we are working to hire even more.
Our men and women can rest assured that this government will continue to make the well-being of our men and women in uniform a priority that I am proud of.
JusticeMark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, my constituents are increasingly concerned about what they see as an imbalance in Canada's justice system. There are far too many examples of offenders receiving light sentences and of victims being ignored.
Yesterday the Prime Minister introduced the Canadian victims bill of rights. This historic legislation came as a result of an extensive consultation process. Could the Minister of Justice please inform this House about who was consulted and what he heard that led to these important and much-needed reforms?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Langley for championing this cause. He is correct that yesterday was a historic day in Canada. For the first time ever, victims of crime will have their own rights entrenched in a single law at the federal level.
We consulted broadly. We consulted every province and territory. We certainly heard directly from many stakeholders, including victims themselves, advocacy organizations, criminal justice professionals, legal experts, and provincial and territorial officials. Many people shared touching stories of revictimization and injustice.
This is why we have informed the country that the drafting of the Canadian victims bill of rights is now complete. 
I know members of the opposition parties are struggling to find fault. I encourage them to set their ideology aside and support this important initiative. 
Agriculture and Agri-foodMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 20 million tonnes of grain in the west are just sitting there. The inventory at the port of Vancouver is at a historic low. More than $8 billion in potential sales have already been lost, and the situation will only get worse. Every week at least $140 million is lost as a result of this grain transportation crisis.
When will the Conservatives stop letting themselves be bossed around by the rail companies and finally start listening to and defending farmers?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I would invite this member to follow what is actually happening here in Parliament.
Just last week, our government put forward Bill C-30, which is the fair rail for grain farmers act. It would obligate the rail companies to move one million metric tons of grain a week to help clear the logistic backlog with respect to grain. It would also increase supply chain transparency, strengthen contractual mechanisms between producers and shippers, and help ensure that the entire chain is working at peak capacity.
I invite this member to vote in favour of this legislation.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, I have been paying attention. I spoke on Bill C-30, and we have been studying it in committee every day.
I want to know when the Conservatives will stop taking these farmers for granted and actually take action.
The minister knows full well that increased interswitching limits do not compensate farmers and that Bill C-30 is not a long-term solution. These changes will cost rail companies more, and these higher costs will be passed on to farmers. While a few grain companies will fight over the profits, it is farmers who are paying more.
Will the minister accept our constructive amendments at committee?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I listened to that last question and I had hard time determining whether she is on the side of the railroads or she is on the side of the farmers.
This government wants to fix the transportation problems related to grain. That is why the bill is in front of Parliament.
With respect to amendments, I would ask the member to respect the work of committee. Committee members have not even seen the amendments that may have been submitted. The committee will be doing this work next week.
However, one thing I can say is that the committee heard from witnesses this past week, and the vast majority of witnesses who came in front of committee strongly supported the legislation. I ask the member to do the same.
Canada PostAnne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, my constituents do not understand the Conservatives' decision.
They allowed Canada Post to cut thousands of jobs, impose a 58% tax on stamps and put an end to home delivery. The Conservatives are letting Canada Post executives pocket $20 million while they cut services to the public.
Do the Conservatives think that this is a good strategy to revitalize Canada Post?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats and the Liberals are the only ones in this House who think that Canada Post is not facing a crisis. They have said that on the record, and it cannot be more wrong.
In fact, in 2012, Canada Post delivered one billion fewer addressed letter mail pieces than it did in 2006. That number is plummeting. It is projected to run deficits of nearly $1 billion just six years from now. 
They want Canada Post to do nothing. We at least support it.
Mrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while Canada Post executives pocket $20 million in salaries, the Conservatives are imposing a 58% tax—a draconian increase that is not in line with regular inflation.
I am worried for the poorest members of our society who do not have Internet access and who are looking for jobs and sending their resumés through the mail.
How can the minister stick the bill to the least fortunate who are looking for jobs?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, the minister is doing no such thing. The member should know that Canada Post is an independent arm's-length crown corporation. It is responsible for its own operational decisions. It has, in response to the plummeting levels of letter mail volumes in this country, responded with a five-point plan. The increase in the cost of a stamp is part of the five-point plan, but that is its decision. We support that Canada Post is doing something about this problem. It is only the opposition that thinks there is no crisis at Canada Post.
Democratic ReformSean Casey: Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of elections has asked for the power to compel witness testimony during an investigation. It is the same power that the director of competitions has in investigating deceptive telemarketing and price fixing.
We believe that rigging an election is more, not less serious than price fixing.
Does the minister agree, and, if so, will he amend the act to give the commissioner the power that he seeks?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the CEO of Elections Canada is obviously seeking more powers for his agency. That is not surprising, nor is it new.
However, the reality is that agency already has all the same investigative powers of a police agency. Police forces investigate extremely complex files with unco-operative witnesses and missing evidence, and they manage to come to conclusions, lay charges, and secure convictions all the time.
We would invite Elections Canada to do its work with the powers it has, and after the passage of the fair elections act, the commissioner or the investigator would be independent.
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, the minister just indicated that the Commissioner of Elections Canada has the same powers as police who are investigating serious crimes. That is not true. The police have the power to intercept private communications, commonly known as a wiretap.
Will the minister now agree to amend the act to give that power to the commissioner of elections, which would make his answer true, or will he correct his answer?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I personally have not seen a recommendation from Elections Canada that it seeks the power to do wiretapping, but what I can tell the member is that the agency currently has all the same powers of a police force to carry out an investigation, and we would invite it to continue to do that.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMs. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, people around the world have noticed the measures that the Conservatives have taken to close our doors to refugees.
This week, the UN published a report confirming that in 2013, Canada accepted half as many refugee claims as in 2012. It also described highly divergent trends. Many Canadians feel that Canada is moving away from its role as a country that welcomes victims of persecution.
When will the minister move to counter the adverse effects of this bungled immigration reform?
Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada has welcomed one out of every ten resettled refugees in the world. That is more than almost any other country in the world.
We are world leaders when it comes to protecting refugees. The Government of Canada is determined to help refugees resettle, become part of Canada and succeed in their new home. Our goal is to help them achieve the best results they can. 
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, Conservatives do not get it. The measure of a good refugee system is not how much claims are dropping; it is whether those in danger get the protection they need. 
There is clear evidence that changes to the refugee law have unbalanced our system. Naming countries like Hungary as safe, despite the recent surge in far-right anti-Semitic rhetoric, is alarming. People who face persecution may not find a safe haven in Canada. 
Does the government not understand that it is the problem?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, our government has a balanced and responsible plan for refugee resettlement. Unlike the NDP and the Liberals, we do not make policy on a whim. The opposition is shamefully and purposely misleading Canadians. Our government has a balanced and responsible plan for refugee resettlement, and I would urge the hon. member to support all of our measures. It is incredible that any time we bring measures in the House that support the refugee system, the members of the opposition, and the member, vote against them.
Foreign AffairsJohn Weston: Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in democracy at home, in Ukraine, in Iran, and around the world. For instance, in dealing with the government of Iran, our government has consistently supported the democratic aspirations of the people of Iran. The crisis in Ukraine has reminded Canadians that democracy is not a reality for everyone, but Canadians are proud that our Prime Minister's visit to Ukraine was the first of any G7 leader since the crisis began. However, in a recent interview with the Farsi language media, the Liberal Party leader attacked our government's support of democracy around the world. 
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage please affirm our government's foreign policy?
Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the recent comment by the Liberal leader is of great concern to this government. As the Prime Minister stated, Israel is the only country in the Middle East which has long anchored itself in the ideals of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Our government will not shy away from supporting the sole liberal democracy in the region. On this side of the House, we have led the world with a clear and principled foreign policy, one that is based on freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Whether it is in Ukraine, Israel, or the situation in Iran, we will do what is right and just, regardless of whether it is popular, convenient, or expedient.
The EnvironmentHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all week, the Minister of the Environment has avoided questions on the impact of climate change. She has simply read from her pre-approved cue cards. I would like to give her a chance to show that she can think for herself.
What is the minister's response to the new report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? 
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting the environment while keeping Canada economically strongly. Thanks to our actions, carbon emissions will go down by close to 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberals. This is the equivalent of shutting down 37 coal-fired electricity plants, and we are accomplishing this without introducing the Liberal carbon tax.
Rail TransportationMrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the days are counting down for passenger service on the Algoma Central Railway, yet the minister has not even bothered to respond to three separate requests to meet with the working group who are looking for options to save the service.
Will the government do the right thing and work with stakeholders to find a solution to save ACR passenger service and help protect a unique $20-million a year tourism economy? Will the government finally get on board?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada advised CN that effective March 31, 2014, the Government of Canada will no longer provide CN with funding through the regional and remote passenger rail services class contribution program. 
The decision by CN to discontinue the passenger rail service between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst is a business decision made by a private company. The Government of Canada has no direct role in owning or operating railways. Railway companies are private entities that make their own decisions concerning their operations and which services and routes are offered to their customers.
IndustryMr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Sir John A. Macdonald, our first prime minister, had a vision of a railway from coast to coast. Today, as we near Canada's 150th birthday, digital technology is what connects Canadians, bridging the divisions instantaneously. There are few jobs, few sectors, and few aspects of our lives that remain untouched by digital technology.
 Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry please tell the House what our government is doing to promote Canada's digital future?
Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Industry announced digital Canada 150, which is focused on five key pillars: connecting Canadians, ensuring that Canadians have access to the latest wireless technologies; protecting Canadians, ensuring that their online privacy is protected; economic opportunities, ensuring Canadians have the skills and opportunities necessary to succeed in a digital economy; digital government, making Canada a global leader in using digital technologies and open data; and, Canadian content, including measures that celebrate our national story and what it means to be Canadian.
As we celebrate our nation's birthday—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Jonquière—Alma.
Forestry IndustryMr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when I asked about the unfair treatment of Quebec, the government answered that the existing softwood lumber agreement does not penalize anyone. How hypocritical. The president of the Québec Forest Industry Council has made it clear that even though Quebec has changed its stumpage system, it is still being penalized, whereas the Atlantic provinces are not. He said, “Ottawa's policy puts the Quebec industry at a serious competitive disadvantage.”
