2014-12-05

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2[Stage Direction]
Bill C-43. Report stage
The House resumed from December 2 consideration of C-43, A Second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. 
Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-43, economic action plan 2014.
I want to step back for a moment. Three and a half years ago, I sought the nomination for the Conservative Party. At that time, I was not a political guru. Part of the nomination process was to go through the policies of the government. I read the Conservative policies and realized that they so applied to me. These were policies that spoke to caring for our families, supporting our businesses, ensuring that we are participants rather than observers in the global economy, caring for our seniors and our veterans, and promoting jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, to name but a few. 
Economic action plan 2014 builds on those policies and those initiatives. Today I want to focus a bit on those that are particularly important to northern Ontario and Sault Ste. Marie. 
My history is in northern Ontario. I went to high school in North Bay, when my father was stationed there as part of the Canadian Armed Forces. I went to college in Sudbury and got a diploma from Cambrian College and then received a university degree from Laurentian University. I then moved to Sault Ste. Marie, where I reside now. I have been there for 33 years. During that tenure, I travelled all around northern Ontario as part of the Ontario March of Dimes, so I am very familiar with northern Ontario and its needs.
One of the most important components of the economic action plan is FedNor, which is the economic development fund for northern Ontario. It is a significant fund. The economic action plan continues to fund this program. It is a program that delivers programs that support innovation, sustainable community economic development, and business growth and competitiveness. Since 2006, $329 million has been funded through FedNor for 1,600 projects across northern Ontario that have created 21,000 jobs. 
As part of economic action plan 2014, the minister announced what is called the targeted manufacturing fund, which is part of FedNor. This would provide financing for operational assessments and upgrading capital equipment. I encourage those who are watching at home to go to fednor.gc.ca to learn more about the programs offered through FedNor.
On December 4, the Minister for FedNor announced the community investment initiative for northern Ontario. This is a great initiative for rural municipalities and first nations communities that will facilitate staffing, the identification of opportunities, and the management of local economic development efforts to strengthen the economy and create jobs. Up to $100,000 per year is available over a three-year period for non-repayable financing toward staffing positions. 
This agency has been incredible in Sault Ste. Marie. I just want to speak to a couple of the projects that have occurred in Sault Ste. Marie.
One is a company called JD Aero Maintenance. FedNor provided financing of $475,000 to assist it in its hanger development. As a result of that, it has created 28 jobs in Sault Ste. Marie, as JD Aero services the last Porter flight that comes into Sault Ste. Marie every evening. 
Recently, $762,000 went to the Innovation Centre to deliver broadband e-business and marketing and innovation accelerator programs to enhance innovation, commercialization, management, and trade capacity for small and medium enterprises in northern Ontario over the next two years.
The Economic Development Corporation in Sault Ste. Marie just received $2.2 million. This is for an incredible new initiative in Sault Ste. Marie. A study done in 2013 by KPMG stated that the “economic and other benefits of the proposed harbour expansion are expected to be significant”. The report states that combined with anticipated production capacity increases by Sault Ste. Marie's steel products manufacturers, the expanded port would add as much as $228 million to Canada's GDP and would support up to 1,800 new employment positions as a result of the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts. It would provide $262 million in economic activity generated by the infrastructure investments in the harbour and would support just under 1,400 person years of employment.
The project right now is in the process of establishing the critical path for port development. They are doing logistics, a market and commercial sensitivity analysis, a traffic forecast, and business planning and development. There is also port project infrastructure planning, design, and preparation, port logistics, and the preparation of the business case. That is what is really critical. Once that is done, the port project will apply to the new building Canada fund. This is a national infrastructure component. This project is a $120-million to $150-million investment that will happen in Sault Ste. Marie.
That leads me to another component of economic action plan 2014 that is incredibly important to northern Ontario and to all of Canada, and that is the new building Canada fund. The new building Canada plan is the largest long-term infrastructure plan in Canadian history. It will provide stable funding for a 10-year period. It includes the community improvement fund, consisting of the gas tax fund and the incremental business services tax rebate for municipalities. This will provide $32 billion to municipalities for projects such as roads, public transit, recreational facilities, and other community infrastructure. 
I spent eight years on city council in Sault Ste. Marie, and one of the biggest concerns was infrastructure funding. Through our gas tax fund, which we will increase by at least 2% per year, we have put $4.6 million a year for the past couple of years into that fund for major infrastructure projects for Sault Ste. Marie.
There will also be a $14-billion new Canada fund, which will consist of the $4-billion national infrastructure component that will support projects of national significant. For smaller communities, there is the $10-billion provincial-territorial infrastructure component for projects of national, regional, or local significance. Of this amount, $1 billion is dedicated to projects in communities such as Sault Ste. Marie, with populations of fewer than 100,000 residents.
An additional $1.25 billion will be put into the P3 public private partnership Canada fund, and that will go along with the $6 billion in funding that continues to flow across the country this year and beyond under existing infrastructure programs.
I want to talk a little bit about taxes. The average family of four, under our government, pays $3,400 a year less than when we formed government. We formed government in 2006. Since then, we have administered over 160 tax cuts, and most recently, under economic action plan 2014, we have done some incredible things for families. 
The first is the universal child care increase. It was originally $100 per month. It would now go up to $160 per month. If a family has a child under six years of age, there would be $1,920 available to use as the family sees fit. We would also expand the program to include funds for children aged six to 17. We would put $60 a month into that program, so there would be an additional $720 a year available. 
On top of that, we have introduced the family tax cut, which is geared towards couples with minor children. This would allow a transfer of up to $50,000 a year in income to the spouse in the lower tax bracket, and it would be capped at a $2,000 credit. We would also increase the child care expense deduction limit by $1,000 and double the fitness tax credit to $1,000 and make it refundable. These initiatives in economic action plan 2014 would put an average of $1,140 back into the pockets of families with children. 
On top of that, we have introduced initiatives for empowering Canadian consumers, investing in skills and training, investing in Canada's youth, supporting small business, supporting seniors, supporting Canada's veterans, and supporting Canada's farmers. 
I could go on and on. I am just very proud to stand here and talk about these policies that are so incredibly important to Canadians.
Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
In his speech, he mentioned a harbour expansion project in Sault Ste. Marie. My speech on Bill C-43 basically dealt with issues related to the amendments the bill would make to the Canada Marine Act. Those amendments were hidden in the omnibus bill and were not even examined by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
However, I would like to inform my colleague that the president of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities told the Standing Committee on Finance that the federal government was not providing sufficient funding to support the development of Canadian ports.
Was my colleague aware of that? What will the government propose to resolve this serious problem, which affects Canada's ability to play a major role on the international stage?
[Interjection]
Bryan Hayes: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that, because I did not hear the member's speech, quite frankly. Although I did sit in on the budget implementation clause by clause, that did not come up during my time.
I am aware, however, that there is an initiative on the table by the federal government. I believe it is a $40-million initiative specific to enhancing ports. In my own riding, we will be looking into those funds. That will not apply to our deep sea harbour, which has not been constructed. It will be for existing ports and harbours.
I would anticipate that those funds would be able to assist the member. I am certainly prepared to meet with him afterward to discuss it more fully and so he can brief me.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member talks about tax breaks. One of the things that has come across to Canadians is the government's arrogance concerning its income splitting tax proposal. At the core is a $2-billion plan, which would be financed by the middle class of Canada, and the people who would benefit from it would be less than 15% of the population.
How does the member or his government justify having the middle class pay for a $2-billion commitment for less than 15% of Canada's population?
[Interjection]
Bryan Hayes: Mr. Speaker, what is most important, as I mentioned in my speech, is that the average family of four would pay $3,400 less per year in taxes. What we have introduced with our new tax plan would mean that every single family that has children under the age of 17 would benefit.
I am not sure I agree with the comment that we would only be reaching 15%. That being said, every single proposal the government puts forward does not necessarily meet the needs of the population as a whole. When we talk about veterans, there are currently 200,000 veterans we are putting in programs for through Veterans Canada, at a cost of $3.5 billion a year. Those programs impact veterans. We have to look at the broad scope.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member will note that the Liberal member who just stood up said that tax cuts cost the middle class money. In reality, tax cuts save the middle class money. The reality is that when families have to pay less tax, that does not cost them money. It saves them money. It means they can go out and spend in their communities or on raising their families.
The member raised the issue of family tax fairness, which allows a single-income family to have the same tax bill as a dual-income family making the same amount of money. That would help about two million families in this country. On top of that, we have increased the universal child care benefit by $720 a year and have extended that additional benefit to children over the age of five.
I wonder if the member, who knows a lot about northern Ontario communities, can tell us whether families in his riding would prefer to have money in their pockets to make the right decisions for their children or whether they would like the Liberal Party to take that money back and spend it on a government day care program, which will not help 90% of families.
[Interjection]
Bryan Hayes: Mr. Speaker, to respond to the question, it is obvious what Canadians want: Canadians want choice. What we are providing them is more discretionary income to use as they see fit, and that is incredibly important to all Canadians.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in respect to our budget, and there are many wonderful things to be said about some of the measures across the board. However, I will spend the limited time I have speaking in respect to the family tax measures.
I sincerely believe, after now some 18 years in this place, and I have seen it more and more across our country, that support of family is absolutely vital. It is very crucial. If we support family, we will not be paying the costs in terms of the health care system, social welfare system, and justice system. However, if we choose to undermine and hurt family by way of regressive tax policies and numerous other things, then we do it to our own detriment, and we will eventually pay through the nose in various other programs.
I am pleased to see that our Conservative government has followed through on its election promise to introduce income splitting with our new family tax cut. Of course, there is always more that can be done in these areas in respect of providing tax relief for individuals, but I am excessively proud of the fact that we have done this for our country and for our families in particular.
I was one of a handful individuals in the early days some years back who agitated, pushed, and provoked for this. The groundswell, that momentum, grew such that we have these very commendable provisions of income tax splitting for families.
To get into specifics, the family tax cut is a federal tax credit that would allow a higher-income spouse to transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket. That credit would provide tax relief, presently capped at $2,000, for couples with children under the age of 18, effective for the 2014 tax year. 
Income splitting is already helping seniors across the country. I hear reports of that in my riding, with gratefulness expressed on the help that it is to them. It is also why the government is now proposing a similar relief for other families as well.
Increasing the universal child care benefit, UCCB, for children under the age of six is a measure we are implementing. As of January 1, 2015, parents would receive a benefit of $160 per month for each child under the age of six, which is up from the current $100 per month, and that is important. In a year, parents would receive up to $1,920 per child.
Expanding the UCCB to children aged 6 to 17 is another one of our measures here. It is a new measure as of January 1, 2015. Under the expanded UCCB, parents would receive a benefit of $60 a month per child aged 6 through 17. Therefore, in a year, parents would receive up to $720 per child through that particular measure.
As another measure, we are increasing the child care expense deduction dollar limits by $1,000 effective for the 2015 tax year. The maximum amounts that can be claimed would increase to $8,000 from $7,000 per child under the age of 7, and it would increase to $5,000 from $4,000 for children aged 7 through 16.
It would also increase to $11,000 from $10,000 for children who are eligible for the disability tax credit, which is near and dear to my heart. I understand, on a personal and first-hand basis, the challenges of parents and families who have kids with disabilities. They are special children in our world, and our government, thankfully, is taking some measures to effect some positive benefits for these families in respect to those dear children.
Families could claim the family tax cut in the spring of 2015 when they file their 2014 tax returns. They would begin to receive payments under the enhanced UCCB in July 2015, this coming summer. The July UCCB payment would include up to six months of benefits to cover the period from January through June, and so it would be a catch-up for the prior six months. The enhanced UCCB would replace the existing child tax credit, CTC, for the 2015 and subsequent tax years. 
I should remark, so that there is no misinformation or misunderstanding—because we have had questions in my constituency office, as other members will no doubt—on the enhanced UCCB replacing the existing child tax credit, CTC. I want to be clear that this is different from the Canada child tax benefit, or CCTB. There are all these acronyms that are important to understand. That significant benefit would continue on. The Canada child tax benefit is a significant benefit to low-income families and some middle-income families. It would continue on in addition to these new benefits that have just been announced to kick in starting January 1, 2015.
The government would continue the Canada child tax benefit, but as I said, it would merge the child tax credit with the universal child care benefit.
The child tax credit provides up to about $344 per child, per year, and it only goes to families with children under the age of 18 who paid federal income tax, whereas the UCCB would provide at least $720 per child, per year, and would go to every family with children under 18 years of age. It is not a means-based, income-tested provision, but it is one that would go to every family.
Members across the way, including the Liberal member who spoke just prior, have inferred that it would not apply to a lot of people, only 15%. If I were not in this place, I would use another term to describe what those members said. They are trying to confuse Canadians by giving them misinformation with respect to this. This would benefit people across the board. I think it is some 80%. The majority of Canadian families would benefit from this.
These new provisions mean that all families with children would benefit from these new measures introduced by our government. The average tax relief and benefits for these families would be $1,140 in 2015. Low- and middle-income families would receive two-thirds of the overall benefits provided by the package. The family tax cut would eliminate or significantly reduce the difference in the federal tax payable by a one-earner couple relative to a two-earner couple with a similar family income.
Earlier this month, the government announced its intention as well to double the children's fitness tax credit and make it refundable. It would come as an actual cheque instead of being taken off income tax paid.
The maximum amount of expenses that may be claimed under the credit would be doubled from its current limit to $1,000 for the 2014 tax year and subsequent tax years. The credit would be made refundable, effective 2015 and subsequent tax years.
Canadians at all income levels benefit from the federal tax relief measures introduced since 2006, with low- and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionately greater relief.
I want to give a case study as to how the family tax cut would work for many Canadian families. 
As an example, Pat and Chris are a two-earner couple with children. Pat earns $60,000 of taxable income and Chris earns $12,000, for a combined taxable income of $72,000. Pat faces a marginal federal tax rate of 22% and Chris is in the first tax bracket, where income is taxed at 15%. Since the value of Chris' non-refundable tax credits is greater than the tax on taxable income, he does not pay any federal tax presently. So, for federal tax purposes under the proposed family tax cut, Pat would be able to, in effect, transfer $24,000 of taxable income to Chris and that would bring their taxable incomes for the purposes of calculating the credit to $36,000 each, which puts both of them in that 15% tax bracket. In addition, Chris would be able to use up his unused non-refundable tax credits with the notional transfer of income. As one person in the couple may claim the family tax cut, they decided Pat would be the one to do so. The family tax cut would reduce Pat's tax payable by about $1,260 in 2014, taking into account both the reduced tax on their taxable incomes and the additional value of the non-refundable credits that Chris is able to use. That would give them a great benefit.
I would like to explain what the combined benefits of the family tax cut and the enhanced UCCB would mean to another Canadian family. Dale and Kelly are a two-earner couple with two children aged seven and three. Kelly earns $95,000 and Dale earns $25,000. To sum it up, this family would be better off by about $7,285 in 2015 as a result of all of the benefits that would be derived from this recently announced package.
I am proud of this. If we can help families, then we are helping society. We are also helping ourselves as a government. There would be less of a tax burden in the welfare system, the justice system, and the health system.
Helping families, the basic building blocks of society, is always a good thing to do. I am very proud that our Conservative government is doing just that.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, my question is in relation to a program that the Liberal Party has talked about a great deal. That is the EI premium exemption, which would apply for every new hire for employers. It was exceptionally well received by different stakeholders who have given it credit. It has the potential of creating literally tens of thousands of jobs.
 If we compare that to the government's plan, which is the small business job credit plan, it is questionable in terms of the number of jobs it would create. It is very expensive, and a number are suggesting that it would, in some bizarre, twisted way, actually provide an incentive to lay off some people who are in marginal types of positions.
Could the member explain to the House why the government is not recognizing the valuable idea that has been put forward by the Liberal Party, which would actually create literally thousands of jobs for every region of our country?
