2015-05-15

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2015 Act No. 1[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation act, such an important piece of legislation for veterans.
As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I am pleased to say that the Minister of Veterans Affairs tabled in this House Bill C-58, support for veterans and their families. The provisions contained in the bill are so important for veterans that they are contained within the budget implementation act itself.
The budget implementation act is a major step forward in our work for our Armed Forces members, for veterans, and for their families. With the bill, our government would address unintended gaps in the new veterans charter. 
In addition, the bill would satisfy recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Last June, the committee issued a report with recommendations to improve the new veterans charter. That report was based on input from over 50 veterans and veterans organizations that appeared at the committee. The report was unanimously accepted by all members of all parties on that committee.
Here is the problem for the Liberal and NDP members of Parliament. The measures in the budget implementation act address recommendations presented by the Veterans Ombudsman, by the veterans affairs committee, and by veterans and veterans organizations, yet for some incomprehensible reason, the opposition is fighting these initiatives, initiatives that would benefit our veterans and their families, instead of helping to pass them into law.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs is serving veterans extremely well. He has held a high number of consultations. He has reached out to veterans and veterans organizations, and over the last number of months, he has announced many significant initiatives for which veterans have been asking. 
Within the first few weeks, the minister laid out his priorities for Veterans Affairs: having a focus on caring, compassion, and respect; having a veteran-centred service attitude; ensuring a seamless transition from the Armed Forces into Veterans Affairs; and providing service excellence. It is these priorities that have borne tangible fruit. There have been major announcements to improve government services and benefits for serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, for veterans, and for their families.
I would like to briefly highlight some of those significant and important announcements, which are contained in the budget implementation act. 
The retirement income security benefit would provide moderately and seriously injured veterans with continued assistance in the form of monthly income support payments, beginning at the age of 65. This was a direct response to the Veterans Ombudsman's recommendation. In fact, when the minister made this announcement, the Ombudsman said, “I encourage all Parliamentarians to pass this new pension benefit without delay”.
 The minister also announced that the earnings loss benefit would now be calculated the same way for reserve force members as it is for regular force members. With this announcement, reservists would now receive earnings loss benefits equal to those of their regular force counterparts. 
Alice Aiken, the director of the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, said:
 This really speaks loudly and clearly to the reservist veterans that the minister in fact does have their 'six', and is willing to go to bat for them, and take care of them. 
This is another announcement that was supported by the Veterans Ombudsman.
Building on this momentum, the minister then announced that the eligibility criteria for the permanent impairment allowance would be expanded to allow more veterans to benefit. More seriously injured veterans would now be eligible for more financial support.
Another significant and important announcement the minister made that is also contained in the budget implementation act was the new family caregiver relief benefit. Our government recognizes the vital contribution of caregivers, often the spouse or another family member, to the health and well-being of seriously injured veterans. This new benefit would provide an annual tax-free grant of over $7,000 per year to allow caregivers to take a well-deserved break while ensuring that their loved ones continued to receive the support they needed.
So far, I have been speaking of benefits and initiatives that were a direct response to the recommendations made at the veterans affairs committee. In other words, they are benefits and initiatives that the Liberal and NDP members of Parliament should have no hesitation voting in favour of. 
However, the Minister of Veterans Affairs took the opportunity to offer a new benefit that went beyond what the committee and others had asked for, and of course, I am speaking of the critical injury benefit. The critical injury benefit would provide $70,000, tax free, to the most severely injured and ill Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans. This benefit is intended to address the immediate impact of severe and traumatic service-related injuries or diseases sustained by our Armed Forces members and veterans.
I think Mr. Phil Ralph, the program director of Wounded Warriors Canada, said it best when he said:
 Any time you have a benefit that is going to add to the suite of benefits for veterans, it's a good thing. And the minister has done a good job at filling a whole bunch of gaps in the last couple of weeks. 
These announcements are about respect for serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, respect for veterans, and respect for their families. Our government recognizes its obligation to our Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans and is determined to enact and implement these measures as soon as possible. The purpose of these measures, which is contained in the budget implementation act is:
 ...to recognize and fulfill the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada. 
The Minister of Veterans Affairs has made a commitment to veterans that these initiatives, benefits recommended in an all-party report from the veterans affairs committee, would pass through the House before the end of this session. To fulfill our obligation, we have included these new benefits in the budget implementation act to ensure that they pass and can be implemented as soon as possible. I certainly look forward to bringing them into force so that serving members and veterans can actually benefit from them.
However, it is most unfortunate that the Liberals and the NDP are playing political games with our armed forces members, veterans, and their families regarding these new benefits. Earlier this week, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore attempted to move a motion to send Bill C-58 to the committee, which would actually have disrupted the passage of the budget implementation act and the bringing into force of these important benefits I am speaking of this morning.
Here is the dilemma. There are real and significant financial benefits contained in this budget implementation act that would improve the lives of serving Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans, and their families. They are benefits that the opposition has asked for and has said it supports, yet when it comes time to vote on them and actually move them into law and make them a reality, the Liberal and NDP members of Parliament say that they will not vote for them.
As I said, it is shameful that the NDP and Liberals are playing these political games to the detriment of our veterans and their families. It is important to highlight to those watching this debate that the NDP and Liberal MPs will not just stand by while we move these benefits into law but will actively vote against them. Think about that for a moment. Opposition MPs are going to actively try to defeat these initiatives for veterans that are contained within the budget implementation act. They would rather that veterans and their families get nothing at all than receive these new benefits. It makes no sense at all, and it would disadvantage our veterans for the opposition's own partisan purposes.
Men and women in uniform and veterans have confidence that our Conservative government would not only propose these key benefits but would also do everything possible to ensure that they are actually brought into effect. They know that they can count on us to bring this through to a successful conclusion.
In closing, I would say to my Liberal and NDP colleagues that veterans, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and their families are watching closely. With this in mind, I would ask my opposition colleagues to reverse their current position and to instead vote in favour of the key new initiatives contained in the budget implementation act. They are initiatives that would benefit our serving members, veterans, and their families.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary said, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore made two attempts to send Bill C-58, which is about veterans, directly to committee after second reading in the House. Both times, the Conservatives refused to do it. 
 It is clear that this is a political game the Conservatives are playing because Bill C-59, the budget implementation bill, which we are discussing now, would not be disrupted if we were to agree to the motion moved by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore simply because the provisions in Bill C-59 could be withdrawn in committee if they became redundant.
 Knowing that, can the parliamentary secretary explain why the Conservatives are against our proposal to send Bill C-58 to committee and pass it quickly? Why are they using these stalling tactics?
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, do members see what I mean by political games? The measures contained in Bill C-58 are in the budget implementation act, and the budget implementation act is here in debate and is going to committee right after the break week.
My opposition colleagues will have the opportunity to vote in favour of these tangible, credible, and real benefits for veterans, serving Canadian Armed Forces members, and their families, but they choose not to. Instead, they throw up a smokescreen and chaff, saying that it is not being done the way they want it to be done.
I say to put those political games aside and instead focus on the benefits that would be delivered to our veterans, serving members, and their families and vote them into law. They should join the government in serving our veterans and serving Canadian Armed Forces members, our men and women in uniform.
Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have rarely heard such political spin and damage control in the time I have been in this House of Commons. 
Let me suggest to my hon. colleague that what he should do for the veterans is write to them and apologize for the way they have been treated for the past four years, whether it was by closing service centres across the country, decreasing the Veterans Affairs offices by about 1,000 people, pulling back on their budgets, or failing to address the issue of PTSD. 
The current Conservative government should start, if it really cares about the veterans, with a huge apology for the disastrous Veterans Affairs ministers who have preceded the current one. That is what they should do. What does my hon. colleague think about that?
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, we have brought about tremendous improvements in service at Veterans Affairs. We have announced record levels of funding and new benefits all the way around to serve veterans and their families.
My point today is that we have a budget implementation act in front of the House right now that needs to be approved. I am asking this member, who actually served in the Canadian Armed Forces, to support these very real, very tangible benefits that would help veterans, serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and their families. 
The opposition should vote in favour. Instead of throwing up these smokescreens, they should vote to implement these measures.
Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for a comprehensive speech.
The interesting thing is that this is what veterans want and need, and everyone on the veterans affairs committee, of which I was a member, agreed unanimously that these are good things. We have added things even beyond those.
 Given the games that are being played, and there are going to be a lot of accusations in all directions, how important is it, because the time is short, to not give the opposition an opportunity to frustrate getting these measures passed? That is why we put them in Bill C-59 and that is why we are also debating those elements.
 The opposition members will have a chance to vote on it at committee. They will have a chance to show that support. How important is it to roll it all into Bill C-59 so that we can make sure that the aim of getting these benefits there for veterans is not frustrated by game playing?
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I thank that member for his service to our country and for that good question.
I think the member is touching on a key point. The recommendations that were made by the veterans affairs committee were unanimously accepted, and here is the fruit of what the veterans affairs committee actually recommended contained in the budget implementation act. 
Why are these measures in the budget implementation act? It is because the Minister of Veterans Affairs has made a commitment to veterans and their families that these measures will pass through the House before the end of this session. That is why they are in the budget implementation act.
 I am calling on members of the opposition parties to vote in favour of these measures to support our veterans, their families, and serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to share my thoughts on the 2015-16 budget despite the fact that it is yet another omnibus bill with closure. I think that the Conservatives have made history, not for their skill with budgets, but for their contempt of democracy. So successful have they been that the expression “Conservative tactics”—meaning the undue use of time allocation, lack of transparency and contempt for democracy—has become part of our everyday vocabulary. A sure sign of that is their use of an omnibus bill to pass measures that are outright illegal, such as those related to the RCMP and access to information.
We all know that the Conservatives are trying to protect themselves from prosecution by passing a bill that retroactively legalizes the illegal things they did. That is in clause 230, if I am not mistaken. When people in any Canadian province say that a government is using Conservative tactics, they are referring to this government.
If the members take a good look at themselves in the mirror, perhaps they will one day understand that what they have done here is completely undemocratic. It is really unfortunate, because more and more young people are becoming cynical about politics. The tactics that the Conservatives have been using over the past four years will only reinforce that cynicism among young people regarding politics. It is unfortunate.
Let us talk about the budget, but let us also talk about what is not in the budget. We talk a lot about what is in the budget, but we do not talk about what is not there.
We are in the middle of an unprecedented housing crisis in Canada and Quebec. We know that 1.5 million households do not have access to housing. The federal government continues to disengage year after year. In its 2012-13 budget, the government cut investments in housing by $21.7 million. By 2030—and 2030 is closer than you think; it is only 15 years away—if the federal government maintains its current level of disengagement, $1.7 billion will have been cut from social housing. This amounts to 85% of the total federal housing budget. For example, with the end of social housing agreements, 26,000 housing units have been affected since 2011. By 2016, over 100,000 units will have been affected. We are talking about families, women and children, who could wind up homeless, who will be forced to turn to food banks, who will no longer be able to afford groceries because they will have to pay too much for housing. Is that acceptable? No.
La Pointe-de-l'Île is no exception. In the borough of Rivière-des-Prairies—Pointe-aux-Trembles, 6,500 people spend more than 30% of their income on housing. The director of Infologis de l'Est de Montréal calls these numbers alarming. I would like to commend him on the excellent work he and his organization do for La Pointe-de-l'Île and Montreal East. When families spend more than 30% of their income on housing, they do not have much left to spend on other essentials, such as food. Almost 20% of the households in Pointe-aux-Trembles spend more than 50% of their income on housing; that is one in five households. It makes no sense.
In 2009, the current Prime Minister went to the UN and made a promise to the Human Rights Council to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that every Canadian and Quebecker had access to suitable and affordable housing.
The provinces are stretched to the limit and are at a loss as to what to do. The government's lack of leadership is only adding to the burden on the provinces. The lack of social housing and the deterioration of existing social housing have become critical. We are going to hit a wall.
The government needs to understand the importance of investing in affordable housing programs in order to put an end to homelessness and ensure not only that all families, all Canadians and all Quebeckers have a roof over their heads, but that they do not have to choose between food, health care and housing, because that is unacceptable.
We are the only G7 country that does not have a social housing strategy. It is high time that the government adopted the NDP plan for a national housing strategy so that everyone can have decent, affordable housing. Unfortunately, we cannot support a budget that reduces funding for social housing.
Let us now turn to rail safety because La Pointe-de-l'Île is a railway hub. Since the Lac-Mégantic disaster, we have come to realize that our system has privatized Canadians' safety. Rail safety and our system are inadequate. In the early 2000s, the system was privatized. Self-regulation prevailed, even with respect to inspection. At a time when the transportation of crude oil is increasing exponentially, our safety system must be reviewed.
In a report published on October 22, 2013, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives criticized the shortage of inspectors. In 2009 there was one inspector for every 14 tank cars. Now, in 2015, there is one inspector for every 4,000 tank cars. Since the tragic accident in Lac-Mégantic, the Government of Canada has hired just one additional inspector. We went from 116 inspectors to 117. That is unacceptable, and it is putting the lives of the people of La Pointe-de-l'Île in danger.
It is high time for the government to invest in rail safety. Everyone agrees on this: the unions, the Auditor General and the Railway Association of Canada. We have a big problem with inspections, and now is the time to take action. There is not a single mention of rail safety in the 2015-16 budget.
We cannot support a budget that puts the lives of Canadians and Quebeckers in danger. For example, the DOT-111 cars, which were declared dangerous by the Transportation Safety Board and the Auditor General, will be phased out, but it will be done over 10 years. For another 10 years those DOT-111 cars will continue to operate in communities across Canada and Quebec, including in my riding, La Pointe-de-l'Île. Rail safety is clearly a problem.
I am calling on the government to make appropriate investments in rail safety in order to keep everyone safe. For example, with regard to the most recent oil spill in Gogama, in northern Ontario, the Transportation Safety Board said that the problem was with the tracks. That means it is an inspection issue because the companies are responsible for the tracks. The government has been complacent about this. Given the large number of accidents that have occurred since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, I hope that the Conservatives will realize that it is high time something was done about this.
There is also the issue of health, since we have an aging population. Seniors need proper and accessible health care. The government did away with the Health Council of Canada, which told it that the provincial transfers would have to be increased by 6% to address the issue of the aging population. The Conservatives silenced the Health Council of Canada and said that they were going to cap the transfers at 3%. The provinces are left with a $36 billion shortfall when it comes to health investments for everyone, including seniors.
Does this government really think we are going to vote for a bill that directly affects health care for Quebec and Canadian seniors? I am sorry, but we cannot support this budget.
Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have heard reference to an NDP plan for housing and I welcome a look at it, but so far I have not seen details much beyond a plan to have a plan. It is important that we know how the money would flow, both to provinces and to municipalities, which sections of the housing community it would support, and how it would arrive and create construction.
 I also have a question about the state of the repair budget. It is not just a question of the waiting lists; state of good repair is a significant issue in many cities. How is that issue going to be addressed? 
Finally, there is the issue of the subsidies. Are the subsidies and the commitment to co-ops and affordable housing going to continue? The agreements are expiring.
It is a three-part question. I would like to know what the plan is from the NDP, beyond just having a plan to have a plan. 
[Interjection]
Ève Péclet: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member may not be familiar with our many initiatives, because he had not yet been elected at the time, but the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot introduced Bill C-400, which is precisely our proposal for a national social housing strategy. I invite the member to look it up online to see the details of our plan.
My colleague from Hochelaga introduced a bill before Parliament calling on the government to continue to invest in rent subsidies, thereby maintaining the agreements. I invite the member to also look that up online for more details, and to consult the NDP website to learn more about our plans. We have concrete plans. We have brought them before the House, and the government refused to support them.
Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously very passionate about housing and housing needs in Canada. That is a worthy goal.
She raised the NDP's plan, which was a private member's bill. Inside the bill was a requirement that all housing built under it, which would be paid in part by the federal government, would require the highest green standards; I believe it is LEED. 
When I spoke to people in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, many groups like Habitat for Humanity, and others that may from time to time do housing projects for seniors, voiced that as a considerable concern because it would increase the building costs. It would actually exclude many small not-for-profits from being able to contribute and bring reasonable housing to meet the needs of people.
I would like to hear what she has to say about that. Will she revise that particular notion of the NDP's plan? If so, let us hear the alternative plan. 
[Interjection]
Ève Péclet: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member consulted with organizations in his riding, and I did the same thing. What I can say is that organizations all across Canada supported our plan. Even the Federation of Canadian Municipalities supported our plan to invest in social housing. We are in the middle of a crisis. We are about to hit a wall, and the government continues to disengage. In 15 years, the government will have cut $1.7 billion from social housing, and I have no doubt that if the government continues on this path, over 100,000 families will wind up homeless or will no longer be able to afford groceries, unfortunately, because they will have to pay too much for housing.
If the member wants to play politics on the backs of our families, our women, men and children, he can continue to do so. What we on this side want to do is invest in social housing so that everyone can have a roof over their heads.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île on a very good speech. My colleague serves the people of La Pointe-de-l'Île very well.
In her speech, she mentioned the Gogama derailment, which could have been very dangerous had it occurred two kilometres farther west. That would have put it right in downtown Gogama. It could have been another Lac-Mégantic. There was another derailment 40 kilometres from Gogama three weeks earlier.
 Can the member tell us what the Minister of Transport is doing about rail transport's poor performance?
[Interjection]
Ève Péclet: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the government did not mention rail safety one single time in the new 2015-16 budget.
Between 2010 and 2015, the office responsible for rail safety lost 20% of its resources to cuts. In 2009, there was one inspector per 14 cars. In 2015, it is one inspector per 4,000 cars. That accident could have been prevented if the government had enforced the rules and made appropriate investments in rail safety.
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on our government's budget implementation bill.
Our Conservative government is focused on what matters most to Canadians: helping families to make ends meet by lowering taxes; protecting, and, of course, creating jobs. That was abundantly clear in economic action plan 2015.
Under this Prime Minister, this government recognizes that our country's greatest asset in the global economy is our people. With that in mind, we have worked hard to cut taxes for all Canadians to ensure that more of their hard-earned dollars stay in their wallets.