When will the government do its job and protect the interests of the Quebec forestry industry?
Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber agreement continues to enjoy strong support from the industry and provincial governments across the country for the stability it provides. In fact, the industry has thrived under this agreement.
While the NDP, and it seems the Bloc, continue to promote policies that would actually slow growth and kill jobs in this industry, our government is building trade relationships in Europe and Asia that would secure jobs in our lumber and wood product industry.
Employment InsuranceClaude Patry: Mr. Speaker, two years ago this week, the government announced its employment insurance reform, without assessing the repercussions it would have on families and the regions.
Now we are seeing the consequences. People are waiting longer to get their benefits. It takes longer and is more complicated to challenge bad decisions, and more importantly, families across Quebec are being financially penalized. Clearly, this reform is bad for workers who have lost their jobs. It is making them and their families poorer.
Now that the consequences are known, will the government cancel this reform, which is bad for workers in Quebec?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, we are making changes that will connect people with available jobs. Those are the changes that we are making. We are seeing good results from that across the country.
Employment insurance will always be there for anyone who applies and there are no jobs available in their region.
Rail TransportationMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP): Mr. Speaker, our passenger trains are dead or dying. Routes from Montreal to Saint John, Toronto to Cochrane, Barrie to Orillia are all dead; Toronto to Sarnia has been cut in half. The route from Sault Ste. Marie to Hearst will die on April 30. The route from Toronto to Niagara is dead. The route from Montreal to Gaspé is suspended. Both the Ocean and Canadian trains are threatened.
Why are we the only country in the G20 that is not investing in passenger rail?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. The government has invested over a billion dollars in capital investments for VIA Rail. We invest millions every year in its overall network.
I am reminded, though, that the member over there is the one who continually and consistently votes against that support for VIA Rail. That is a shameful record. We will do our part. 

Routine Proceedings
Ways and MeansJohn Duncan: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I have the honour to table a notice of a ways and means motion to introduce an act to give effect to the Tla'amin final agreement and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of this motion.
Tla'amin Final AgreementJohn Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Tla'amin final agreement, the Tla'amin final agreement appendices, and the Tla'amin tax treatment agreement.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 45 petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order.
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActCorneliu Chisu:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-585, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (period of residence).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table my private members' bill, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (period of residence). This enactment would amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to adjust the national eligibility standard for social assistance to provide that no minimum period of residence may be required with respect to social assistance for Canadian citizens or permanent residents as well as for victims of human trafficking who receive temporary resident permits and certain other protected persons.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsMike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, residents in my riding have signed a number of petitions protesting the loss of home mail delivery by Canada Post. They call upon the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan to reduce services and to explore other options to update Canada Post's business plan.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I have a few petitions. 
The first one says that during the darkest days of the war in the Pacific, the British special operations executive asked the Canadian government for Chinese-Canadian volunteers to train for a covert mission that would place them behind Japanese enemy lines to seek out Chinese resistance fighters to help train them for the Allies, to defeat the Japanese. Many prisoners of war were saved because of this.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is about Bill C-18 and farmers being able to keep the seeds they have purchased.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on fair election representation.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition asking for the creation of a legislative ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining.
Emmanuel Dubourg: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present this petition signed by people in the riding of Bourassa, which I represent. The petitioners are calling for the creation of a legal ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining and are recommending that the Government of Canada impose sanctions on any company that does not comply with standards.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition. The petitioners are drawing attention to the fact that children thrive best when raised by both parents, even in the course of a breakdown of the marriage. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on Parliament to amend the Divorce Act, as in my Bill C-560, to require that equal shared parenting be treated as the rebuttable presumption in custody decisions, except in cases of proven abuse or neglect.
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition calling attention to the increasing violence against bus drivers that occurs every year. The number of assaults has gone up.
 Bus drivers serve our public across this country. I have had meetings with bus drivers in my riding, who serve Victoria and Oak Bay, from Unifor Local 333.
This petitions calls for an amendment to the Criminal Code to create a distinct, specific offence to punish those who assault bus drivers and to establish more stringent penalties for those who commit those cowardly offences.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions.
The first recognizes and honours the death of 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius, who was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people who have also lost loved ones due to impaired drivers, called the Families for Justice, says that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. The petitioners would like to see new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the second petition highlights that there are over 200 million missing girls in the world right now due to sex selection.
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada vehemently opposes sex selection, as do 92% of Canadians. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to condemn the practice of discriminating against girls through sex selection.
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present two petitions on the same subject.
The petitioners are calling for improved VIA Rail service in eastern Quebec and northern New Brunswick. The petitions I have here today are proof that despite the responses the government has given us in question period, the people of my region and northern New Brunswick believe that VIA Rail service must be improved and that the investments made so far are clearly not enough for eastern Canada.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions to table today from residents of Winnipeg North who are asking Parliament to look at ways in which we can make changes to the Senate.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to look at ways to reform the Senate that would not require constitutional amendments.
Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by more than 100 people. They are asking the government to reject Canada Post's service reduction plan and explore other avenues for updating the crown corporation's business plan to consider seniors, people with reduced mobility, self-employed workers and small businesses, who will all suffer because of this reduction plan.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a few petitions.
The first petition is with respect to the hopes of many. It is signed by people from Sault Ste. Marie, from Goulais River, and from Wawa. The petitioners' hope is that the government will stop the derailment of their tourism economy. It is with respect to the fact that the ACR passenger service is about to terminate at the end of April. The petitioners are calling on the government to reinstate the funding. There has been no consultation with the stakeholders, and that needs to happen.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am tabling is calling for a moratorium on GM alfalfa.
I am rising to present this petition signed by people from Thessalon, Little Rapids, Bruce Mines, Chatham, and Grand Prairie. The petitioners are calling for a moratorium on GM alfalfa because of the possible adverse side effects on organic farming due to cross-contamination and the international trade of GM alfalfa.
Carol Hughes: My last petition concerns Canada Post and originates in Hearst, Mattice-Val Côté and Kapuskasing. The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to cancel the service reductions announced by Canada Post and consider new ways to generate revenue. Canadians are very worried about this government's actions.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions, but I will be quick. The first is from a variety of citizens, dozens in my riding, who request that the Government of Canada commit to attaining the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals it has supported internationally and contribute its fair share to filling the megatonne gap.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from many dozens of petitioners who are supporting what we called “Kempton's petition” in honour of Kempton Howard in our riding. The petitioners ask for a variety of measures, including a meaningful countrywide system of public support for the loved-ones of murder victims, as well as victims of crime more generally, and ensuring reliable, long-term funding for programs diverting youth away from gangs and crime. 
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls for a moratorium on GM alfalfa. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa in order to allow proper review of the impact on farmers and, I would say, especially organic farmers and family farms in Canada. 
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, finally, I have two sets of petitions, totalling many dozens of petitioners, in favour of my Bill C-506, which would restore protection of the Don River, whose protection was stripped by the Navigable Waters Protection Act. 
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that is the result of a recent tragedy in London, Ontario. The point is to draw attention to the increasing wait times for people to attain permanent residency status. The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to ensure that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is properly staffed and resourced in order to reach decisions on applications in a fair and timely manner and that the immigration officials consider all the factors in regard to individual applications, including humanitarian and compassionate grounds. 
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, petitioners from across Quebec want violence against bus drivers to stop. They want an amendment to the Criminal Code that would add a separate offence for this type of assault.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all 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. 1[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An 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.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague, the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.
It is always an honour for me to rise in the House to represent my constituents in the great riding of Pontiac. However, today, I am speaking out against the fact that a bill with such a large scope is being examined in such a short period of time. This undermines Parliament's work by preventing members from thoroughly examining the bill and its impact. This is the fifth time that the Conservatives have tried to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of their regressive economic agenda by using an omnibus budget bill. The issues put forward in these bills are important and deserve serious consideration. 
That is what my constituents expect from their MP and that is what Canadians expect from parliamentarians and from their democratic institutions. We are well aware that this is another budget implementation bill designed to sneak in hundreds of changes through the back door, without their being examined properly, for the very partisan and ideological purposes of the governing Conservative Party.
The bill is over 350 pages long and contains over 500 clauses. It changes dozens of laws and contains many measures that were not even mentioned in the budget statement. I would like to point out that, after only 25 minutes of debate, after only one person had a chance to speak, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons decided to put an end to the debate by moving a closure motion. That is shameful. It is simply atrocious.
The decisions made in the budget and the budget implementation bill are meant to be made for Canadians. It is their money the government is spending, and it must do so wisely. However, the bill does not address the real concerns of Canadians. It sets out austerity measures that make life less affordable for Canadians. These measures are stifling Canada's economic growth at a time when wages are stagnant, jobs are less stable and household debt is rising and reaching record levels. What is worse, there is nothing in the budget or the budget bill to help the 300,000 additional Canadians who have become unemployed since the recession to find work or to replace the 400,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector under the Conservative government. The government needs to think about future generations when making budget decisions.
I came back to politics because my daughters, Sophia and Gabrielle, are now six and four. When I would look at them as babies in their cribs, I remember asking myself what kind of future we would be leaving them. My leader often likes to say that we will be the first generation to leave less to our children than what we ourselves received. We will be leaving them an economic, environmental and social deficit. He is right. The future must be different. In the future, we must live in greater harmony with our brothers and sisters from all countries and in greater harmony with the planet. We need to think about future generations and about preserving that harmony when we govern and make budget choices. 
This bill does not do enough to preserve this harmony. We need to focus on new technologies to reduce our dependence on oil, which leads to global conflict and causes environmental degradation. That is why my party supports investing in a 21st century economy based on clean technology.
This could come in the form of the following measures: restore the eco-energy retrofit – homes program; support the renewable energy sector to help Canada grow and prosper in the new global economy; help the industry take advantage of clean technology markets by supporting research and development for these energies; adopt an action plan to abolish the $1.3 billion in subsidies being handed out to the fossil fuel industry; support specialized training to prepare workers for the green jobs of the future; carry out a study on ways to increase value-added domestic production in the clean energy sector; and lastly, increase access to information and transparency regarding the enforcement of and compliance with environmental legislation.