[Interjection]
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I do know, and to the Liberal member opposite, the Liberal Party, not the classic liberals per se, has never met a tax it did not like, or a tax it did not hike. 
Business owners are always glad when there is some relief in respect to the benefit packages they pay, as long as there is good benefit for their employees.
Our party has done the right thing. We have had some pretty good reviews of that approach as well. I know the member is being a bit selective in terms of suggesting it would not help, but by and large, our program has helped. We have done a great thing for business owners across the country in the package of reforms we have done over the course of the years we have been in government, since 2006. We have some of the lowest unemployment rates in the world at this point and we are pretty grateful for that as well.
All in all, our package is doing what it ought to do in producing the jobs, the income, and the employment for people across our fair country. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the budget implementation legislation before us. There are two or three points that I would like to pick up on, which I have already had the opportunity to express at least in part, through questions to the former two speakers.
Let me start by talking about time allocation. I will be very brief on that particular point, but I want to read a quote that I have referenced in the past. This is a quote from the Prime Minister, back in the days when he was in opposition. This was before he was the Prime Minister. This is what he had to say about the type of legislation that we are debating today:
 We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill. 
He went on to comment on how the budget bill, then a Liberal budget bill, was virtually an affront to democracy and the functionality of Parliament. That was what the Prime Minister said back in the days when he was in opposition.
 Liberals recognize that there are other aspects brought into budget implementation bills, which the Liberal Party did when it was in government. We recognize that at times there is even a need for things like time allocation. The Liberal Party did that too. However, what is worthy of noting is that never in the history of our federation have we seen such an assault on the democratic principles of accountability and transparency in this House as the majority Conservative government has been exercising in the last few years.
We are talking about massive budget implementation bills, into the thousands of pages combined, in three or four budgets. That is totally unacceptable. We are talking about a record number of time allocation motions, approximately 90, give or take two or three. Time allocation means that government is preventing members of Parliament from standing to speak on important pieces of legislation. What could be more important than the budget when government is spending billions of Canadian tax dollars? Time and time again, the government uses time allocation, not only for this, but it seems for all pieces of legislation. It is a tool that it has been abusing at great cost.
I want to talk about income splitting because it is an important issue. It is more than symbolic. It is an issue that is going to cost, some say $2 billion. I might even suggest that is underestimating it. We are talking about at least $2 billion in taxes. Who is paying the bill for that? Primarily, it is going to be the middle class of Canada who are going to have to come up with that $2 billion.That $2 billion is then going to be given out for income splitting, which a vast majority of Canadians will not see one penny of. There is less than 15% of Canada's population who will receive a benefit from that $2 billion tax for income splitting.
I believe that it encourages inequality and that the government has it wrong. I am glad that the leader of the Liberal Party has taken the right position on this particular issue.
 It is interesting that the more the Liberals push on this issue, the more the government says, “Well, we have this child care issue, and that is going to have a lot more impact for all Canadians”. The Conservatives are bundling that into the income splitting because they know that the income split is wrong. A number of Conservatives know that. If we listen to what they have to say, many of them have deep respect for the late Jim Flaherty, the former finance minister. He put together the budget we are debating and was opposed to the income split, and he had a good solid reason. The Liberal Party agrees with the the late Conservative finance minister with respect to the income splitting program.
The Prime Ministerneeds to reverse that policy. He does not have to bundle it into the budget to try to mislead Canadians. Canadians are not stupid. They understand what the government has put forward in terms of the income split.
Another issue that I raised in the form of a question was on the EI premium exemption.
The government often challenges opposition members to come up with ideas. There was an idea that the leader of the Liberal Party brought to the floor of the House, and we challenged the government to recognize the value of the idea. What sort of response did we get? We got the envious New Democrats suggesting that it was not a good thing to do, even though Jack Layton supported the principle of what the Liberal Party was talking about; it was a part of his own election platform. However, I will expand upon that at another time.
What surprises me is that it is the government, this very Prime Minister, who do not recognize the value of what has been offered through the leader of the Liberal Party. We are talking about generating tens of thousands of jobs, in all regions of our country, and this has been confirmed by independent stakeholders, individuals who have a lot to contribute to the debate. There is no question that it would do that.
I would compare that with the government. The government says, “No, we don't want to accept that because we have our own plan”. Its “own plan” is the small business job credit, using EI, talking about deductions on EI. How many jobs would that create? There is a big huge question mark on that issue. Would it be a few thousand jobs? What we do know is that there are critics saying that it such a bizarre plan that it could ultimately lead, in certain situations, to employers laying off employees, that it would be in their financial interest to consider the option of laying off employees. It is not just the Liberal Party that has made that assertion.
We have the Conservatives and the Prime Minister saying that they have a plan. Their plan would be nowhere near as effective as ours, nor does it have anywhere near as much support as the Liberal plan. Yet, they stand by it and proceed.
I only have one minute left, so perhaps I will talk about the Canada Post issue. I believe that the government has made a mess on the Canada Post issue and that there is a hidden agenda with respect to both the CBC and Canada Post. However, I will focus on Canada Post.
Canada Post announced a while ago that it is ending door-to-door delivery. The current government supports that. The government is the one that is allowing it to occur. That debate never occurred inside this chamber, and I believe that was a huge mistake. I get phone calls. I get people stopping by my office. I get petitions. I get postcards. Canadians are very upset that the government has done nothing on that particular issue.
There is a hidden agenda with Canada Post by this government. It prevails in its lack of desire to deal with what Canadians value, and that is the service provided by Canada Post.
My time has expired. Hopefully I will get a question and maybe I could comment on health care as well.
Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member went on at large about income splitting and how income splitting promotes inequality.
Why do the Liberals want to reverse income splitting for seniors?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, when the member says “reverse income splitting for seniors”, he should know that most seniors will not derive any benefit from the income splitting that is being proposed by this plan.
He should not try to give that impression. How are single seniors living on their own going to benefit? They are not. The vast majority of seniors will not benefit from this program.
If the government wants seniors to benefit from something, it should deal with issues such as the cost of medication and health care, to which I made reference. The government did not renew the health care accord. Health care is important to our seniors.
If the minister wants to do something that would benefit our seniors, this income split is not going to benefit the vast majority of seniors. The price of medications should be dealt with, or looking at how to renew the health care accord. Those would have been better measures.
The reason we have the unheard of contributions toward health care today is not because of the government. Those record-high donations of federal dollars going to provinces are not because of the Conservative government; they are because of Paul Martin. It is the health care accord that instituted that. That is the reason that we have the health care we have today.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his speech, but I must admit that he has a lot of nerve. 
In Quebec, there is a situation involving the packaging of meat. Some grocers are changing the best-before labels on meat. The Liberals are very good at changing labels and trying to pass off their tainted meat as fresh meat.
The Liberals' new media pitch is standing up for the middle class. The Conservatives abandoned the middle class a long time ago.
That being said, let us come back to Canada Post. In 2006, during my first election campaign, the big thing that everyone was talking about in Quebec was the closure of the postal sorting station. That happened under the Liberal watch, so it is not just the Conservatives who are dismantling Canada Post and allowing the crown corporation's management to destroy our postal services, quite the contrary.
How can my colleague claim to defend the interests of people who want home mail delivery? 
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is in existence, in good part, because of the Liberal Party of Canada having been in government for the vast majority of the years in which we have been a confederation. At no point in time has it ever said it would get rid of door-to-door delivery.
 Having said that, the member made reference to needs, and somehow started to blame what I suspect is maybe the provincial Liberal government. Let me suggest that all he needs to do is look at middle-class jobs, at what is happening in Manitoba, where the NDP is killing the pork industry. The provincial government in Manitoba is not allowing the pork industry to develop. It has been at a huge cost. I have had tours of the Maple Leaf plant, in Brandon, where they cannot meet the demand. There is not enough pork, and now it has to look outside of the province. This is purely because of NDP policy.
The member should not try to tell me that the New Democrats are the only political entity that can take the high road in terms of the middle class. That is just not the case.
Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it really is a privilege for me to speak to Bill C-43, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2.
I was thinking that if I were asked by some of the wonderful people in the riding I represent—volunteers like Randine Hardy, Mary Ann Smith, or Tom Dalimor, or some of our wonderful youth who take leadership positions, like Andrea Choo or Yuan Kim or Ania Salehirad—what a budget implementation act is, I would go back to a question of mission and values. I would say that a budget implementation act is like a rudder steering the ship of government. The budget itself is like the road map, but if we do not understand the mission and values of the government, then it would be hard to put these things in context.
I like to think that this government stands for values that Canadians cherish: freedom, responsibility, equality, compassion, and integrity. We see these values in acts like the budget implementation act. In very specific terms, this act touches upon the economy, on jobs, on responsible resource development, on health, and fitness and volunteers. I will take us through some of these things in the act and am looking forward to questions from my friends.
There are many good things in Canada's economic action plan 2014. There is the promotion of jobs and economic growth, which we see brought forward through the budget implementation act. There is an underlying commitment to return to balanced budgets in 2015, a sense of that responsibility. While we are controlling departmental spending, federal support to Canadians, like seniors benefits, would keep growing. That is essential to some of the leading seniors in the riding I represent, like Brooke Campbell, Garry Sutherland, and Christopher Hebb, who have been bringing me issues about RRSPs and how these can be improved.
We see in this budget implementation act major transfers to provinces for health care, education, and other services that Canadians rely on. These will keep growing to record levels.
 There is a focus on connecting Canadians with available jobs, which is key in the sunshine coast and corridor areas of the riding I represent. We see the launching of the Canada job grant so that Canadians can get the skills training they need to get in-demand jobs. There is the creation of the Canada apprentice loan, which would provide apprentices in Red Seal trades access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year; and there is the launching of a job-matching service, a new service that would match Canadians looking for work with the employers who want to hire them. There would be more paid internships for young Canadians. In fact, $55 million would be invested to create such internships. This is good news for universities in the riding I represent, including Quest University Canada, Capilano University, Vancouver Island University, as well as for academic institutions across the country.
There is also the initiative to help older workers get back to work, with some $75 million invested in this targeted initiative to support these older workers who want to participate in the job market. That is something we often hear about at breakfast tables at the West Vancouver seniors' centre.
Budget 2014 also focuses on ensuring responsible resource development and on conserving Canada's natural heritage. If there is something that matters to British Columbians in addition to creating jobs and spurring the economy, it is ensuring that we preserve our wonderful natural heritage and that we have sustainable investment in the environment and fisheries. Groups like the Future of Howe Sound Society and people who want to ensure that if there is an LNG natural gas project at Squamish Woodfibre, it is done according to international standards of safety and good environmental standards, will be delighted to see the initiatives brought forth in the budget implementation act of 2014.
We see an emphasis on responsible resource development, including an increase in funding for the National Energy Board, to ensure that projects like that one I mentioned are reviewed in a comprehensive and timely manner. There is also tax relief for green energy, encouraging investment in clean energy generation thereby.
I come back to the conservation of Canada's natural heritage. Included in this effort are investments in Canada's national parks and historic canals; expanded tax relief for environmental conservation of lands; and bolstered recreational fisheries. The latter will be of great encouragement to the West Vancouver Streamkeepers and streamkeepers throughout our riding, as well as the Pacific Salmon Foundation, which does a great job in encouraging up to 40,000 volunteers throughout British Columbia.
I would like to touch on steps that our Conservative government is taking related to health and fitness, including the introduction of the children's fitness tax credit and the search and rescue volunteer tax credit.
 It is Christmas time. It is a time for gift giving and for thinking of others above ourselves. Our government's job is to think of our citizens first. It is not about creating more bureaucracy, as other parties in the House would like to do. It is about empowering others to be the best they can be. That is where the value of responsibility comes in. It is in tune with that value that our government has recently doubled the children's fitness tax credit to $1,000, effective this tax year. It is also providing a refundable tax credit for the registration of a child under 16 in a sports program or physical activity.
Why is this children's tax credit so important? We have noticed dwindling rates of physical activity, alarming and increasing obesity rates, and climbing cardiovascular and diabetes problems. The economic costs of these issues are huge. The Public Health Agency of Canada is telling us that it costs $7 billion a year to deal with the consequences of inactivity relating to cardiovascular and diabetes problems. We are now facing the terrible situation where children will die at a younger age than their parents. This will be the first time in history that has ever happened.
I am pleased to see that these government initiatives are supported and bolstered by a bill that I have sponsored in the House, the national health and fitness day bill. We will be speaking to it this coming Monday, December 8, and voting on it for the third time on Wednesday, December 10. It is my hope that this will be a gift from the riding I represent to all Canadians as we approach the Christmas season.
Beside the children's fitness tax credit, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the increase and expansion in the universal child care benefit. This represents a benefit of almost $2,000 for families with children under 6, and $720 a year for parents with children aged 6 to 18. As someone who is passionate about promoting health and fitness for all Canadians, it is my hope that these changes will help parents offset the cost of having their children enrolled in organized sports or other physical activities.
Finally, I would like to emphasize how much the Conservative government shines a light on our volunteers. We have seen an illustration of this through the introduction of the search and rescue volunteer tax credit. Three years ago, the Conservative government introduced a volunteer firefighters' tax credit in recognition of the important role played by volunteer firefighters in contributing to the security and safety of Canadians. I was pleased to advocate for that tax credit on behalf of firefighters throughout the riding I represent.
In the same spirit of recognizing those who play a critical role in emergency preparedness and response, economic action plan 2014 announced a search and rescue volunteer tax credit for ground, air, and marine search and rescue volunteers. This credit would be available to search and rescue volunteers who perform at least 200 hours of service during the year.
 I would like to bring this down to one individual, Tim Jones, a hero from the North Shore in the Vancouver area. He led the huge team of search and rescue volunteers in the North Shore, who over 50 years have committed themselves to more than 2,500 search and rescue operations. These people put themselves in harm's way day in and day out, with more than 200,000 hours of selfless effort by them in the North Shore search and rescue team. 
Whether it is supporting volunteers, promoting health and fitness, spurring jobs, or creating economic development, these are all consistent with the five key values I mentioned at the beginning. These are the values of freedom, responsibility, equality, compassion, and integrity. I am proud to stand in the House on behalf of the people I represent and to speak on behalf of all Canadians and to support the government's budget implementation act, 2014.
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to ask my colleague a question. He seems to be pretending that all of the Conservative government's bad statistics just do not exist.
The Conservatives always want to make us think that they have such a stellar track record, but plenty of numbers suggest the opposite. In 2013 alone, employment growth was slower than ever since the recession. Since the current Prime Minister took over, 300,000 more people have joined the ranks of the unemployed, and there are now 400,000 fewer manufacturing sector jobs. 
 Sherbrooke has been affected by the loss of manufacturing sector jobs. Some 400,000 good jobs have disappeared on the Conservatives' watch. Canada's trade balance is still in a deficit situation: $61 billion in 2013. In addition, the Conservatives have given us deficit budgets ever since coming to power. 
Can the member explain how the Conservatives can call themselves good economic managers when they have run deficit budgets since coming to power?
[Interjection]
John Weston: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer that question.
I am so glad that my colleague opposite talked about statistics because no government in the world has done better on that front than ours. Thanks to our government, next year's budget will be better than balanced and there are more than 1.2 million new jobs in our economy.
With respect to investment in our country, many experts have said that Canada is one of the best countries in the world to invest in. That is thanks both to hard-working Canadians and to this government's leadership.

Statements By Members
Brian Ronald MacdonaldMr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to a great Canadian who passed away last week. Brian Ronald Macdonald came to Stratford Festival in his early days, an inventive choreographer and director. 
Born in Montreal, Brian travelled the world over with legendary ballet and theatre companies. A founding member of the National Ballet of Canada, he worked tirelessly on scores of projects from coast to coast. His work as a director of opera and musicals resonates in Stratford today. 
A companion of the Order of Canada, Brian was recognized for his important contributions with numerous awards, including a Governor General's Performing Arts Award for Lifetime Artistic Achievement and the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal. 