The tax relief measures introduced by our government are benefiting all Canadians. Economic action plan 2015 builds on our government's record of support for Canadian families by keeping taxes low and helping them to save. We will also introduce tax relief for seniors and persons with disabilities to make their homes more accessible, as well as to help students to pay for their education.
We are seeking to increase the contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts. We are seeking to adjust the registered retirement income fund, or as they are better known, RRIFs, and their minimum withdrawal factors that apply in respect of ages 71 to 94, to better reflect long-term, historical, real rates of return, and expected inflation. As a result, the new RRIF factors will be substantially lower than the existing factors.
 We are also seeking to implement a new home accessibility tax credit for seniors and persons with disabilities. As the member of Parliament for Okanagan—Coquihalla, I know that many retirees in my riding want to be able to stay in their homes longer. I think this, in addition to helping people with disabilities, will help to do exactly that.
All of these measures work toward this government's goal of helping families make ends meet by lowering taxes, and, again, protecting and creating jobs. 
Now, I would like to speak about some budget measures that fall directly under my purview as the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. Economic action plan 2015 reaffirmed the government's commitment to pursuing a new disability and sick leave management system for Canada's public service.
As I said earlier in this place, the government's continued overarching goal in these negotiations is to reach agreement on total public service compensation that is fair and reasonable to both the employees and the taxpayer. The legislative changes proposed in the budget implementation act allow the government to take necessary steps for a modernized disability and sick leave management system to give employees the safety net they need.
 The minister has been clear in his negotiations with the unions. He is working towards a settlement that includes a revamped sick leave system. 
The President of the Treasury Board has been clear that mental health issues are important to our government. That is why we have worked with the public service unions to establish the joint mental health task force. This task force is a first step in improving how the federal public service can manage mental health challenges in the workplace. Additionally, economic action plan 2015 announced our government's intention to renew the mandate of the Mental Health Commission of Canada for an additional 10 years. This will allow the commission to continue its important work to promote mental health in Canada and foster change in the delivery of mental health services. 
The Mental Health Commission of Canada has said:
 This is wonderful news for the mental health community. [...] Together, we have advocated for change. And together, we are succeeding. 
It is clear that this government is putting the health of federal employees at the top of its priorities during the ongoing negotiations. We will make every effort to reach an agreement with bargaining agents within a reasonable timeframe on these necessary reforms to disability and sick leave management.
 We know that the 40-year-old sick leave accumulation system currently in place is antiquated and not responsive to the needs of the majority of our employees. Almost two-thirds of employees, 6 in 10 people, in the core public administration, do not have enough banked sick leave to cover a full period of short-term disability of 13 weeks. Worse still, a quarter of employees have fewer than 10 banked sick days, and many new and younger public servants have no banked sick days at all.
That is why this government, with thePresident of the Treasury Board leading the negotiations, is proposing a short-term disability plan that would help public servants get healthy and back to work. The proposed short-term disability plan would give public servants the comprehensive safety net that they need while protecting the taxpayers who are paying the bill.
To date, the government's bargaining representatives have had over 200 meetings with the unions. There are nearly 50 additional meetings planned in the future, which is more than enough time for both sides to come to a reasonable agreement.
The minister and his team will continue to negotiate with unions, but our objective is clear: we will not pay sick leave to people who are not sick. In the event that an agreement between the government and bargaining agents cannot be reached, this legislation would allow the government to take the necessary steps to implement a modernized disability and sick leave management system within a reasonable timeframe.
I think it is important for me to address some of the misconceptions about the savings that are booked in economic action plan 2015.
The $900 million booked in 2014-15 is a subset of the contingent liability associated with banked sick days that have accumulated over decades under the existing regime. This savings target is a commitment to taxpayers that the government takes this very seriously. As always, our government will be mindful of the purse strings, and, of course, accountable to the taxpayers.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government really understands or gets the picture of the importance of Canada's middle class. We need to recognize that it is the middle class that generates the economic growth that Canada needs, and at the end of the day the government has not been able to generate the types of jobs that are important to our middle class.
We have seen literally tens of thousands of good valuable jobs lost in the last few years, particularly in industries such as our manufacturing industry. We have had very recent examples of that.
I wonder if the member would explain to the viewers why the government has not been successful in generating the type of economic growth in which Canadians expect their government to demonstrate leadership.
The 1.2 million new jobs that the government always makes reference to is hogwash. In the last year and a half, it is a very small percentage of jobs that have actually been generated compared with the amount of growth in population and so forth.
Could the member explain why the government has failed Canadians in dealing with the important issue of job creation to support Canada's middle class?
[Interjection]
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's views and appreciate that he has a certain view. Of course, this government has our view.
I would say that ultimately it comes down to leadership. One of the most important things that leaders can do is to be abundantly clear. His leader has said to southwest Ontario that they should transition away from manufacturing. On this side, we say that southwest Ontario, by putting improvements into Internet connections and working with the provinces on valuable infrastructure, will help to raise the tide that will float all boats, particularly in manufacturing.
We have also seen reductions in tariffs that are unseen in any other developed nations. Now manufacturers can bring in new equipment with no tariffs to become more productive and get ahead of the innovation curve.
We have been abundantly clear.
I also want to reference that we need to bring in new opportunities for manufacturing. Through the 13 long years of the previous Liberal government, the Liberals put about $1.5 billion in infrastructure into British Columbia. Within the first seven years of this Conservative government, we saw three times that, $4.5 billion, and much of it to the Asia-Pacific gateway, which we know will open up new opportunities. They voted against all of those investments.
 They continue to say that they are great on trade, but if we look at their actual record, there were five free trade agreements. We are opening up opportunities in Korea, in Europe. Honda has said it is going to be sending out its new CR-Vs directly to Europe. That is because it sees the opportunities right here in Canada in manufacturing. It sees that Canadian workers, Canadian companies, can compete and succeed. That is why on this side of the house, we have clarity on manufacturing; we have clarity on the economy. I wish that the members opposite would get clear on what really is a pro-Canada agenda.
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the parliamentary secretary's speech. I must admit, he is rather consistent. However, we obviously do not agree, especially when it comes to sick leave. I think it is despicable that this government is attacking its own employees for political reasons, to achieve a budget surplus.
I would like to him to clarify what he is thinking. On one hand, he is threatening employees with cuts through this bill, on the other hand, he is talking about negotiating when the employees have a gun to their heads.
In his speech, is the parliamentary secretary saying that he is prepared to suspend the sick leave measures in the bill in order to leave room for negotiations?
[Interjection]
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member saying that I am consistent. My wife would agree with the hon. member that consistency is one of my traits that is positive, I hope. However, I also have to compliment the members. The NDP are consistently against Canadian jobs and opportunities such as trade. 
However, getting back to the point of sick leave, I said in my speech very clearly that we want to help make sure that our employees, particularly those who are new to the public service and young, have access to a safety net that will help them return to work. I would suggest that the member opposite read the actual budget implementation act under division 20, clauses 270 and 271, which may bring him some comfort.
As I said, the government is taking the position that we want to make sure we have a safety net for our employees, but also to make sure that we are accountable to taxpayers, and that we provide sick leave to those who are sick and not to those who are not.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to what is called the 2015 budget. However, to my perspective, it is actually the 2017 budget because none of the money for cities will arrive for two years.
We will hear in conversations from the other side about how the Conservatives have put all kinds of money into cities through the gas tax. I would remind everybody here that this was a Paul Martin Liberal Party initiative. To take credit for it is to give us credit for forward thinking.
However, the budget has been described by the minister on the other side continually in question period as having three Ts, and I agree with him. There are three Ts. This budget is totally useless, totally unnecessary and totally unfair. For cities, nothing highlights this more than the housing promises.
There is a provision in the budget bill to forgive mortgages held by CMHC taken out by public housing providers and to put a fund in place to pay off the penalties for discharging mortgages and refinancing, and that is taking up a second mortgage with a second, private sector lender. What is not detailed, but has now come out through questioning, is that when public housing providers take advantage of this so-called opportunity, they lose their subsidies for the rent-geared-to-income units in those buildings. In other words, they would give up a mortgage, take on a new mortgage and somehow, magically, would be expected to finance subsidies for low-income seniors, people with disabilities and other individuals who need assistance. They would actually end up spending more money, relieving the federal government's obligation to people who need housing. 
That is the most cynical bait and switch I have ever seen on the housing file. What it ends up situating is one of two opportunities. Either low-income Canadians are subsidizing the government so it can provide tax cuts for affluent Canadians, literally Robin Hood in reverse; or else, the housing providers are given an opportunity to refinance the housing, but in doing so they send the poorest in the housing sector out onto the streets. Out west in Manitoba, where the minister resides, most of those people, close to 5,000 of them, are seniors on fixed incomes. Putting those people at risk is unfair. The fund is totally useless and the response to the needs of the housing sector is totally unreal.
However, it is not just that. There is a promise of $1.7 billion being spent every year as a result of provincial and federal agreements. The Conservatives said that would be continued, that there would be no cuts to this program. They know damn well that those funds actually shrink year after year as subsidies disappear and as mortgages expire. The suggestion is that because they would have no mortgage, they could somehow have a poor neighbour subsidize a less affluent, even poorer neighbour. That is just not fair.
What is really cruel about this is that the assumption is that because housing providers have retired their mortgage they can finally find sums to pay for the subsidy. The truth of the matter is that the funds that are needed when these mortgages retire are there for state of good repair. Because there is no federal capital funding to repair old and aging housing stock, the money that suddenly becomes available to housing providers is dedicated for that, not for subsidies for other poor people. It is the most regressive way of running a housing program we have ever seen.
We have a housing policy, and that policy is more than a plan to have a plan. It involves partnering with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and funding directly, through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to create supportive housing programs with an endowment. The second part of that is to renew the co-op and housing agreements and to step back into the housing market, but then also to take those savings as they accrue to the department and reinvest them once again in sustaining and building more co-op and affordable housing across the country.
The final piece of this is that with a shrinking CMHC and pulling CMHC out of the housing market, we also need to ensure we do not just focus on affordable housing but housing affordability. That housing affordability is critical in places like Calgary, Saskatoon and Edmonton where, because of the drop in commodity prices, the housing market has suddenly become very fragile. We need a federal government that protects middle-class homeowners, access to rental housing and access to the market for first-time buyers. Instead, what we get is some sort of laissez-faire attitude that says “do what you will”. We have not indexed, for example, the tax breaks for first-time homebuyers, so it is still stuck in the 1980s model as opposed to being updated annually and making housing accessible to everyone who wants to gain that opportunity.
These programs need to arrive. The government on the other side has no program other than to pull money out fo the public housing sector and use it to subsidize tax breaks to the affluent. 
The NDP, to its credit, has a plan but it is only a plan to have a plan. If we read Bill C-400, we see it is to have a big meeting. There are no actual specifics as to how to solve the housing crisis in the country.
When we speak about it and folks criticize an earlier government, they are fine to go off and build a time machine, and go back and prosecute that election. It is time to start building housing in the country and the Liberal plan would do that. This budget does not address one iota of that.
On transit, it is even sillier. There is no money for two years and then it comes in dribs and drabs. The program the government has proposed is too big for small cities and too small for big cities, and it will not get transit built in a timely way. Cities need that money now, and not just for new projects. The state of good repair in places like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver is a critical issue facing urban centres. Without additional dollars, not earmarked for ribbon-cutting exercises but earmarked for the development and sustaining of existing transit systems, those transit systems will fail.
Stepping in and providing that revenue is critically important today, not in two or three years' time. If it arrives in two or three years' time, the new transit does not arrive for five to ten years, and that is not a response to gridlock. In fact, what the Conservative government is saying with this budget is, “Wait at the side of the road. Wait for the bus for two or three more years. Wait, wait, wait, we'll get to you at some point”, because right now it is more important not to provide the assistance to cities for which they have asked.
Finally on infrastructure, two years ago there was a 90% cut. Last year, there were zero dollars in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, and small communities and small towns right across the country. The odd dollar arrived, but the bulk of the program, once again, is back-end loaded for 10 years. For critical infrastructure, to build strong cities, in which close to 82% of Canadians live, there is no new money in this budget. There is not a new timetable. It is absolutely unacceptable, and the cities know this.
This budget has to change, and it has to change to support those very programs I just mentioned. If it does not change, cities will not grow, our country will stagnate, and 82% of all Canadians will see their cities fail as the government promises tax cuts that, quite frankly, do not even address the socio-economic needs of the people who live in those cities. This is a huge problem and it needs to change and it needs to change with a go-forward argument, not a debate about what happened 25 years ago.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to pull the member back to the budget bill itself and read some of the measures in it. The budget bill would allow seniors to keep more in their RRIFs for a longer period of time. It proposes moving the small business tax rate down to 9%. It proposes increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million. It introduces the home accessibility tax credit, extends the mineral exploration tax credit, allows foreign charitable foundations to be registered as qualified donees and provides an accelerated capital cost allowance for the manufacturing sector for a 10-year period.
Which of those measures does he support, which of those measures does he oppose, and if he opposes them, why does he oppose them?
[Interjection]
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, for the last week, we have been hearing how the government treats all Canadians the same. Yet every measure he just identified singles out specific groups of Canadians and treats them differently. That is a contradiction the government has to answer, not me.
There are several provisions in the budget that, of course, we support. There is the capital gains tax that allows people who sell their homes not to have to lose so much of their assets and allows them to protect their retirement. We understand that there are elements of this bill which all of us, in fact, I think all three parties, if we split the bill apart, would give unanimous support for. However, there are provisions in this bill, which, quite frankly, do not measure up.
When one loads into the approach to housing being all aimed at affluent, well-housed Canadians and punitive measures are taken against those people living in rental and affordable housing, one has, effectively, not treated all Canadians the same, and that is not fair.
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.
I think he talked up the Liberal party far too much in his speech because every time the Liberals formed a government, they did not balance the budgets like they say they did. Instead, they dipped into the EI fund and drained it completely in order to fund their promises. 
The hon. member says that the other parties are making promises to make other promises. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party does not seem to be very good at math.
Let me just say that the Liberal Party's own leader said that budgets balance themselves. I think his party is having a hard time doing the math. Recently, the Liberals announced that they would bring in a program to help children, but that the program would run a deficit of $1 billion to $2 billion
Can the hon. member tell me whether the Liberal Party is going to drain the EI fund again to pay for its promises, or is this another empty promise the Liberal Party is going to cast aside as usual?
[Interjection]
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the hon. member to wait for the full platform before he criticizes it. The platform is coming, and it will be balanced, as were the last seven budgets presented by a Liberal government in the House, the last of which was a balanced budget that had $2.7 billion for housing, which his party voted against. The $2.7 billion that was not spent on housing in the last decade is a large part of why the crisis has deepened. The NDP needs to take responsibility for that as a party.
However, there will be other measures. I just outlined what our housing platform would look like, and it is a real housing platform. It is not a plan to have a plan, it is actually a detailed agenda to deal with a series of housing crises that have emerged across the country.
The Conservative government has not only deepened the affordable housing crisis, it has now started to create a crisis in housing affordability, and we need to address the full spectrum. The Liberal Party will do that in a way which is fiscally responsible.
I remind you that we balanced the budget, and the last budget that was balanced had $2.7 billion plus a daycare plan, and your party voted against it, rolled the dice and gave us that government over there.
I am not prepared to sit here and take that again. It is time for a change and for a vision for the future. If you want to go back and prosecute—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member must remember to address his remarks to the Chair lest anyone would think he was speaking about the Speaker.
The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs has a question, and there is only about 30 seconds left for him to do so.
Hon. Erin O'Toole (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, there are provisions in the budget implementation act that will have a profound impact for veterans and their families, which have really been the result of several years of consultation with the ombudsman, with the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and with outreach to veterans and stakeholder groups. 
I wonder if that member would comment on why his party, which seemed to support most of these measures as part of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs last June, appears now not to support the measures as part of the budget.
[Interjection]
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, it is a common practice for the government to put some things in an omnibus bill together with a lot of really awful, terribly bad things. As I said, totally useless, totally unfair and totally unnecessary, which are the three Ts the Conservative Party has come to like.
If you were to split those provisions out, I am sure you would get pretty good support across the House, but when you couple them with pathetic programs on urban affairs—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: I know the member is relatively new to the House, but by now he should know that he really cannot address his comments directly to other members. It is now the second time I have heard him do so.
We will move on to statements by members.

Statements By Members
London Run for Ovarian CancerMrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, ovarian cancer is a serious disease with no early detection test. Most women are, unfortunately, diagnosed in the later stages of the disease, and 60% of them will not survive past four years. Every year 2,500 Canadian women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 1,500 women will die from this horrible disease.
This past Mother's Day, Londoners came together to participate in the 13th annual Run for Ovarian Cancer to raise funds for research. I was proud to be a part of it. The run was born of the idea of the shock of realizing how little most women know about the signs and symptoms of this disease.
I am proud of the London Run for Ovarian Cancer team. They are on pace to raise $2 million by 2017.
On behalf of all members of the House, I would like to salute Jim Olson and the more than 125 volunteers who are committed to this cause and raise funds each and every year.
Summer Events in Alfred-PellanMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, with summer just around the corner, the City of Laval and its organizations are offering a multitude of activities so that the people of Laval can have a fantastic summer. 
One of my favourite activities, the Festival de la pêche, will be held at the Centre de la nature de Laval from May 16 to 17. For this festival, the lake has been stocked with thousands of trout that young and old alike can fish for without a licence. This is a wonderful opportunity to introduce our children to fishing.
The 2015 Grande fête des pompiers de Laval will be held from May 29 to 31. It promises to be a great event with a fire truck parade, performances, entertainment, and even a half marathon among the many activities scheduled this year.
The residents of Auteuil can join the first Fête des voisins on June 6. The purpose of this heartwarming community event is to help families get to know one another and to develop a friendly neighbourhood spirit. I can hardly wait to attend because that is the neighbourhood where I grew up.
Laval is a great place to live and to enjoy the summer. I am truly honoured to have supported the organizations in Alfred-Pellan and all of Laval, as well as their innovative projects, for the past four years. They have inspired me and made me want to advocate for them every day. I would like to thank them for that.