Furthermore, there is almost nothing in this bill to address the lack of infrastructure in our communities. This bill could have addressed Canada's serious infrastructure deficit by cancelling the $5.8 billion in cuts to local infrastructure set out in the last budget.
We need new infrastructure—roads especially—in Pontiac. We need to work with the provinces and territories to stop the erosion of the municipal tax base by developing a long-term infrastructure plan for cities, towns, suburbs and rural communities.
Why not invest part of the proceeds from the 700 MHz auction in developing broadband Internet infrastructure in remote rural parts of the country? That could stimulate an entire economy of online businesses. Access to high-speed Internet is critical to small and medium-sized businesses in my region.
The government could also have simplified the process rural communities have to go through to request and receive funding for infrastructure projects. It is not hard to take steps to improve Canada's productivity. The government should update our infrastructure by doubling the gas tax transfer to municipalities. That is a very simple and practical measure. However, in this bill, the government made choices that will benefit only the rich and the biggest corporations in the country. Why do the biggest ones always come out on top with this government?
As the Treasury Board critic, it is my job to criticize choices about services to Canadians. Canadians expect to get good services in exchange for their tax dollars, but the Conservatives are betraying them by making these cuts.
It is not overstating things to say that there is a crisis around access to health care services in the Pontiac. Even so, this government is determined to cut $36 billion from provincial health transfers. 
In addition, the employment insurance reform was really hard on seasonal workers in my riding. We could also deal with the tax haven issue and find new sources of revenue for the government so that Canadians can get the services they are entitled to.
The last thing I want to say is that my children's future is the reason I am speaking today. We have to make different choices, choices that are more environmentally friendly, socially sound and responsible.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's comments.
He spoke about his children and the impact climate change will have going forward. We recently learned that the situation is worse than we thought. The very harsh winter we had is evidence of that. It was very hard on infrastructure in northern Ontario communities. Water pipes burst. Many homes were without water, and that is still a problem right now.
I am wondering if my colleague could tell us more about the infrastructure deficit. Some of the infrastructure in Chapleau dates from the world wars. Can he talk about how we should be investing in municipalities, not cutting their funding?
[Interjection]
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, investing in infrastructure would clearly stimulate the economy in my riding. The needs of municipalities must be taken into consideration.
Municipalities are far removed from power. They need many things, including infrastructure for water, waste, roads and community centres, for example.
We need a national infrastructure strategy to ensure that municipalities with the greatest need have access to funds that would enable them to stimulate their own economy by building and renovating infrastructure in their communities.
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I would like thank the hon. member for Pontiac for his speech here today, and I will note two things from his remarks with respect to broadband Internet.
 I invite the member to look at the digital Canada 150 plan being announced by the Minister of Industry today, which has over $300 million invested for rural broadband Internet.
 However, more specifically, the member suggested that the funding from the latest wireless spectrum auction be applied to some of these investments. I wonder whether he recognizes that the investments made by carriers acquiring that spectrum is not a lump sum; it is received by the government and amortized over several decades.
Would the hon. member comment on the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent, announced just today, on rural broadband Internet?
[Interjection]
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, it might surprise my hon. colleague, but I actually think that the $300 million is a good measure. In fact, I ensured that all of my communities were aware of it.
 Of course, the devil is in the details, and one may ask whether that investment of $300 million across a country as large as ours is targeted enough. There are concerns in my community as to where that money would go, whether it would go more to the largest corporations and businesses that deal with this kind of service and not directly to the communities for building infrastructure in those communities that are the poorest and that need it the most. I am hopeful, but I am waiting to see how the money will be made accessible to the communities like mine that truly need it.
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my colleague from Pontiac on his excellent speech and his excellent presentation. He did a fine job explaining the NDP's concerns over the new budget implementation bill currently before us. I often see him rise in the House and stand up for the interests of his constituents. I want to commend him on his excellent work.
I am proud to join my voice to those of my colleagues to firmly oppose this new omnibus bill. This should come as no surprise from the Conservatives. They do not seem to know how to work any other way. This is the fifth time we are dealing with a such a massive bill and this underhanded approach to avoiding parliamentary oversight. The fact is, everyone here was elected for the same reason. Canadians sent us here to represent them and to stand up for their interests. When we look at the actions of this government and the bills it introduces, we see that it seems to be taking into account only the small percentage of Canadians who voted the Conservatives into power. Unfortunately, our system is designed in such a way that we have a Conservative majority government, but that does not mean that the majority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives. I would say that the majority of Canadians are rather disgusted with the abuse of trust and abuse of power committed by the government. The Conservatives are supposed to be working for Canadians in the best interest of the country. However, that is not what we are seeing.
The Conservatives try to hide their regressive agenda from Canadians on a regular basis. Today, we barely heard one speech, and it was a Conservative speech that was far from objective. After 25 minutes, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose and introduced another time allocation motion. Once again, he could not even get through one half hour of debate. He managed to listen to one of my official position colleagues for barely five minutes and then he said that that was enough, that he knew very well that we would just blame them and shine a spotlight on all the problems with Bill C-31. For that reason, we are once again facing closure, which quite frankly is an abuse of the House. I no longer know how many time allocation motions have been imposed, but I can guarantee you that it is a considerable number.
As I was saying, Bill C-31 is another omnibus bill. It is a massive document with more than 350 pages and over 500 clauses that will amend dozens of laws. Furthermore, the bill would impose a number of measures that were not included in the budget.
Canadians must start learning the cues. The Conservatives use the same arguments with each new budget because it is the same principle every time. They tell us that there is nothing new in there, that everything was in the budget, and so on. They really take Canadians for fools. No one in this country believes them. I do not know who they are trying to convince, perhaps themselves, by repeating the same arguments that are not very convincing. However, quite honestly, no one trusts them.
Canadians also understand that it is impossible for MPs to do a proper job in the short period of time allocated by the Conservatives. I mentioned the size and content of this bill. We have just a few hours to debate it, raise issues and ask the government questions. We rarely get answers but, as MPs, it is part of our job to ask questions and try to get answers. After that, the procedure in committee is rather complicated. Even there, there is very little the members can do.
In any case, it is a known fact that the government does not listen. The opposition could propose an excellent amendment that would remedy problems with this document. Obviously, there are some mistakes in the 350 pages that were hastily thrown together on anything and everything. It takes the government some time. The government will think about it for several months. Time and time again, the opposition will raise the various problems inherent in the government's bills.
Eventually, someone will say—perhaps in a whisper—that the opposition was right and there is a problem with the bill. The Conservatives are a prime example of this. When they decided to charge GST and HST on the parking revenue of hospitals, the NDP objected. It did not make sense to take that money at the expense of people who are already vulnerable, who are going through difficult times and whose loved ones are suffering in the hospital. The Conservatives told themselves that there was no better way to fill the government coffers and deepen human misery than to take money from the pockets of people who are visiting their loved ones in the hospital.
A few months later, the Conservatives realized that the NDP was right and decided to backpedal. However, it took time. Had they listened to us from the outset, had they been more open-minded and had they not been so uncompromising and demagogic, we would not be where we are today. I would not be wasting my time pointing these things out. 
Although Canadians were aware of the problem caused by this government, the government did nothing for months until it could no longer stand the pressure. These are the types of situations created by omnibus bills, massive documents filled with regressive propaganda. I urge all Canadians to flip through this bill. They are in for some nasty surprises. The Conservatives are cutting short debate so that Canadians find out as little as possible about what is in the bill. The Conservatives are preparing for the election in 2015 and they are seeing their poll support plummet across the country.
It is not just in Quebec that Canadians are starting to push the Conservatives aside and realize that they are not a viable option for ensuring the well-being of our country and equal opportunity for all Canadians. Canada is welcoming fewer and fewer people in need and refugees because of this government's incomprehensible decisions. We are losing our identity bit by bit, an identity that people abroad appreciated and respected, because of measures that the government is hiding in various omnibus bills. That is unfortunate.
I would like to have the opportunity to consult with Conservative members to see if they know what they are voting on. I am certain that the vast majority of them have absolutely no idea what is in Bill C-31. It is more than 350 pages long, so I doubt that they have read the entire thing. It is easy for them because the Prime Minister's Office feeds them lines and then they regurgitate them in public. They have done a great job so far.
We in the NDP are insisting on our right to debate in the House and raise our constituents' concerns. We want to do the work that Canadians sent us here to do. The Conservatives are becoming increasingly complacent and do not seem to be taking that aspect of our work seriously anymore. I think it is abusive.
Earlier this week, we moved a motion that clearly criticized the Conservatives' systematic abuse of public funds, specifically in relation to the use of Challenger jets. That is another ethical problem that proves that the Conservatives do not care about the real interests of Canadians.
This budget does not contain a single measure to create new jobs. What is worse, it eliminates the small business hiring tax credit that was proposed by the NDP. In my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, there are a lot of small businesses. Once again, the government is eliminating a good idea that was proposed by the NDP. It is very easy for the Conservatives to say that we vote against all of their measures. Offering a small gift here and there in an inherently insulting document does not mean that the opposition will vote for the bill. It is outrageous. If I were the Conservatives, I would be embarrassed to use that type of argument to try and discredit the opposition.
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, in her speech on the bill, my colleague did not actually say much about the measures in the bill.
She talked about the process and the number of pages and she was very partisan. I would have liked to hear her suggestions and further comments on the contents of bill. I want to give her the chance to do that in the next two minutes.
[Interjection]
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière might not really like it when I talk about the process.
The Conservatives want to convince Canadians that it is not important. They do not seem to think it is very important to let opposition members talk and express the interests and concerns of the people they represent. They want to persuade us that we should let them do as they please now that they have been elected and Canadians have given them a mandate.