The arts are an important part of the Stratford and Canadian economy. We are fortunate to have had such a talented, dedicated artist in our country. Brian will be missed.
TibetMr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. Speaker, December 10 marks the 25th anniversary of the conferring of the Nobel Peace Prize on the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
 I rise in recognizing this occasion and to express my solidarity with Tibetans in their demands for religious freedom and respect for basic human rights. 
Recently I had the opportunity to lead a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians to meet His Holiness in Vancouver, where we confirmed Canada's support for the cause of the Tibetan people. 
His Holiness was made an honorary Canadian citizen in 2006. Last week, I met with Sikyong Dr. Lobsang Sangay, the democratically elected leader of the exiled Central Tibetan Administration. He too expressed dismay at the People's Republic of China for its disregard for Tibetans' legitimate requests for freedom and the rule of law. 
On behalf of the proud Tibetan-Canadian community in Etobicoke—Lakeshore and across Canada, I urge the People's Republic of China to allow Tibetans to live their lives in freedom. 
Prime Minister of CanadaMrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the holidays approach, our thoughts turn to giving, and who needs to be given something more than this government, which deserves to be given the boot? 
We are reminded of a Dr. Seuss classic, but with a twist. It is the Grinch who stole Canada, and while we all wait for the Prime Minister's heart to grow three sizes, sadly, it seems to only shrink. 
He said that if we give the Conservatives five years, we won't recognize Canada. How scary and true. He rolled back environmental standards and regulations, transforming our pristine wilderness into wastelands. He is making people who rely on a public pension work two more years before retiring. He maintained a mean-hearted freeze on first nations' education budgets so aboriginal children are forced to make do with less and less year after year. He made cuts to health care and hoarded money from every department, including Veterans Affairs. He is pushing injured members of our military out of the forces so they never become eligible for pensions. Food bank use is at an all-time high, and so is part-time, low-wage work.
Are his shoes just too tight? Is his sweater at fault? It may be the stress of the job, but in the new year it will be the NDP that will get the job done. 
École Polytechnique MassacreMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal.
For the past 24 years I have pleaded with the media to honour the 14 innocent victims rather than recall the name of the misogynist murderer. 
Today I would like to honour 12 posthumous engineers, Annie Turcotte, Annie St-Arneault, Michèle Richard, Sonia Pelletier, Anne-Marie Lemay, Maryse Leclair, Maud Haviernick, Anne-Marie Edward, Barbara Daigneault, Nathalie Croteau, Hélène Colgan and Geneviève Bergeron.
I also honour budget clerk Maryse Laganiere, nurse Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz , and all those who were present at École Polytechnique on that day, also victims of this madness. We continue to remember them and tell their families that we share their sorrow. 
UkraineKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, one year ago, Ukrainians took to the streets to stand up for their democratic rights and to secure a stronger future for Ukraine. 
With over 1.2 million people of Ukrainian heritage in Canada, our country as a whole stood and continues to stand in solidarity with Ukraine. What took place in Maidan inspired people around the world, as the people of Ukraine spoke louder than any government could have.
A year since the Maidan began, Ukraine has come a long way. In May President Poroshenko was elected, and in October the parliamentary election took place. As a Canadian parliamentary observer in Kiev for both elections, I witnessed first-hand the spirit of hope. 
As we mark this one-year anniversary, we must continue to provide our support to Ukraine and to work with our allies in ending Russia's interference in Ukrainian affairs. Promoting Ukraine's sovereignty and the strengthening of ties with the EU and Canada is a priority
International Civil Aviation OrganizationHon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 70th anniversary of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed on December 7, 1944, which led to the creation of the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, headquartered in Montreal since its inception in 1947.
Canada is proud to be both the host state to this important United Nations specialized agency and a contributing member state of the council of ICAO.
I would like to ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing this milestone anniversary in Canadian and global civil aviation history and in underscoring Canada's continued strong dedication to the work and well-being of ICAO. This is demonstrated by our sustained commitment, together with our partners in Montreal and Quebec.
Canada, along with Quebec and Montreal, looks forward to hosting a reception this evening at ICAO headquarters in Montreal to commemorate this year's 70th anniversary of the creation of ICAO.
The EnvironmentPierre-Luc Dusseault: Mr. Speaker, the people of Sherbrooke and I are concerned about protecting the environment.
However, protecting the environment is last on the Conservatives' list of priorities. That is in part due to the fact that they have an incompetent minister and in part due to the fact that they simply deny that climate change exists. As world leaders are laying the foundation for a new international agreement, Canada is playing the role of a mere onlooker or even a saboteur.
Luckily, for my generation and future ones, in October 2015, we will finally have an NDP government, which will take its climate change responsibilities seriously and will ensure both a healthy environment and a sustainable economy.
One of the first things our government will do is go to the Paris conference and move from being an onlooker to a leader. Waiting is not an option. We need to take action now.
Halifax ExplosionMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, December 6, is the anniversary of the Halifax explosion. 
Ninety-seven years ago, the SS Mont Blanc, a French munitions ship, and the SS Imo, a Belgian relief ship, collided in Halifax Harbour. Minutes later the SS Mont Blanc ignited and quickly exploded. That explosion was the largest prior to the atomic bomb. The blast was heard and felt over 200 kilometres away. About 1,600 people were killed immediately, and another 9,000 were seriously injured. Hundreds more perished in the resulting fires. Worse yet, that evening a winter nor'easter dropped freezing temperatures and heavy snow on the survivors.
Much of Halifax was a destroyed city, and relief trains were sent from the rest of the country, but the first to reach Halifax, carrying doctors, nurses, and supplies, was from Boston, Massachusetts.
In 1919, the province of Nova Scotia sent a giant Christmas tree to Boston as a thank you. In 1971, that tradition was continued, and every year since, a 15-metre-tall Nova Scotia Christmas tree is lit in the Boston Common as a reminder of our gratitude for Boston's assistance long ago.
TaxationMaurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, 100% of families with children in Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, and for that matter across Canada, will be better off thanks to our Conservative government's new family tax cut.
We expanded and increased the universal child care benefit so that every family in Canada, such as the Penners and the Wiebes and the Klassens in my riding, will now receive nearly $2,000 per child. That is nearly $12,000 over a child's first six years of life.
The NDP has never met a tax it did not like, and the Liberals have never seen a tax that they would not hike. The Liberals and the NDP would reverse our Conservative tax cuts and force every Canadian to pay more. 
Only this Conservative government can be trusted to put more money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians and to support families, which are the basic building blocks of society and the bedrock of our society.
Oil IndustryMr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Conservatives gutted the process by which we approve new oil pipelines, eliminating the voices of ordinary people and tilting the process to favour companies.
It is so bad that many Canadians who might have their homes expropriated cannot even send a letter to the National Energy Board to express their objections.
Disturbingly, the Liberals completely back these Conservative process changes. The Liberal leader says, “So I' m very much a proponent of Keystone XL” and “I am...very interested in the Kinder Morgan pipeline.... I certainly hope that we're going to be able to get that pipeline approved....”
The last few weeks have seen the arrests of over 100 ordinary people who oppose Kinder Morgan's plan to build a new pipeline through our community. These are not radicals, but regular people who have been silenced by the Conservatives' changes to the approval process, changes that the Liberals support.
I went to Burnaby Mountain ten times over the course of the recent turmoil and have spoken many times in the House to the stress these changes have caused. 
It is clear that the NDP is the only choice for Burnaby voters in the next election, as we are the only party to stand with them.
TaxationMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, moms and dads should be able to make the important decisions that affect their own children. That is why our new family tax cut will give 100% of families with kids an average of more than $1,100 per year to spend on their own priorities. The majority of benefits flow to low- and middle-income families. 
Our government trusts parents to invest in their children, but both opposition parties are against putting money back into the pockets of hard-working families. In fact, the Liberals have said they will reverse our tax cuts.
On this side of the House, we will not hike taxes, as the Liberals and the NDP propose to do; rather, we are proud to ensure that mom and dad have the final say in where their money is going.
Holiday SeasonMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the holiday season approaches, most of us are planning to buy presents for our loved ones. People of Beauharnois—Salaberry, this year I challenge you to make all your purchases locally.
You could attend one of the many craft fairs in places like Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Sainte-Martine, Beauharnois, Sainte-Clotilde and Sainte-Anicet or a Christmas market in Hemmingford, Huntingdon, Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague or Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville, where you can buy artisanal products or local delicacies and meet the people who made all these things by hand. 
By buying locally, people will be killing two birds with one stone: they will find unique gifts while stimulating the local economy. If they have the means, they can take the opportunity to donate locally grown and prepared food to the food banks in our region, buy a gift to donate to Sapin du petit bonheur, an organization that provides presents for the less fortunate, or help fill the Christmas hampers in a number of businesses and at my office in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield.
Thank you to those who organize these initiatives to help the less fortunate enjoy a holiday season with a full belly and a twinkle in their eyes.
Violence Against WomenMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Canada's National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, which commemorates the 14 young women who were brutally murdered at École Polytechnique in 1989.
Women and girls continue to face violence and harassment in their homes, schools, and workplaces, as well as online and on the streets.
 Women's equality advocates identify prostitution and human trafficking as two of the most serious forms of violence against women. It is fitting, therefore, that Bill C-36 will come into force tomorrow. This is a historic moment for Canada.
 Under Bill C-36, Canada's laws will uphold the equality of women as human beings, not objects to be bought and sold. It will seek to end the violence against women that is inherent in prostitution and human trafficking, tomorrow and every day of the year. 
Let us remember the victims, and let us be resolved to continue to stand against violence against women in all its forms.
Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for 25 years now, Quebec has been coping with a wound that will not heal, grief that will not end, and unease that will not go away: 14 female students were killed because they were women.
We must always speak out against all forms of violence against women and never let our guard down. We need to work constantly to promote gender equality. We also have a duty to reflect and take action to ensure that all men and women can live in safety and free from violence.
This House needs to do everything in its power to ensure that such events never happen again. Out of respect for the victims and our children, let us work together to ensure that there will never be another incident like the one that occurred at École Polytechnique.
Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow and always, we remember 14 promising young women who, just because they were women, did not have the opportunity to grow older, pursue their dreams, and have the gift of time with their families. We hope that their families know that their daughters are not forgotten, that they instill courage, that they inspire, and that they remind us all to fight tirelessly to end violence against women, which sadly remains a daily reality for 3,000 women in Canada and sends 1,000 women and children to shelters each day.
Twenty-five years later, none of us can imagine the pain experienced by the families of these young women, and we are deeply saddened. We hope that the presence of loved ones and the compassion of an entire nation can bring them some comfort.
We profoundly thank the families for sharing their smart, courageous, motivated young daughters with us. We promise never to forget them.
Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, and Annie Turcotte were 14 women killed for the simple reason that they were women, 14 women who we will never forget.
Tomorrow we will commemorate the 25th anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal. Even though we have made progress since then, violence against women remains a concern. 
I am referring to women like Zahra Mohamoud Abdille of Toronto, killed with her sons this week after seeking shelter from abuse, and the 1,200 indigenous women and girls who have gone missing or been murdered.
In memory of all those women, today let us renew our commitment to put an end to violence against women once and for all.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago, on December 6, 1989, a horrific crime took place: 14 young women at l'École Polytechnique de Montréal were brutally murdered. On that awful day, their lives were senselessly ended, along with the hopes and dreams they had for the future. In shared sorrow, families across our country hugged their daughters a little tighter that night. 
The tragic events of that day brought a new focus in our society on violence against women, yet well over two decades have passed since then, and many challenges still remain. Sadly, Status of Women Canada must continue to focus on initiatives to address gender-based violence across the country. This includes engaging men and boys to understand that gender-based violence is not acceptable or normal behaviour. While we cannot and probably never will be able to make sense of the crimes of that day, we must continue working to ensure that they never happen again. 
On this anniversary, let us resolve to respect one another and value each other as equals.
The Speaker: I now invite the House to rise and observe a minute of silence in memory of the victims of the tragic event that happened 25 years ago at École Polytechnique in Montreal.
[A moment of silence observed] 

Oral Questions
The EnvironmentMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Secretary-General of the United Nations is speaking out against the Conservatives' laissez-faire attitude towards climate change and is calling for a more ambitious and visionary policy. He notes that Canada lacks leadership and that it should immediately start transitioning towards a green economy.
Why are the Conservatives letting down the United Nations and the international community? Why do they not have a plan to fight climate change?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government wants to reach a fair agreement in Paris, one that includes all emitters and all economies. It is important that the agreement be durable, flexible and effective. In the meantime, Canada will continue to take concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping the economy strong.
Furthermore, Canada is responsible for less than 2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Canada's per capita emissions are now at their lowest level.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that their so-called policy is a failure and is costing the Canadian economy billions of dollars. That is the reality.
What is more, instead of attacking climate change, the Conservatives are attacking honest people with the shameful bill introduced by the member for Vancouver South. 
Ban Ki-moon has good reason to criticize this government's lack of action. Canada is ranked as one of the worst industrialized countries because of 20 years of inaction by the Liberals and the Conservatives. 
The question is clear: will the Conservatives accept a binding international agreement to fight global warming, yes or no?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, we are working with all of our international partners so that we have an effective agreement. We are very proud of our record. We are a founding member of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition. We have made significant investments to help support green energy and infrastructure internationally. We have one of the cleanest systems in the world. We have already regulated the transportation and electricity sectors. We are planning to reduce HFCs, one of the fastest growing greenhouse gases in the world. 
Thanks to these actions, carbon emissions will go down close to 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberals, and we have done it without a job-killing carbon tax.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, climate change is killing jobs in Canada. It is costing the Canadian economy billions of dollars already. That is the reality.
The UN Secretary-General is begging Canada to act on climate change, which means the Conservatives should put their extreme ideology aside. However, instead of acting, the Conservatives prefer shameful bills, like that of the MP for Vancouver South, that risk criminalizing people who speak out on the environment.
Leadership is needed. The Conservatives promised oil and gas regulations for almost a decade. When will they finally act? When will this decade of darkness for the environment finally be over?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to oil and gas regulations, the member knows that this is a continental issue that needs a North American solution.
Our government will continue to work with the Obama administration on reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the oil and gas sector. We feel it is best to align with the Obama administration, as we have already done in the transportation sector.
We will continue to protect the environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that maintains job creation and economic growth, and we will do it without that job-killing carbon tax.
Status of WomenMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 14 women were killed at École Polytechnique, 25 years ago on December 6. These women were killed because they were women. I know that all of our thoughts are with the families of those women, but we must also commit ourselves to action. Twenty-five years later violence is still targeted at women because of gender. Will the government commit to working together with the NDP and our action plan to end violence against women?
Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the massacre at l'École Polytechnique de Montréal was a Canadian tragedy. This week we remember the crimes that took place 25 years ago. While I would never think we could make sense of why those crimes took place that day, we must continue to ensure this never happens again in Canada. Our government will continue to stay focused on supporting the victims of these crimes, as well as punishing the criminals who commit these heinous crimes.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the tragic murder of Zahra Abdille and her children shows how our system fails women fleeing violence. Women like Ms. Abdille need support, like legal aid and housing. 
A Canadian Bar Association report said: 
 ...victims of domestic violence are among the most vulnerable in society and require access to legal and other services to protect themselves and their children. 
What measures is the government taking to improve access to legal aid and housing for women who are fleeing violence? 
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, our government has been committed to preventing violent crimes and violence against women and girls.
Let me list some of the things we have done, and I would encourage the members opposite to participate in supporting these initiatives: the victims' bills of rights act; the creation of a DNA-based missing persons index; passing new laws to protect victims who have been harassed by those who have committed crimes against them; eliminating pardons for serious crimes; and better protecting youth from adult sexual predators.
These are a few of many initiatives this government has taken. I am very proud of that record of supporting victims and putting criminals behind bars.
Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago tomorrow, a killer shot 14 students at the École Polytechnique in Montreal. They were killed simply because they were women.