Osoyoos Indian BandDan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I was excited to learn that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has signed off on a request from the Osoyoos Indian Band to designate close to 280 acres for leasing purposes. This change opens the door to another exciting new business partnership for Chief Clarence Louie, who has become well known for championing such business ventures.
Imagine a new race track designed by Canadian Formula One legend Jacques Villeneuve. The proposed five-kilometre FIA level 2 track would be a $12 million investment that would build on the Osoyoos Indian Band's thriving business community, which includes agriculture, ecotourism, and commercial, industrial, and residential development.
To quote Chief Louie directly:
 I want to see First Nations programs based around jobs. 
I believe that all members of the House will join me in recognizing the leadership of the Osoyoos Indian Band in supporting new and innovative opportunities that create jobs and support our regional and local economies.
P.E.I. Annual Roadside CleanupHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Women's Institute of Prince Edward Island on what has come to be known as the annual roadside cleanup. 
In 1973, the Women's Institute started this great island tradition whereby on a date in May, under its leadership, everyone is encouraged to clean up litter from ditches and pack it in bags for pickup. This effort enhances the image of an island that is proud and keeps itself clean.
This year, after a record snowfall, the Women's Institute is challenging all islanders to get outside on Saturday, May 23, and enjoy the fresh air while joining neighbours and friends in the roadside cleanup to keep PEI beautiful. Families, schools, community organizations, and businesses are encouraged to pledge their involvement at www.peiwi.ca. 
Beyond all of its other good work, the Women's Institute in this way provides inspiration to enhance our environment. On behalf of all islanders, I thank the Women's Institute for its hard work and dedication.
Van Tuyl and Fairbank HardwareMrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize a company in my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, Van Tuyl and Fairbank Hardware of Petrolia, Ontario, for passing the milestone of 150 years in business.
Founded in 1865, the same year that Petrolia was being organized as a town, Van Tuyl and Fairbank today, as their website puts it: 
 ...has one foot in the 1800s and another in the current millennium. Now owned by the fourth generation of the Fairbank family, it sells solar thermal panels for outbuildings and nails by the pound. 
The store is one of a kind. In the early years, it carried hardware used by oilmen, as well as groceries, liquor, and wine. As Petrolia blossomed and grew with the drilling of the first commercial oil well in Canada, it expanded and flourished.
Van Tuyl and Fairbank has outlasted six monarchies and has been a pillar in the community throughout technological advancements and cultural shifts.
Congratulations to Van Tuyl and Fairbank for this outstanding achievement.
Aboriginal Awareness WeekMr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): [Member spoke in Cree and provided the following translation:]
 Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the upcoming Aboriginal Awareness Week, which takes place from May 19 to 22. This week was first introduced 23 years ago with the purpose of increasing awareness of aboriginal peoples within the federal public service.
Canada is built on treaties agreeing to share this land and live together for the benefit of all. Aboriginal Awareness Week is an opportunity for civil servants and all Canadians to renew the nation-to-nation relationships between indigenous and settler nations. 
Therefore, in the spirit of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which urges everyone to build good relationships with aboriginal peoples and respect our inherent rights, I invite you to celebrate and respect the diverse cultures and traditions of the Métis, Inuit and first nation peoples of this land, during Aboriginal Awareness Week and every week.
2014 Leduc Citizens of DistinctionJames Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the 2014 Citizens of Distinction Award winners, who were honoured recently at the Leduc volunteer appreciation banquet. These outstanding citizens range in age from their teens to their golden years, and all have made tremendous contributions to their community.
This year's recipients are Brianna Raymond, for athletic achievement; Charlene Schatz, for community spirit; and Art Birkholz, for culture and heritage. The youth award of merit went to Caline Strach and the mayor's special award went to Clarence Shields, son of former MP Jack Shields. 
We can all think of a community member who has made a difference in our lives. They are mentors, teachers, parents, volunteers, and role models. They deserve our gratitude and recognition for the valuable contributions they have made and continue to make to our families, workplaces, and communities. 
On behalf of the people of Edmonton—Leduc, I congratulate the recipients and thank them for their dedication to making our community a better place. 
National Health and Fitness DayMr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the fourth National Health and Fitness Day is just around the corner on June 6. Each year the day will be celebrated on the first Saturday in June, according to the newly passed Bill S-211, which made this important event a formal part of our laws and traditions. 
A big thanks to those MPs who have modelled healthy behaviour by participating in the parliamentary fitness initiative runs on Tuesdays and swims on Thursday mornings. 
Congratulations to the many members who have approached their mayors and councillors, including most recently the Minister of Veterans Affairs. One hundred and ninety-five cities have proclaimed the day, and we are aiming for 300 by June 6. Canadians can help their cities proclaim and plan the day by visiting my website for access to a tool kit for MPs, towns, and cities. 
I am working to make health and fitness core to Canada's 150th anniversary celebrations, in partnership with the Trans Canada Trail, YMCA, Participaction, and others. 
On May 25, we will kick off Bike Day in Canada, which leads up to National Health and Fitness Day. We should grab a family member or friend and get out to enjoy Canada's natural beauty in our communities. Let us make Canada the fittest nation on earth.
Families in Ottawa CentreMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of Families. Families are the foundation of our society and come in many forms. From our first day until our last, our families give us support, love, and a sense of belonging. 
Families in Ottawa Centre could use some help making ends meet these days. Ottawa has some of the highest child care costs in Canada, at over $12,000 per child, averaging more than 25% of a woman's income. Meanwhile, housing prices continue to rise, and too many Canadian seniors are struggling to retire in dignity and security.
 The NDP has a plan to make life easier for families in Ottawa Centre and across the country by creating a million child care spots priced at no more than $15 a day, ensuring access to housing for all Canadians, expanding the Canada pension plan, and restoring old age security. 
Families in Ottawa Centre deserve quality, affordable child care; quality, affordable housing; and a quality, affordable retirement. This October they can vote for it.
Firearms RegistryMr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is committed to safe and sensible firearms policies. That is why we were pleased to fulfill our commitment to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all. However, owing to a bureaucratic loophole, it was still possible to access outdated copies of the long gun registry through access to information legislation. 
The will of Parliament is clear: all copies of the registry must be destroyed. Not surprisingly, the NDP has come out swinging to oppose any measure that would make it harder for them to bring back the long gun registry, which the NDP leader has promised to do. 
I call on the members from Timmins—James Bay and Thunder Bay—Rainy River to do the right thing, to do what northern Ontarians want, and support our measures. Canadians know that only our Conservative government stands up for the rights of gun owners. If those members vote to keep gun registry data, their constituents will know what to do in October.
Alberta's Francophone CommunityMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to acknowledge the incredible vitality of the Franco-Albertan community, including the Cité francophone, the Conseil de développement économique de l'Alberta, the newspaper Le Franco and the French quarter.
I have had the great pleasure of participating in a number of their activities, including the raising of the Franco-Albertan flag, a number of events at Campus Saint-Jean and the Cité francophone, the sugar shack and an evening of legends of the Flying Canoë Volant.
The Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Alberta recently opened a clinic. This is a unique place that provides access to justice in French or English, free of charge. This exceptional initiative shows, once again, how Franco-Albertans in Edmonton—Strathcona are helping our community flourish.
Canadian National AnthemMr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week I was disappointed to hear that Richmond Hill's town council rejected a bid to start its meetings with Canada's national anthem over unfounded fears that doing so could be unconstitutional. 
 O Canada is a source of national pride from coast to coast to coast, and my constituents in Richmond Hill overwhelmingly support this sentiment.
 Our anthem illustrates Canada's traditions, history, and heritage. Ours is a society that is open, transparent, and equal to all people who share our common vaIues. 
It is a privilege to sing Canada's national anthem, and I am proud to call Canada home, the best country in the world. I am concerned with the town council's decision and I urge the council to reconsider.
 Governments at all levels should encourage citizens to participate in singing our national anthem, a symbol of pride, and not discourage them.
TaxationMr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr Speaker, Conservatives are mad because the Toronto Star called the Liberal plan for fairness “a credible, more progressive alternative, one that puts fairness first without driving the federal books deep into the red” and because the National Post said, “The Liberals' revamped child benefit appears broader, simpler and better targeted than the Tory plan”. 
 Economist Mike Moffat asked “What's not to love?” about our plan, and Kevin Milligan at the UBC School of Economics said, “The tax system under a [Liberal] government would be more progressive” and that “...the new benefit simplifies our tax system and focuses attention on the children.” 
The Liberal plan cuts middle-class taxes by 7%; gives a bigger, all-inclusive tax-free child benefit to all families; will not end pension income splitting for seniors; will reverse the age of eligibility for OAS back to 65; and restores the TFSA's $5,500 annual limit so that even the middle class can completely benefit.
 No wonder the Conservatives are spitting mad and making up absolutely anything to try to talk down our plan.
Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week we learned that the Liberals do not believe that helping every single family in Canada is fair. We also heard that New Democrats think that only families that use licensed day care centres are real families. This is actually what they believe. They believe that only a few select families deserve support in Canada.
On this side of the house, we delivered the universal child care benefit to all families. We are committed to enhancing it and increasing it.
 In my riding of Don Valley West, all families will keep more money in their own pockets. We will always give money back to Canadian families, because it is their money.
EmploymentGuy Caron: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that more than 1,500 Canadian families would lose their jobs at Bombardier, including 1,000 in Montreal alone, but the Minister of Employment and Social Development does not seem to see a problem. He even brags about the Conservatives' dismal record.
The minister should try to get in touch with the reality of our constituents before he feeds us the same old empty partisan lines.
Since the Conservatives came to power, over 400,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector, including 100,000 in Quebec alone. Canadian families deserve better than an employment minister who serves them the party line instead of caring about their problems.
Come October, these families will be able to count on the only party that truly has their interests at heart: the NDP.
TaxationMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party has one plan for our economy: raise taxes on middle-class families, raise taxes on small businesses and raise taxes on seniors. 
The Liberal leader talks about being fair, but the other day he said, “Benefiting every single family is not what is fair”. What is not fair is hiking taxes on millions of middle-class Canadians, small businesses and seniors.
Canadians are smart enough not to be fooled by that and to stick with the benefits that they are actually now receiving in their pockets that were introduced by our government to help the middle class.

Oral Questions
Child CareMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today, we are celebrating the International Day of Families. Unfortunately, Canadian families are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. 
Across the country, child care costs are becoming families' largest expense. They are paying more for child care than they are for food, clothing and even their mortgage. 
Why are the Conservatives helping the richest members of our society but refusing to help parents by investing in affordable child care services?
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats and the Liberals have only one plan for families, and that is to take away the universal child care benefit and raise their taxes.
We are doing the opposite. We have given families an enhanced benefit that puts nearly $2,000 in their pockets for every child under the age of 6 and $720 for every child between the ages of 6 and 17. We are cutting taxes for families and putting money directly into their pockets.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are looking for help with the rising costs of child care, yet the Conservatives offer nothing but talking points.
In 2005, the Conservatives pledged to create 125,000 child care spaces but 10 years later, they have not created a single one. The Liberals seem to have given up on child care as well, leaving families squeezed by rising costs that eat up more and more of the household budget.
Today, on the international day of the family, will the Conservatives reverse course and agree to bring in affordable child care for all families?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, this week, celebrating the international day of the family, the NDP members decided to insult families. They said that those who do not have regulated government daycare are not real families.
The NDP plan would give absolutely nothing to over 90% of families, those families who have a stay-at-home parent, use a grandparent or use a local neighbourhood child care centre would get absolutely nothing from the NDP plan.
Our plan puts money in the pockets of 100% of families with kids, regardless of their income or the choice in child care they make.
Government AdvertisingMegan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, Canadian families work hard and they want to see their tax dollars used honestly.
Instead, the jobs minister has a taxpayer-funded team filming him while he skips around his riding promoting the Conservative platform. Thousands of Canadians were thrown out of work this week. Thousands more families are struggling to make ends meet. Yet, that minister shamelessly uses public resources for vanity videos.
Can the minister tell us how much taxpayers have paid to create these partisan self-promotional videos?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the reason why the Liberals and the NDP do not want parents to know about the universal child care benefit is because those parties would take that benefit away.
I make no apologies for informing parents of the expanded universal child care benefit that puts almost $2,000 in their pocket for every child under 6 and $720 in their pocket for every child 6 through 17. I will continue to work hard to make sure parents know about these increased benefits, so that they can receive their lump sum payment, which comes on July 20.
EmploymentMs. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should focus less on photo ops and more on his files, because yesterday, 850 people lost their jobs at Bombardier in Dorval. They do not know whether they will be able to find a good job.
Does the Conservative government realize that its economic strategy is not working for these employees in Dorval who lost their jobs yesterday?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, that is an ironic question coming from the New Democrats because they admit to wanting to increase taxes for Bombardier and other companies that hire Quebeckers and Canadians across the country.
We cannot create jobs by taxing the businesses that hire workers, yet that is what the New Democrats plan to do. That is not our plan. Our plan will reduce taxes for entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized businesses, reduce taxes for families so that they can invest in the community and reduce taxes for our seniors so that they can save money.
Isabelle Morin: Mr. Speaker, the minister can keep spouting his lines and his partisan figures, but that will not create jobs or give hope to the people who lost their jobs yesterday. Those 850 people had skills and high-wage skilled work, but all the minister can do is shed crocodile tears.
Can the minister stand up and protect jobs in Canada?
Pierre Poilievre: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am protecting jobs in Canada. Since the recession our economic action plan has helped create 1.2 million new jobs, 80% of them full-time and two-thirds in high-wage sectors.
The New Democrats want to increase taxes on employers. That would kill jobs and destabilize the economy. The Liberals and the New Democrats have just one plan: raise taxes on entrepreneurs, consumers and families. That would kill jobs, and that is why we reject those proposals.
Government AdvertisingMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like the Prime Minister, the Minister of Employment and Social Development is abusing public funds to produce vanity advertising. He used the employees in his department and taxpayer money to produce election-style ads on Conservative policies that Parliament has not even passed. The Conservatives think that public money belongs to them.
How does the minister explain that spending, when there are so many pressing needs in Canada? Will he finally agree to submit all advertising to a third-party review process? 
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do not want Canadians to know about the existence of these benefits because they want to take these benefits away from Canadians. Their leader announced that he wants to scrap the universal child care benefit. He wants to cancel our tax cuts for families and income splitting, and he wants to take away the tax-free savings account.
I am proud to work hard to inform Canadians that the universal child care benefit has been increased to $2,000 for every child under the age of six. 
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Social Development  has taken a page from the Prime Minister with his taxpayer-funded vanity videos. He paid public servants time and a half with taxpayer dollars on a Sunday to film him electioneering on Conservative policies that are “subject to Parliamentary approval”.
Will the minister finally agree to pass my bill, the elimination of partisan government advertising act, to guarantee that all advertising is submitted to a third-party review process before it is approved to ensure that it is appropriate, proportional and a prudent expenditure of funds?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader said, “benefiting every single family is not what is fair”. We know the reason why the Liberals do not want me to inform families about these increased benefits. It is because Liberals would take them away altogether. 
I am proud to work seven days a week to inform 100% of families that they are entitled to an increased universal child care benefit of $2,000 per year for kids under 6 and $720 for kids 6 through 17. 
We will continue to deliver these benefits and I will work aggressively to communicate the benefits that families deserve and are entitled to receive.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives want to advertise their platform, they can pay for it: $750 million on advertising and counting, while nine veterans' offices are shut down Canada; blue shrink-wrapped commuter trains, while rail safety was cut 20% over the past five years; $20 million on 9,800 billboards, while infrastructure spending was slashed 87% this year. 
When will the Conservatives stop bilking taxpayers for partisan self-promotion?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the reason the Liberals do not want families to know about the Prime Minister's increased universal child care benefit is because they would take it away. They have announced that they would eliminate the universal child care benefit. They have announced they would scrap income splitting and the family tax cut. They admit that they would gut the tax-free savings accounts. Even after they do all of that, they are still billions of dollars short in funding their promises.
On this side of the House, we are going to deliver increased benefits to Canadian families and, yes, we will work hard, seven days a week, to ensure families know about these increased benefits.
Public SafetyRosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, last night news broke that the RCMP will be charged for workplace safety violations in the death of three officers in Moncton. Our hearts go out to the families of the fallen officers, but this news raises troubling questions. 
Why were all RCMP officers not provided with the proper training and proper weapons to handle an active shooter situation? Why did it take a tragedy for the minister to act?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has full confidence in the RCMP to enforce the laws of Canada and to keep all Canadians safe. The RCMP commissioned a report into this incident and is acting on those recommendations. Because this matter is now before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment on this matter further.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, it was almost a year ago that three RCMP officers died in a shootout in Moncton. We share the intense sorrow of the families affected by this tragic event. Yesterday, the RCMP was accused of serious breaches pertaining to the equipment, training and supervision of police officers. The recommendations made following the Mayerthorpe shootings in 2005 addressed the same issues. 
Why did the minister wait for a tragedy to happen before responding to these recommendations?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, the shootings in Moncton horrified a nation. I know that everyone in this House expressed our great sympathy for the families and for the fallen RCMP officers. We continue to have those families in our thoughts, as I am sure most Canadians do across this country. But as I indicated, this matter is now before the courts, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment any further.
EmploymentMr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as we heard yesterday, another 1,500 jobs were lost, at Bombardier. Unfortunately, that is part of a much larger trend. On the Conservatives' watch, we have seen more than 400,000 good manufacturing jobs lost while they stood by and did nothing to protect Canadian jobs. 
Hamilton workers will tell them that they are tired of a Conservative government that ignores their livelihoods. They want to see investments to help our manufacturing sector thrive. They are tired of the Conservative spin in this place. They want to see real action from the current government to protect their jobs.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP's only plan for companies like Bombardier is to raise taxes on those very companies. That is what the New Democrats admit. Their approach would be the same as the disastrous Ontario Liberal government policy, which has driven up energy costs and taxes and now proposes yet more and higher energy costs through its proposed carbon tax.