Frankly, nobody buys that, and it is not up to me to mouth Conservative propaganda. We know that this budget does absolutely nothing to help Canadian families or create jobs. It is just more propaganda. It is not up to me to elaborate on it.
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I will talk about content, since it is worth talking about.
Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent said that more than 400 veterans in Canada have severe disabilities and are not eligible for the Canadian Forces pension plan. 
The budget implementation bill would compensate veterans who received benefits between May 29, 2012, and September 30, 2012.
Why does the bill not mention the amounts deducted between 2006 and 2012?
I know that the member's riding is very close to a military base.
[Interjection]
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, and yes, the Valcartier military base is in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.
However, in addition to that, I am the daughter of soldiers. Both of my parents are in the forces, and my grandfather is a Korean War veteran. For me, how we treat our military personnel and our veterans is therefore very important.
I am very proud to be a member of a political party that recognizes the social contract that unites us with our veterans, unlike this government, which is trying to use this absolutely appalling argument as a legal defence in Canada and set a precedent in that regard. It is absolutely inconceivable.
I am having a really hard time answering my colleague. I do not know why there is no compensation for our veterans in the bill. I cannot understand it. Actually, I would like the government to answer that, because it is completely unacceptable.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and one thing that stood out was her suggestion about the EI credit for small businesses. But is she aware that this government provided important temporary stimulus when it was needed during the global recession? When we look at the job numbers of today, we see that we are now at over one million net new jobs.
Would the member not agree that the government should be looking at getting back to balanced budgets, which this budget does? After we have put temporary measures in place for economic stimulus and economic action, how important is it for her children and grandchildren that we actually have the discipline to then have a balanced budget by the end of 2015?
[Interjection]
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time believing the Conservatives. They are always talking about the economy and all the jobs they have created. Most of those jobs are part-time, but they do not mention that. I suspect that they also got that information from Kijiji. I am therefore having a really hard time answering these questions, because I do not believe that this is coming from a credible source. 
Any credible source of information that could help this government make informed decisions has been cut or pushed aside completely, because the Conservatives did not like the message they were hearing. Statistics Canada is just one example.
I have a hard time listening to my colleague's economic argument when we know very well that this government is misrepresenting itself regarding its economic competence.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before we resume debate, I would just inform the House that we have reached the five-hour point in the debate, which means that from this point forward, presentations will be 10 minutes long rather than 20.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House of Commons to speak on economic action plan 2014 and the budget implementation act flowing from it, because in many ways they complete a very important journey. That journey, in the next year, will see a return to balanced budgets here in Canada. What is most important to us as Conservatives is that the journey has taken place without increasing taxes, an approach and a journey that my colleagues on the opposite side, the NDP and the Liberals, would have turned to during the economic crisis. Our government was consistent that we were not going to raise taxes on families, on seniors, or on job creators. So, we have had no tax increases and will have a return to balanced budgets.
I would be remiss if I did not say that one of the key shepherds on that journey has been my colleague, my friend, and my neighbour, in fact, the member of Parliament for Whitby—Oshawa, who, working with the Prime Minister and our caucus, ensured that we kept our commitments that we started during the worst of the downturn in 2008-09 to get to a balanced budget and where we are now.
I would like to remind my colleagues in the House where we are now. We are in a unique position of leadership in the G7. We have the best economy in the G7 right now. We will be the first G7 nation to have a balanced budget in the coming year. We lead in job creation, with almost one million net new jobs since the depths of the recession, and the vast majority of those are full-time. We have the best debt-to-GDP ratio among our G7 colleagues. We have the top financial institutions and regulatory environment in the world.
In many ways, we are the envy of our friends and are not only going to continue with that success but also ensure that Canada remains a leader under our government.
It is also important, whenever I stand in this place, that I recognize my role as the member of Parliament representing Durham, which is a proud part of Canada in southern Ontario, with deep century-plus roots in agriculture; a leading role in energy with Darlington Nuclear Generating Station; and with a proud history of manufacturing, both large and small. Our government has been taking the prudent steps to ensure that all of those industries and families that derive their wealth and wellness from them thrive.
Just this week, CIBC released a report showing that in the years since the great global recession, we have stronger and more productive manufacturers. We have more small and medium-size specialty manufacturers in southern Ontario that have withstood the global challenges that some of our best friends and allies are still facing but are now starting to thrive.
I would also look to the recent report by the Lawrence Centre in the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario, one of the leading business faculties in the world. It just completed a study on the future of Canadian manufacturing by looking and learning from the success of some of our leading manufacturers in southern Ontario. Its conclusion was that a revitalized Canadian manufacturing sector will rely on the private sector and that the only role for government is really to promote and support an environment that allows the private sector to flourish. I cannot think of a better report that exemplifies the leadership of our government in the last few years, and I will tell members why.
The manufacturers that are succeeding in Ontario and, indeed, across the country are not just selling their goods and services here in Canada. They are looking around the world to be globally competitive.
 What has our government done? We now have 38 new countries where our exporters will have most-favoured nation status. With the work of this government and the Minister of International Trade, in particular, in delivering the agreement in principle on CETA and our first trade agreement in Asia, with South Korea, we are building new markets that will allow our exporters not just to sustain their operations but also to grow and create employment. 
Looking at the budget itself, page 98 shows a variety of other factors beyond just opening new markets. We are simplifying taxes for 60,000 small to medium-size enterprises in Ontario by streamlining the GST or HST credit rebate process and creating a new class of depreciable property. That is building upon our accelerated capital cost allowance, allowing those manufacturers to become more competitive.
I also refer the people of my riding to page 124 of the budget, which talks about the auto innovation fund, our government's multi-year commitment to securing our auto sector in southern Ontario. We have just put another $500 million into that fund over the next two years, on top of the over $300 million already invested on innovation in manufacturing in southern Ontario.
We are also looking at science and technology. Canada leads the OECD on funding for research at our universities to make sure that we innovate and are creating jobs for the next generation.
Our most recent budget adds to that, with the Canada first research excellence fund, a $1.5 billion fund that will be used by researchers, innovators, and universities across Canada to make sure that Canada remains ahead in science and technology. I would like to thank Dr. Tim McTiernan and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in our area of Durham for their work in science and in training the next generation of job seekers.
Durham is also known for its rich quality of life. While my business background has me passionately speaking about business issues and our government's success on the economic front, I am also proud that we are looking at recreation, culture, and other things that make our quality of life in Durham and Canada so strong.
I am proud of our government's recreational fisheries conservation partnership program. This last budget is doubling the annual funding for that program over the next two years.
 In my community, before my election to Parliament, I was fortunate to work alongside dedicated volunteers at Valleys 2000 and the Bomanville Creek Anglers Association who, for many years, had been looking at making sure that migrating fish species on the Bomanville Creek could reach their spawning grounds despite dams and obstacles in their way. With funding from this fisheries conservation partnership plan, that group of volunteers in Bomanville has created a fish bypass channel, which, for the first salmon and trout run this spring, will allow those fish to bypass a dam and spawn up creek. I have to thank those volunteers, led by the late Al Strike, Harold Hammond, Reverend Frank Lockhart, Dave Lawson, Steve Kay, Jack Hampsey, and a range of other passionate volunteers from our community who got that program to where it is at. Our government was happy to help complete some of the funding.
As a veteran myself, I have to note that, as stated on page 223, our government maintains its strong commitment to our veterans and their families. With a $108 million commitment to the Last Post Fund, we are taking this funeral and burial program intended for impoverished or indigent veterans and are expanding it beyond its mandate from World War II and Korean War veterans to modern-day veterans so that no one will slip between the cracks. That is on top of our funding increases in the last budget for those services specifically.
The budget also mentioned the Afghanistan commemoration. I will be one of many MPs here who are proud to stand with Canadians for the families of the fallen on May 9, when we commemorate one of Canada's most sustained missions abroad in which over 40,000 of our best young men and women served our country when called upon.
We are also putting a priority on hiring injured veterans. Each year, approximately 1,000 men or women from the Canadian Forces release as a result of injury. We are putting them at the top of the priority hiring list for the civil service, a measure that I hope the opposition and the public sector unions can finally get behind to put those veterans in a place that will make sure they thrive when they transition out of uniform.
We are also putting increased spending into the My VAC Account and other resources so that veterans can access their services.
It is always an honour for me to rise to represent my riding of Durham. I am happy to have highlighted a few measures that make our budget and its implementation so pivotal for Canada.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, last night I went to the veterans affairs committee and we heard from the last post fund, the people who support and try to maintain funding for veterans in difficult financial circumstances. They were very clear that the current government may indeed have put more money into the fund, but nobody can access it. The Conservatives have ensured that the lower limit for accessibility at $12,500 makes it virtually impossible for families of veterans to have access to that money.
 How on earth can the Conservatives brag about something in terms of the money they have provided, when no one can get to it?
[Interjection]
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her work on that committee, and I hope she is listening, because the question gives me an excellent opportunity to show members why this fund is actually structured in a way that targets those in need.
As a veteran, I do not expect decades later to have my funeral covered. It is only for impoverished veterans. Let me say what the member neglected to say about that $12,500 cut-off. 
That amount of net assets for deceased veterans does not include their house and it does not include their car. We are talking about people who only have that amount of assets at the end of their life. The car and the house could mean that veterans have more, and so we are not just talking about homeless veterans or people like that. This is a set amount that is very reasonable to make sure that those who fall into the cracks and need support get it. 
I would invite the member and the NDP to stop playing games and tell the full story on how that number is calculated.
Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, on playing games with respect to the last post fund, the member and I served together on the veterans affairs committee when the last budget was brought down, and the member would know that in the last budget the government budgeted $65 million for the last post fund knowing full well that there was absolutely no possible way that money would be spent. Therefore, that money would lapse and go against the deficit.
My question for the member is twofold. First, can he stand up and tell us how much of the $65 million that was budgeted in the last budget has actually been spent on veterans? We both know the answer. Second, with this $108 million that he speaks of, are the Conservatives going to do the same thing?
[Interjection]
Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, this is another great question from my Liberal colleague that allows me to explain to him as well how this works, because being from Charlottetown, he too likes to play a few games on this subject, although I know his heart is in the right place.