Now, 25 years later, how are we doing at protecting Canadians? People who sell firearms, including the kind used during the École Polytechnique massacre, are no longer obligated to confirm whether the buyer has a licence or to keep a record of the transaction. That is irresponsible. The Conservatives are doing everything they can to destroy gun control.
When will they stop jeopardizing the safety of Canadians?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, as I have already mentioned, this week is a time to remember that crime that took place at the Polytechnique 25 years ago, in fact a Canadian tragedy.
We will continue to support those victims as well as punish criminals. 
As I have mentioned already in this House today, there are a number of initiatives that this government has already taken, whether they be the victims bill of rights act or making sure we have safe streets and communities. These are initiatives we have moved forward on, and we will continue to do so.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we remember 14 young women who were murdered simply because they were women. 
Twenty-five years later, the government wants to pass legislation that will make Canadians less safe. The bill would ease transport restrictions on automatic weapons so they can be moved more freely outside public places like a grocery store or a school campus.
 Given that tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of the Montreal massacre, will the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness re-consider these elements of his bill?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to first state for the record that what was just said is absolutely false. In fact, this legislation would, for the first time in Canada, impose mandatory training safety courses. That is a first here in Canada and I am very proud that it is this Conservative government that has brought forward that measure.
Additionally, it is important to note that we are making amendments to the Criminal Code to impose bans, prohibitions on anyone convicted of domestic violence, and that includes up to a lifetime ban, which is extremely important in this country.
 I am proud to be part of this Conservative government.
Kirsty Duncan:  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Status of Women said she listens to women, but we have seen no evidence of this.
 Women's organizations from across the country have called on the government to take action on violence against women: the YWCA, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, Plan Canada, and Canadian Council of Muslim Women have all raised their voices to call for a national action plan.
 Twenty-five years after the Montreal massacre, will this government come to the table and create a national action plan to end violence against women?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned in the House already today, the government takes extremely seriously violence against women and girls and condemns these acts.
Whether it be my work with Plan Canada on International Day of the Girl or recent announcements with the YWCA of Canada or whether it was just this last Friday when I did an announcement with the White Ribbon campaign and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, this government is focused on local, community actions to make sure we are improving the areas where we know it is required.
Whether that be supporting victims or making sure we put criminals behind bars, we are focused on actions, as opposed to just the rhetoric and talk across the aisle.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago, on December 6, 1989, 14 women were killed just because they were women.
As part of our duty to remember these victims of misogyny, we must do better at supporting women who are victims of violence and their families. However, in 2014, 67% of Canadians know a woman—a mother, a daughter or a friend—who has been a victim of violence. This reality is unacceptable. 
Will the government work with us to eradicate violence against women in our society?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, any allegations of violence, of harassment, whether it be in a workplace, at home, or otherwise, must be taken extremely seriously. Our government has taken significant action, as I have outlined in this House today, to better protect Canadians, particularly women and girls.
I encourage anyone who has been the victim of any sexual harassment or violence to please step forward and report it to the authorities so that they can take action. 
On this side of the House, we are taking action through a number of initiatives. I would encourage the opposition to join us in doing that.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, this is 2014, and 25 years after the Polytechnique massacre, it is clear that the measures the Conservatives have brought in are not enough.
The statistics speak for themselves. In 97% of cases of sexual assault against women in Canada, the aggressors are never convicted. That is right, 97%. Then people wonder why women do not want to report these assaults. 
How does the government plan to put an end to this appalling situation and support victims, who are still far too numerous 25 years after the massacre? 
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, the government is taking significant action to make sure that women and girls are safe. Whether that be our movement forward on cyberbullying and cyberharassment, the victims bill of rights, the focus we have had on punishing criminals, making sure that those who have committed serious crimes no longer have the ability to have a pardon, or better protecting youth and young women, these are things we are focused on.
We are taking action to make sure that those victims of crime are supported and that the individuals who commit these crimes feel the full extent of the law.
EmploymentMrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, work is one way for women to become more independent and therefore less vulnerable. For that to happen, they need access to affordable day care.
Will the Conservatives finally face the facts and offer Canadian women the option of returning to the workforce without having to jeopardize family finances? 
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have introduced the family tax cut. This provides support to every single family with children across the country.
We have increased the universal child care benefit. For young people under age six, it will be increased by $60 a month, or $720 a year. For children aged six to 17, it is also going to be increased to $720.
We are getting the job done for families from one end of this country to the other. We ask the opposition, if they truly care about child care, if they truly care about young families, to please stand up and support this legislation.
Status of WomenAnne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, the member sidestepped the question. I was talking about work.
Too many women are struggling with precarious living conditions. A total of 21% of single mothers in Canada are raising their children in extreme poverty. Every day in Canada, more than 3,000 women go to emergency shelters to escape domestic violence. Every night, approximately 200 of them are turned away because there is not enough room.
How can the government leave these women out on the street?
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, we are making advances in low-income housing. We are supporting families with tax reductions. We are investing in child education. We are investing in apprenticeships to support young people, young families, and young women to get the education they need to take available jobs in this country. 
We are getting the job done, but every one of these initiatives we put forward, the opposition, time after time, votes against. When are they going to stand up, finally, for young people in this country and support them in getting the jobs and training and success they deserve?
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the advances the government is making in low-income housing are actually laughable.
There are higher rates of violence against women and girls in the north. However, 70% of northern and remote communities do not have safe houses or emergency shelters. Yes, 70%. That is unconscionable.
What is the government doing to address the lack of access to emergency resources in these northern and remote communities?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before in this House, violence against women and girls is something the government takes extremely seriously. Whether that be support for shelters on reserve or off, or whether that be support for programming to make sure victims of crime are supported, we are focused on making sure we are taking action today to make sure these victims of crime are supported.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there are still far too few shelters and resources for women in the north. Despite the fact that they face a much higher likelihood of violence, women in the north are 10 times more likely to be sexually assaulted. Inuit women and girls are 14 times more likely to experience violence.
All the government has offered are failed initiatives. Why will the government not announce a real action plan, with real measures, to address violence in the north?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times today, there are a number of initiatives this government is taking to make sure women are protected and supported. Whether that be matrimonial property rights on reserve or whether that be the victims bill of rights, we are very focused on making sure the victims of these crimes, as well as women experiencing domestic violence, are supported and are able to transition into new opportunities, as opposed to the opposition, whose focus, actually, has been to vote against some of these actions that I think will truly benefit these women in need.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, prevention is one of the keys to ending violence against women, but a 2013 study from the Canadian Network of Women's Shelters &amp; Transition Houses found that many prevention initiatives are short term and short lived, and a special committee report on violence against indigenous women found that first nations, Inuit, and Métis people lack access to prevention programs.
What actions are the Conservatives taking to improve prevention programs and increase access to them?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of initiatives we have already taken that the opposition has not supported. Whether that be matrimonial property rights, actually the opportunity for a women to stay in her own home, with her children, because she has the right to be there and be protected in that circumstance, or whether it be the family violence program we supported to make sure they receive the support they need when they are in shelters, which has just been augmented by our new initiative, tabled here in the House of Commons on September 15, to support aboriginal women, we are moving forward to make sure they are well supported, unlike the opposition.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, rates of violence against women are going up, not down. That is the evidence needed that the government's policies are simply not working, especially for indigenous women, who experience rates of violence that are three times higher than they are for non-aboriginal women. Most shockingly, indigenous women and girls are seven times more likely to be killed than non-indigenous women. That is completely unacceptable.
Why will the current government not call a national inquiry and propose a real action plan to end the violence?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I guess my question would be, why will the opposition not support the action plan we have put in place that would take action today for aboriginal women, as opposed to waiting for several years?
Our focus is making sure that the women who are experiencing these violent crimes receive support, help, and protection today. I would encourage the opposition to join us in doing exactly that. These women deserve all the support of everyone here in this House of Commons.
Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister does not seem to understand that their plan is simply not working.
Aboriginal girls and women continue to be victims of violence. Nearly 1,200 of them have gone missing or been murdered. Aboriginal communities are calling for a national inquiry so we can finally take a serious look at this issue.
Will the government finally listen to reason and launch a national public inquiry?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I guess I would beg to differ with the member of the opposition.
Whether it be the Native Women's Association of Canada, whether it be individual aboriginal Canadian women who have come to speak with me personally, or whether it be the friendship centres across the country, they have endorsed our action plan and have asked others to join us in making sure that we are protecting and supporting aboriginal women.
I would encourage the opposition to please pick up a copy of the plan and read it. It was tabled in the House on September 15. I can tell members that aboriginal women and their families have continued to support this, because we are moving forward to support these Canadians.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the issue is real. In the past few months alone, Winnipeg has experienced a young lady pulled out of the Red River. We have experienced another young lady who was left for dead.
There have been over 1,200 women and girls of aboriginal and first nations heritage murdered or gone missing. The government is not listening. Whether it is aboriginal leadership, whether it is premiers or municipalities, everyone is recognizing the need for a public inquiry.
Why are the Prime Minister and the Conservative government not recognizing the need for a public inquiry?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned in the House before, there have been over 40 studies completed.
I will give members a quote. This is a quote from Bernadette Smith, one of those individuals who has a sister who is missing. She said:
 This Action Plan is something that our families have been waiting for. I would like to thank...the Government for their commitment to addressing this issue.... We've had numerous studies on this issue and the time for action is now. We can't stand idly by and talk about this without taking...action. This Action Plan will have a direct impact on families and it will help keep our women and girls safe. 

Veterans AffairsMr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, stories of Conservative neglect of our veterans get worse by the day. Today we learned that Conservatives rewarded Veterans Affairs officials with nearly half a million bucks in bonuses for cutting services. At the same time, they fired almost 1,000 front-line workers who delivered services that our veterans so desperately need, and clawed back money that was supposed to support those who served.
How can the minister stand in the House and defend the perverse practice of rewarding people for denying services to our vets?
Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we make no apologies for reducing bureaucratic expenses at Veterans Affairs Canada. The opposition wants to increase government bureaucracy. We are increasing front-line support for Canada's veterans. We recently announced eight new front-line mental health clinics for Canadian veterans.
While the NDP defends the unions, along with the Liberals, we are defending Canada's veterans.
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government members should be appalled, not applauding, especially in light of the scathing Auditor General's report that showed some veterans waited months, if not years, for access to mental health services.
There is the lapsing of well over $1 billion promised for veterans services and now the rewarding of officials for denying services to our brave veterans.
Are they still prepared to clap for a minister whose sole legacy is the shafting of Canadian veterans? When will the Prime Minister take action and punt the minister?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, we are making investments to help support Canada's veterans when it comes to mental health issues and challenges.
 Our recent announcement helps Canada's veterans, and here are some of the initiatives we have introduced: the road to mental health program; the mental health first aid program; and the new operational stress injury clinic in Halifax, with satellite offices across the country, including in St. John's, Chicoutimi , Pembroke, Brockville, Kelowna,Victoria, Montreal, and the greater Toronto area. We are also expanding the military family resource program for medically released Canadian veterans and their families.
Who will continue to stand up for Canada's veterans? This side of the House.
Access to InformationMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while the Information Commissioner is scrounging around for money to balance her books, the Conservatives are throwing the door wide open to raising fees. Some are even talking about $200 per media request. That will do nothing to increase access to information.
This government has the audacity to brag about its open data policy. Instead of fleecing the public even more, why do the Conservatives not meet deadlines and give the Information Commissioner the resources she needs?
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, every agent of Parliament is responsible for managing the funds that are allocated to them by Parliament. That is part of their role and responsibility. If any particular agent of Parliament has a problem with that, he or she can make a submission to the Treasury Board, and we would be happy to consider it.
 If the hon. member wants to litigate this publicly, that is fine, but there is a process by which these budgets are considered and ultimately passed or not passed by Parliament.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative MPs on the House access to information committee think that the best solution to fix our ever-shrinking right to know in Canada would be to charge journalists and other Canadians hundreds of dollars just to file a request for information that should be public. That is on the record.
Why should Canadians be stuck with giant fees to ask for information that by law belongs to them? Does the President of the Treasury Board agree with his Conservative colleagues that jacking up fees is a good way to fix our broken access to information law?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised the more general issue. Let me cite some statistics.
 In fact, the responses to access to information requests have gone up by around 40%. There were six million pages released last year alone, which is an increase of two million pages. I would say to the hon. members that the access to information law is there for the public, for members, and for the media of course. If the agent of Parliament, the Information Commissioner, has a problem with her budget, she knows where to go.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada committed to taking in 1,300 Syrian refugees by the end of 2014, but only 457 Syrian refugees have landed in Canada. The minister failed to deliver on his commitment and repeatedly misled Canadians and the House. These are not just numbers. They are actual human beings in the worst war zone in the world, left behind by this minister. How can he justify such a pathetic track record on behalf of those who are so vulnerable?
Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. More than 1,100 refugees from Syria have been approved to come to Canada. In fact, more than 1,150 have been approved to come to Canada and will be here in short order. They will join the more than 1,900 Syrian refugees who are here and have been granted protection in Canada since the start of the Syrian civil war. We can and will do more, and I think the member opposite knows that.
Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is not all. The UN has asked developed countries to take in 100,000 additional Syrian refugees. What has Canada committed? A big fat nothing. Nada. Zilch.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is holding a ministerial meeting next Tuesday in Geneva, to talk about the relocation of Syrian refugees. 
Will the minister bring anything to this meeting other than his indifference to the humanitarian crisis facing Syrian refugees?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, we welcome one in ten of the world's resettled refugees. In fact, we work very closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres. We continue to work very closely with him and look forward to meeting him next week in Geneva. We will be there at the table.
 The member opposite needs to stop playing partisan politics at this time, using the plight of people who really need help as an excuse to stand up in the House with misinformation like that.
National DefenceMr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Armed Forces provided yet another technical briefing on Operation Impact and Canada's ongoing mission against ISIL. This is just further proof of the government's commitment to keep Canadians informed regarding the activities of our brave men and women in uniform serving in Iraq.
I would like to ask if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence will please provide a further update to the House on Operation Impact. 
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Etobicoke Centre for his question and his service as a proud veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Early this morning, two CF-18s, in a pre-planned mission, conducted air strikes against two ISIL fighting positions as well as two ISIL machine-gun positions in the area north of Mosul, Iraq. These positions represented a clear threat to Kurdish peshmerga forces on the ground.
Our men and women in uniform have conducted themselves with the utmost professionalism in this ongoing fight against ISIL. I want to again thank them for their great efforts. Canada will continue to do its part in the international efforts to confront ISIL.
VeteransMs. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that in recent years, the Conservatives have paid more than a half million dollars in bonuses to executives at Veterans Affairs.
Meanwhile, more than 1,000 employees lost their jobs in that department, which has resulted in cuts to services. Furthermore, $1 billion, which should have gone to help veterans, was put back into the treasury.
Why are the Conservatives rewarding executives, the ones who laid off staff and who talk about saving money on the backs of veterans?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, we make no apologies for reducing bureaucratic expenses at Veterans Affairs Canada. The opposition wants to increase government bureaucracy. 
We are increasing the front-line support for Canada's veterans. We recently announced eight new front-line mental health clinics for Canada's veterans. 
While the NDP defends unions, we are defending Canadian veterans, and we will continue to stand up for Canada's veterans on this side of the House.
Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives said they needed to cut jobs at Veterans Affairs Canada, even while we hear from the Auditor General that the system is failing. Yet, the Conservatives have fired almost one-quarter of all Veterans Affairs staff.
The parliamentary secretary just a moment ago said that it is important to reduce bureaucratic expenses. Now the Conservatives want us to believe that their top 60 bureaucrats actually needed half a million dollars in bonuses. I guess that is not a bureaucratic expense.
It is nonsense. Why did they not use that money to actually help veterans?
Parm Gill: Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned, our government is standing up for Canada's veterans, and we make absolutely no apologies for reducing the bureaucratic expenses at Veterans Affairs Canada. The opposition wants to increase government bureaucracy. 