We take the opposite approach. The Conservative government supports tax cuts, trade, and training. That is why we have 1.2 million net new jobs: 80% full-time, two-thirds in high-wage sectors. We will keep cutting taxes and creating jobs.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, here is the news: If losing 400,000 jobs is the Conservatives' strategy, it ain't working.
Conservatives' mismanagement has hit southern Ontario particularly hard. Communities have been rocked by manufacturing-job losses. Under the Conservatives, Windsor lost 20,000 jobs; London, 7,000; Brantford, 3,400; Hamilton, 13,000; and Oshawa, 19,000. Those were good jobs that supported families and fuelled local economies. 
Why have the Conservatives ignored an entire region so they can put billions in the pockets of their wealthy friends?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP has only one plan on jobs, and that is to raise taxes on those who create them. The New Democrats would also raise taxes on the consumers who spend in our local economies. By gutting the tax-free savings account, the New Democrats would raise taxes on those people who set aside money for their future. That is the wrong approach.
We support trade, training, and tax cuts. That is why Canada has the best job-creation record in the G7, with 1.2 million net new jobs. Eighty per cent of them are full-time and two-thirds are in high-wage sectors. We are going to continue to promote trade, tax cuts, and training to create jobs for Canadians.
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives ignored Canada's manufacturing sector for years. Today, Montrealers are paying the price. Bell Helicopter in Mirabel is cutting 300 jobs, and last August it cut 250 jobs. Quebec has lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs since the Conservatives took power. 
Will the Conservatives wake up, get going and help kick-start our manufacturing sector instead of giving presents to their wealthiest cronies? 
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the Liberals have only one plan for companies like Bombardier, and that is to raise their taxes. That would kill jobs by taking away the money needed to hire workers. We are taking the opposite approach. We are cutting taxes, expanding international trade and training our workers, especially in skilled trades.
We will continue to cut taxes to achieve success, such as the 1.2 million new jobs created.
Regional Economic DevelopmentMr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a negative trade balance and the loss of high-quality jobs, that is what comes of the Conservatives' bad economic action plans.
Workers are being laid off in urban centres and rural areas. The WEC TOURS plant in Matane, RioTinto, Fer et Titane in Havre-Saint-Pierre and the sawmill in Rivière-aux-Rats are just a few examples.
How can the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec justify his decision to cut $21 million from the agency's budget by 2018, when so many workers are losing their jobs in the regions? Quebeckers have had it with the Conservatives' bad economic action plans that just do not work.
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question gives me a chance to remind him that the mandate of Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions is to support the economic growth of every region in Quebec and that every effort is made to do that.
Let me provide some figures that illustrate what Canada Economic Development does. Since 2006, 5,511 projects have been funded for more than $2.5 billion. In total, nearly $10 billion has been invested. I would also like to point out that my colleague and his party always vote against the money that is allocated to Canada Economic Development.
Government AdvertisingÈve Péclet: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Social Development thinks he can do whatever he wants. He is using federal public servants to promote the Conservatives' budget measures.
Public servants are not puppets that the minister can use for partisan purposes. This whole thing is a bit ironic when we know that the latest budget completely undermines public servants' right to collective bargaining. This is a sure sign that the government is worn out and does not respect our public servants.
Does the minister realize that he is using Canadians' money and the neutrality of the public service to produce partisan ads?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats and the Liberals do not want Canadians to know that they are entitled to increased benefits.
We are increasing the universal child care benefit for all families, to nearly $2,000 for every child under the age of 6 and $720 for every child between the ages of 6 and 17. I am working to ensure that mothers and fathers know they are entitled to this.
Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are using public money to promote partisan interests. The jobs minister is focused on self-flattery when he should be focused on the thousands of Canadians who lost their jobs this week. He once railed against the Liberals' abuse of taxpayer dollars for partisan self-promotion, yet now he is finding ways to be even more unaccountable than the Liberals.
Why is the minister using public servants and taxpayer dollars to create vanity videos of himself promoting the Conservative Party platform?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP and Liberals do not want Canadian parents to know about the increased universal child care benefit, because the opposition parties would take those benefits away. We will not let them. In fact, I am proud to work hard to communicate the increased universal child care benefit to parents right across this country. They are entitled to $2,000 for each child under six and $720 for each child aged six through 17. I will continue in my role to visit parents right across this country to inform them of the increased benefits the Prime Minister and this government are delivering to them.
EthicsRathika Sitsabaiesan: Let me try something else, Mr. Speaker.
According to the RCMP, the Prime Minister's Office interfered in a confidential Senate report about Mike Duffy. Nigel Wright is quoted in court documents saying, “Mike is pleased with this so it will give us a little bit of time if David can pull it off”, adding, “Marjory is fully on-board.” Yet Conservative Senators David Tkachuk and Marjory LeBreton continue to sit on the Senate's internal economy committee.
Is the PMO planning to yet again interfere while the Senate drafts reports on rule-breaking senators?
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as you know, it was the Senate that asked the Auditor General to come in and review their expenses, and I think it is important that we allow the process to continue.
Government AdvertisingMarc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Social Development used taxpayers' dollars to pay for his election advertising, and he has the nerve to say that he is informing people about government programs. 
Either the government does not think it is accountable, or it thinks we are too stupid or apathetic to care.
After nine years in office, the government has attained new heights of arrogance and is showing utter contempt for Canadians. Where is the shame?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are the ones who should be ashamed. They are the ones who want to abolish the universal child care benefit. They have already admitted that. That is why they do not want families to know that they are eligible for our benefit.
As minister, I am proud to be working to make sure that families know about this benefit. I want to make sure that all families that are entitled to a cheque sign up to receive one in July. 
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, let me be blunt. When the employment minister uses taxpayer money for self-promotion videos to get re-elected and then has the gall to say that he is merely informing Canadians about government policy, it is like a slap in the face to all Canadians who expect accountability. Either that, or he thinks we are stupid, or possibly that we do not care. We do care. After nine years in power, the government has achieved a state of supreme arrogance and complete contempt for Canadians. Where is the shame?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and NDP are angry that Canadian parents will find out that they are going to receive an increased universal child care benefit. We know why the two opposition parties do not want Canadian parents to know about these benefits. It is because the Liberals and NDP would take them away. It is my role to ensure that every single family that is eligible to receive the increased universal child care benefit knows about it and signs up, and I will work hard seven days a week to ensure that parents get their money and that the money goes directly into their pockets. 
Public Service of CanadaMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians should know that for the vast majority of public servants who take a sick day, their position is not backfilled. That means that the cost of that sick day is already covered in their annual salary. Yet the government, in its phony attempt to show a balanced budget, claims it is saving $900 million by eliminating a sick bank that costs the government squat. 
Will the government stop misrepresenting this fake, bogus savings and quit misleading Canadians about the character and integrity of our public servants for its own political gain?
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2015 reaffirms the Government of Canada's commitment to pursuing a new disability and sick leave management system. We continue to negotiate with the public service, and our objectives are clear. We will not pay sick leave to people who are not sick. 
The government's continued overarching goal in these negotiations is to reach agreements on total public service compensation that is fair and reasonable to both the employees and the taxpayer. These changes do not impose a legislated regime.
Aboriginal AffairsRomeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, Canadians got to see first-hand how little the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs cared about his file. He was unable to answer very simple questions. Worse, when asked about the suicide rate in first nations communities and Inuit communities, he answered that it was not his responsibility. How could the minister be so heartless in the face of such an epidemic in our communities?
Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course, the preamble to that question is absolute nonsense, and our thoughts and prayers are with those who have lost friends and loved ones to suicide. Our government remains committed to working with willing partners to reduce and eliminate suicide on reserves. 
To that end, we have provided $200 million annually for aboriginal mental health services. We have invested over $32 million since being elected in innovative research specifically related to suicide and its prevention. Action plan 2015 committed to another 10-year mandate for the Canadian Mental Health Association. I hope the member will get on board and support it.
Romeo Saganash: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not even try to answer our questions in the House anymore.
Aboriginal communities deserve better than a minister who blames families for their children's performance and who responds that crime is the main cause of 1,200 missing or murdered women.
Frankly, instead of being part of the problem, could the minister at least try to be part of the solution?
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve better than an opposition that votes against every single measure we take to improve the lives of first nations living on reserve. Since taking office, we have given women living on reserve the same matrimonial property rights as other Canadians. We have brought in increased transparency and accountability for first nations communities for those members. We have brought in a more transparent on-reserve election system. We have taken away key impediments to reaching treaties. Every single time we bring in these measures to improve the lives of first nation Canadians, that member and that party vote for the status quo.
The EconomyLinda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the current government, like the outgoing Alberta Conservative dynasty, remains stubbornly blind to Albertans' frustration with the overreliance on the boom-and-bust oil economy. Albertans are suffering layoffs in the tens of thousands of workers, including in the oil industry. The Conference Board of Canada reports that Alberta's GDP will continue to contract this year.
 Everything but the kitchen sink was thrown in the government's omnibus budget bills, yet they remain misers in supporting the 21st century energy sector: renewable energy.
Where is the action to end perverse subsidies and, instead, incent a clean energy economy?
Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, natural resource development contributes 1.8 million jobs, 52% of our exports, and $30 billion annually in royalties and taxes to governments, but that member and her party just do not get it. They oppose all oil and gas development. They oppose mining projects. They oppose nuclear energy. They even speak out against the forest sector.
On this side of the House, we are focused on creating jobs and growing the economy.
Linda Duncan: Perhaps not in Canada, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a time for investing in a diversified economy, it is now.
One weeps to consider the wasted millions of dollars on ads in U.S. metro stations that could have assisted our technical schools to train and provide jobs for young Canadians deploying cleaner energy.
Instead, there is a growing wait list for these programs.
Does the current government just not get that Canadians want to share in the economy of the future, created through investments in a clean, renewable energy economy?
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, energy efficiency improvements have saved Canadian industry $5.6 billion, which is the equivalent of 27.5 megatonnes of GHG emissions. 
Our government has made significant investments to promote clean energy projects that protect the environment, create jobs and grow the economy. We are proud that Canada relies upon non-emitting sources for 79% of our electricity mix, which is one of the cleanest in the world.
National DefenceMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, media are reporting on a new audio message allegedly from the leader of the barbaric death cult ISIS, once again mentioning Canada and our allies by name. Canada is not sitting on the sidelines. We are proud of our men and women in uniform.
Would the Associate Minister of National Defence update this House on Canada's military mission to degrade ISIS so it is no longer a threat to Canada?
Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and Canadians are being targeted by this death cult simply because these terrorists hate our society and our values. We are joining our allies in supporting the international coalition in the fight against ISIL. As of May 13, our CF-18 Hornets have struck 80 ISIS fighting positions, 19 vehicles and 10 explosives factories and storage facilities.
We are grateful, indeed, to our serving men and women for their valuable efforts in fighting this jihadist death cult.
Canada PostMrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the frustration with Canada Post's decision to terminate door-to-door delivery continues to grow. 
The mayors of Montreal, Longueuil, Laval, Westmount and 15 other surrounding municipalities are raising their voices. They are joining forces to take legal action against Canada Post, a first in Canada. In addition, they are calling for a moratorium on the end of home mail delivery.
Will the minister ever listen to Canadians and reverse this foolish decision?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that member will know that Canada Post, in 2014, delivered 1.4 billion fewer pieces of letter mail than it did in 2006. That is causing difficulties with its financial balance sheet. 
It is proceeding with a five-point plan, which includes the extending the community mailboxes to the one-third of Canadians who still have door-to-door. It has a responsibility, under law, to not be a burden to taxpayers. We expect nothing less than that from Canada Post.
Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government has a choice: it can tell Canada Post to go back to the drawing board.
Mayor Coderre is furious. He described this as a unilateral decision by Canada Post and said that the consultation that was promised is nothing but hot air. The mayor of Laval even tried to work together with Canada Post, but to no avail. Over 500 municipalities are denouncing Canada Post's decision.
Will the minister ever take responsibility and call for a moratorium?
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that Canada Post is an independent, arm's-length, crown corporation that is run by a board of directors and a CEO. They are responsible for their operational decisions and their day-to-day decisions.
I remind the member that Canada Post delivered 1.4 billion fewer letters in 2014 than in 2006. It has a responsibility to not be a burden to Canadian taxpayers. This government expects it to follow through on its commitment to be fiscally sustainable.
Canadian HeritagePaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the government has a real problem listening to communities, not just in Montreal, but here in Ottawa.
Here in Ottawa, city council is poised to vote on a motion that will formally request that the federal government relocate the victims of communism memorial. The request is very simple. The council wants the government to respect the long-term plan for this piece of land.
Is it not ironic, though, that the Conservatives are willing to ignore democratic voices in order to build a monument honouring those who fought for democratic rights?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this memorial is going to honour more than 100 million lives lost under communist regimes and pay tribute to the Canadian ideals of liberty, democracy and human rights. In this country alone, over eight million people trace their roots to countries that suffered under communism.
Our government committed to honouring the victims of communism in our Speech from the Throne. We look forward to fulfilling that and making sure that this monument is built.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, no one disagrees with the idea of the memorial, but what is with the high-handed attitude of the government? 
Putting the monument in front of the Supreme Court actually violates the national capital plan that the government and this Parliament approved. The minister is ignoring the plan. He is also ignoring the concerns of architects, he is ignoring the Mayor of Ottawa, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and local citizens.
How hard is it for the politburo over there to actually listen to people, change its mind and change the location of the monument?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I find it strangely ironic that the member for Ottawa Centre, downtown, does not even know where the monument is going to be located. He continues to perpetuate a falsehood about where the monument is actually going to be located.
Let us be clear. I will dispel the falsehood. It will be constructed, not in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, but further west on Wellington Street. If the member would like a little bit of direction on where it is going to be, I suspect that we will go for a walk down Wellington Street and I will personally show him.
Public SafetyWayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, political influence in the management of the RCMP is undermining the force in both its reputation and its ability to do its job. Following an earlier media report yesterday, the RCMP was charged under the Canada Labour Code for the lack of training, equipment and supervision surrounding the Moncton shootings.
We know that the RCMP was pressured to kick back money from the treasury to help the government meet its deficit targets strictly for political optics.
Will the minister now come clean and accept responsibility for this disarray in the RCMP?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, our thoughts continue to be with the families of the RCMP officers who lost their lives in the line of duty.
As I said earlier today in question period, we have full confidence in the RCMP to enforce the laws of Canada and to keep all Canadians safe. The RCMP, as I mentioned earlier, had commissioned a report into this incident and is acting on those recommendations.
This matter is now before the courts, so I will not comment on it any further.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the government accepting responsibility for the mess that is within the RCMP.
 Beyond the charges under the Canada Labour Code, the Information Commissioner yesterday asked for criminal charges to be laid for the destruction of documents. We also know that hidden in the budget bill is a cover-up to try to cover for that destruction of documents.
Who within the government ordered this action, and who within the RCMP complied with this illegal act?
Roxanne James: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. We firmly reject any claim that the RCMP did anything wrong by following the expressed will of Parliament to destroy the data from the long gun registry.
Our Conservative government fulfilled its commitment to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. We will make no apologies for ensuring the will of Parliament is followed and the long gun registry data is destroyed once and for all.
Public Works and Government ServicesMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in early April, Public Works and Government Services Canada apparently found legionnaires' disease bacteria in the water at the Place du Portage III building in Gatineau. However, the minister found out only yesterday.
Thousands of public servants have been exposed to the bacteria for more than a month, and no one at Public Works and Government Services Canada saw fit to notify the people working there.
Why did Public Works and Government Services Canada keep this under wraps for so long? Is the minister going to do something now to protect all the public servants at Portage III?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of people working in those buildings remains our priority.
Yesterday, the chief public health officer said that the risk to people working in those buildings was low. According to official statements, the risk to the buildings' occupants is low. They can safely work there. 
That said, an information line is available to people with questions or concerns and the necessary measures have been taken to monitor and manage the situation.
EmploymentMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there are serious administrative problems with the skills link program.
Other Quebec organizations have experienced delays, and now it has been more than 15 months since SADC de Rouyn-Noranda filed an application. Despite multiple attempts to reach the department, there has been no response. Because of the delay, the organization has decided not to offer this service to residents because doing business with Service Canada is too complicated.
Is the minister deliberately undermining the skills link program or is he just extremely incompetent?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, we are working together to establish this program across Canada. We will submit this question to the minister concerned.
TaxationMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have travelled throughout my riding, speaking to hard-working parents about the opportunities our Conservative government gives them to save more money for their families.
Our government wants to help all Canadian families succeed by keeping taxes low and delivering programs like the universal child care benefit and family tax cut.
Can the Minister of Employment and Social Development please update the House on what families across Canada are telling him about our efforts?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, families are telling me they are very happy to receive the Prime Minister's enhanced universal child care benefit.
Those who do not know about it are sure happy to learn. That is why I am working seven days a week to inform moms and dads right across the country that because of the Prime Minister's increases they are now entitled to almost $2,000 for each child under 6 and $720 per year for each child 6 through 17.
The Liberals and the NDP would take away the universal child care benefit altogether, so they do not want parents to know about it. On this side of the House, not only are we delivering it, we are making sure parents know about it so that they get the money in their pockets when the cheques go out in July.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for 40 years Quebec Native Women has been standing up for abused aboriginal women. Coincidentally or not, after the organization criticized the government's inaction on this issue, its funding was reduced to nil.
Can the government honestly say that this is just a coincidence?
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, our priority is creating conditions for healthier, more self-sufficient first nations communities.
That is why our government is committed to improving the living conditions and economic development of aboriginal communities. We provide funding towards the core operation of aboriginal representative organizations and national women's organizations. The Quebec Native Women association is welcome to apply for this funding.
We will continue to work with first nations to advance our shared priorities.
Canadian HeritageMr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 2017, Canada will celebrate its 150th anniversary. It is a key milestone in our history, a history we can be proud of.
Today, the Prime Minister announced what our government will do to celebrate this milestone. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister update this House on what infrastructure initiative our government is launching to mark this occasion?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, in addition to supporting the festivities celebrating the 150th anniversary of Canada, we will support the renovation, expansion, and improvement of existing community infrastructure.