When it comes to these funds, this government cannot predict, nor could any member of this House, how many veterans who are impoverished may pass in 10 years from now. These amounts provide a contingency reserve within the fund that will provide enough flexibility over the course of the coming decades for access. 
On the amount the member referred to from the last budget, the individualized costs for funeral, burial, and services around that have come up, reflecting a higher cost than a generation ago; and so the money in this budget would now ensure that the overall fund has the ability to ensure that indigent veterans post-Korea—so modern-day veterans, even potentially some of my own colleagues from my time in uniform—would be protected by the fund. 
If the member has any further questions, we would be happy to answer them.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed that during every question period for the last eight years Conservative members have risen in the House to rail against the NDP for not supporting their budgets. Well, I would like to let the members opposite know that there will be no change in their speaking notes today. In fact, in question period today it was the same old tired lines from the government.
I will not be supporting Bill C-31. Here are the reasons why. I hope my colleagues across the way listen, because they should be ashamed as they listen to these reasons. Given the government's record on time allocation, of course, the bill contains amendments to more than 60 acts without the time to study those changes. It continues in Bill C-31. Once again, we see the despicable Conservative tradition of forcing legislation through without adequate parliamentary debate or public consultation. 
New Democrats believe that healthy debate and consultation lead to better legislation for Canadians, yet we have another omnibus bill designed to ram through hundreds of changes with little study and little oversight. In fact, the Conservatives moved time allocation on the bill after just 25 minutes of debate. Canadians deserve better.
In addition, the bill fails to make life more affordable for Canadian families, who are still recovering from the effects of the recession. We have 300,000 more unemployed Canadians than before the recession, on this government's watch. The effects of this are painfully evident in ridings across the country, including my riding of London—Fanshawe. There is absolutely nothing in the budget, or Bill C-31, that would assist in getting the hard-working constituents of London—Fanshawe back to work, or to help replace the 400,000 Canadian manufacturing jobs lost on this Prime Minister's watch. 
There is nothing in the budget or the bill that addresses the reasonable and affordable proposals of the NDP to strengthen the Canada pension plan. There is nothing to provide relief on heating bills, nothing for the millions of Canadians without access to a family doctor, and nothing to address the fact that we still have seniors in our country living in poverty. There are 250,000 of them. 
New Democrats are focused on helping our most vulnerable seniors with an affordable increase to the guaranteed income supplement. While the government has made incremental measures in the past, they amount to much less than half of what is needed to pull every Canadian senior out of poverty. It is an amount that is far less than the billions in tax breaks the government has given to banks and big polluters. 
Let us look at the history of this government. It is a government that has hiked payroll taxes, while working families struggled with the worst recession in decades. At the same time it was dishing out $21 billion in tax giveaways to Canada's richest companies. It stood by as good jobs with good wages and pensions, like those at Electro-Motive Diesel in London, disappeared as a result of foreign corporate takeovers. 
New Democrats would like to see a government that provides explicit and transparent criteria for the testing of net benefit to Canada in the Investment Canada Act, which place emphasis on assessing the impact of foreign investments on communities, jobs, pensions, families, and new capital investments. 
New Democrats propose working with the provinces to build a long-term skills training strategy to fill the skilled job shortages and to bring provinces, employers, labour, and educational organizations together to improve existing labour market development agreements. While we are at it, New Democrats would like to see the government sit down with the provinces on issues vital to Canadians, like the Canada pension plan and the Canada health accord, so we can arrive at the creative, affordable, and sustainable solutions we know are possible. 
New Democrats would like to see a government that provides the services Canadians rely on. Reverse the devastating decision to cut provincial health care transfers by $36 billion; that would be a good start. The government has put universal health care on death watch. Reverse changes to El that include damaging new rules that would require Canadian workers to accept as much as a 70% pay reduction or risk losing benefits. Set fair and effective contribution rates for employment insurance, and protect the money in the fund. 
Unfortunately, the government is not interested in serving Canadians. It has fallen down on the issues that matter most to us. It has refused to repay seniors their missing pension earnings, despite admitting that CPP and OAS pensioners were shortchanged by $1 billion due to an accounting error.
What happened to the promise of a comprehensive patient wait times guarantee? It disappeared after a handful of pilot projects that left most patients out in the cold. 
The government cancelled agreements with provinces to fund affordable child care spaces. It was child care that would have given some relief to working families. The Conservatives misled Canadians with the $100 universal child care benefit by subjecting it to unfair clawbacks and taxes, so that families who needed assistance with child care the most got the least.
This is the government that squandered $20 billion on giveaways for oil companies, big banks, cellphone giants, and other corporations, without any requirements that they stop ripping off Canadians—
[Interjection]
Carol Hughes: They think it is funny. It is shameful.
[Interjection]
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry that they find this so amusing. My constituents are not amused.
The Conservatives expanded drug company monopoly rights. They moved to allow direct-to-consumer advertising, which would add $6.3 billion to our drug bills, even though Canadian consumers already pay some of the world's highest prices.
While the government has pandered to the large corporations, it has failed to renew the small business job creation tax credit, first proposed by the NDP in 2011, for the hiring of people by small businesses. New Democrats know that small and medium businesses fuel communities and help those communities to thrive. We believe that continuing to build on the existing job creation tax credit for small and medium businesses would benefit Canadians.
While Bill C-31 would provide for the compensation for deductions from veterans' pay between May 29, 2012, and September 30, 2012, it is silent on the amounts deducted between 2006 and 2012. We have already seen two ministers promise action and then fail to deliver on this issue.
With Veterans Affairs Canada, the Conservatives cut $225 million out of the budget. There is no concern for modern-day veterans. There is no concern for the young men and women who went on peacekeeping missions. There is none.
At the veterans affairs committee, we heard testimony from organizations that provide vital services to our Canadian veterans and their families. Those organizations, like the last post fund, had their budgets cut in 1995 to reduce government deficits. Those cuts have never been redressed, let alone seen an indexation for inflation, the kind we have seen over 20 years.
I should point out that this is not only the Conservative government's failure. It started with the Liberals, the same Liberals who voted in the past to support Conservative omnibus budget bills.
Those bills in the past included weakening environmental assessment in Canada. Bill C-31 would do nothing to correct that. We have a responsibility to leave clean water and breathable air to future generations in Canada, and we need to start now. We have heard that dire warning over and over.
I have received overwhelming support from the constituents of London—Fanshawe and the surrounding area to return the Thames River to inclusion in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Canadians understand the value of environmental protection to the quality of life and a healthy economy. Why do the Conservatives not get that? 
I see nothing in the budget, nor Bill C-31, to address Canada's staggering infrastructure deficit. New Democrats proposed a reversal of the $5.8 billion that the Conservatives cut from local infrastructure. We should be working with the provinces. We should be working with Canadians. We should be working to preserve rail travel and ensure that cargo transport on trains is sustainable, affordable, and safe. There is nothing in this budget that speaks to any of those needs.
In conclusion, I would like to end with my opening observation. Let the Conservatives rail that New Democrats did not support this budget or previous budgets. How could we possibly do that when these budgets harm Canadian families, veterans, and seniors?
We need something much better. Canadians deserve something much better.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the member touched on many subjects. One of them that is near and dear to my heart, as everyone heard after question period, is the Algoma Central Railway passenger service. While other countries are moving forward at a very quick pace to make sure there is passenger service and to address climate change and infrastructure issues, the Conservative government lags behind.
I want to ask the member if she thinks that the government is actually fiscally responsible and whether it should be handling the taxes and the economy. 
Let us look at the history. It wasted $50 million building things like gazebos in the riding of the President of the Treasury Board, $2 billion to host a G8 meeting that could have been held somewhere else at lower cost, $14 million on advertising in one day, and millions to buy expensive advertising during a hockey game for a job program that did not exist. As well, let us not forget the $2 million fake lake.
Maybe my colleague would like to talk about whether this is a government that should be leading Canada.
[Interjection]
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out some of the misspending. I think $14 million on ads and $50 million for fake lakes and gazebos is a little much. 
I would like to also mention the $72.5 billion that the government has given away to profitable corporations in tax breaks while veterans and seniors suffer and there is no child care. It has no money for the people of this country, but it has all kinds of money for profitable corporations. 
It says it is going to create jobs. Tell that to the 300,000 Canadians who are still waiting. Tell that to the people of London—Fanshawe, who have lost many good jobs in the last few years.
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the member speak as an Ontario member of Parliament. I recall when the member was a minister in the Ontario NDP government that almost bankrupted the province of Ontario, that saw a million people on welfare, that saw millions of people lose their jobs and promise after promise broken. 
This is a member who just criticized the fact that we are giving Canadians $100 extra every month. She criticized that. She criticizes the fact that we have increased funding for our veterans by $5 billion. She criticizes and votes against the good work done by the Minister of International Trade, who signs new free trade deals that tremendously benefit her region of the country. An incredible investment is being made. The deal that the minister signed recently will help manufacturers in her own riding, and she will stand to vote against that as well. 
On every measure that counts when it comes to job creation, protecting the environment, protecting manufacturers, or enhancing the economy, the member votes against it. Her party has a record of destroying economies.
[Interjection]
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the member has mentioned some of these things, because I think he needs a history lesson. 
Yes, I was in that government in Ontario between 1990 and 1995. Do members know what happened to that government? In 1989, the welfare rate was $1.89 billion. That was for people who were in desperate situations. The federal government decided that was not enough, so it changed the unemployment insurance rules, and the very next year that welfare rate was up to $6 billion. 
Then the same bunch of people cut transfers for health care, training, and education. We wonder why students have horrendous debts in this country; it is because of the cuts to the very programs that were intended to maintain those people and help to make sure they had access to the economy.
He talks about free trade agreements. Free trade agreements are fine if they are fair trade agreements. What about the people who are injured by those agreements? What about the environment? What about the loss of labour rights? What about the loss of jobs because the government could not put in clauses to make sure that jobs here in Canada are protected?
Do not give me any rhetoric. I was there.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. Order.
Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to BIA no. 1 today. We all know that the budget was introduced a number of months ago now, and there are two process whereby we turn our budget into legislation. Today what we are talking about is the first very important piece of legislation.
When I spoke to the budget a number of months ago, I talked about how we had a plan that started when we first took government in 2006. It was a plan that saw us through the global recession, and we saw how the finance minister followed this plan and was leading us into some of the best positions in the G7, including the best net debt-to-GDP ratio and the best job growth rate. We are incredibly proud of the plan that we had, which saw us through a very difficult time and coming back to a balanced budget.
 That speaks to the three broad themes of this budget: returning to balance, supporting jobs and growth, and supporting families and communities. I will speak to these three themes and perhaps give some small examples that represent those themes, but first I want to make a general statement.
We hear the New Democrats frequently comment about the number of pages. I am not sure if they have challenges and do not want to read those 359 pages, but it is important to recognize that legislatively it sometimes takes a lot of pages to make a little change. 
For example, making MP pensions fairer for Canadians was a small change, but it took about 20 pages of legislation to actually do that. I do not think we should be judging a budget document, a plan, in terms of its number of pages. 
The other point I would like to make is that I certainly believe that if the NDP, God forbid, ever had the opportunity to present a budget, given all its national plans and tax raises, it would probably fill a bookshelf with national strategy, national strategy, tax increase, tax increase. That is one piece that we need to look at. 
Of course, we know that the Liberals would probably have about one page. They know that budgets balance themselves, so one page would probably be sufficient for any budget that the Liberals might decide to present.
Our government realizes that crafting a plan is a multi-year, multi-faceted process, and it requires measures that are both large and small. 
First I would like to target why it is important that we return to a balanced budget.
We know that we cannot leave debt for our children and grandchildren. It would not be fair. We would not do it as a family member and we should not be doing it as a country. We also know that when we have a good fiscal position, our debt repayment is low, which means we have more money for health care, hospitals, and all the many things that Canadians feel would add value for infrastructure. When we are not paying a lot of money in debt repayment, we have additional funds to focus in those areas. We know that it gives us the ability to keep taxes low and gives us the opportunity for flexibility and stability.
When we first took government, economic times were good. We paid down $37 billion in debt. We had to provide some economic stimulus during the years, but we are on track to be back to a balanced budget by 2015-16. 
Certainly if we look around the world and compare Canada with other countries, we can be incredibly proud. How do we do that? We do it in two ways. We do it on the revenue side. We do it by creating an environment where small and large businesses can thrive and survive and create that economic benefit. We do it through our aggressive trade plan and our trade agreements, such as the South Korean and the European free trade agreements, just to name a couple.
 In the province of British Columbia, my cattlemen in B.C. are absolutely thrilled with the aggressive measures we have taken in terms of what is going to open up new markets for them. They have gone through an incredibly difficult time and they see huge opportunities. It was said by the cattlemen that they now have 500 million hungry customers waiting for them, so creating the environment for revenue is really important. Ensuring that the people pay their fair share of taxes by closing tax loopholes is another part of taking care of the revenue side.
The expenditure side is another important area. Again, we are looking at the expenditure side very carefully. We are making sure that the money the government spends is very thoughtful money. We are making sure that there is value for dollars, and we have undertaken a number of measures to make sure that compensation is fair. 
That was a look at the return to balanced budgets and the importance of returning to balanced budgets.
Now I have just a few comments about some measures for supporting jobs and growth. I will look at one, which is a very tiny measure. We know that in British Columbia, we have a fabulous wine industry. The member for Okanagan—Coquihalla has a private member's bill to make changes to the importation of intoxicating liquor so that if people are visiting British Columbia from Ontario, they can go to one of those wineries and pick up a bottle from Quails' Gate or another winery and take it across the border. It would really open up the market. Amazingly, in Canada, the ability for interprovincial trade has been constrained for our wine industry.
In this bill we have given craft brewers and artisan distillers the same opportunities to open up their markets. I will give an example. I used to be the mayor of Pemberton. Pemberton is well known for its seed potatoes and it is known for its pristine glacier waters.
I can remember, when I was there, that for many years people would muse that someone should make vodka in Pemberton. They had potatoes and fantastic water. What a great combination.
Entrepreneurs are out there. It did not happen when I was there, but a family moved to Pemberton, and they had the same thought. They created a new business venture, Pemberton Distillery, and they make Schramm vodka. It was a small entrepreneur setting up a business. What we are doing is opening up their opportunity to sell their product.
 When that kind of environment is created across the country, what we are doing is creating success for our small and medium-sized businesses. Again, it is a small measure, but it is incredibly important in terms of what the opportunities will be.
There is another area we are looking at supporting for opportunities, jobs, and growth. Last week, the Premier of British Columbia was in Ottawa. She was speaking about skilled trades shortages. She was speaking about their goal, which is coming to fruition, of having a robust LNG industry in British Columbia. She was talking about needing the manpower to fill the jobs that are going to be created.
 We did identify, and I know that it is not across the country, that there are definitely skills shortages. We have a need for apprenticeship support. We have done a lot in terms of the apprenticeship program.
 If we look at someone who perhaps is going back into an apprenticeship, he might have a wife and a family. We announced support in this latest budget such that registered Red Seal programs will have access to $100 million in interest-free loans. That is $4,000 per individual per session. That can make the difference for people going back, getting their Red Seal, and opening up their opportunities in terms of the new available jobs throughout British Columbia and Alberta, and of course, across the country. Again, it is important support that is going to hopefully help generate the people we need into the future.
Finally, every one of us, in our offices, have cases that touch us. I had a case of a couple who were not able to have children of their own. They had waited many years and were able to adopt a child. This child was in another country. Of course, sometimes babies do not come according to plan. The baby was born prematurely. The family had to travel to this country to spend time with their newborn. The expenses to spend that time before they were able to bring their newborn back home were extraordinary.
The $15,000 tax credit they could have to support their adoption expenses would make a phenomenal difference.
The crafting of this budget was done with input from Canadians across this country. We see many measures that we know we submitted or that our colleagues submitted. It is a plan to move Canada forward, and it is a plan to return to balanced budgets and a successful, prosperous future.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to ask the member a question. I have been on committee with her before and I know that she is dedicated to trying to resolve some issues. 
However, she comes from an area where there was a residential school in her riding, and since the residential school apology there are still a lot of wrongs being done when it comes to our first nations.
I met with a couple of people this morning, Ron Beaver and Roy Thunder, who came to talk about the native alcohol drug assessment program and the fact that they are not within the wage parity with others. For example, the wage for someone who works on reserve as an addictions counsellor is about $35,437, yet in the health care bargaining unit in an Ontario institution it is $47,736.
Does the member not believe that they should have wage parity, and why is the government always pushing back when it comes to providing proper funding, especially when it comes to the health care of first nations?
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to address that question. The member is perhaps not familiar with it, and I hope other provinces follow suit, but the first nations in British Columbia, in partnership with the federal government and the province, were the first to sign on to a first nations health authority. They are assuming responsibility for their services, their programs. Everyone is watching, and this will be a great opportunity in terms of creating the robust programs that meet the health care needs of our first nations communities throughout British Columbia. Hopefully, they will follow suit across Canada.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague's fantastic speech really highlights the comparison and contrast between the NDP's plan and our plan. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on this. The NDP has made, I think it is $56-billion worth of unfunded promises, and so far we know it wants a $20-billion carbon tax. However, as the member knows, we have decreased taxes across the board, whether it is the GST, from 7% to 6% to 5%, small business taxes, or personal taxes. The average family of four now pays $3,400 less federal taxes with this Conservative government compared to before.
I am wondering if the member could give us an idea about the further contrast between our government's responsible approach to returning to balanced budgets and the $56-billion worth of unfunded promises by the NDP. How does she think New Democrats are going to make up that difference?
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I have looked very carefully at the NDP's plan, its plan on the carbon tax and the plan in terms of how it was going to spend that money. To be frank, it was a myriad and hodgepodge of social programs that the members were going to spend that money on.
In contrast, we believe that Canadians work very hard for their money and they need to keep that money in their pockets. It is very expensive these days in terms of day-to-day living. The more we can have that hard-earned money in the pockets of Canadians, the better off Canadians will be, and of course the better off Canada will be because they will be investing that money. They will be investing it into their families, their futures, their businesses.
Alain Giguère: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the hon. member's speech does not reflect the economic reality of all Canadians.
Canadians have been experiencing growing financial instability for a long time now. It is getting worse, not better. She is all sunshine and lollipops, but she needs a reality check. Every day, all Canadians are facing poverty.
They talk about cutting taxes. I am sorry, but when Canada Post doubles postage rates, that is a tax. Implementing P3 programs that people have to pay for is a tax too. Worse still, the Conservatives treat pension funds like a tax, not a savings.
What will happen when people are retired and have to live in poverty? The government will have to raise taxes to pay for the savings that people are not making now.
[Interjection]
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely proud of the work that our government has done for seniors. The number who are living below the poverty line, compared with when we took office, has changed dramatically. The increase to the GIS was the biggest increase in many years, and there is income splitting available to seniors. 
Again, our record on seniors is very strong and we are very proud of that record.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): 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
National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-501, An Act respecting a National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Rick Norlock:  moved that the bill be concurred in.
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)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Rick Norlock:  moved that Bill C-501, An Act respecting a National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day, be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to address my private member's bill, Bill C-501, which would formally designate the third Saturday in September every year as Canada's national hunting, trapping and fishing heritage day. 
Bill C-501 calls for a nation-wide designation of a special day to commemorate the historic role of these traditional activities and a celebration of the part that hunting, trapping and fishing plays in Canada's heritage, social fabric, and indeed our economy.
A hunting, trapping, and fishing heritage runs deep in my family. My maternal grandfather Narcisse Viens came to Ontario from Aylmer, Quebec. He was a great hunter and a very successful trapper. My father Ben, my brothers, and my two sons, James and Matthew, are following in their great grandfather's and grandfather's footsteps, and I must say their father's footsteps. 