We are increasing front-line support to help Canada's veterans. We recently announced that we are adding eight additional operational stress injury clinics across the country, with the main one in Halifax and the others in cities across this country. 
We will continue to stand up for Canada's veterans when it comes to providing them with benefits and services. They deserve it.
Canadian Wheat BoardMr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is now owned by Canadians. It is a public company and its financial statements actually should be made public. Is it losing money? Is it making money? Well, we do not know, because no one on that side will tell anyone.
In addition to keeping the documents secret, the minister will not even confirm or deny that he is going to give this public asset away to a private company. 
I have a really simple question for the minister. Will the government make the Wheat Board's financial documents public before it literally gives it away?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the motivation behind this question is that the member and his party are ideologically opposed to offering western Canadian grain farmers the marketing freedom they deserve. 
We promised western Canadian grain farmers marketing freedom. We delivered on that promise, and with great success. There is renewed optimism in grain farming, and farmers are prospering.
The CWB will assess all serious bidders and then submit a plan for commercialization to the government in accordance with the legislation passed in December 2011.
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are actually ideologically in favour of transparency, and we want to see some transparency from the government for a change. 
Are the Conservatives going to give the assets away, yes or not? 
Why is are the Conservatives giving out cushy patronage jobs? We would like to know why exactly the Conservatives' friends are actually getting these jobs in the first place, when there really are people out there who could do the job and who are not just simply patronage additions. There is actually no end in sight to the grey and black log, and my friend across the way knows that. 
Will the minister for once give the rhetoric a rest and tell Canadians and farmers how much money the Wheat Board actually owes, how much it makes, and will the minister give the board away, or is he going to sell it and make money for Canadian farmers?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, the NDP want the public to know what is going on except when it comes to their NDP offices, which were run illegally.
However, back to the CWB, the NDP's first alarmist concern regarding the CWB was that ending the CWB monopoly would somehow cause the destruction of wheat farming in Canada, which is obviously not true. The NDP's second alarmist concern was that a voluntary wheat board would not be viable, which is obviously not true as well.
As I just mentioned, the CWB will assess all serious bidders and then submit a plan for commercialization to the government, as stated in legislation passed in December 2011.
Foreign AffairsHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we must all help fight violence against women and girls here in Canada and all around the world. 
It has been almost seven months since Nigeria asked Canada for help to find and rescue more than 200 young girls who were kidnapped by Boko Haram, a known terrorist group.
Can the government tell us where things stand in our efforts to rescue these young girls, who are victims of extreme violence, before it is too late, if it is not too late already?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, we are extremely concerned about the transfers by Boko Haram to the Nigerian nation and the nations around there. 
I attended the security conference this past summer to help Nigeria fight this terrorist organization. We will continue to give it the capacity-building needed to fight this terrorist organization that has created havoc and kidnapped those 200 girls. We are hoping that this terrorist organization will be brought to heel and brought to justice.
The EnvironmentHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have hurt Canada's international standing. Now we hear that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is scolding us. He says that Canada needs to stop stalling on climate change and that we need to start thinking about others.
Even if the Conservatives do not believe in climate change science, do they not know that their failure to act on climate change is hurting our economy and risking Canadian jobs? Do they not understand that their hostility to the environment is the reason that important projects like Keystone XL have not been approved?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. Our government wants to reach a fair agreement in Paris that includes all emitters and all economies. It is important that this agreement be durable, flexible, and effective. Meanwhile, Canada will continue to take concrete actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping the economy strong.
It is important that Canadians know that Canada emits less than 2% of greenhouse gas emissions globally and that Canada's per capita emissions are now at their lowest level since we started recording them in 1990. Let us compare that with the Liberal record, when greenhouse gases went up by 30%. That is unacceptable. We are committed to getting results.
Rail TransportationMr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, more than 100,000 carloads of oil were shipped by rail last year, but citizens do not know when, where, or how risky it is because the Conservatives refuse to stand up for transparency when it comes to the shipment of dangerous goods. Now we learn that the risk assessments ordered by the minister of hazardous shipments through Toronto will be kept away from local residents and even from municipal officials.
Why does the minister think that railway companies' interests come before Toronto residents' right to know?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because of this government's actions that municipalities like Toronto will know what is going through their communities. 
There are emergency responders as a result of discussions between the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and this government. Those discussions produced an important information sharing directive so that emergency planners can in fact do the type of preparedness they need to do and the type emergency exercises they need to do. That did not exist before. Our government brought that in. We are taking care of that important information sharing with municipalities.
Peggy Nash: Well, there are still no answers for the residents of my city, Mr. Speaker.
The Transportation Safety Board said that rail companies should be required to look at alternate routes to avoid population centres when shipping hazardous goods, but because of the secretive process imposed by the minister, we cannot know if they actually have. Now the mayors of Toronto and Mississauga have called for greater transparency and for action to cut hazardous shipments.
Will the minister work with the mayors to reduce the amount of hazardous goods coming through our city?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, the minister in fact continues to work with the municipalities on an ongoing basis. 
I met with the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities not that long ago, who praised the working relationship with the minister and Transport Canada, a relationship that has produced an historic information sharing protocol and agreement with municipalities and first responders, a relationship that has produced a number of important actions by the government, and a new task force as well for ongoing work to increase our emergency preparedness response across the country.
We are going to continue to take action. We wish those members would support that.
Holiday CelebrationsMr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): On a lighter note, Mr. Speaker, as we approach the holiday season, Canadians across this great land will be celebrating Christmas and a variety of other holidays. This is a special time of year to spend with family and friends, to remember the memories of the past year, and to look forward to what 2015 will bring. For many Canadians this involves many trips to stores for Christmas lights and ornaments to create a festive atmosphere.
Could the President of the Treasury Board please update the House on what the government is doing to spread the holiday cheer?
Tony Clement: I would be happy to, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes I feel that in this place festiveness is the only holiday from the traditional airing of grievances. 
Of course, we know that Canadians love to decorate around the holiday season. This week I sent out a message to all public servants, letting them know that they should feel free to festoon their workplaces around this holiday season. Whether it is Kwanzaa or Hanukkah or Christmas, indeed I encourage all public servants, and all Canadians, to enjoy the holiday season. 
Citizenship and ImmigrationEmmanuel Dubourg: Mr. Speaker, five years after the terrible earthquake in Haiti, the Conservatives are lifting the moratorium on deportations to Haiti and Zimbabwe, while today, on the government's website, they are warning Canadians.
This announcement concerns 3,500 people who have integrated into the community and whose children are in school.
Will they be removed from Canada? Will the minister consider their integration efforts? What will he do to ensure that we are honouring our humanitarian duty?
Costas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, temporary suspension of removals of foreign citizens who are subject to deportation are in place for a limited time while their country of origin is going through a major crisis.
Upon a full review by the Canada Border Services Agency, it was determined that the conditions in Haiti and Zimbabwe have improved considerably. Accordingly, the temporary suspension of removals has been lifted.
However, we are putting in place a special process that will allow these individuals who are facing removal to apply for permanent residence in Canada on humanitarian grounds.
HealthRaymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Conservative government has failed to do anything to fight the pollution coming from the Port of Québec is shameful.
Despite large spikes in pollution and alarming reports dating back to the 1980s, the government has done nothing to increase oversight and limit the pollution's harmful effects on Quebec City residents.
Why is the minister deliberately turning a blind eye to the Port of Québec's poor environmental track record?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, the member may advocate a takeover of ports authorities by the government, but they are in fact independent organizations responsible for running their day-to-day operations. 
Notwithstanding that, the minister has been clear that ports authorities, in the conduct of their activities, should be working with local tenants to reduce the red dust pollution. I understand that the Quebec Port Authority has been working with tenants to reduce those dust emissions. The member opposite should be supporting the port authorities' efforts to do that with their tenants.
International DevelopmentJohn Weston: Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian and a British Columbian, I am proud of our government's leadership in matters relating to the Pacific Rim, in terms of the economy, last week's announcement on the Korean free trade agreement, and on the humanitarian side.
Last year, in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan, our government took a real leadership role. We pledged a willingness to help, and we sent DART and Red Cross field hospitals to the Philippines. Building on that generosity, our government set up a matching fund, to which donors contributed $85 million to support the victims of that typhoon.
Constituents of mine are troubled to hear that another typhoon is moving in the direction of the Philippines. I am wondering if the minister can update the House on this situation.
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we stand behind our friends in the Philippines and we stand ready to help if needed.
We have already reached out to several humanitarian partners on the ground to gather information on current preparedness measures being implemented and to assess potential response options. We have in place important emergency response tools, such as the emergency disaster assistance fund, to support immediate response activities of the Red Cross movement. As was noted by the Auditor General in his report, this fund allows our partners to respond rapidly when required.
We are ready and will assist if needed from the beginning.
Forestry IndustryClaude Patry: Mr. Speaker, this week, north shore mayors sounded the alarm about the terrible plight of Quebec's forestry industry. Today, more plant closures are being announced.
Rather than standing idly by and rejecting measures to develop new products and markets, why does the government not take action to support this important sector of Quebec's economy?
Christian Paradis:  Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. In fact, the opposite is true. 
My colleague should stop being so divisive. We implemented measures to develop new markets through the use of new technologies and to see how we can move the forestry industry into the 21st century.
We can achieve great things by working together. By working together with Quebec, New Brunswick and the rest of the Canadian francophonie, we were able to ensure that the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean was elected as the Secretary General of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. We can be proud of that.
Claude Patry: Mr. Speaker, Greenpeace is lobbying for a review of the FSC certification standards.
 Nevertheless, Quebec has some of the best forestry practices in the world. The Government of Quebec has been talking to industry clients, particularly in Europe and the United States, to show how exemplary the industry's practices are.
Does the federal government plan on joining the Government of Quebec in supporting Quebec's forestry industry? 
Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government sympathizes with those who are affected by the closures that the member has mentioned. 
Our government has taken strong action to support the forest sector through unprecedented investments. Unlike the member who repeatedly opposes our government's investments, we will continue to support rural jobs in this important sector of our economy.
Canadian Human Rights CommissionMr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, taxpayers want to know why the acting commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been allowed to rack up nearly $760,000 in travel expenses over the last eight years. 
David Langtry has been acting chief commissioner since September 2010, and as acting chief has not been required to relocate to Ottawa. 
The Minister of Justice has said he will appoint a permanent chief commissioner soon. As this untenable arrangement has been ongoing for over four years, how does the government justify not appointing a permanent commissioner to start protecting taxpayers from exorbitant expense claims?
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, any misuse of taxpayer dollars is simply unacceptable. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is an independent, arm's-length agency responsible for managing its own resources. Our expectation is that expense decisions are made with a mind to respecting taxpayer dollars. We are working to fill this position on a permanent basis. 

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions. 
PetitionsDavid Wilks: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many British Columbians.
The petitioners are calling on our government to increase the penalties for impaired driving, specifically those that cause death.
Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present petitions signed by hundreds of people from my riding.
 They are calling on the government and the House of Commons to commit to adopting international aid policies that support small farmers and women in particular, in order to acknowledge their vital role in the fight against hunger and poverty. They also want the government to ensure that policies and programs are developed in consultation with small farmers and that these policies protect the rights of small farmers in southern countries so that they can save, use and freely trade their seeds.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on autism spectrum disorders, which are pervasive disorders that affect one person in eighty-eight. They are characterized by social and communication challenges, and a pattern of repetitive behaviours and interests. They are lifelong, and affect development and life experience. They exert emotional and financial pressure on families.
The petitioners call on the government to work with the provinces and territories and stakeholders to develop a pan-Canadian strategy for ASDs, including innovative funding arrangements for financing therapy, surveillance, respite care, and research.
Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from constituents of my riding and surrounding areas who are concerned about the role of small family farmers and international development, and the difficulty they may have in obtaining seed stock for their farms.
The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to commit to adopting international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and to ensure that programs are developed in consultation with family farmers.
Mr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition about abolishing the Senate of Canada.
Given that senators are not elected and do not represent Canada's interests and values, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to abolish the Senate once and for all since it is filled with unelected people who are accountable to no one.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by residents of the Fraser Valley, British Columbia, who believe that our current impaired driving laws are too lenient and should be strengthened by the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition from my constituents who are concerned that the agri-food industry is gradually replacing the wide variety of seeds with patented seeds. 
As a result, they are calling on the Government of Canada to ensure that there is greater diversity, so that small farmers, and in particular women, can contribute to the fight against hunger, especially in southern countries.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
In the first petition, the petitioners draw attention to the high percentage of prostitutes who are forced into the sex trade and trafficking.
As we have no law on the books right now, there is a gap there. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to legislate that it be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a man, woman, or child, and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams, and others to profit from the proceeds of the sex trade.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners are expressing concern about multinational seed companies gradually replacing the immense diversity of farmers' seeds.
The petitioners are calling on the government to consult with small farm families, and that we preserve the rights to use and freely exchange seeds.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to table petitions from constituents from Elliot Lake and Blind River with respect to CPP and QPP and the government's plan to continue going down the road of increasing the age of eligibility to 67. This would slash $11 billion from seniors, most of whom are living in poverty and would be living two extra years in poverty. 
The petitioners recognize that the CPP Investment Board is one of the most successful investment funds. They want the government to take note of what the experts are saying, which is that it should not be doing this. They are asking the government to reverse its ill-thought-out decision.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 764 will be answered today. 
Anne-Marie Day:  With respect to a bid submitted to the Canada School of Public Service (Bid – ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp., reference number CSPS-RFP-1112-JS-014): (a) what is the full name of the director of the branch where the bid has been issued; (b) what communication has been sent from the Canada School of Public Service to ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. relating to the bid; (c) on what date was the bid awarded to Hassiba Kherif; (d) what communication method has been used to inform ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. of the contract reward; (e) on what date was the bid cancelled; (f) for what reason was the bid cancelled; (g) what communication method was used to inform ADRM Consulting Technology Group Corp. of the contract cancellation; (h) if the cancellation bid was communicated through a phone call, has the telephone conversation been documented; (i) what are the details of other bids that have been cancelled between January 2012 and December 2012 at the Canada School of Public Service; and (j) for each cancelled bid referred in (i), what was the communication method used to inform the supplier of the cancellation? 
Tony Clement:  Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Canada School of Public Service does not issue bids. However, the director’s name was Christian Charlebois, Application Development, Support and Database Management. 
With regard to (b), an email was sent to ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. 
With regard to (c), Hassiba Kherif did not submit any bid for the solicitation number CSPS-RFP-1112-JS-014. 
With regard to (d), an email was sent to ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. informing them that the contract was awarded.
 With regard to (e), the school did not cancel the bid.
 With regard to (f), the school did not cancel the bid. 
With regard to (g), an email was sent to ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. informing them that the contract was cancelled.
 With regard to (h), the school did not cancel the bid.
 With regard to (i), for the period specified, the school did not document cancelled bids. As of January 2013, the Canada School of Public Service has implemented practices to document this type of information. 
With regard to (j), for the period specified, the school did not document cancelled bids. As of January 2013, the Canada School of Public Service has implemented practices to document this type of information. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if Questions Nos. 754 and 765 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: With regard to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC): (a) how many applications did CIC receive from Filipinos under the special fast-tracking measures for victims of Typhoon Haiyan, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (b) how many applications were approved, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (c) how many applications were rejected, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (d) how many applications were rejected for failing to meet the “significantly affected” threshold; (e) how many applications are pending; (f) how many Filipinos came to Canada as a result of the special measure, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (g) how many came as (i) permanent residents, (ii) temporary residents; (h) how many remain in Canada today; (i) how many applications were proactively identified by CIC for fast-tracking, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (j) how many rejected applications involved a minor; (k) what was the number of full-time equivalent staff allocated to processing these applications, (i) in total, (ii) by month; (l) what percentage of applications took more than 60 days to process; and (m) what was the budget allocated to processing these applications?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. François Lapointe: With regard to the oil port project in Cacouna and the activities associated with marine traffic for the years 2013 and 2014: what statistical data has been compiled for all port activities and marine traffic, including, but not limited to, (i) the total volume that goes through Cacouna each year, (ii) the number of ships at the Cacouna port each year, (iii) the types of cargo that go through Cacouna, that is, bulk products, finished goods, etc.?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. 