There are thousands of organizations that will receive significant support to renovate their facilities, which are often essential to local life. Obviously it is good news for communities across this country.
These new investments will support the implementation of projects that celebrate our shared heritage, create jobs, and improve the quality of life for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
The EnvironmentMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP): Mr. Speaker, the G7 environment ministers meet regarding climate change in Berlin next week.
Canada has the weakest performance of any G7 country in meeting our climate projection targets.
When will our Prime Minister announce a real plan to prevent dangerous climate change? How does he intend to meet even our feeble targets? Especially, where is his commitment to controlling all greenhouse gas emissions from all oil sands activities, not just some of them?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we will submit Canada's targets this month. 
We are implementing our responsible sector-by-sector approach to reduce emissions in a way that protects our environment and also our economy.
Our government is the first government in Canadian history to achieve a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We will continue to take action to reduce emissions without the job-killing carbon taxes and schemes proposed by the NDP and the Liberals.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Prime Minister visited Nipigon in Thunder Bay—Superior North, proudly proclaimed our newest national marine conservation area, and promised $20 million and an interpretive centre. He reaffirmed those promises in 2009.
In good faith, Nipigon has invested heavily in waterfront development. 
Nipigon kept its part of the deal. After eight years, will the Prime Minister finally keep his word and his part of the deal?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting the environment. Since we formed government, we have created two national marine conservation areas, three marine protected areas, three national wildlife areas, four national parks, one urban national park, and national historic sites.
The total land that we have protected is equal to an area about twice the size of Vancouver Island.
Post-Secondary EducationBruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, well-off Conservatives think that student debt is a student's problem, but Roman Jakubowski, president of the Lakehead University Student Union, would disagree. 
Fifteen billion dollars in student debt is a tax on the future of our young people and a drain on our economy. 
 Meanwhile, Conservatives hand out $34 billion in fossil fuel subsidies each and every year. How will our Minister of Finance reduce high tuition costs?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government's economic action plan 2015 is helping young Canadians and helping students. 
The youth employment strategy is helping thousands of students across this country. We have the futurpreneur program, and we have much more to help students get jobs and get trained in Canada.

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 pleasure to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to seven petitions.
PetitionsMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in response to a CBC documentary showing that ultrasounds are being used to tell the sex of an unborn child, so that expectant parents can terminate the pregnancy if the unborn child is a girl. Knowing that Canadians are against sex selective pregnancy abortion and that there are 200 million missing girls worldwide, they are asking members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls through sex selective pregnancy termination. 
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from a number of individuals all across the country, from B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario. Petitioners are drawing the attention of parliamentarians to the high percentage of prostitutes who are forced or coerced into the sex trade and are trafficked. 
Petitioners are asking the House of Commons to legislate that it would be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man, or child, and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams, and others to profit from proceeds of the sex trade.
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have over 300 names, with three different petitions, on Canada Post. The first one from Nelson, Salmo, and Ymir calls upon the government to reverse the cuts to services announced by Canada Post and to look instead for ways to innovate in areas such as postal banking.
The second petition, from folks in Nelson and the Slocan Valley area, calls on the government to ensure that our public post office is not scaring people into accepting community mailboxes and that it continues to provide door-to-door delivery to residents.
The third petition is from residents of Castlegar. It calls upon the government to instruct Canada Post to keep and expand the public post office instead of opening privately run offices or franchises.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition that deals with climate change, with over 60 signatures, calling for Canada to adopt a carbon policy that applies a fee to greenhouse gas emissions at their source of production in Canada, and calling on nations around the world to adopt a similar policy.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the Punjab assembly in India unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Canadian Parliament to apologize for the Komagata Maru incident. 
The Komagata Maru incident was a dark moment in Canada's past. In 1914, 352 passengers aboard a steamship were denied entry into Canada based on discriminatory immigration policies. The ship was forced to return to India, and as a result 19 passengers were killed.
The petitioners are asking that the Government of Canada provide a formal apology in Parliament for the Komagata Maru incident of 1914. 
James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians. It is a petition organized by Families For Justice, which is a group of Canadians who have unfortunately had a loved one killed by an impaired driver. They are people like Sheri Arsenault from my riding, the mother of 18-year-old Bradley Arsenault, who was killed along with his two friends, Kole Novak, also 18, and Thaddeus Lake who was 22. This was a very tragic incident.
These families believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime to be called what it is, vehicular homicide. It is the number one cause of criminal death in Canada. Over 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by a drunk driver. This group is calling for mandatory sentencing for vehicular homicide and for Parliament to support Bill C-652, Kassandra's law.
Isabelle Morin: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to present a petition signed by hundreds of people from my riding and from Pointe-Claire. 
These people are tired of the cuts being made at Canada Post. They are worried that the community mailboxes that are going to be set up will cause difficulty for seniors, single mothers and people with disabilities. The petitioners are calling on the government to put whatever pressure is necessary on Canada Post to stop these community mailboxes from being installed, since they are not in the public's best interest.
I think we have presented enough petitions in support of this cause that the government should listen to us and give us a constructive answer.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to table petitions on behalf of residents in my riding, specifically from the Rainbow Circle Co-Op and others across the GTA. 
The petitions are in respect to the fact that in Canada more than 620,000 social housing units, nearly all created between 1970 and 1994, were provided with long-term agreements with social housing providers, ranging from 25 to 50 years depending on their mortgage. These agreements allow for social housing providers to financially support their tenants, who only devote 25% to 30% of their income to rent.
 In the last four years, nearly 26,000 social housing units have been affected by the end of the long-term agreements, and by 2016 the number will reach almost 100,000. The federal government is still refusing to renew these agreements. By 2030, nearly 85% of the entire federal housing budget will have been cut.
The petitioners are requesting that the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the provinces, territories, municipalities and community partners, maintain and expand in line with Canada's obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to ensure that the government renews the funding or preserves the rent subsidies to provide the support that these tenants need.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by people in my riding who are very concerned about the cuts that are being made to the CBC and the impact that these cuts could have on regional news and access to high-quality French television services.
 The petitioners are calling on the government to guarantee stable, adequate, multi-year financing for our public broadcaster to allow the CBC to live up to its mandate from coast to coast to coast. 
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present in the House a petition sponsored by Development and Peace, an international development organization.
The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to commit to adopting international aid policies that support small farmers, and especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty, to ensure that Canada's policies and programs are developed in consultation with small farmers and that those policies protect the rights of small farmers in the global south to save, use and freely trade their seed. 
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, people from across Canada are concerned about climate change, including Diane Beckett from here in Ottawa. They are concerned about the extreme weather events that are becoming more frequent and that we have no climate change plan here in Canada; that we need a plan, targets and prescriptions; and we need to do our part. They also are concerned that we need to have a plan for climate change adaptation.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Hon. Erin O'Toole (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House, in two capacities, to speak on the budget implementation act. 
I am very honoured to represent my home town in Parliament as the member of Parliament for Durham and the communities of Clarington, Scugog and Uxbridge. I will speak to some of the great elements of economic action plan 2015 that concerns my constituents in my riding and issues for which I have advocated.
I also have the tremendous honour to sit in the House of Commons as the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As someone who has served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 12 years and had worked on these issues before joining this Parliament, it is a profound honour that I take seriously. There are some amazing new benefits and programs in the budget implementation act for veterans and their families, which I have made a pledge to pass before Parliament rises for the summer. It is why it is in the budget implementation act itself.
First, as the member of Parliament for Durham, I am very proud of this budget and what we would implement with it, because this is the culmination of four years of dedicated and strategic work by the Prime Minister and by our government.
 Budgets do not balance themselves. Governments need to set priorities. They need to plan and they need to ensure they set an environment for job creation and economic growth, without taxing Canadians and small businesses too much, so we can stimulate an active economy and really see job creation and participation in our economy by young people, families and through seniors in their working and retirement years.
First, this budget is a balanced budget. We made a commitment to reach balance in 2015. We did that while raising transfer payments, in my case, to Ontario by over 80% for health and education. We did not take the route the Liberals did to balance a budget by slashing transfers to the provinces and making premiers cut hospitals and nurses. We have been increasing steadily that commitment. We have balanced the budget through growing the economy and by slowing the growth of government to core and strategic areas.
We told Canadians that once we achieved balance, we would offer tax relief for families with young children, seniors who were on fixed incomes and to continue to stimulate our economy. I am proud to say we have done that.
On the universal child care benefit, it is key to recognize that it is universal. Families with children will receive support, and then they can make their own decisions on what best works for their family. Whether one parent steps away from the workforce for a few years, whether one reduces and goes part time, whether they use live-in care, whether they use daycare, whether they use a parent or an aunt to look after the kids, parents make their choices and we empower that through our universal child care benefit. This has been very well received in my riding of Durham.
Now we are increasing it to $160 per month for children under six, which will be almost $2,000 a year for families to make their decisions with respect to child care. We are also enhancing it beyond the age of six, recognizing that there is after-school care. Schools get out 3 p.m. and parents need flexibility. Therefore, there will be almost $720 in a new extension of the universal child care benefit for children 6 to 17. We are increasing the child care expense deduction by $1,000 to allow people who use child care services to have more tax deductibility for that. 
With our family tax cut, we are allowing income splitting on a limited basis for families in particular where mom or dad decides to step out of the workplace for a few years or reduce their hours. We are allowing that family unit to be taxed as more of a single unit, because parents are making decisions as a unit when they are raising families. All families do. I see that daily in my area of Courtice, Ontario. Therefore, while they are raising their children, this will allow them to smooth off that income and save up to $2,000 as part of our family tax cut.
For seniors, we are continuing to build on recognizing that seniors built the country, they are on fixed incomes in their pension retirement years and they need our support. Costs are going up. 
We introduced pension income splitting a few years ago to allow seniors to be taxed as a unit while on a fixed income. In this budget, we have provided more flexibility so less withdrawals from RRIFs have to occur to allow for more savings. We have increased the tax-free savings account to $10,000 to allow financial planning and certainty for seniors and all families, and to encourage a saving culture.
I am also very proud that this government has listened to the MPs who hear from seniors in their ridings who want to stay in their homes and, in some cases, need modifications made to stay there. We have the home accessibility tax credit of up to $1,500, which would allow seniors to make modifications so they could stay in their own homes.
 We are delivering for families and seniors with a balanced budget, as we promised.
Small businesses are the majority of employers across Canada. We have been cultivating the small business sector with over 30% lower taxes for it, allowing small businesses to invest with tax measures and encouraging them to hire in recent years with a new-hire tax credit. I am very proud our government is lowering the small business tax credit in this budget, from 11% to 9%. That allows small businesses to hire a few more people, to invest in their operations, to be competitive and grow. It is about jobs across the country, including in my riding of Durham.
This is how governments should work. It makes a plan, sets priorities, articulates that to Canadians, and then has the leadership that this Prime Minister has shown to deliver on that plan. This budget and the implementation of it recognizes that we are delivering exactly what we said when we reached a balance budget: support for families with young children, support for seniors, and stimulating economic growth and job creation in communities across the country.
In the remainder of my time, I will speak as the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am very happy that the budget implementation act has some tremendous new benefits for veterans and their families, building on the work of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs last year. The new veterans charter needed to be updated and amended to address our most seriously injured, those who have the most difficult time transitioning from their careers in the Canadian Armed Forces, and some of the gaps in the new veterans charter brought in by the Liberal government, implemented by our government, and voted on by all members in the House. With fixes contained in this budget implementation act, we will get to a veterans charter that will serve more than just most veterans. It will serve all veterans.
The retirement income security benefit addresses the issue of post-65 income for seriously injured veterans, when their earning loss benefit ends at 65 and they hit those retirement years. Under the old system, they would have seen a big drop in income at 65. We fixed that. We are guaranteeing them a predictable level of income post- 65, along with a permanent impairment allowance, another lifetime benefit, which over time I want to see streamlined into a single pension for the most seriously injured. With the retirement income security benefit, the RISB, contained in this implementation act, we will give peace of mind to veterans, who are moderately to severely injured in service to Canada, and their families. 
Also in this implementation act is a critical injury benefit, a benefit that recognizes and compensates for the pain and suffering that servicemen and women will go through if they are critically injured in service to their country, an acute injury that leads to hospitalization, intensive care, surgical intervention. In the past, if they recovered, they would get a disability award based on the recovery without recognizing all the pain and suffering of that recovery time. The critical injury benefit would do that.
As well, there is the family caregiver relief benefit for the most seriously injured, which will provide over $7,000 tax free to a family to provide more flexibility. If we know a spouse or adult child is an added caregiver, Veterans Affairs will provide contracted care in the home. However, the home will be changed if someone is seriously injured. We are providing more flexibility, recognizing the critical role of family in the wellness of veterans.
These types of new benefits for the most seriously injured veterans and their families are items for which all parties have asked. They were contained in Bill C-58, but after six weeks of delay, intentional or not, six weeks of criticism of the very reforms that some members of the House asked for last year, I have included all of these provisions alongside our purpose statement of obligation in the budget implementation act.
It is a great act not just as the MP for Durham and the support for families and businesses, but I am profoundly proud of what it would do for veterans and their families.
Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his service to the Canadian Armed Forces. He said that he would like to pass this before Parliament rose and yet he had an opportunity to do so just last week when the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore asked for unanimous consent to pass Bill C-58 several times, which roughly covers the same ground. 
It is hard to listen to the member talk about us putting obstacles in the way of veterans' benefits when the member was not willing to pass it right away. Our veterans need real support. Veterans Affairs runs just one hospital close to my riding, which is known as Ste. Anne's Hospital. Sean Bruyea, a veterans advocate, says that it is essential to have such hospitals because they understand that the needs of veterans are unique.
Supporting our troops needs to be more than just a bumper sticker slogan. We need true support for our troops and support for the families of veterans. Will the member undertake to take Bill C-58 out of the omnibus budget bill and pass it right away, right here, right now?
[Interjection]
Hon. Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I made a commitment to veterans and their families over the last four months, as we have rolled out new benefits, new improvements, many of which members like the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore recommended as part of the standing committee last year. When these benefits were rolled out, they were criticized, suggesting there would be delays on it. Therefore, we are moving to ensure I keep my commitment by putting it in the budget implementation act.
When the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore asked for unanimous consent of Bill C-58, it was after the budget implementation act had already been earmarked to go before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for debate. Unfortunately, that member and the NDP continue to be several steps behind and continue to play a little politics on these issues.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to a balanced budget. It is important for people to recognize that we are months away from an election, and the Minister of Finance proclaims to all Canadians that we have a balanced budget. He wholesaled $2 billion worth of GM shares. He dipped into the contingency fund, something which other ministers said they would not do, to balance the budget. The Conservatives created a false impression that they actually created a balanced budget with a surplus of just over $1 billion. Canadians need to be aware that the Conservative majority government has never achieved a balanced budget, but miraculously in the year of an election, it has claimed it has one.
Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin consistently produced balanced budgets. Does the member believe the Conservative government will fool Canadians into believing it has a balanced budget when in reality it does not?
[Interjection]
Hon. Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I am little surprised my friend would phrase the question that way if he listened to my remarks. This is a balanced budget. There still is contingency funds set aside. There has been spending on priority areas for Canadians. However, what makes it very different from the budgets of the Chrétien era is the fact that we have balanced this budget without foisting on the provinces massive cuts to health care. The interesting thing is that member would know he made the provinces cut and slash. He made Roy Romanow close more hospitals than any premier in the history of that province because Liberals balanced the budget on the backs of the provinces. That is not leadership.
The Liberals also slashed the Canadian Armed Forces in the nineties down to threadbare status. We have not done that either.
 I am proud that we are balancing the budget and offering tax relief. My province of Ontario, under the course of this budget, has received over 80% more in transfers. We are allowing the provinces to have a steady and predictable stream of income for their priorities and we are making the priorities set on a federal level to balance. 
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, with respect to a previous question that continues to be put out to mislead people about veterans' hospitals, could the Minister of Veterans Affairs clarify the situation with veterans' hospitals and what has been going on with them, frankly, for the last 40 years, in terms of transferring to the provinces?
[Interjection]
Hon. Erin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and RCAF caucus colleague from Edmonton Centre for his question and his work for veterans. He knows these issues perhaps better than anyone in this House. I have learned a lot from him, and we are going to proceed to inform my friend from the NDP about how this program has worked.
Veterans Affairs Canada did have a network of hospitals in the 1950s, after World War II, before Canada had public health care. Beginning with Prime Minister Diefenbaker in the 1960s, these hospitals started being transferred to provincial governments.
 As the member from Quebec noted, the final hospital transfer is of Ste. Anne's Hospital to the Quebec government. The transfer of Camp Hill, for instance, which the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore mentions quite regularly, was carried out in 1978.
The provinces will set the priorities on how those facilities are used. However, any veterans injured in the service of their country will have their care, including long-term care, paid for by the federal government.
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce this government's undemocratic ways.
We have before us a budget implementation bill that is over 160 pages long, contains over 270 provisions and amends dozens of laws. I find it appalling that the government has introduced such a huge bill that includes legislation that has nothing to do with the budget. What is the prevention of terrorist travel act doing in a budget implementation bill?
I think it is worth pointing out that the current Prime Minister was the first to condemn this kind of practice when the Liberals were in power. At the time, he was shocked that a government could enact so many laws in one fell swoop. He has become very good at something he once denounced. 
The number of pages in this omnibus bill is not the only problem. Another frightening thing is that the government is refusing to debate it. It imposed a gag order, as it does every time one of its bills contains contentious provisions. We cannot properly represent our constituents, the people who elected us, if we do not have the time to thoroughly examine the proposed provisions.
We are talking about the budget implementation bill. We are talking about Canada's future, and it is not right for a government to have such contempt for the people or toy with its institutions. This government is making a mockery of democracy and thumbing its nose at Canadians.
I will now talk about the content of the bill. Bill C-59 is a bill that we cannot support.
Let us start with income splitting. This is the perfect example of how out of touch the Conservatives are, since, as we know, only families with two incomes in two different tax brackets will benefit from this measure.
I would like to remind everyone of the impact that income splitting has on women. I have the good fortune of sitting on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and I would like to share some of what we heard from witnesses. According to them, single women and single-parent families will not benefit at all from income splitting.