In 2017, we will be celebrating Canada's 150th anniversary of Confederation. In the lead-up to that celebration, it is important that Canadians know about, appreciate, and celebrate our history and traditions, which help to define who we are as Canadians today.
Hunting, trapping, and fishing were and are an integral part of life for Canada's aboriginal peoples and our first settlers. Further, the availability of game and fish determined where people settled in this great country of ours.
These activities were the first forms of trade and even currency, and they formed the very backbone of Canada's early financial structures. In part, they helped to set the tone as well as the direction of our economic and social development.
Hunting, trapping, and fishing are vital to the livelihood of Canada's northern communities. I recall my days on the northeast patrol of the Ontario Provincial Police along the James Bay and Hudson's Bay coast, and at the time of year when the geese were returning or leaving, the availability of these migratory game birds sustained communities through some long, hard winters. They supplemented a very expensive diet, and members know how expensive groceries can be in the north.
These activities fuel the economy of our northern communities by attracting more than 400,000 visitors each year. I know that the member for Yukon will agree that it is vital to the economies of our great territories in the north because it provides tourism. Hunters and fishers go there to enjoy some of the world's best fishing and hunting.
I would like to speak now about something that is important to Canadians, particularly those Canadians who garner their living or part of their living through trapping.
There are more than 65,000 Canadians who work in different sectors of the fur trade. The fur trade contributes $800 million to the Canadian economy, including over half, $450 million, to our export markets. 
Some of the world's top designers are using fur in their collections. Fur garments are a sought-after status symbol for wealthy customers in China, Russia, and South Korea. In fact, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement will remove border taxes from mink, many farmed, which will provide Canadian exporters with a new edge in this emerging market.
Our aboriginal and many non-aboriginal trappers use the pelts of fur-bearing animals for their living, and for the Canadian fur industry, which is beginning once again to thrive in our country.
The value of hunting, fishing, and trapping in this country is over $10 billion a year, and I believe that I am underestimating that significantly. As an outdoorsman, I can vouch for the many organizations to which we belong, and there is no group of people in this country who are greater conservationists than hunters and anglers. I dare say that we are stewards of the environment and recognize the need for ongoing conservation and restoration.
I would like to thank a few of the organizations that have supported this bill, communicated with me, and encouraged me to continue on in the second time around for the bill. 
I want to recognize the Alberta Fish &amp; Game Association, the BC Wildlife Federation, the Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Friends of Fur, the Canadian Outdoors Network, Ducks Unlimited Canada, the Fur Institute of Canada, the Hunting for Tomorrow Foundation, the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, the Ontario Federation of Anglers &amp; Hunters, All-Party Outdoor Caucus, the Conservative Hunting and Angling Caucus, the P.E.I. Wildlife Federation, the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, Wildlife Habitat Canada, Safari Club International, and the Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association. I also want to recognize the member for Yukon, of course, and his great support of this bill, as well as many members of Parliament both on this side of the House and on the other.
I echo the Speech from the Throne in stating:
 Since Canada’s earliest days, our economy has been built on our abundant natural resources. Directly and indirectly, the natural resource sector employs 1.8 million Canadians, many in skilled, high-paying jobs. Resource development generates $30 billion annually in revenue that supports health care, education, and programs that Canadians cherish. 
These activities of hunting, fishing, and trapping help contribute to the other natural resources that I have just specified.
Economic action plan 2014 proposes to provide an additional $15 million over 2 years to extend the recreational fisheries conservation partnership program. This program brings partners together to support the common goal of conserving and protecting Canada's recreational fisheries.
This bill has all-party support, as well as the support of every provincial and regional outdoor federation across this great country of ours. It is crucial to honour the heritage of those who have gone before us and bring special recognition to those who participate in hunting, trapping, and fishing today.
Please join me in supporting my bill so that every third Saturday of September will be known as Canada's national hunting, trapping and fishing heritage day.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I am the one who will be asking the question here, because I have many people who trap in my neck of the woods. Of course, we have beautiful Manitoulin Island.
Bob Florean was at the environment committee yesterday, talking about the issues with the Great Lakes Basin.
We will be supporting this bill, but when I was looking at this, I am kind of confused. This document has really good numbers about the economic impact this has on Canada as a whole, yet we have a government that is set to close the Algoma Central Railway passenger service, from which $20 million comes back in economic return.
My question for my colleague is why, if the government recognizes the impact and the importance of fishing, hunting, and trapping, it is willing to derail the economic stability of northern Ontario? Why is the government attacking the very people it is saying it wants to recognize on such an important day?
[Interjection]
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, there is no attack whatsoever. Perhaps the member is a bit premature in her comments. I know that we have members on this side of the House who are working on that issue, as well as many other issues. Let us just wait and see what occurs.
It is important to let the member who just spoke know that I do know some of her riding. I used to work in Hearst, Ontario, and worked throughout Kapuskasing and other areas, so I am very much aware of how important hunting, fishing, and trapping are, not only to the residents there but also to the many people who come to Ontario's great north, as I mentioned in my speech. They bring their families. I brought my dear wife, Judy, to a fly fishing camp in Hornepayne, so I know that the member would encourage all members of the House to go to our great north and participate in those activities.
Before the member wants to find some really negative things to say about it, I think she would agree that this bill would go a long way to encouraging more and more Canadians and people from around the world to take part in hunting and fishing in our country, and to buy fur coats of animals raised or trapped in this country of ours. I know that she would encourage all of her constituents who can afford it to buy a fur coat, too.
Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for bringing forward the motion today. Obviously this is a motion that is very much motherhood among most parliamentarians in Canada. We all represent large constituencies of trappers, hunters, and fishers. There is no reason we should not be designating a day to honour and celebrate an industry that is such a tremendous part of our heritage in Canada.
What always concerns me is the sealing industry in Canada's north and why there has been such terrible perception created worldwide about this hunt rather than about the benefits it brings to our country and our people. I would ask my colleague if he has some suggestions on how we can start changing those worldwide attitudes around that industry and make it better for the people in this country.
[Interjection]
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, what the member across the way has said is very important. Collectively, members of Parliament have been talking about the seal hunt and how important it is to not only the residents of her riding but to the people who live in the north and to the people who supplement their income through sealing. 
I encourage all Canadians to do as I did. I bought a sealskin tie. I should have worn it today. I apologize that I did not. We should all support the industry from within this House. I agree with the member as to how important it is. It is important for our country, for our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and for the Prime Minister himself to encourage especially the European Economic Union to recognize that sealing is a legitimate and proper way to earn a living. 
I want to thank the member and her province for being the home of my brother-in-law, Dan Bangs, when he worked in Newfoundland. Of course, I saw some great opportunities there for those of us who hunt moose. 
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, during my speech on Bill C-501, An Act respecting a National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day, I will explore the ethical side of the practices that have shaped our identity and that are the focus of the bill before us.
When I talk about practices that have shaped our identity, I am talking about hunting, trapping and fishing, which are a significant part of our identity as Canadians. These activities helped ensure the survival of the first settlers and colonizers who, out of necessity, had to adapt to a sometimes hostile climate and to unexplored territory. These activities are a significant part of our identity as a nation, and it is important to acknowledge that here today.
When I heard about the topic at hand, I had some reservations at first. Given this government's fairly pronounced authoritarian streak, I assumed that the Conservatives would attempt to control the elements and the wildlife. However, I was quite surprised to see that there is an unstated recognition of the impact that human activity has on preserving our resources and the ecosystem. That indicates that the Conservatives are making some progress, and I must give them credit for their change in mentality, their evolving concerns and their shift in position.
I was apprehensive because what I have learned from others and what I was told growing up in my community was that humans are meant to have little impact on and control over animals, the fauna and the elements.
Upon reading the content of this bill, I could see that it was designed to change human behaviour. Humans really only have control over their own destiny. It is always possible to change the way of thinking of Canadian society as a whole. This is already happening. 
I think that all groups that represent hunters and groups that were consulted in the drafting of this bill agreed that it was necessary to protect the resource and to develop ethical and ecologically sensitive practices with respect to animals. That is something positive and that is what I want to talk about today.
The evolution of how Canadians interact with nature covers a wide range of activities that can be categorized by the terms “hunting, trapping and fishing.” These terms cover elements of recreation, culture and tradition, and the economy, as well as scientific and environmental research.
I just wanted to mention that in passing for your information. I often venture into obiter dictum territory, but I still want to point these things out. 
I want to reiterate that the study and the bill before us can in no way create guidelines for, limit or govern the traditional activities carried out by the aboriginal peoples of Canada. This very specific bill could not in any way limit or even interfere with the traditional activities—including hunting, trapping and fishing—practised in their communities, because those activities are enshrined in the Constitution and are protected. Therefore, the bottom line is that this could not have any effect on those activities. Since the bill states and recognizes the primacy of these activities, I wanted to bring it up today. That is another step in the right direction.
I want to stress that the measures set out in the bill are non-binding with respect to the traditional practices of aboriginal peoples. These traditional activities are virtually immutable because it is almost impossible to regulate them or create guidelines either through this bill or any others.
Following the stream of thought prevailing in lands occupied by aboriginal communities in this country, hunters, anglers and trappers acknowledge the importance of the ethical treatment of animals and environmentally sustainable activities, all from the standpoint of perpetuating the identity-building practices that have forged Canada's social, economic and cultural history. I have already substantiated those words over the past few minutes.
For example, in Innu communities—I will rely on my own personal experience—from a very young age, when young people are called upon to go out into the forest and follow the group and clan, we make sure they have the information and ancestral knowledge they need to adopt behaviour that, of necessity, is ethical towards animals.
From a very young age, I already knew that we do not shoot wolves, because, in any case, they cannot be eaten. Although you sometimes do see wolf pelts for sale, my community is rather reluctant about that and does not approve.
There are some practices that are said to be “emulative”, that is, when someone from Uashat or Maliotenam displays questionable or unethical behaviour regarding hunting or the use of pelts, bones or antlers, elders will make sure that person understands that his behaviour is inappropriate and he will be ostracized by the community. This kind of informal regulation has been used by members of the community for thousands of years. It is about maintaining the reputation and the pure, unwavering character of these actions.