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand and express my strong support for Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, no.2. 
The success of Canada's economy is the result of the hard work and innovation of millions of individual Canadians and Canadian businesses. Our government wants to build on this success by creating the conditions that will continue to allow them to prosper. 
Canada's economic action plan creates jobs and economic growth. It supports families and communities. It improves the fairness and integrity of the tax system. In short, it keeps Canada strong. 
Canadian businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, are the engine of economic prosperity. They create jobs and growth in communities across the country.
Our government is committed to supporting Canadian businesses. That is why economic action plan 2014 includes our proposal for a new small business job credit. 
The new tax credit would save small businesses more than half a billion dollars in the next two years. The small business job credit would lower the employment insurance premiums that small businesses are required to pay. The current legislated rate is $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings. In 2015 and 2016, it would go down to $1.60 per $100 of insurable earnings. If a business pays $15,000 or less in employer EI premiums, it would be eligible for the new credit in 2015 and 2016.
These are more than just numbers to the millions of small business owners in this country. The effect of this change would be huge. It would effectively reduce EI payroll taxes by nearly 15% for eligible businesses, and almost 90% of all EI premium-paying businesses in Canada would be eligible.
 Mindful of our commitment to red tape reduction, we have ensured that no new paper burden would be imposed on business owners in relation to the new credit. The Canada Revenue Agency would determine eligibility based on information in the business' tax return and automatically calculate the credit amount. There would be no additional application form to fill out to benefit from this new tax relief.
Furthermore, both employers and employees would soon see a substantial reduction in their EI premiums. A new rate-setting mechanism, which would come into effect in 2017, would make sure that EI premiums are high enough to pay for the EI program over time, but no higher than required. 
The proposed small business job credit builds on the many other actions our government has taken to foster an environment for small businesses to grow and prosper.
 We have delivered tax reductions totalling more than $60 billion to job-creating businesses from 2008-09 through 2013-14.
 In 2012, we reduced the federal general corporate income tax rate to 15%, down from 22% in 2007.
We have also worked hard to reduce red tape and make it easier for business owners to meet their tax obligations. For example, we have introduced many enhancements to the Canada Revenue Agency's online services. Businesses can now complete 50 different kinds of transactions online with the CRA, including managing their banking information and signing up for pre-authorized debit services through My Business Account. 
To help business owners remember what is due and when, the CRA has recently launched its first-ever mobile app. The Business Tax Reminders app enables users to create custom reminders and alerts for key CRA due dates related to instalment payments, returns, and remittances.
Earlier this year, the CRA launched the liaison officer initiative and consultations for the proposed registration of tax-preparers program. Both are designed to reduce red tape and help small and medium-sized businesses more easily meet their tax obligations.
 These are specific examples of the real results we are delivering for small and medium-sized businesses across the country. 
We are delivering results for Canadian families, too. In fact, families have been major beneficiaries of the numerous tax relief measures that our government has introduced since 2006. 
With balanced budgets just around the corner, our priority is to continue to lower taxes so that Canadians can invest more of their hard-earned money in the economy.
One of the most popular family-related tax credits we have introduced is the children's fitness tax credit, which came into effect in 2007. What parents do not want to start their children on the road to a healthy, active lifestyle early in life?
 Every year, millions of Canadian families register their children in supervised programs of physical activity: basketball, baseball, gymnastics, karate, soccer, figure skating, folk dancing, and the like. Activities such as these, which require a significant amount of physical activity, are all eligible for the children's fitness tax credit.
The children's fitness tax credit allows parents to claim a 15% non-refundable tax credit for expenses up to $500 each year. They may claim the credit for registering their children in eligible physical fitness activities, as I have just outlined. Until now, this has meant that they could receive a credit of up to $75.00 per child each year. Our government wants to double the maximum amount that could be claimed under the credit, and we want to make the credit refundable so that more families could benefit from tax savings.
These proposals would fulfill a commitment we made to Canadians in 2011, and they are contained in the legislation we are debating today. The new limit of $1,000 would come into effect for the 2014 tax year, so families could see the savings when they file their tax and benefit returns next spring.
The children's fitness tax credit would then become a refundable tax credit starting with the new 2015 tax year. This would mean that people with no tax owing might be eligible for a refund of 15% of the amount claimed. As a non-refundable credit, the children's fitness amount could only be applied against taxes that they owed.
The children's fitness tax credit provides about $115 million in tax relief to 1.4 million Canadian families each year. With the changes we are proposing, about 850,000 families would benefit from this additional tax relief.
In addition to the two tax credits I have highlighted today, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2, contains many other measures that would affirm our government's commitment to economic growth, families, and communities.
The facts speak for themselves. Canada has one of the strongest job creation records in the developed world; our performance, in terms of real gross domestic product, is the best in the G7; our economy is growing; and our economic action plan is working.
I sincerely hope that all members on all sides of this House will join me in giving Bill C-43, the economic action plan act, no. 2, their full support. 
This country is moving forward. We are moving forward in a judicious manner. There is tax relief in the bill and economic policies that would benefit all Canadians. I ask for the total support of the members in this House.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my Conservative colleague a question.
The Conservatives have been talking about income splitting for months now. They put the measure in this year's budget, even though the former finance minister said that he did not support such a measure because it did not benefit a majority of the population.
Could my colleague explain why the Conservatives came up with a measure that benefits only about 15% of the population?
What is the point of a tax measure that benefits only a small minority of Canadians?
[Interjection]
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the member knows, and we all know, that the former of minister of finance said nothing of the kind. What he actually said is that he wanted income splitting, if we were to bring it in, to benefit more families. 
With the changes to the income splitting regime that we will be introducing, there would be more Canadian families who benefit from that, and they would be middle-income and low-income Canadian families, precisely the people we are attempting to target. 
I can tell members for a fact that, in my personal belief, our former minister of finance, who was a great minister of finance—arguably one of the best ministers of finance this country ever had—would have supported this legislation.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, we know that this is another massive omnibus bill. It is almost 500 pages and 400 clauses and, again, is going in many different directions, so there is much that we could focus on in this bill that is very problematic.
However, one of the things that I want to single out is the clauses that deny access to social assistance for refugee claimants.
It is really perplexing that the Conservatives have, in effect, taken a private member's bill that came under a lot of fire in the media and now put it in this omnibus bill, which would allow the provinces to impose residency requirements for people without permanent status. This is something that would really hurt refugee claimants; certainly, in my community where we do have a lot of refugee claimants who are on very low income.
I want the member to really be transparent and tell us why the government made the decision to take a private member's bill that was getting a lot of criticism and try to hide it in an omnibus bill?
[Interjection]
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, you would know and the hon. member would know that her question first is wrong, second is disingenuous, and third misrepresents the facts. 
Let me explain how this works. According to the requirements that are now in place, the provinces and territories have no choice but to provide social assistance to failed refugee claimants whether they want to or not. If they chose not to supply the social assistance payments, they would have that money clawed back from their social transfers. 
What would happen here is that for the first time, the provinces would be responsible for and capable of supplying social assistance if they cared to. If they were to decide that a failed refugee claimant should leave the country, they could actually hold back that social assistance payment.
The point to make here is that no legitimate refugees or claimants would lose their assistance. Only failed refugee claimants who have already gone through the system and have then been denied refugee status would not be provided with social assistance. That would only be the case if the province or territory decided to deny it. Ultimately, the provinces and territories would be responsible for making that decision, and in this case they would not have any of their social transfer clawed back because of it.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak once again on this budget implementation bill, Bill C-43, on behalf of my city, Toronto, and on behalf of my community, the riding of Parkdale—High Park.
As we meet here in Ottawa, the city that I come from has been under considerable pressure for some time. It is a wonderful city. It is the biggest city in the country. It is one of the most multicultural cities in the world. It has so many strengths that it is just a wonderful place to live. However, I have to say that there are a great many challenges in our city that require action from the federal government. It is everything from the crushing lack of affordable housing to the gridlock in our city streets because of the lack of federal dollars coming in to boost our transit infrastructure.
I was born and raised in the city of Toronto and I remember it having, at one point, one of the best transportation systems in North America, if not the world. It had a great subway system, as well as streetcars and buses. While the population has grown in leaps and bounds and the city is much more sprawling geographically, the transportation system has not grown equally. As a result, public transit is a huge problem no matter where a person lives. A person living in a suburb of the city cannot get from one northern part of the city to another northern part without hours of waiting and sitting on buses, because the subway system has not kept pace. A person living in the centre of the city, where I live, often sees one subway car or streetcar after another go by because they are jam-packed. That is because the population has grown so much in the city, and the transit system has not kept pace. Transit is a huge issue.
I have to say that housing is a massive issue. I meet with people who live in public housing and Toronto Community Housing. Frankly, it would break members' hearts to see the conditions that some people live in. Seniors who worked all of their lives are living in apartments where the oven does not work, the elevator is often out of service, and there is mould on the walls. We see overcrowded apartments. I have seen families of five and six living in a bachelor apartment. We see people living in rental housing that is overpriced and often not well cared for. We have seen loopholes in the rent control system being exploited so that rents can be jacked up, and people are excluded from affordable accommodation as a result. 
We have a crushing need for affordable rental housing, but we also have a great many families in the city of Toronto with mortgages. Toronto is not quite as expensive as Vancouver, but boy, it is expensive. The average three-bedroom home in the city core seems to be going for almost $1 million. We see young families with massive mortgages, and if they have a couple of kids, they are paying tens of thousands of dollars in child care fees at the same time—that is, if they can find quality child care.
We also see young people graduating from university with sometimes tens of thousands of dollars of student debt. Often they face a very bleak job market. I will talk about that more in just a minute.
There are many crushing problems, not to mention what I think is the most serious challenge globally, which is climate change. There is the pressing need for this country, which has once again just been called out by Ban Ki-moon of the UN for shirking its responsibilities, to address the pressing need of climate change. Surely to goodness we are all in this together. It is one earth. From space, it is one blue dot. Surely the countries and the leaders of the world can all agree that this is a pressing need that we need to deal with, yet the Conservative government seems to be on a one-track path, which is oil and gas.
We have these wonderful natural resources, but it is to the detriment of our investment in clean energy, energy efficiency, advanced manufacturing, and advanced innovative economic measures to get our economy moving into the 21st century. I raise these issues, but there are many other challenging issues that we face in our city and our country, and the budget implementation act before us does not address any of these issues. It does not deal with the concerns that I hear every day. 
Rail safety is an example. During question period, we were debating the pressing need for better rail safety. We have hundreds and hundreds of tank cars carrying hazardous goods and who knows what is rolling through our neighbourhood. The citizens in my community not only do not have the right to know what is in those tank cars, but they also have no right to know if they are protected or if there are effective emergency measures in place. They have no right to know if their safety is being adequately protected by the experts and regulators in the government who are supposed to be doing that job. We saw at Lac-Mégantic they were not doing that job, and many people died.
The bill is yet another of these omnibus budget bills into which Conservatives love to cram all sorts of measures in a very undemocratic, unaccountable process that lacks transparency. There are many measures in the bill that were not introduced in the budget and that they do not want Canadians to even know about. They are counting on people not paying attention to them in a bill with 460 pages and 400 clauses. 
 However, there are a couple of things I want to highlight.
First, it is an outright attack on some of the vulnerable people in our society, refugee claimants. 
There is also the implementation of a job credit that has been panned by experts. It would dip into the EI fund when, in fact, EI should be used to give unemployed workers adequate benefits so that they can keep their heads above water when they are faced with the catastrophe of losing a job. There is nothing in the bill to help the more than 300,000 unemployed Canadians or to help to replace the more than 400,000 good manufacturing jobs that have been lost. 
Just today, new job numbers have come out, and in November Canada lost another 10,700 jobs. Most shockingly, 46,000 jobs were lost in the private sector. So much for being good economic managers. 
Our economy is not recovering, and youth unemployment is now back up to 13%. We have over 1.2 million unemployed Canadians. What does that mean? It means that poverty is increasing.
Twenty-five years ago, we voted to eliminate child poverty. Well, guess what? One out of every five children is living in poverty in Canada today. The numbers are up from 25 years ago. Four out of ten indigenous kids are living in poverty. This is not only a tragedy for them, but a scar on Canadian society and the Canadian economy that we will have to deal with in the future.
Inequality is rising. The top 10% of Canadians have seen their net worth grow since 2005 by 42%, while those in the bottom 10% saw their net worth shrink by 150%. That is growing inequality. We are talking about joblessness and poverty, and the Conservatives are turning their backs, rewarding their friends, focusing only on the oil and gas sector, and to heck with the rest of the economy.
We are committed to a national child care program. We want to make sure that parents have a real choice in having quality, affordable, accessible child care. We want to make sure that we are defending our health care system and that we are investing in medicare, which is a program that was created and defended by the NDP. We are going to continue to defend health care. We also want to invest in transit. We want to get the job done, both on the economy and on the environment. That is what New Democrats will do in 2015.
We wish we could work with the government to get the job done now. We invite the government to join with us. We can make a difference for Canada now. We do not have to wait.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments about the thousands of jobs that have been lost. This month, we had a net loss in excess of 10,000 jobs. We should be concerned about that. 
She made reference to the government's business tax break on EI. The Liberal Party has put forward a proposal that would see employers being given a break through EI reductions for two years as an encouragement to hire. Outside stakeholders have applauded the Liberal proposal.
I know that the 2011 NDP platform stated that employers would receive a one-year rebate on employer contributions for the Canada pension plan and employment insurance premiums for each new employee hired. That is very close to exactly what the Liberal Party has put forward.
Does the member believe and support Jack Layton's plan from 2011, which has been taken in good part and expanded upon in the Liberal Party's proposal? 
[Interjection]
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, it is flattering that the Liberal Party has been attracted to the measures the NDP is proposing. We did put forward a proposal to give a tax credit to small businesses to hire new people, especially youth. We think that is a positive measure. We would encourage the government to pick up on that. 
Where we disagree with our Liberal colleagues is that we do not want to tap into the EI fund to pay employers to hire people. That is the difference. They may be trying to get to the same place, but we do not agree with how they are doing it.
The EI fund is paid for by employers and workers. Frankly, in the city of Toronto right now, only about 20% of unemployed workers are actually getting EI benefits. We want the money in the EI fund used to give unemployed workers the benefits they have paid for and are entitled to to help them transition to a new job, rather than have the money given back to employers. We do not think that is a useful thing. 
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I must say, you look very fine in the chair. You make a very good Speaker. It is very nice to see you there.
I listened very carefully to my colleague from Parkdale—High Park. She describes so similarly what I also face in Vancouver in terms of high housing costs, transit issues, climate change, and a dense urban environment where people are really struggling to make ends meet. 
One of the things that is so disappointing is that there has not been a commitment by the federal government to a national housing plan. We have seen sporadic programs that come and go. Really, when we look at the scope of what is needed for affordable housing in this country, it is huge. It is actually a very solid investment in terms of jobs in energy retrofits for homes, for example. I wonder if I could ask the member if the need for affordable housing is a critical need in her city as well. 
[Interjection]
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, it is a pressing need. If we want to create jobs in this country, why not go to work and do an energy retrofit of all of the high-rises in cities across the country? In Toronto, we have more high-rise apartments than any other city in the country. A lot of them were built in the 1960s and 1970s. They are not very energy efficient. Imagine the jobs that could be created. 
Jack Layton had a system whereby we could invest in this energy efficiency and pay for it over time from the money we saved from reduced energy costs. 