Similarly, the elimination of the child tax credit will take away about $2 billion from parents, many of whom are single parents. All of the family-related tax transfers actually deter the very women the government claims to care about.
Fewer women will be participating in the workforce as a result of this measure. According to Kathleen Lahey of the faculty of law at Queen's University, the advantages of income splitting will actually encourage young women and female college graduates to pay even less attention to their salary, since, after they talk to their peers, spouse or partner, they will know that it may be more worthwhile for the family to replace paid work with unpaid work.
While the whole country is trying to find better jobs for women, the government is using tax breaks to encourage them not to work. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom the Conservatives love to quote, has been critical of income splitting.
He estimates that the average benefit will go to families whose income exceeds $180,000, which is 15% of families. He also said that income splitting will cost taxpayers $2.5 billion in 2015. The Conservatives are ignoring the 85% of Canadian families who will not benefit from this measure. Why? Because they have their sights set on the election coming up in a few months and they are more interested in helping out those they think will vote for them. That group of people never seems to include families that are working very hard and having trouble making ends meet. The fact is that these families are struggling with income stagnation and the rising cost of living, which is prompting them to take on massive debt.
There are now 250,000 fewer jobs in Canada than there were before the recession, and 160,000 fewer jobs for youth. If one believed all the ads the government has bought with taxpayer money—almost $750 million worth—one would think everything was hunky-dory. However, Canadians know different because they are still carrying the highest debt loads in Canadian history. 
 In an atrocious economic environment, one would think job one from the government of the day would be to create jobs, to get people back to work, to diversify the economy, and to invest in the economy in ways that would actually produce the jobs that we have been missing since the last global recession.
 Instead, we see the true priorities of the Conservatives when it comes to jobs, and that is their own jobs. They are hoping to buy back re-election just one more time. That is why they raised the ceiling for the TFSA, which will benefit only 20% of the wealthiest Canadians and will not increase Canadians' savings; however, it will certainly cost our economy billions of dollars.
Instead of doing things that are not going to stimulate our economy, the government could have invested in our health care system. Investing in health is an investment in Canada's economic future. For example, providing care to someone over 65 costs five times more than providing care to someone between 15 and 65. This Conservative government is turning a deaf ear and abandoning our seniors, the middle class and the least fortunate, who will not be able to access adequate health care. They prefer to spend money on catering to the needs of the highest earners.
Canadians deserve a government that works for all Canadians, not just for its supporters. They deserve a budget that works for them and contains sound economic measures, not electoral goodies. 
I will close by emphasizing that this is the 96th time the government is imposing time allocation in this parliament. In Canada, we have never had a government that abused time allocation and closure as much as this one has. This is a testament to the arrogance and incompetence of this government, which has introduced a number of bills in the House of Commons that have been rejected by the courts. They were rejected because the government does not really do its due diligence to verify its bills. Canadians are fed up with this government that plays fast and loose with its institutions and they will prove it in October.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, when I think about the budget as a priority document of the government, there are many things that come to mind, such as the importance of Canada's middle class, which is the driving force in our economy, and the government's unfair approach favouring Canada's wealthiest.
However, I want to also highlight the importance of social programming, whether it is health care, something Canadians feel passionate about; our many pension programs, which are of critical importance to our seniors and those who will eventually become seniors, obviously, because it is about disposable income; and crime and safety in our communities. 
There is so much more the government could have done if it understood that the Government of Canada has a leadership role to play in terms of working with stakeholders, whether it is a province, a municipality, or different stakeholders, to make a difference. On many fronts, I would suggest that the government has failed.
I would ask the member if she believes that my comments are fair in looking at the government's disappointments over the last number of years.
[Interjection]
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comment and his question.
What he said about the Conservatives' record is definitely true. However, the fact remains that the Liberals have nothing to offer to two-thirds of Canadians and they would only help wealthy Canadians who earn up to $200,000 a year. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are concerned about the middle class, which cannot make ends meet.
For our part, we will establish an NDP government that will propose concrete solutions for the middle class and increase prosperity for that segment of the population. 
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, on the topic of concrete measures, this particular bill proposes lowering the small business tax rate to 9% and extending the accelerated capital cost writeoff for manufacturers out 10 years. I recall only weeks ago that members across the way were suggesting that this was the centrepiece of the NDP's manufacturing and job creation strategy.
Would the member now stand in her place and vote in favour of the bill?
[Interjection]
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, I loved the question from my colleague opposite because it really speaks to what we want to do.
I am pleased to hear that the government has come to its senses and wants to adopt the NDP position on small and medium-sized businesses. However, according to this budget, the measure will only be implemented in 2019. We have said that if we were elected, we would implement it in our first term in order to lighten the tax burden and stimulate the economy. We know that SMEs are the driver of the Canadian economy and that they create the most jobs.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her inspiring speech on the Conservatives' budget implementation bill.
Yesterday evening, I took the time to call some of my constituents. One thing that kept coming up when they talked about their concerns and priorities, particularly with regard to the proposed budget, was health. It is no secret. Health is an issue that comes up a lot. An 80-year-old woman that I spoke to told me that one of her friends was beginning to show symptoms of Alzheimer's. She told me about how health care is becoming less and less accessible.
Since my colleague worked in the health care system for a long time, I would like to hear what she has to say about the impact of the Conservatives' cuts to health transfers. How will that affect our communities?
[Interjection]
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her relevant question.
It is no secret. Everyone knows that we cannot do anything without our health. This Conservative government, which cut provincial health transfers from 6% to 3%, is going to deprive the provinces of $35 billion in health care funding. As my colleague mentioned, these cuts will have a negative impact on the quality of care, the accessibility of care and every other area affecting health. It is unacceptable for a government to make cuts to health care when we know that the provincial systems are suffering.
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today on Bill C-59, the budget implementation bill.
This bill contains a number of measures that were introduced in our recent economic action plan 2015. That budget contained measures we campaigned on. We all campaigned in 2011 as Conservatives on certain things in that platform. We said we would balance the budget by 2015-16, and we have delivered on that promise with this budget.
We campaigned that once the budget was balanced and we were back into a surplus position, we would bring in a family tax cut that would benefit families by allowing them to reallocate some of their income, from one family member to another, to more fairly tax at a household rate. That would allow families to reduce their tax burden and be taxed like similar income families. That is what we have done in this budget.
We campaigned on expanding the tax-free savings account, which we introduced and the opposition parties opposed. We said we would expand that once we were back into a surplus position, and that is what we have done here in this budget.
We made commitments to Canadians during that campaign, and we are delivering on them with this budget.
This budget has many features in it that will benefit not only all Canadians but specifically the people of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. There is support for families, support for seniors, support for our veterans, support for farmers, and support for small businesses. 
We propose to reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019, putting an estimated $2.7 billion back into the pockets of job-creating small businesses and their owners between now and 2019-20.
 We know that the very first thing the Liberal leader did when he walked outside the room, while the budget was still being read, was say that he would take that away. He said he would take away the tax reduction for small businesses, which are responsible for the vast majority of job creation in Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon and indeed for 50% of jobs right across the country. We believe they deserve to be supported. The Liberal Party would take that benefit away.
We said that we would increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for owners of farm and fishing businesses. In my riding, in the Fraser Valley, we have a large number of farms. I believe it is 400 farms. Those people work hard day and night, seven days a week, to not only provide for their families and employees but to provide for all Canadians the food we eat. They help feed the cities, as they like to say. We believe that when the time comes for them to take their well-deserved retirement and sell that business to a family member, they should be able to keep more of the money they have earned so that they can enjoy that retirement.
As I said before, we have increased the tax-free savings account annual contribution limit to $10,000, effective in 2015 and for subsequent years. Again, the opposition has said they would take that away.
I spoke to a constituent who called me right after the budget was tabled. He wondered if that provision, that extended TFSA, was already available. I was pleased to tell him that it was. He is not a wealthy Canadian. I know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to denigrate people who save money for their own retirement. He has said that they are just putting money aside for their second BMW. What an insult to the people of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon and right across this country.
This constituent I talked to drives a 10-year-old minivan. He lives in a modest home with his wife, and they have one car. They are not wealthy Canadians, but they are setting aside money for their own retirement. They believe, like I do, that the government should not tax them once when they earn and tax them again when they go to take that out of a financial instrument. They are quite happy with the change to the TFSA.
I want to focus, as well, on our family tax cut. I want to give a couple of examples. We heard it again today from the opposition. They talk about how the family tax cut benefits the well-off and the well-connected, just the rich. What an insult, again, to the people of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon. I will tell the House about the people this is benefiting in my riding. 
One of my constituents is a high school teacher. He works hard. His wife is a graphic designer who works from home, part time now because they have just welcomed twin boys to their family. They now have four children under the age of seven. He works outside of the home; his wife stays home, works part time, and works full time as a mother to their four kids. Under the family tax cut, they will receive the maximum $2,000 credit. They will also receive $6,480 per year in the universal child care benefit, something the Liberal Party and the NDP would take away from them. 
Again, these are people who live in a modest home in the old part of Chilliwack. These are not people living in a mansion and driving two BMWs, as the NDP likes to say. They drive a 10-year-old minivan and are looking after their family. However, the NDP and the Liberals would take away their benefits because they think they are a wealthy, well-connected rich family.
Another example is a constituent who is an electrician. In order to make things better for his family, he has decided to leave them behind three weeks at a time to go and work in the oil patch up in Fort McMurray. His wife, who used to be a health care technician, was forced to leave the workforce because of a disability. She receives CPP disability and stays home to provide home school to their two children, who are also disabled. Because of their disability and their challenges, they are unable to operate in a traditional school environment. This family too will get the full $2,000 family tax cut. 
However, the NDP and Liberals would say that an electrician with a wife on CPP disability are rich, well-connected, and wealthy. They would say they do not deserve it and it is not fair if they get it. What nonsense. They work hard to put food on the table for their families as high school teachers and electricians. Again, these families would receive the $2,000 credit and $1,440 a year to help with their child care costs, which is something the Liberals and NDP would take away.
There is even more. 
There are a number of seniors in my riding. People come to Chilliwack and the Fraser Canyon to retire because we have a great community and the warmest overall temperature in Canada. We do not get the cold winters that people suffer through here in Ottawa. We get lovely summers as well. People like to retire in Chilliwack. 
In this budget we have introduced a reduction in the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds to permit seniors to preserve more of their retirement savings so as to better support their retirement income needs. We have also brought in supports for seniors and people with disabilities to allow them to stay in their own homes. We would give them a tax credit to allow them to renovate and make their homes safer and more accessible as they age or need help to deal with a disability. We want them to be able to live independently and safely in their own homes for as long as possible, and that is what this budget, this BIA, would do.
We are also extending the employment insurance compassionate care benefit from six weeks to six months to better support Canadians caring for gravely ill and dying family members. All of us have experienced that terrible loss of a family member who may have fallen suddenly ill and the devastating impact that has, not only on the individual but on those who provide care and who may have relied on that individual for their well-being and livelihood. It is such a shock. Allowing six months to be with someone who is ill and time for grieving and healing afterwards, because the pain and suffering do not end when a person passes away, is an important new aspect of this act.
Once again, this budget implementation act would implement measures from economic action plan 2015. We campaigned on it and we have kept our commitment to Canadians. We are reducing taxes for families, and as I have shown in both of my examples, these are average, everyday Canadians who are working for their own families. These are not people who are living high on the hog. They are people we all see in our communities. Every single family with children under the age of 18 will benefit because of this bill and because of this budget, and that is why I am so proud to support it.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the government is helping seniors, but as I recall, when it slashed health care funding a couple of years ago, it decided that from now on the CHT, the transfers to the provinces, would all be done on a straightforward, per capita basis. In other words, there would not be an equalization component, as there had been up to that point, which means that provinces that have a disproportionately higher seniors population will not see the transfer they get reflect that fact.
I am just wondering if, as a result of this rather pernicious change, the government is not in some way indirectly, at least, disadvantaging our seniors population in those provinces that have a proportionately high seniors population.
[Interjection]
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, what audacity for a Liberal member of Parliament to stand and talk about health care transfers, when the Liberals balanced their books by slashing $25 billion from the health care transfers to the provinces during their 13 years in power. That was a shameful record. They balanced their budget on the backs of the people who needed health care, on the backs of seniors, on the back of education. They completely gutted those transfers.
We have increased those transfers by 6% per year, and on a go-forward basis 3% a year, or the rate of growth, whichever is higher. 
I know the Liberals do not like to hear about their terrible record on health care transfers. By the end of the decade, our transfers will be $40 billion per year, the highest record in Canadian history. We are proud of our record. They should be ashamed of theirs.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some of the comments of one of this member's constituents, Phil Harrison, a senior in Chilliwack, from a letter he put in the Chilliwack Progress. He said:
 Both the federal Conservatives and B.C. Liberals have reduced my income taxes for me. Why would I disagree with their policies? We are the privileged generation—you may enjoy the same privileges, in retirement, while they last. 
 Why the concern? Only because we have grandchildren who will be paying for the privileges and lifestyle that the B.C. Liberals and Conservatives think we deserve (for votes), with borrowed government money. It's called debt, and the B.C. Liberals have doubled it in the last decade or so. 
We are also at record levels of household debt.
What would this member say to his own constituent, Mr. Phil Harrison, a senior living in Chilliwack?
[Interjection]
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that information from the member. I would tell my constituent what I just told everyone here in the House, that we want to provide direct benefits to that member's grandchildren and the family that raises them. 
We have said that we want to provide income splitting for the family raising his grandkids. We want to give direct support to the grandkids through the universal child care benefit, unlike the NDP plan, which would not help them, which would not help either of the families I mentioned in my examples, and which would only help if they registered their kids in registered day care. That is the only way they are a real family, according to the NDP.
We believe that every child, every family, and that person's grandchild all deserve to be supported by the government through the universal child care benefit, and that is why we put the money directly in the hands of the families themselves.
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention.
Obviously, we know, those of us who come from farming districts, and I come from one of the better known ones in this country, that the average age of farmers is significantly high. Drawing in young farmers, that succession planning from one generation to the next, becomes important. 
I wonder if the member would comment on the capital gains exemption we put in place in this bill and why the opposition should support that if it wants to support farmers.
[Interjection]
Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, again, I mentioned that we are increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for farmers.
Often, given the costs of farming and land in the Fraser Valley, it is necessary for the farm to be passed down to the next generation for that next generation to get a start. They are the backbone of our economy. We are pleased to support them, and that is why I am so pleased to support this budget.
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to another massive bill. Yet again we are under time allocation, even though there are still so many things to say about this budget.
Today I will focus on one aspect that is important to me, which is that this budget undermines our public finances. I will explain why, but first let me set the stage. The budget announces a surplus of $1.4 billion. This, after seven consecutive years of deficits. Those years were responsible for 25% of the Government of Canada's debt.
There are some measures in the budget that are not bad. In fact, the Conservatives took the NDP's idea to reduce the tax rate for small businesses, and we can only applaud them for borrowing our strategy, since small businesses are job creators.
However, we also have to consider the current financial circumstances. The price of oil has dropped quite a bit. This represents a loss of $5 billion for the federal government. In spite of this, the Conservatives still managed to give gifts to specific groups, for example, by nearly doubling the TFSA limit and bringing in income splitting. The government loves to give us examples of the people who could benefit from these measures, people who are not necessarily well-off. However, we all know that the vast majority of those who will benefit are wealthy.
There are some real consequences associated with TFSAs and income splitting. At a time when public finances are far from healthy, the government is forfeiting billions of dollars in revenue that could have helped it get our fiscal house in order. However, we have to wonder whether this government even wants to get our fiscal house in order. I am not sure.
Let us look at how they managed to achieve a surplus. People need to remember a few things. For instance, 20,000 federal public servants have been laid off in the last few years. Let us not forget that. The result of that, of course, is a reduction in the quality of service. The contingency fund has been slashed from $3 billion to $1 billion. Let us not forget the appropriation of the employment insurance surplus and the sale of the GM shares, on which the government lost $600 million. Obviously, that does not factor into a budget. The Conservatives also want to save $900 million on the sick leave system used by their public servants. I think the current surplus is extremely fragile. It is fragile because, out of everything I just listed, the government used $7 billion in non-recurrent revenues to achieve a surplus of $1.4 billion. This is problematic.
The Conservative government's objective is quite clear. The credit cards are maxed out. It decided to cut its revenues, to offer gifts, not to pay its debts and to leave the problems to the next government or the next generation, depending on how you look at it.
Now I want to talk specifically about one area where the government is counting on saving money. I am talking about the cuts to sick leave. Earning a salary and being compensated is not just about a paycheque. Of course there is the salary, but there is also overtime, group insurance, pension plans and working conditions. However, above all, in addition to vacation time, there is sick leave. When we talk about compensating employees, we are not just talking about salary. It is important to keep that in mind. 
I was listening to the parliamentary secretary earlier. His speech was based on an assumption that I do not care for, and that is that unused sick leave will be used for things other than illness. Let us think about that for a moment. I do not wish this on anyone in the House, or on myself, but accidents can happen.
People can be hospitalized. In life, anything can happen to make people temporarily unable to work, and that can last longer than three, four or five days. That is life. Suggesting that people will use banked sick days for purposes other than those for which they were created is an appalling assumption for the government to make. That is a problem. 
In most departments, when someone gets sick for a short time with the flu or something else, that position is not backfilled. There are no additional costs to the government in those cases. 
There is also something missing from the budget: the cost of the government's proposed new system. That system has not yet been costed, but there will be a cost associated with it. How much will it cost? We do not know. How big a dent will that make in the $900 million? We do not know. I think that when the minister says it will be $900 million, he is getting ahead of himself and making negative assumptions. I would rather see good-faith negotiations between public servants and the government to determine what is fair for both sides.
Once again, this $900 million represents another one-time measure that can be added to the list of other one-time measures. Suppose this happens. I hope it does not because, in my opinion, it constitutes a breach of contract to take back what was already given under a collective agreement. However, if it does, where does that take us?