It would be unreasonable of me to expect all Canadians to know this information, especially since I come from a predominantly oral culture and, as one might expect, this information is passed down from one generation to the next.
The bill before us reiterates the same imperative, but that imperative will be shared by all Canadians. Some benefit can be drawn from these teachings that are almost innate or automatic in my home community.
It is beneficial to reiterate the ideals and imperatives regarding the ethical treatment of animals in sport hunting. For the purposes of this study, it is important to point out that the “emulatory” principles that prevail in aboriginal clans most often act as informal ways of regulating traditional practices, particularly through the attachment to animal spirits as a way of self-identifying, which we also try to share with the entire Canadian population for the common good. It would be good if everyone had the same foundation and knew that there is no use shooting a wolf because it is hard to eat the meat. 
With the gradual loss and disappearance of the traditional teachings among the population in general, given the millions of Canadians, it might be hard to ensure that this information is passed on to every hunter and every fisher. That is why we need regulation and the enactment of a legislative tool that would reiterate these imperatives, as is being proposed today, and the establishment of national and international standards of practice to ensure that animals are not subjected to such unethical treatment.
The groups that were consulted and spoke to this issue agreed on the need for ethical and respectful behaviour toward animals because we all know that this resource will have to be available if the next generation wants to follow in our footsteps. Humans can change their own behaviour and their own destiny. We have to wonder when we see a moose head on the hood of a 4x4, something we very rarely see. In any case, I have never seen that in my community. Such a gesture is disrespectful of the animal, and that is why we so rarely see that on an Indian reserve.
Lastly, I would note that the very text of the legislative instrument constitutes an attempt on the part of the Conservatives to make amends by recognizing the vital importance of measures to protect our fragile ecosystems. Every now and then, they almost impress me by demonstrating a degree of openness at variance with their usual stance.
In the interest of consistency, the Conservatives should also reconsider their economic agenda, which continues to undermine environmental regulations in favour of rapid development in ecologically sensitive regions and areas. The greatest threat to wildlife and human resources, the greatest destructive force, is industrial activity and its impact in terms of the environment and pollution. Hunting and hunters have a negligible impact on the number of animals in a given population.
Yvonne Jones: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to rise and speak to the bill that has been put forward by the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, and to say that of course we on this side of the House will support the motion that he has offered up today.
I am pleased to speak to this on behalf of my colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, who is not able to be here but was a strong supporter of having this designation made. He certainly made a request upon all of us as part of our caucus to support it, and the member did not have to work very hard because, as members know, hunting, trapping, and fishing are really the foundation of how this country was built.
 If we want to look back to the one thing Canadians have had in common through those early years, it was how we participated in the business of hunting, trapping, and fishing from one end of the country to the other, to sustain ourselves, to grow our communities and our provinces, and to provide for our families. Our story in Newfoundland and Labrador is really not unlike any other story that can be told in any province or territory across Canada as to our involvement or engagement in those industries.
We know that obviously we have transitioned into lots of different industries over the years, and will continue to do so. However, it is very fair to say that in Canada today hunting, trapping, and fishing still remain as core industries that support our economy and our communities and the people of this country in many ways. As most members know, I live in a northern region of the country and I have many trappers in my riding. I have many fishers and fish camps, and a lot of fur farming that goes on. So I am very well informed as to how the industry works and the benefits it brings to the people I represent, as it does to many others across Canada.
 However, what I also see is the people who spend a lot of time nursing and nurturing the industries and protecting what they partake in. I always find it so very offensive when I hear people who often speak out against some of these industries in which we participate without knowledge and understanding of what it really means or how it is really conducted. I find it very offensive. Just recently, I was told of Ellen DeGeneres and how she has donated money to fight back at the sealing industry in Canada. I was absolutely appalled, because I have not known this person to ever come and sit among the aboriginal people of the north to talk about this industry and what it means to them and how it impacts them. Oftentimes I am very offended when I hear people like this express their opinions and their thoughts without ever looking at the real issue and the real side of the story we are presenting in Canada.
Going back to the early days in our history, there are many stories to be told around Newfoundland and Labrador, just as we would hear in the Northwest Territories, northern Quebec, and northern Ontario. They are stories of the companies like the Hudson's Bay Company that came and set up in those early days, so that trappers and hunters would have a place to trade their product and to earn a living. Back in those days, the first nations people, who were very nomadic people in Labrador, would always come down into the villages that were settled by the Metis and the Inuit and others, and they would trade with the companies for food, just as the people in the village would do. Even through those years in the commercial fishing industry, my grandfather's stories to me were always about when they first started to trap, fish, and catch cod and salmon. It was never exchanged for money; it was always exchanged for food and for supplies, just as it was in the trapping and hunting industry for many people.
For most of their lives, that was how business was conducted. There was very little money that exchanged hands, even in Labrador, prior to confederation with Canada. It was only then that merchants would give out money as opposed to just trading supplies and food. There are a lot of stories to tell. 
In my region and throughout Newfoundland and Labrador today, there are hunting and fishing associations made up of people who partake in the industry from either commercial or recreational bases; but either way, they are the conservationists. They are the people on the land. They watch what happens with every single animal species. They watch what is happening with regard to the whole ecological system. They also take notes and report anything they see that may or may not seem right or appropriate. They are some of the best conservationists I have ever known and take what they do very seriously, simply because the livelihoods of many of them are still connected to the land and the activities of trapping, hunting, and fishing. It is very sacred and important for them to ensure that there is proper management.
One of the things I have been very proud of about the people I represent is their ability to meet with environmentalists and scientists and exchange stories and information about how they manage particular species in particular industries. We have seen that a lot in the fishing industry, particularly in Labrador, where a lot of the recommendations for the industry are taken from the input of those closest to the industry. I have been very proud of them when they have said that they see things differently today and want to make sure that quotas are reduced, that there are further protections or that there are zones exempt from any kind of fishing or hunting activity. It is very important that their input is heard because they are, in my opinion, the experts on the ground.
It is important to take this occasion to recognize the importance of hunting, trapping, and fishing to the people of this country, how it comprises the history of who we are, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, across the country. However, it is also an opportunity to send a louder message to people all around the world that Canadians are nurturers and protectors, people who work hard to make a living, have tremendous respect for their forefathers, and are very proud of who they are and their heritage.
I am hoping that by designating a day in this country, we will recognize and honour that particular industry, and that it will also become an opportunity to speak to people all around the world about who we are and what we do. It would be a day to honour all of those who built this country through trapping, hunting, and fishing. I am sure that it was not easy in those days, but it was very important.
In concluding my comments, I want to say that people in parts of Labrador continue to honour the age-old traditions, to participate in these activities and be the lead conservationists in protecting the lands, animals, waters, and fish. We are the stewards of where we live and are very proud of that.
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-501, An Act respecting a National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day. I have already had the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill at second reading, but I wanted to reiterate my support.
In my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, hunting, fishing and trapping are a major part of my region's economy. In fact, I invite people to visit my region if they have never been there. 
In the past, some preeminent people, including Theodore Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, were lucky enough to come to my riding to go fishing, hunting and trapping. There are some absolutely magnificent pictures on the Internet of Theodore Roosevelt with a rather large moose carcass, hunted in my home town of Saint-Raymond in Portneuf. I am very proud to mention that in the House.
The tradition of hunting clubs has existed for hundreds of years in my riding. At one time, these clubs were reserved for the Anglo-Saxon elite. Nonetheless, we were lucky. Access to these hunting clubs opened up over the years. Today, Canadians, Quebeckers and tourists can come take advantage of our hunting grounds and explore our magnificent region. Obviously, our many lakes and rivers are also great places to discover.
Every year, I try to participate in the fishing days that take place in Quebec. I think my colleague's initiative, which seeks to institute a similar day across the country in order to truly celebrate this important part of our heritage, is worthwhile. 
My family is not big on hunting. However, my father went fishing many times when I was a child, and I went with him once. Fishing is not really my thing, but I did my part for the conservation effort by stocking one of the rivers in my riding with trout recently.
This type of activity made me truly aware of the importance that our hunters and fishers place on nature conservation and the protection of our wildlife.
I have only one negative thing to say in my speech today. Although this bill celebrates an important part of our heritage and draws attention to the importance that Canadians who participate in these activities place on environmental protection and sustainable development, I find it ironic that the government is making decisions that are completely contrary to these values. I sometimes get the impression that they take hunters, fishers and trappers for granted. That is unfortunate.
Efforts made in our respective ridings to conserve and protect nature are impressive. For example, in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, the hunting season for wild turkey will again open in the spring. 
A few years ago, the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs reintroduced wild turkeys into Canada. We are starting to see the results of this initiative. People can now hunt for turkey, something they had not been able to do for a very long time. In my riding, I regularly see wild turkeys along Highway 138, the Chemin du Roy. It is rather amazing to see how successful this initiative has been. Some species of fish are also being reintroduced into the Jacques-Cartier River, among others.
The Conservative government should copy all these programs. Considering the importance of the diversity of our fauna, it should not be impeding Canadians' efforts. We are spoiled in Canada because our biodiversity is quite impressive.
The Conservatives' decision to reduce protection for our lakes and rivers does not make any sense. Now there are only 99 lakes and rivers in our entire country that are protected. These kinds of decisions will increasingly limit access to lakes, rivers and wilderness areas for our hunters, fishers and trappers. That is really unfortunate.
Nevertheless, I hope that establishing a national hunting, trapping and fishing heritage day will raise the Conservatives' awareness of the importance of protecting nature and our wildlife. It is a step in the right direction, and I am pleased to see this bill before us. I am proud to support it, but I hope that we will broaden our thinking and adopt concrete measures to ensure that these traditional activities continue in Canada for hundreds of years and generation after generation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Resuming debate with his five-minute right of reply, the hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of time, I commend the bill to the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The question is on the motion. 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, bill read the third time and passed)
 It being 2:13 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:13 p.m.)