I just want to say one other thing about the pressing need for housing, because it really does take the federal government's involvement. We had a horrible tragedy in our city in the last week. A young mother and her kids were killed and subsequently her husband died. It seems that she went from a shelter, where she was trying to escape violence, to a private apartment. She could not afford it. There was no transition housing. She had to go back to that dangerous situation. Now she and her kids are dead. If that is not a crying argument for housing, I do not know what is. 
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-43, an act to implement the budget. As we know, the focus of our government is jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, and there are many measures within this bill that support that focus, that priority, of the Government of Canada.
I would like to start by talking about where we were back in 2008 when the biggest recession since the Great Depression struck our nation and many nations around the world. In fact, 62 million people around the globe lost their jobs during that recession due to global economic instability. However, since then, Canada has fared far better than most countries in the world in terms of job creation and recovery. In fact, since the pit of the economic recession in July 2009, Canada has created 1.2 million net new jobs, with employment all across this country. This has allowed our government to move toward a balanced budget and deliver on many promises made in the 2011 campaign.
The federal tax burden is now at its lowest in 50 years. People are paying less in taxes than they did in part of the Diefenbaker era. Things are going well in Canada. We have more employment, more growth, and larger projected growth than any other country in the G7. The IMF and KPMG both predict that for this year and next year we are going to have very successful job growth, job creation, and overall economic growth in this country. Canada is on the verge of a great economic and prosperous time, and we are going to keep putting measures in place so the people of this country can benefit from it.
What has allowed us to do this? What has allowed Canada to do so much better than many other nations emerging from a global economic recession? I believe it was our commitment as a government to balance the books and then use surplus spending to invest in tax cuts and to support jobs and economic growth. This was a commitment we all made on this side of the House as we went door to door in the 2011 election. We committed to first balance the budget and then to reinvest in Canadians by lowering taxes, supporting young families, and reinvesting in jobs and growth.
There are some members of the House who believe balancing the budget will happen by itself and that we do not need to focus on that, but it is hugely important. The only way to balance a budget, whether it is a household budget, a municipal budget, a provincial budget, or a federal budget, is to make it is a huge priority and put a plan in place to reach that balanced budget in a targeted amount of time. That is what this government did following the 2011 election. We kept our commitment to the people of Canada by putting the economic action plan in place, with the goal of balancing the budget within the mandate of this government, which we have.
It is not easy, and it does not just happen by itself. To do it, there are really three choices a government can make to balance the budget. The first choice, and I would argue the easy way to do it, is simply to raise taxes. We have seen governments and previous administrations, both provincially and federally, try to balance budgets on the backs of Canadians by raising taxes: raising business taxes, raising income taxes, raising fees. That, I would argue, is the easy way.
We saw the NDP government in Nova Scotia try to do this a few years back. It raised taxes to try to balance the budget. This government gave the Canadian people a cut in their GST sales tax, or HST in some provinces, like mine, in Nova Scotia. When we cut the GST federally from 7% to 6% to 5%, almost every Canadian was able to benefit from that tax reduction, except in my province of Nova Scotia, where the provincial government came right in behind and almost immediately raised the sales tax by 2%.
While in New Brunswick, right next door to my riding, people were paying 13% sales tax in the combined HST, in Nova Scotia we were paying 15%. A border riding like mine saw jobs flowing across the border. Gas stations were shutting down, because between that and the increased fuel taxes in Nova Scotia, people could pay far less a litre in New Brunswick than they could in Nova Scotia. While everyone else was benefiting from this cut in the sales tax, the people in my province were not, because the provincial government decided to do that in an effort, it argued, to balance the budget, which, in fact, never really happened. That is the easy way to try to balance the budget: by simply raising taxes.
The second way a federal government can try to cut taxes is by eliminating, cutting, or reducing transfers to the provinces. Transfers to the provinces pay for education, put teachers in classrooms, pay for educational assistants for special education students, and provide other support services in every school. 
Those transfers pay for our health care system so seniors across this country can enjoy the health care they deserve in an equitable health care system, from one end of the country to the other. That is why we have these transfers. It is so the provinces can deliver their constitutionally designated role of delivering effective, equitable health care from Newfoundland all the way to British Columbia and to the north. That is what Canada is all about. We are all in this together. That is why those transfers are so valuable.
The Liberal government in the nineties chose to balance the budget, coming out of an economic recession, on the backs of the provinces, on the backs of our seniors, and on the backs of our children by reducing those valuable transfers to the provinces. Significantly cutting those transfers, I believe, destabilized both the education system and the health care system in many provinces across this country. It was an effort, arguably, to balance the budget.
The third way a federal government can try to balance a budget is not by raising taxes on the people and cutting the valuable transfers to the provinces that need those dollars so desperately to deliver those effective services I talked about. The third way is to look at how the government spends money. We can look at ourselves, look across federal departments to see what we can do to save money for the Canadian taxpayer so we can get the budget balanced and start making targeted investments for the future of all Canadians. 
In 2011, that is what we promised to do, and that is a promise we have kept. We have delivered on that promise, and now we have the budget balanced and are moving forward.
Every department across the board had to look at reductions. With targeted savings, usually in back-office services, making sure that we protected front-line services, particularly in the regions of this country, we were able to slowly move the budget to balance. Now, on schedule, we have a balanced budget in this country due to excellent fiscal management by the Prime Minister, former finance minister Flaherty, and the present Minister of Finance. 
This government has moved Canada to a balanced budget, and that gives the government the financial flexibility to deliver the other promises we made when we all went door to door during the 2011 election. I am speaking of things like income splitting for families, the family tax cut, and an increased UCCB. Support for young families across this country is a target of this government to ensure that the future of this country is protected. 
By raising the universal child care benefit, we are supporting the next generation of Canadians in getting the child care they need. We are supporting the next generation of Canadians in getting the education they need. We are now focusing on changes to our education system, changes funded by the federal government through our post-secondary support for apprenticeships, a $100-million program for interest-free loans for apprentices across this country. 
Budget 2014 supports our young people and our young families and is delivered under a balanced budget format. 
Now that the budget is balanced and we are moving forward and are keeping those commitments to Canadian families, what is the next step for Canada? Where can we go? The future of this country is bright. We have worked so hard to come so far from the great recession of 2008. The strong fiscal management of this government and this party, led by our Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, will support the bright and prosperous future of this country. 
I hope the opposition will stand in support of this legislation on Monday night, because it is in the best interest of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about the historic health transfer to the provinces from the federal government. As the health critic for the NDP, I have to say that the only things historic about it are that, one, it was done unilaterally by the federal government; two, in the long run it would shortchange the provinces by about $36 billion, and this has been shown both by the premiers and the parliamentary budget office; and, three, it has signalled a complete disengagement by the federal government on health care.
These transfers were always a matter of negotiation. There were always agreed-to outcomes. We saw the health accord from 2004 expire this year, on March 31, and nothing has replaced it. We have a vacuum in federal leadership.
I am very proud of the work that the NDP has done to put forward a plan for renewing and strengthening our public health care system, but I see nothing from the Conservative government. In fact, I see us going backward.
I wonder if the member could comment about whether he has taken note that the provinces are very unhappy with the status of the federal government when it comes to health care.
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, what the provinces can count on is a continued increase in the amount of money they will receive from the federal government in terms of our health care transfers. In my own province of Nova Scotia, this year, for the first time, transfers from the federal government to the province eclipsed $3 billion. 
Let me put that in perspective. The entire revenue of the Government of Nova Scotia is $9 billion. A full third of that comes directly to the provincial government in transfers. We have actually increased the amount of transfers in health again and again. This will continue because we are going to set a floor of an over 3% increase in transfers from the federal government to the provinces each year, and most years it is going to be far more than that. This is more of an increase in the amount of money that the federal government is transferring to the provinces than the provinces are increasing on spending in health care themselves.
If any provinces are complaining about health care transfers, they should take a look at their books. They can count on increases to health care transfers from the federal government from now in perpetuity.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, there is some truth to what the member has just said. The only thing he is really missing is that he was very critical of the Liberals during the 1990s. We also need to recognize that it was Paul Martin, the former Liberal prime minister, who actually put in the health care accord. That is the reason we are getting record highs in terms of health care transfers. It is not because of the current Conservative government.
When the member talked about the budgets and the balancing and the options, what he did not tell viewers or the House was that when the current government took office, it had a surplus budget into the billions of dollars. The government, even in a time in which there was no recession, converted that surplus into a major deficit of billions of dollars. Since then, the government has not had a balanced budget.
My question for the member is this. Will he confirm that if a balanced budget in 2015 materializes, the current government will be the first Conservative government to do that?
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, what is true is that Canada would be the first country in the G7 to emerge from the recession with a balanced budget since the great recession of 2008. That is what is true.
When the member talks about what the Liberals did under Paul Martin, he should remember that it had to be in response to what the Liberals did in the 1990s, when they decimated the health care system and the education system by slashing billions of dollars of transfers to the provinces. We all remember Rae days. We all remember hospitals being closed. We remember clinics being closed. We remember nurses being laid off and having to go to the United States.
 We all remember the damage that did to our health care system, destabilizing the health care for our seniors and our young families. We did not have the infrastructure we needed to enjoy this recovery. It is only now that I believe the health care system is starting to recover, because of the support of this Minister of Finance, and this Prime Minister, and this government.
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, obviously in Ontario, notwithstanding the fact that we have delivered $3,400 for an average family in tax savings, because the Liberal government campaigned hard for it, supported by the federal Liberal leader, the cost of electricity is going up, taxes are going up, and jobs are going down.
I wonder if the member can comment on the family tax cut and what the universal child care benefit would mean, particularly for single-parent families, for consumers, for the economy, and for jobs.
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, this family tax package that we have put together is going to deliver tax relief to every single family in Canada, from coast to coast to coast.
For a single parent with two children making $30,000 a year, this is going to be a significant increase to the revenue of that family. If the children are under six years of age, there will be an increase of $720 for each child, over $1,400 in additional money in their pockets that they did not have before. If the children are older than that, or there are three or four young people in a household all eligible for this increase, we are talking thousands and thousands of dollars in their pockets that they did not have before.
We have also doubled the children's fitness tax credit.
The Speaker: I will have to stop the member there.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I am in the House today to talk about this weighty legislative measure. I use the word “weighty” in the sense of heavy and massive. This is a kitchen-sink bill. The Conservatives might need a vocabulary lesson or two.
For example, in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, the word “budget” is defined as:
 a periodic (especially annual) estimate of the revenue and expenditure of a country, organization, etc. 
Perhaps I should have given them this vocabulary lesson sooner because this is not the first time they have introduced a budget within an omnibus bill. Since winning a majority, they have presented us with 2,190 pages of bills like this one. This time, we are looking at 400 clauses and 460 pages.
Last month, we had just a few hours to attend a budget information session. Naturally, no ministers were at the meeting to answer our questions. They always do the same thing. They use very competent officials to make decisions and those people have to handle the pressure in their stead.
I have to say that the NDP had a lot of questions, but the answers we got were not always satisfactory. I would be remiss if I did not mention the questions that my colleagues from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and Skeena—Bulkley Valley asked during that meeting.
One of the most offensive divisions of the bill has to do with refugees. When we asked whom the Conservatives had consulted on that division, we were told that they consulted only one province. That is extremely shocking. This is just one more tactic that proves how out of touch they are in their ivory tower.
The bills they introduce, which are clearly meant only to appease their supporters, reek of electioneering and politicking. It is nothing but a smokescreen. The provinces do not want this measure.
The Canadian Council for Refugees is also worried about this division, which infringes on the rights of refugees and does not meet Canada's legal obligations. It even deprives refugees of the right to appeal a decision before an independent tribunal. 
Will the Conservatives again have to go through the Supreme Court test, which costs Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars? The Conservatives have not been very lucky so far when it comes to Supreme Court challenges of their legislative measures.
This bill does have the odd worthwhile proposal. We are pleased that the Conservatives have finally adopted one of the NDP's proposals. Canadians will no longer have to pay to receive a paper copy of their invoices through the mail. We have been asking the Conservatives about these pay-to-pay fees for a while now.
In that regard the question was as follows: What will the Conservatives do to ensure that telecommunications and television broadcasting companies do not hide billing fees by increasing the total amount of the invoice? They were unable to answer because no mechanism has been put in place to prevent that from happening. It is shameful. Furthermore, once again, they only used one half of a good idea. They are not keeping their promise to put an end to exorbitant bank fees.
Let us come back to the definition of the word “budget”. Once again the Conservatives have managed to include a multitude of items that are not related to the budget. They are authorizing the amendment of dozens of laws. Like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, the government is adding various measures that were never mentioned in a budget speech. It is magic.
Instead of talking about a bill to implement hundreds of budget provisions, we should give it a name that is more representative of the reality.
What I am really dying to ask is why they are resorting to an omnibus bill. I have my own thoughts on that. I believe that the Conservatives like to be able to hide provisions that are so controversial that the public would not accept them if they were the subject of a single bill. The Conservatives like to bury these measures amongst all the omnibus provisions. They like to give more discretionary authority to their ministers without making it too obvious. They like to ignore or sidestep studies, oversight mechanisms and public consultations.
However, they can count on the NDP to be there and to stand up to all this nonsense. This bill shows that the Conservatives do not respect the democratic process of the House. Several recent examples attest to that, such as a member reading a newspaper in the House, the refusal of certain members to appear before committees and so forth.
Just yesterday, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou asked a very important question about the nutrition north Canada program. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development called the hon. member a socialist in a suit and tie. It takes some nerve. What lack of respect. I cannot get over it.
I have also seen one of the biggest contradictions in my mandate as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. The Minister of Finance is asking the opposition parties for suggestions for budget 2015, while we are here in the process of debating this omnibus bill. Are they really open to our suggestions? Do they really consider our amendments or is this just another facade?
Whatever the case may be, I want to take this opportunity to make some suggestions to the Minister of Finance. First, he has to forget about income splitting because it benefits only the well off. In any case, the former finance minister, God rest his soul, wanted none of it. We know that it benefits the rich more than the poor. An individual can get a $3,000 tax credit if he earns a lot and maybe $200 if he earns less. An individual who is not entitled to the tax credit gets nothing.
The government also has to stop making cuts to employment insurance. The Conservatives are helping themselves to $550 million from the employment insurance fund. The program created through this bill would generate 800 jobs at most; however, according to economists such as Mike Moffatt, it could encourage businesses to fire people rather than hire them. It is important to remember that there is no evidence to show that this will benefit businesses. Businesses could benefit from the existing tax credit, whether they hire new staff or not. We know that businesses will have to give back part of the $550 million in federal taxes. The government needs to stop making cuts, as it is doing with CBC/Radio-Canada and Canada Post. It must stop cutting well-paying jobs. Canada will become the only OECD country that no longer offers home mail delivery. Finally, the government must stop making cuts to funding for women's groups, change the retirement age back to 65 and put forward a real plan to combat tax evasion.
The NDP wants to implement practical measures to make life more affordable for Canadian families.
I would also like to point out that the Conservative government should phase out subsidies for the oil and gas sectors. The money from those subsidies, which amounts to over $1 billion, could be invested in affordable child care programs, which will have more long-term economic benefits.
As usual, the Conservatives continue to ignore what the provinces, the municipalities, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the opposition have to say about creating fair, sustainable prosperity in this country.
The New Democrats have consistently opposed the Conservatives' omnibus bills, just as we opposed Paul Martin's omnibus bills in the 1990s.
With this sixth consecutive omnibus budget bill, the Conservatives continue to use bad processes. Canadians deserve better.
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to that speech, and I just wanted to clarify something with regard to refugee health care. I want to clarify for the record that this Conservative government has always supported health care for bona fide refugees and will continue to do so in the future.
However, I think the opposition party has a bit of trouble with terminology. I wonder if the member from the NDP could explain the difference between a refugee—one who has been deemed by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board or by the UNHCR to be a bona fide refugee and resettled here in Canada—and a failed asylum claimant who has been asked to leave this country. 
[Interjection]
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I do know the difference between the two.