By the way, public service employees are also taxpayers. Too often people forget that. People believe that public servants are living in a bubble and that they do not pay taxes. Public servants pay taxes like everyone else. They are taxpayers like everyone else and, what is more, they provide services to Canadians. It is because of them that policies become programs, which then become public services. We must not forget that and we need to treat these people with the respect they deserve.
The government is making another cut. This time, it is going after employee compensation directly. Because of the Conservatives, public servants are becoming more discouraged. Do we really need that? Their working conditions are obviously deteriorating, but the members on the other side of the House do not seem to be too bothered by that. They are demoralizing the public service to such an extent that people are going to have to leave, because all of a sudden, their overall working conditions—or what I call their overall compensation—will no longer be competitive compared to other sectors.
What will happen then? Skilled employees will leave and the government will begin to lose its ability to operate effectively. We cannot allow this loss of competitiveness, effectiveness and professionalism to happen. In fact, what I am trying to say is that this measure might only save money on paper.
This surplus is really fragile. The government used a lot of gimmicks to get there. One of those gimmicks is going to have long-term effects on federal public servants. The government is picking on them to try to win votes, and I find that disgraceful. Based on that assumption, I do not believe that we will have a surplus of $1.4 billion as announced by the Minister of Finance.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I would like to ask him a question about a subject that he did not cover in his speech, unless I missed it.
I am referring to the measure included in the budget implementation bill that would retroactively absolve the RCMP of breaching the Access to Information Act.
What does my colleague think of this type of retroactive approach intended to absolve those who allegedly broke the law?
[Interjection]
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question, which is a fundamental one in a state governed by the rule of law.
We cannot retroactively endorse acts that were previously illegal. That is fundamental. We cannot play with people's lives and what they do.
Who is to say that this will not create a precedent and that a lawful act committed freely and knowingly one day could not be made unlawful the next?
We cannot play with such fundamental aspects of life in society simply because it suits us. These are dangerous precedents and I completely agree with my colleague on that.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He has a long history of standing up for workers, which is something he has kept up here in Parliament.
I would like to talk about the omnibus nature of the bill, since my colleague touched on some very specific points in this bill, which I give him credit for, because he has developed an expertise in these areas.
However, this bill is incredibly broad and will impose some measures that should not normally be found in a budget. As the citizenship and immigration critic, I can confirm that this bill contains some measures that affect citizenship and immigration and that should be studied much more carefully, outside the context of an omnibus bill. Unfortunately, this context is exactly what will prevent us from studying these measures.
Could my colleague comment on how these measures are being brought before the House?
[Interjection]
Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question, which comes up every time the government introduces a massive bill. 
One of our main duties here in the House is to legislate. This means that we must be capable of thoughtfully evaluating the different aspects of the laws we want to put in place.
Unfortunately, when the government introduces an omnibus bill to fix all of the problems at the same time, it is an attempt to trick us. Sometimes, it is only after one or two years that we realize that one part of the bill should have been studied more carefully. 
My colleague is absolutely right when she says that everything that affects society is worthy of careful consideration, especially when the government is not only imposing a massive bill, but also a limit on debate.
This undermines our ability to produce sound legislation. 
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C-59, our budget implementation act for economic action plan, 2015.
The good news is that the federal government has balanced its budget and now we are helping families to balance theirs. We are doing so by introducing the family tax cut, the enhanced universal child care benefit enhancements for children under 6, and a new universal child care benefit for those between 6 and 17 years. That would help families balance their budget and get ahead.
There are a number of things I like about the budget implementation bill before us today and in the short amount of time I have, I am going to try to lay them out as quickly as I possibly can and explain why I am supporting this particular measure.
Farm succession is an important issue, drawing in the younger generation of farmers in Essex county. We do about $1 billion-plus in agricultural GDP each and every year. Extending the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for owners of farm businesses, which is contained in this act, would go a long way in succession planning and drawing in our young farmers.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister was in Windsor—Essex, talking about manufacturing. There is a lot to say in Bill C-59. We would be extending the accelerated capital cost allowance out to 10 years. That would give a lot of predictability. I encourage the opposition members, who said they supported that measure, to actually stand in their place to vote for it now.
The Speaker: It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Thursday, May 14, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House. 
The question is as follows. May I dispense?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Speaker: [Chair read text of amendment to House]
 The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the amendment 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 Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 25, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
I believe the hon. Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Hon. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I believe, if you seek it, you will find agreement to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  Accordingly, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Health CareMr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ind.):  moved: 
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government, in concert with provincial and territorial partners, should develop a National Strategy for Innovation, Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness in Sustainable Health Care that: (a) establishes regional centers for collaborative research and experimentation with innovative models that (i) focus on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, (ii) are collaborative and interdisciplinary in character, (iii) team up integrative medicine with allied professions, (iv) utilize optimized information technology to document outcomes, (v) foster competition for better health care outcomes that are both effective and cost-effective; (b) is holistic in perspective and open to new models of care, delivery and discovery; (c) is patient-centered and emphasizes the importance of self-care, wellness promotion and disease prevention; (d) empowers the patient with information and choice; (e) creates financial incentives for innovation; and (f) promotes a “culture of innovation” throughout the healthcare system. 
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to introduce and discuss for the first hour of debate Motion No. 501. It is a national strategy for innovation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for sustainable health care. 
Accelerating health care costs threaten not only the sustainability of the health care system, but they imperil the future competitiveness of the Canadian economy. If we want to develop a high-impact, sustainable health care system that leads the world it is imperative that we consider every avenue of promising intervention. 
There are clinical efficiencies that exist but are underutilized, or they face institutional barriers in implementation. We have the capacity to overcome these challenges and release billions of dollars into our economy while improving clinical outcomes, and patient and clinician satisfaction. 
Recognizing the constitutional divisions and powers that make addressing health care innovation a vexing challenge, Motion No. 501 calls for collaboration with provincial-territorial partners and it is crafted to empower the “outside the box” clinicians in the medical world. 
Just three weeks ago, I was in Toronto with about 200 doctors from around the world who had gathered to look at what else works. It is an international society for orthomolecular medicine. These people are in every province, across the country, across the U.S. and around the world, looking at how we can get better clinical outcomes by using means and approaches that are less toxic to the body and get better clinical outcomes. Their approach is collaborative. It is interdisciplinary. It is driven by a passion for superior clinical outcomes, for patient empowerment, for self-care and choice. Self-care is the foundation of health care. We have many such clinicians across Canada. They are self-described as functional medicine, integrative medicine or orthomolecular physicians. 
What does orthomolecular mean? It was a term coined by Linus Pauling, the only man to get two Nobel prizes in the history of the world. One was in science and the other was a peace prize. It just means using molecules in their natural state, as opposed to patented medicine, where they take a molecule but in order to control the molecule for its role in the body they have to change it somehow. I often describe it as like having someone analyze a football team and deciding that it is the quarterback that makes that team hum. However, they cannot use the quarterback in his natural state so they have to take his head off, tuck it under his arm and then send him out to play without the rest of the team. Actually, in nature, a lot of these molecules work in synergy with other compounds that are found in natural sources. 
Therefore, they like to use natural molecules. They are using the foundational tools, such as thorough case history, physical, laboratory and technical diagnostic aids, but they prefer an applied biochemical approach, using natural molecules rather than patented medicines. 
Patented medicines are not as good a fit because they have been modified. They have been hydrogenated, carboxylated or methylated to make them patentable. They are very much like the natural molecule, but they are not as good a fit. They are therefore xenobiotic or foreign to biological processes and many of them end up blocking other metabolic pathways in the body, therefore leading to side effects that are unhelpful. 
Natural molecules are common in biological systems. They are generally well tolerated and low risk. When they are applied intelligently they are highly effective for a wide range of clinical presentations. 
The strategy calls for, in collaboration with provinces and territories, setting up centres where we can look at what else works. I want to give examples of how this is already being done across the country and how it could release funds and get better clinical outcomes for Canadians. 
The focus needs to be on both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness because we could have a treatment that is effective but so expensive it is very difficult for the public purse to pay for those treatments. That creates strain on the system. It needs to be collaborative and interdisciplinary, because apparently we do not know everything about the body. It is like saying we know everything about the universe. Apparently we are still learning. 
It teams up integrated medicine with allied professions like naturopaths and chiropractors for mechanical, spinal and joint dysfunction. It fosters competition for better health care outcomes that are both effective and cost-effective.
 We could have regional centres taking a small amount of federal investment along with a provincial investment to look at what else works and then reward the ones that are getting demonstrated outcomes. I will give examples in a moment of what some look like.
We need to empower the patient with both information and choice because sometimes a great treatment is offered, but there are institutional barriers to that being implemented because the patients are either not offered choice or people are standing in the way who do not want to see competitive therapies advanced.
I will give an example. In May 2014, the School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, sponsored a vitamin D forum in Ottawa. It brought many lead experts to the Chateau Laurier: Dr. Heaney from Nebraska, Dr. Holick from Boston, Dr. Vieth from Toronto and others. A few MPs from the health committee attended. Their purpose was to meet with Health Canada officials about cost savings and the benefits of increasing blood levels of vitamin D3 for Canadians.
Canadians are not getting enough vitamin D. Why? It is the sunshine vitamin, but for eight months of the year the sun is too low in the sky, the atmosphere filters out the UV light that is necessary for skin to produce vitamin D and then for most of the time, our skin is covered. In the wintertime our faces and hands might be exposed a little, but we have 80 to 100 trillion cells in our body that all have receptors for vitamin D and the face cannot produce enough for our whole body. 
Experts say that we need to get our blood levels up to about 100 to 150 nanomoles per litre for optimal health effect. Beyond bone health, it is about reducing cancer risk. It is about reducing heart disease. It is about reducing diabetes. It is about getting better mental health outcomes. It is about reducing pre-term births that cost the system an immense amount of money and put the babies born prematurely at risk. A whole range, almost any disease we could be name, is easier to manage if vitamin D levels are up. 
Published literature indicates that we could save $14 billion a year just in breast and colorectal cancer alone. That is in the medical literature from the results of two major studies. Reductions in heart disease, diabetes, improvements in mental health and the cost benefits are immense. Why would Canada not move quickly to implement these kinds of cost savings?
Recently published research by Dr. Paul Veugelers and Dr. John Ekwaru, who re-examined the raw data that the Institute of Medicine in the U.S. used to determine what vitamin D3 amounts Health Canada adopted, found a huge statistical error in the analysis. The researchers wondered how it was possible that the levels recommended were low. Were they off by 10%, 20%, 50% or even 100%. No. According to the recent statistical re-analysis, they were off by a factor of 10, meaning the recommended levels were only about one-tenth of what people needed for optimal health care. Correcting this error could result in immense health care savings. 
In Vancouver, Dr. Hal Gunn and his team at InspireHealth have been getting superior results with cancer patients, although the oncologists are treating the patients the same as other patients. However, their approach is to take the fear out of cancer treatment. They give nutritional instruction and advice to the patients. They emphasize the importance of exercise. They optimize the vitamin D levels. Everything works better when vitamin D are levels are up. They do things like yoga, stress management, explain what goes in bodies and empower patients with information and choice. 
The province of B.C. has taken notice. The BC Cancer Agency has taken note and the province has expanded opportunities, but there are still barriers to optimizing and accelerating the potential in this approach.
There are new cancer drugs on the horizon that are about helping tumour cells trigger impaired immuno-defence or programmed cell death, or apoptosis. These new treatments are on the horizon. Scientists have spent nearly a decade trying to find ways. Programmed cell death is an amazing internal controlled demolition that cells go through. It is estimated one million cells a second go through programmed cell death if they have been hijacked by a virus, if they are a broken down components or they do not functioning properly, or they are unnecessary for what is going on in that particular tissue, without damaging neighbouring cells. However, these new treatments are entry level $10,000 a month. That would be $120,000 to $140,000 a year. The public system is going to come under enormous pressure to provide cutting-edge treatment.
Cancer cells have lost the ability to go through this programmed cell death, which means something has programmed the cell to interrupt that cycle, or has changed the program.
I can point members to literature from the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a prestigious journal in the United States, going back to 2005, where it talks about an intravenous treatment that will do exactly that. It will reinitiate apoptosis, or programmed cell death, by simply using intravenous vitamin C.
There are naturopaths and integrative medical doctors across the country doing these treatments. I know that the integrative cancer clinic here in Ottawa is looking at new models. It is a great program that is being worked on there.
However, there are barriers to these treatments being applied, even though they are far more cost-effective. We need to look at everything that shows promise and remove barriers to looking at more cost-effective treatments.
This treatment could be offered in any remote community. It is a simple intravenous treatment. Ascorbic acid is the agent that is administered. Linus Pauling was saying it more than 40 years ago. It actually introduces cell death. 
We know that the mechanism of cell death happens through the production of hydrogen peroxide in the interstitial area of the tumour, and the cells proceed with programmed cell death. Unfortunately, some people have tried to apply this, but there have been barriers, such as oncologists not approving the treatments unless they have exhausted chemotherapy and radiation. Providing patients with choice is about giving them informed consent and allowing them to try a small “c” conservative treatment. When their immune systems have not been damaged by the unfortunate side effects of conventional treatment, the outcomes might be far superior.
C. difficile infections claim thousands of lives annually in U.S. and Canadian hospitals. The rise of these infections is linked to gastric acid-suppressing drugs and antibiotics. Health Canada recently approved a preventative natural health product called Bio-K+, which rebuilds the microbiome devastated by antibiotics. If a person has a lung infection and doctors want to give antibiotics, a nasty side effect is that all of the healthy bacteria in the colon are killed. That sets the stage for a C. difficile infection, which kills somewhere around 1,400 Canadians a year. In the United States, the new figures look like double that, so it may well be higher in Canada as well. All of this may lead to an unnecessary bowel surgery.
There is a hospital in the Montreal area that has been doing this for nine years, by simply giving a potent probiotic of 50 billion CFU twice a day. It has nearly eliminated all C. difficile infections, and created a high reduction in other antibiotic-associated diarrheas that cause extended hospital stays, hundreds of millions of dollars in extended health costs, and put Canadians at risk.
After 25 years of experimenting with acid-suppressing drugs, there is a 40% to 275% increase in the risk of C. difficile. I have been raising that issue for more than 10 years with Health Canada officials. I had press releases about this after the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network reviewed the issue. With the support of the health minister and the Prime Minister's Office, it took it on as one of its first projects, and basically came back reporting what I had been saying for 10 years. It is a dose-response fashion. There is a 40% to 275% increased risk, and it is a class effect.
I am pleased to see that the Canadian Medical Association Journal wrote it up about a year ago. I was also pleased to see that the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, under the Choosing Wisely Canada program of the CMA, has recommended eliminating the use, and the shortest possible use, of these antibiotics.
In Alberta, we have a program called Pure North S'Energy, which puts about $200 million into health care in Alberta. It is an innovative program that takes a lot of homeless people, high-needs people, first nations, Inuit, and other citizens, and gives them the vitamins and minerals they need. It has about 100 doctors, nurses, and naturopaths working on the program. From the outcomes, it estimates that it has saved an immense amount of money for the Alberta health care system.
Here is an article by the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, which was published in January, called “Bending the Medicare Cost Curve in 12 Months or Less: How Preventative Health Care can Yield Significant Near-Term Savings for Acute Care in Alberta”. It talks about this study with the Pure North S'Energy Foundation's preventative health care program. It found that the sorts of preventative health care services offered by Pure North S'Energy can lead to genuine and significant near-term costs savings for Canada's single-payer health system.
 Participants in the first year of the program required 25% fewer hospital visits and 17% fewer emergency room visits compared to the control group. When those persisted for a full year, they had 45% fewer hospital visits in the year after joining and 28% fewer emergency room visits compared to the control group. That is an immense cost saving to the health care system. The cost is about $500 per participant, and they estimated that they save about $1,700 per person in Alberta. If everybody had access to a program like this, it would obviate the need for two hospitals the size of Calgary's Foothills Medical Centre and release about 1,600 beds to be used for other purposes.
That is what Motion No. 501 is about. It is about empowering people who are looking for better answers. I hope all members will support the motion.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very educational speech. I know his passion for this subject, and I certainly applaud him for that.
I would like to learn a bit more from the member on maybe what some others are doing, perhaps in the United States or elsewhere. I would also ask him a bit about the holistic approach to health care, treating the patient versus treating the disease.
[Interjection]
James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question because the time goes so quickly and I wanted to mention what they are doing with veterans south of the border. They have a huge problem. 
They have a program led by Dr. Tracy Gaudet for the transformation of health care as applied to the veterans down there. She mentions the increase in the past decade in heart disease, diabetes and stroke, in spite of the best efforts. The message is, “Doing more of the same, Even if we do it better, will NOT fix this problem. Not for our Veterans, and not for [our health care system]”.
They are using an integrative approach. They way they define that is this way: 
 Whole Health: A well developed national infrastructure for provision of a proactive integrative health approach for Veterans, which is inclusive of a relationship based approach, self care strategies, complementary and alternative approaches, and integrative health coaching. 
This approach puts the patient at the centre of the treatment. They are concerned that the health care costs are not sustainable. 
 The Institute of Medicine Summit on Integrative Medicine and the Health of the Public in February 2009 said, “This disease-driven approach to care has resulted in spiraling costs as well as a fragmented health system that is reactive, episodic, inefficient and impersonal.”
That is what this motion is about: trying to move the yardsticks so we get better outcomes for our vets, for the elderly, for first nations, for Inuit and for all Canadians.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, I want to know why my colleague did not choose to talk in the motion about the importance of being innovative and more effective in an effort to preserve Canada's public health care system.
Does he believe that innovation and effectiveness are essential to preserving our public health care system?
[Interjection]
James Lunney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that very good question.
Of course, of the programs I was describing in Alberta, with Pure North S'Energy it was innovative; with InspireHealth, it is innovative; with the University of Calgary School of Public Policy, it is that raising the D levels for Canadians is a simple low-cost intervention that would save money.