I might ask the member if she knows the difference between an omnibus bill and a budget bill.
The budget should never be an omnibus bill. It is important to make that distinction and do things properly, which means introducing a budget bill, not an omnibus bill.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault:  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her speech.
I would like her to comment further on the tax credit for employers, which will be paid for out of the employment insurance fund. She alluded to it in her speech but did not go into any detail about it.
What does she think of the fact that the Conservatives are planning to use the fund to pay for the creation of about 800 jobs at a cost of around $550,000 each? That measure will cost half a billion dollars. Do the math and that comes out to $550,000 per job created.
What does she think of the fact that the Conservatives are going to take money out of the employment insurance fund even though that money belongs to workers and employers?
[Interjection]
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member.
His question is extremely relevant, especially since I was responsible for the employment insurance file last year. To answer my colleague's question, I would first like to quote a witness, David Macdonald, a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:
 The credit is received by all small businesses, irrespective of action. Whether they hire employees, fire employees, or remain at the same employment levels, they still get the credit. 
It is particularly shameful that the Conservatives are taking money away from businesses and workers who pay into EI. It is becoming increasingly difficult for workers to access the program, especially when they do seasonal work and they have to apply for EI over and over again.
Furthermore, the Conservatives claim they are going to create jobs with that money, but that is also false. They use rhetoric that appears positive to Canadians, but this measure will not create jobs. It will create about 800 jobs, but for businesses that owe taxes to the government, the taxes will come first. This means taking money out of taxpayers' pockets to pay the taxes of the offending companies. 
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, I am going back to my first question with respect to the NDP being able to explain the difference between a bonafide refugee and a failed asylum claimant. I know that the NDP likes to say that people whose claims have been rejected are actually still refugees. These are people who had either fraudulently represented themselves or had not been able to prove that they are refugees in need of Canada's care and have been asked to leave this country. That is incorrect both legally and morally.
Therefore, I ask the member from the NDP this. Can she explain the difference between a bonafide refugee, someone who is in need of Canada's help and will continue to get it and always has, and that of a failed asylum claimant who has been asked to leave this country?
[Interjection]
Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, regarding the changes to the eligibility of refugee protection claimants, Ms. Jimenez, who came to Canada as a refugee, said that she did not know where she would be now if she had not had access to that money. She probably would have had to resort to food banks and begging on the street.
The Speaker: Order, please. It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, December 4, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Speaker:  All those in favour will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Speaker:  All those in favour will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it.
 I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 43 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 44. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 I declare Motion No. 44 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 45 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No 46. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 I declare Motion No. 46 defeated. 
The next question is on Motion No. 47. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 A recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 48.
 The question is on the Motion No. 49. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  No. 
The Speaker:  I declare Motion No. 49 defeated. 
 The question is on Motion No. 50. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 A recorded division on Motion No. 50 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 51. 
 The question is on Motion No. 52. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 I declare Motion No. 52 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 53. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  No.
The Speaker:  I declare Motion No. 53 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 54 and 55 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 56. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 I declare Motion No. 56 defeated and I therefore declare Motions Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 64. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 I declare Motion No. 64 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 65. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it.
 I declare Motion No. 65 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 66, 67 and 68 defeated.
Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Monday, December 8, 2014 at the ordinary hour of adjournment.
The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
David Wilks: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Canada Elections ActKevin Lamoureux:  moved that Bill C-524, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election advertising), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to begin the debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-524. 
Bill C-524 proposes to makes changes to the Canada Elections Act, specifically to sections 320 and 352. Broadly, I believe that the changes outlined in the bill would result in greater transparency and accountability with regard to the output of political advertising. As a result, I believe this bill will allow voters to be more informed about the nature and origins of political advertisements. I would like to stress that in no way is this bill about censorship or about limiting the speech of candidates, parties, or third parties. 
Currently sections 320 and 352 of the Canada Elections Act provide broad guidelines for authorization of messages transmitted during election periods. Bill C-524 proposes to mandate explicit requirements governing the transmission of advertisements. These proposed changes would be applicable to advertisements during both election and non-election periods. Current guidelines only pertain to election advertising during the election period.
I believe this first measure would go far in ensuring that Canadians are consistently well informed about the source of political advertisements. To this end, the bill proposes to make substantive amendments to sections 320 and 352 of the act.
Bill C-524 would amend the act to specify the nature in which authorizations must be made and who is responsible for authorizing advertisements made by candidates, political parties, and third parties. 
Under the proposed changes in Bill C-524, advertisements would have to be endorsed explicitly; those transmitted by candidates would have to be personally endorsed by the candidates themselves, while advertisements transmitted to the public by registered parties would have to be endorsed by the party's leader. Finally, advertisements produced by a third party would require endorsement by the authorized representative.
 For messages in print form, a written statement that identifies the sponsor would have to be included. In cases where the advertisement is produced solely by the candidate, the advertisement would have to include a message that identifies the member and their authorization of the advertisement. For advertisements that are produced for a registered political party, the party leader would have to identify himself or herself and the represented party. Finally, messages by third parties would have to be sponsored by an authorized representative of the third party, identify the third party, and specify that the party is responsible for the content of the message. The endorsement in print form would have to be legible by the recipient of the message and utilize a reasonable degree of colour contrast between the background and the printed statement.
For advertisements transmitted in audiovisual form, the endorsing message would have to be conveyed by an unobscured, full-screen view of the candidate making the statement, or the candidate could provide the endorsement in voice-over with a similar image of the candidate. All advertisements would also have to be accompanied by an endorsement in print form that is displayed for at least four seconds at the end of the message.
I have already mentioned the importance of Canadians being able to identify the source of information when they are exposed to a political advertisement. I do not believe anyone in the House can provide a convincing reason as to why we should not implement changes that would make it easier for Canadians to discern who or what group is responsible for a particular advertisement. Not only do I believe—and I am sure many in the House today would agree with me—that advertisement transparency with regard to the transmission of political messages is essentially the right thing to do, but I would also like to point out that research suggests that sponsored advertisements are beneficial to both the viewer and the candidate.
In a study by James Druckman that looked at the process by which individuals develop their conceptualization of issues, Druckman found that credibility and trustworthiness are factors in how viewers of advertisements or messages form their opinions on the content of those messages. His study found that sponsored advertisements allowed the viewer to ascribe a certain level of credibility to the source.
In these cases where it was clear where the information was coming from, participants were able to evaluate the credibility of the claims made based on that source, so adding a requirement that advertisements be clearly endorsed by their source would further enhance the process by which Canadians make informed decisions.
While the main objective of this bill is to increase transparency and accountability, I can appreciate that many individuals listening to me speak are interested in how the bill relates to attack ads and its likeness to the U.S. “stand by your ad” provision.
Again, I can understand that some see attack ads as a political strategy, and that is fine. I am not trying to take away the ability to produce negative ads. What I am doing is trying to ensure that candidates take full responsibility by making it clear to the viewer that they are the producer and endorser of their ad.
This bill is not about censorship. Its aim is not to affect the frequency of attack ads. A point of criticism often lobbied against the U.S. provision is that it has not made much of a difference in decreasing the number of negative or attack advertisements utilized by candidates and parties; therefore enacting similar legislation here in Canada would be of little use.
However, I would argue that Canada's political system and the prevailing attitudes that Canadians in general hold toward the use of attack ads differ from those in the United States. The difference, I believe, is what would make these changes I am proposing in Bill C-524 far more effective in a Canadian context.
A paper published and political studies by Annemarie Walter from the University of Amsterdam in 2014 found that the use of attack ads was lower in multi-party systems versus the more adversarial two-party systems, such as the United States.
Thus, in Canada, where we have a multi-party system, the attitude toward the use of negative ads differs from that in the United States, and I believe, as a consequence, the provisions I have proposed in Bill C-524 would have an impact on the type of advertisements that candidates, political parties, and third parties would be willing to produce and endorse.
While the intent of my bill is to increase transparency and accountability, I think it is also necessary to discuss what Canadians are saying across the country about the use of attack ads by parties and elected officials.
 I have heard from Canadians in my riding about the general need for civil discourse in Parliament and in our democratic system, and no doubt, other members here today from both sides of the House have heard from their own constituents as well.
We can recall that the members for Edmonton Centre and Don Valley East, for instance, refused to send out mailers that originated from their party that attacked the member for Papineau last year.
While my bill does not target ten percenters, I believe the spirit of their actions reflects what many Canadians feel. In our efforts to represent Canadians, let us discuss policies and proposals that would contribute to a better Canada. Now, if parties, candidates, and third parties want to continue to utilize attack ads, then that is their choice to do so.
 This bill is not about censorship, but I think it reflects what many Canadians across the country believe in; that is, civil discourse within our democratic system. This bill would ensure that, whether or not an advertisement is negative, the responsibility for its content is accounted for through the obligation to explicitly sponsor the message.
I ask my colleagues to reflect on my statement. I am sure everyone is very much aware. Hopefully we will be able to generate the support by allowing for a free vote on all sides of the House, and hopefully this bill will, in fact, garner enough support to allow it to go to committee, at the very least, where I know there is a great deal of interest in having direct public input from stakeholders and many others.
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Bill C-524, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, which was proposed by the previous speaker, the member for Winnipeg North.
The bill proposes to extend the regulation of advertising by parties, candidates, and third parties to periods between elections and to establish new advertising identification requirements for parties, candidates, and third parties.
The House should be aware that the Canada Elections Act already provides that parties, candidates, and third parties must identify themselves in their election advertising messages.
In my opinion, Bill C-524 is a solution in search of a problem. As a result, and due to the way the bill is drafted, I cannot support it.
 I wish to identify four problems with the bill. In my view, the problems are serious and should give all members reason to oppose the bill.
The bill is too broad. The first problem with the bill is its long reach. In my view, it is overly broad. I will provide an example.
The bill targets not only partisan advertising but also issue advertising; that is, advertising on an issue with which a party or candidate is associated. Issue advertising can raise some difficult questions. All parties in this House have policies dealing with the various issues our country faces, and who is to say which party or candidate is uniquely associated with a particular issue?
 Consider a fictitious organization that has as its mandate the elimination of the $2 coin. It has an advertising campaign in print media and has undertaken this campaign for some time. The question is this. How would one know if this becomes an issue associated with a party or a candidate? If a party leader in an interview said that the $2 coin was here to stay, would that be sufficient to make this an issue associated with the party? What if a senior member of the party said that eliminating the $2 coin was an idea worthy of consideration? It is not altogether clear, outside of an election period, when an issue becomes associated with a party such that the fictitious organization now becomes caught by Bill C-524. Once caught, the organization would have to comply with the new identification requirements in its advertising messages. Failure to do so would make it liable to prosecution and penalties.
These examples go to show that instead of bringing transparency, the way in which the bill is drafted risks bringing confusion and uncertainty to the regulation of third parties on matters that have nothing to do with a federal election.
The bill also would impose new costs on political expression. As mentioned earlier, the Canada Elections Act already provides that parties, candidates, and even third parties must identify themselves in their election advertising messages, yet Bill C-524 would add an American-style requirement that would impose additional costs on parties, candidates, and third parties. This would lead to less time by parties and candidates to get their messages across. Here is why.
One provision in the bill provides that, in the case of audiovisual messages, there must be an unobscured, full-screen view of the candidate, party leader, or authorized representative of the third party, as the case may be, who is making the statement. If the statement is made in a voice-over, it must be accompanied by a photographic image of the person making the statement. In addition, the statement must be clearly displayed in print form for at least four seconds at the end of the audiovisual message. 
This is no small requirement. Four seconds of air time is potentially of great monetary value. That would be more than 10% of a 30-second television ad. For a 15-second spot, it represents more than 20% of the duration of the advertising. That means that a party, third party, or candidate looking to television advertisement would have to reduce the length of its already short message or may have to give up on this form of advertising altogether. The bill would unnecessarily restrict a party's freedom of speech in this regard, even when the leader already features prominently in the ad. It is a political party's choice whether to include its leader in advertising or not. There is no evidence that adopting the U.S. approach solves anything. Anyone watching U.S. political ads will immediately understand this.
Another problem with this is signage respecting electoral district associations. Even if we accept the goal of the bill at face value, the fact that it does not say anything about electoral district associations is a problem. Members will know that electoral district associations are prohibited from advertising during an election. Bill C-524 does not propose to extend this prohibition on advertising by electoral district associations outside of the election period. Instead, it proposes new regulations on parties, candidates, and third parties. 
What about electoral district associations? There is a loophole that would allow them to avoid the new identification requirements proposed by the bill. A party could simply avoid the new rules by running ads through an electoral district association on the party's behalf. I am not sure that is what is intended by the bill, but it is nonetheless another way in which the bill fails to achieve the objectives of transparency and accountability that it sets out for itself.
I would like to take a moment before I close to highlight the successful record that our government has had as part of its democratic reform agenda. We have taken big money out of politics with the introduction of stricter contribution limits. We have also eliminated corporations and unions from making contributions to candidates and parties. All of this has increased the accountability of political actors in our political system. 
In addition, transparency has been improved with the passage of the Fair Elections Act. We have banned the use of loans to evade donation limits. We created a voter contact registry to protect voters from rogue calls and impersonation. I was proud to have supported these measures. 
I hope I have made it very clear as to why the House should not support Bill C-524. It is in part because of the many deficiencies, but primarily because it risks undermining the very goals it aims to realize. 
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will make my remarks brief. The NDP does support the principle of the bill and what the hon. member is trying to get at as presented today in the House.
We do believe that taking ownership of an ad by riding candidates, for local ads, and political parties for nationally paid ads, as well as third-party advertisers, may have some beneficial effect to dampening nasty and childish attack ads. It may also create some incentive to make sure that ads are about the legitimate contrast of policies and capacities. They may well end up what the hon. member outlined, in terms of allowing people to be clearer about where messages are coming from and making their choices more reflectively.
It is also important that he has added the provision to have these rules apply outside of the election period. That is very important, although I do take notice of what was just argued from the other side of the House; there does appear to be a loophole for electoral district associations outside of that period. 
However, I do have one major concern. It is philosophical, but it plays itself out in the legislation. The member has borrowed from the U.S., without it seems taking into account the differences in our political systems. He would require that local candidates do “stand by your ad” voice-overs or image video presentations. That is fine, as people are indeed electing local candidates to be local MPs. However, for national party ads, he would have the party leader do the “stand by your ad” as a requirement, rather than having the political party or an authorized spokesperson for the party. 
The reason this matters philosophically is that this could encourage an unhealthy and inappropriate focus on what is already an overly deepened phenomenon in our country, which is a focus on the party leader and on personalities of party leaders. That would be at the expense of how our Westminster tradition actually works and how we should be thinking about the composition of Parliament under our current system, as a series of MPs elected from local ridings, where the leader, however already picked by convention of the party, must be confirmed by MPs in the House, showing that leader their support. 
Canada is not a republic, and party leaders are ultimately ordinary MPs. The U.S. presidential and gubernatorial system must not be used to influence our own system. Therefore, I do hope that if this goes to committee, we will discuss whether the provisions in the bill inadvertently focus too much attention on party leaders as somehow the end all and be all, thus contributing to an unhealthy “presidentialization” of our politics that is already well under way, especially assisted by the way that the media reports on national politics. 
The Speaker: Resuming debate. 
There being no other members rising, I will go to the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his five-minute right of reply.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief and just acknowledge and appreciate the comments from both sides of the House on the bill I have put forward. I am thankful for the principal support that has come from the New Democrats.
With regard to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, if I may be so bold as to suggest to the government that it approach this with an open mind, in two ways. First and foremost, it would be of great benefit to allow a free vote among the Conservative caucus. The second way is in respect of what the parliamentary secretary has pointed out, a loophole along with the four seconds. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that the potential for amendments is always there, if it is allowed to go to committee.
The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to an order made November 25, 2014, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 10, 2014, immediately after the time provided for oral questions.
It being 1:42 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:42 p.m.)