Also out of Alberta, an innovative project called Empower Plus helped many Canadians with mental disorders like bipolar disease and other psychoses. It was a simple vitamin, mineral and amino acid compound. It had a struggle with Health Canada, but that program has continued because of help from members of this House. Now there are at least 22 peer-reviewed articles in published medical literature about better clinical outcomes using vitamins and minerals, micro-nutrients, to help people overcome psychiatric disorders and bipolar disease, and get off medications and lead more normal lives.
I could go on about innovation.
 In th U.K., in the National Health Services, the northwest division has a whole program that is mandated to innovate and it has a whole cycle of health innovation, education clusters, evidence and a new legal duty to innovate. It has challenge prizes. It has something like a Dragon's Den where people can bring forth ideas, and it has a commission for quality and innovation. It has a health care innovation expo, innovation funds and academic health science centres. 
All of this together can release tremendous clinical outcome improvements, better cost savings for the system and healthier Canadians.
Laurie Hawn: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the important issue of innovation in health care and to join today's debate on Motion No. 501, put forth by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni. 
I would like to start by acknowledging my colleague's long history in this place and his passion for this particular topic. I know it well and, as I said earlier, I applaud him for it. We all know that representing our constituents is a true privilege, and I know that he has worked hard to earn that privilege every day. 
This motion focuses on an issue of critical importance for Canadians: the need for a strong, sustainable, and responsive health care system that provides high-quality, cost-effective care now and into the future. I think we can all agree that innovation will be an essential ingredient if we are to achieve that goal. 
Our government is committed to a strong, publicly funded, universally accessible health care system. We are providing record levels of funding to the provinces and territories for the delivery of health care service through the Canada health transfer, and we have done this without raising taxes. This funding gives the provinces the financial predictability and fiscal flexibility they need to address their specific priorities and pressures.
Since we took office, the Canada health transfer has increased by almost 70% and will continue to grow each and every year, reaching $40.9 billion in 2019-20. Of course, we all know that money alone is not the solution to challenges facing Canada's health care system. This government recognizes the important role that innovation can play in maintaining a sustainable system that is responsive to the changing needs of Canadians.
Indeed, our government plays an important role, working with the provinces and territories, to make the most of our investments in health care and produce the best possible health care outcomes. The federal government is already the single largest contributor to health innovation in Canada, providing over $1 billion every year to support research and knowledge development. In addition, the federal government provides targeted initiatives to improve the monitoring of health system performance, support the establishment of electronic health records, and provide supports for residency positions and other challenges to the supply of family doctors. 
Economic action plan 2015 has built on this strong record with additional investments of $13 million a year to expand the strategy for patient-oriented research and $14 million over two years for the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement to identify efficiencies in the health system. Through these investments, our government is actively working to harness the tremendous potential of innovation in health care.
It is essential that governments and the wider health care community make the best possible use of existing resources if we are to secure a more efficient, responsive, and financially sustainable health care system for the long term. That is why I was very pleased by the health minister's recent announcement of an advisory panel on health care innovation, which will look at areas of innovation that have the potential to address spending pressures while improving care and will recommend ways in which the federal government might better support innovation in key areas. 
The panel, assembled by the minister, includes individuals from a variety of sectors and brings together a broad range of perspectives and expertise. Dr. David Naylor, who chairs the panel, is the immediate past president and former dean of medicine at the University of Toronto and is a highly respected leader and health researcher.
Neil Fraser, the president of Medtronic Canada, brings a strong business and engineering background to the panel and plays key roles in a number of Canadian organizations, including the Conference Board of Canada's Centre for the Advancement of Health Innovation. 
Francine Girard, dean of the Faculty of Nursing Sciences at the University of Montreal, was a member of the Canadian Nurses Association's National Expert Commission in 2012 and is a leader in the nursing field. 
Toby Jenkins, president of Columbia Developments, has wide experience in the public, private, and academic sectors and extensive past involvement in the governance of health care organizations. 
Jack Mintz is a well-known, internationally recognized economist and tax expert. He is the director of the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy and past president of the C.D. Howe Institute. 
Chris Power, the CEO of the Canadian Patient Safety Institute, began her career as a nurse and was previously the president of Capital Health, Nova Scotia's largest regional health authority.
Lastly, I want to acknowledge Dr. Cy Frank, a member of the panel who, sadly, passed away in March. Dr. Frank served as president and CEO at Alberta Innovates Health Solutions and made many important contributions to the direction and future of health care innovation in Canada. 
Over the past year, this impressive group of people met with provincial and territorial representatives, providers, patients, stakeholder organizations, industry leaders, researchers, innovators, and many others. It commissioned research and convened international experts to hear about high-performing health systems elsewhere. Throughout, the work of the panel has been guided by respect for the federal, provincial, and territorial roles in health, respect for the core values set out in the Canada Health Act, and a focus on evidence-based analysis and fiscal responsibility.
The panel sought and received a wide range of perspectives through extensive consultations, both in person and online. It heard from hundreds of groups and individuals. Indeed I understand that this has been a truly open process, in which all views were welcomed and considered.
 Canadians were given the opportunity to share their health care experiences, what they have seen to be working well, and what they think needs improvement. Canadians were also asked about their ideas for positive change.
 Stakeholders were asked to describe promising innovations and the supporting evidence for them, to identify strengths and weaknesses in Canada's current approach to innovation, and to propose avenues for improvement, with a particular focus on actions that the federal government might take.
In response, the panel heard about some of the challenges that impede the spread of innovations in Canada. It learned about successful innovations that are taking place in pockets across the country and the approaches that underpin them. The panel convened meetings from coast to coast to coast where it heard about a wide range of issues, including the power of patient engagement, and the unique health care challenges faced by first nations and those in rural and remote areas.
 Recognizing that the advent of personalized medicine is rapidly changing the future of health care, the panel sought input on its potential contribution to higher quality and more efficient care. More broadly, the panel heard about the emerging pressures associated with population aging and the rising burden of chronic disease, and the need for a system that is able to adapt to remain responsive and sustainable in the face of these changes.
In a few short weeks, the panel will offer its advice to the Minister of Health, providing its analysis and proposing ways that the federal government could better align its efforts to foster and accelerate innovation in the Canadian health care system. I know that the minister is looking forward to reviewing what they have to say. The report and recommendations of the committee, to be published in June, will provide much food for thought about the steps the government should take in this area. 
The Canadian federation is unique. Respect for provincial and territorial skills and responsibilities regarding the provision of health care and an understanding of the ways we can help at the federal level are key elements of our approach to innovation in the field of health care. 
I would like to close my remarks by again recognizing the uniqueness of our Canadian health care system. Respect for the leading role that provincial and territorial governments play in health care delivery and an understanding of the kinds of contributions we can make at the federal level have been key factors in our approach to health care innovation. 
I know that the Minister of Health is looking forward the panel's report and the discussion it will undoubtedly generate. We live in a world where technology is rapidly evolving, a world where we might in the future carry our genome around on our smart phones, Skype with our doctor, or use remote patient monitoring to help us stay in our homes for a little longer. 
We need a health care system that is responsive to change, that is sustainable, and most of all that offers the best possible quality of care for Canadians. That is why I think it is important that we are having a debate on the best way to support innovation. Our government will continue taking the steps that we can, while respecting the province's jurisdiction over health care delivery and working within the public health care system under the Canada Health Act.
I look forward to hearing more from my colleagues on their thoughts regarding this motion, and I thank my hon. colleague for bringing it forward.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I fully understand where my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni is going with this motion. He, like me, is a health professional, and he knows the importance of innovating and changing our models and procedures if we want a more effective health care system.
Unfortunately, I have a few concerns about the motion. My first concern has to do with the importance of preserving a public health care system. This motion makes no mention of whether these innovations, this research and these new practices seek to preserve our public health care system and ensure that everyone continues to have access to health care. I had the opportunity to ask my colleague a question about that. He did not directly answer the question on the importance of preserving the public health care system. That is one of my concerns about the motion.
The other concern or question that I have regarding the motion has to do with the understanding of what is written between the lines. When we talk about innovation, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, those things are more about structuring health care, which comes under provincial jurisdiction. I would like to remind the House of the federal government's role in health care. This can be summarized into five responsibilities. First of all, there is access to health care for certain groups, including first nations, veterans, the RCMP, correctional services and the Canadians Forces. The second responsibility has to do with health protections. Third, there is the health promotion aspect, as well as disease prevention and awareness strategies. The fourth area is health research. When it comes to innovation in health research, the two aspects do fit in with the federal government's mandate on health. The fifth responsibility pertains to financial support for the provincial health care systems.
However, the way work is organized in hospitals does not fall under federal jurisdiction. It really falls under provincial jurisdiction. This would include a holistic approach, for example. As a professional, that is the type of approach that I promote. However, it is first up to the professional bodies, which fall under provincial jurisdiction, to determine the direction they want to take and how they want their members to redirect their efforts and change their way of doing things. It is really a provincial issue. It falls under provincial jurisdiction.
There are many other words that one needs to understand. “Cost-effectiveness” and “effectiveness” for example, pertain to determining whether it is cheaper and just as effective to have two practical nurses and two nurses on a health care team rather than two nurses, one practical nurse and one health care attendant. How the work is organized not only falls under provincial jurisdiction but it is also the domain of the hospitals.
Right now, hospitals are already sharing information when they conduct pilot projects or try different approaches, for example, and that is working very well. They will often publish scientific information on what they tried so that other hospitals or jurisdictions that may want to try the same thing can use that information. The information is already being shared. However, having the federal government directly interfere with the organization of work is going way too far.
The third part of the motion moved by my colleague from Nickel Belt with respect to the dementia strategy referred to health promotion and disease prevention. That fits in well with the federal government's mandate. However, the organization of work intrudes too much into the provinces' jurisdiction.
The motion also refers to being collaborative and interdisciplinary in character. Once again, excellent approaches have been tried across the country with good results. Nevertheless, this is a provincial jurisdiction. 
I believe that the provinces continue to try to implement initiatives. Their efforts are based on what is done elsewhere, and they use models from other countries, for example, but this is still a provincial jurisdiction. To my mind, the motion goes too far in that regard.
When we talk about a health care model, we are talking about policies for professional practices and the various occupations. When we talk about teams, we are referring here to the provinces, which still have different professional bodies and designations. For example, when we talk about massage therapists, they do not currently have an association or recognized federation in Quebec. Thus, we have a problem. We do not even have the same starting point from one province to the next. There is still work to be done. A motion like this one makes things extremely complex from a federal perspective.
What I want to say is that most professions and provinces realize that they must innovate, and they are already sharing information. However, when we talk about really putting in place a national strategy, I believe that this intrudes too much into the provinces' jurisdiction.
The federal government has really neglected funding for the provinces. Let us not forget that the member for Nanaimo—Alberni was still a Conservative caucus member when the government decided to cut provincial health transfers by $36 billion. It decided to unilaterally end the provincial and territorial health accords and to shut down the Health Council of Canada, which was responsible for introducing innovation. I think there is a contradiction there. The government is not respecting the provinces' jurisdiction. In addition, it is not giving them the funding they need for implementation.
Canada has asymmetrical federalism. Quebec can have separate arrangements with Canada. When the government provides health funding, the Government of Quebec has to use that money to implement its own plan to ensure access to quality health care in a timely fashion and to reduce wait times.
It is therefore critical that the provinces retain their independence when it comes to how they organize how the work is done on the ground. They have to be able to decide how they want to improve effectiveness. I believe the provinces do that by considering the available scientific data and looking at what is being done elsewhere. I believe that they take all of that into account when determining their priorities and that they make changes to improve their health system on the basis of their priorities.
That is why, as an MP, I cannot accept a motion that intrudes too far into provincial jurisdiction. I want to make sure that the health system remains a public health system above all. Unfortunately, the member refused to give me a clear sense of whether he really believes that the system should remain public.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the motion before us.
 I was comforted to hear the member who presented the motion talk about the notion of molecular evolution. The work of Linus Pauling and Emile Zuckerkandl spoke very precisely about molecular evolution and the theory of evolution, which was so critical to understanding exactly when species changed and evolved. It is an amazing body of thought. We all do better when we embrace and think about evolution as a real scientific theory.
Equally, I think we are all supportive of innovation that leads to choice, giving patients choice in how they protect their wellness, and choice in which medical procedures they choose to explore and employ to prevent health outcomes they do not want. Choice is critically important. 
Innovating our health care system in such a way that it accommodates choice is something our party has long supported. It is critical for improving health outcomes and giving patients the power to make the decisions about their bodies in a way that protects the integrity of their ability to survive and thrive as individuals in our community.
It is incredibly important that new ideas and opportunities be available to individuals who suffer from various afflictions. It is not just about treating the symptoms, but about treating the whole person. For people with perhaps significant drug addictions, a medical condition that affects many people, harm reduction strategies that embrace the whole person, that treat more than just simply the medical phenomenon of addiction can present themselves. Safe injection sites is an example of one of the great innovations in our country that has allowed people to live, thrive, make better choices and to embrace their whole health outcome to drive significant change into their lives.
Any proposal on the floor of the House of Commons that seeks to empower an individual to choose these new options is critically important. I am glad the member has brought forward an idea that totally and fundamentally embraces that sort of notion of harm reduction, of allowing patients to have the full scope and full access to all of the medical innovations and scientific research that has been presented to communities.
I am glad the motion calls for the provinces to have the power to set up these centres of innovation without having to go through extraordinary laborious processes, but rather to embrace what science, medical facilities and patients are advocating for. This a great step forward and one of the reasons why private member's bills and motions are so critically important. Sometimes governments do not embrace those ideas, but I am glad that private member has given us the opportunity to talk about it. 
I am also glad that the motion talks about preventative care, getting to the root causes of issues, trying to prevent problems from becoming so large and expensive that the treatment afterwards becomes prohibitive, and instead taking the opportunity to look at root causes and invest in preventative strategies. This is another way of rooting out not just medical conditions but things that transform people's psychological capacity to contribute to society. 
It great to see a member of the House stand and be proud about preventative care, proud of an analysis that would get at root causes. This deals with much more than simply the scientifically available dynamic that might be leading to poor health. Instead, it creates the opportunity to deal with the whole person, cure the whole person, so a person may again become a more contributing and positive member of our society.
These things are extraordinarily important, and the principles that are outlined in the motion are ones that all of us should and can support: the idea of evolution, preventative care, and seeking alternative treatments that deal with the whole person and not just simply deal with conventional medical approaches to some of the challenges we face as a society when we deal with public health care.
I do, however, recognize that most of the jurisdiction that is being discussed here is provincial in nature. While we seek to create a more broad-based national dialogue, while seek to stimulate areas of excellence in different regions, and while we try to bring as many voices to the table as possible as we explore new health outcomes, it is critical that we respect provincial jurisdiction in this area. It is also critical that we do not lead this conversation and be oblivious to the constitutional jurisdictions that were established in our great federation.
We look forward to seeing where the motion delivers the House, we look forward to having more debate on it, and we are happy to see the House coming around to those principles about which I just spoke.
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to our government's support for innovation in health care today. I welcome the opportunity to join today's debate on the motion put forth by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
I would like to start by recognizing my colleague's long career as a parliamentarian. The member was first elected to this place over a decade ago, and I think it probably feels like two decades, I am sure. We can all recognize the dedication he has put into representing his constituents.
This motion underscores the importance of a strong, sustainable, and responsive health care system, a system that is able to provide high-quality, cost-effective health care. It also draws attention to innovation as a means to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of our system so that Canadians across the country can access the care they need.
Our government fully recognizes the importance of innovation in health care. We have shown an unwavering commitment to a strong, publicly funded, universally accessible health care system for all Canadians, one that is founded on the principles of the Canada Health Act.
As individuals, we all rely on the health care system at some point in our lives. We all know of family members and friends who have fallen ill or been injured or who are frail. We know how important it is to have access to good health care.
Keeping our health care system strong requires an effective partnership between the provinces and territories, which have responsibility for the administration and delivery of our health care, and the federal government, which provides financial support through federal transfers.
The government recognizes that Canadians expect the health care system to be there when they and their families need it, both today and into the future. That is why we have continued to increase health care funding to record levels, regardless of what is being said out there in the media, while at the same time ensuring that the government's long-term fiscal position is sustainable. I think it is equally important to point out that we have achieved these record increases to health care transfers without raising taxes. In fact, we have continued to provide this record support for the provinces while reducing taxes on Canadian families to record lows.
In 2015-16, the government will provide $34 billion to the provinces and territories through the Canada health transfer, up almost 70% since 2006, and that funding will continue to increase, reaching over $40 billion annually by the end of the decade.
Our government's health transfer arrangement is fair, predictable, and sustainable. It provides a solid but flexible foundation for provinces and territories to continue their health system improvement efforts, efforts that include the implementation of innovative and creative approaches, as they strive to meet the health care needs of Canadians.
With federal transfers on a long-term-growth track, our government is actively supporting innovation and research that improves the performance of our health care system so that it is efficient and responsive to the needs of Canadians now and well into the future.
Economic action plan 2015 underscores our focus, pointing to the government's commitment to improving the health of Canadians and our support for innovation in the health care system.
As members of this House may know, our government is already the country's largest investor in health innovation, providing over $1 billion each year for research and other targeted initiatives that foster change, with a view to increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care system. 
For example, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, our government is supporting the strategy for patient-oriented research, or SPOR. This strategy brings together a coalition of federal, provincial, and territorial partners, all dedicated to integrating their research into care and to ensuring that the right patient receives the right intervention at the right time. Through pan-Canadian networks and regional centres of expertise known as SUPPORT units, this strategy is fostering the development of innovative approaches that will transform research into cost-effective care and improved practices.
To build on this success, budget 2015 proposes an additional $13 million per year for the expansion of this work. Similar to the regional centres for collaborative research proposed in Motion No. 501, the SUPPORT units are located across the country to provide leading research expertise and to support reforms in response to local needs.
 Provinces and territories were directly involved in establishing the plans for these units, each of which is focused on addressing the health care priorities and strategies of its host jurisdiction.
Research is a particularly critical catalyst for health care innovation, but that is not all we do. We also provide essential support for pan-Canadian health organizations that play a leading role in accelerating health system change. 
These national organizations, such as the previously mentioned Canada Health Infoway, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, and the Canadian Institute for Health Information, support and inspire coordinated efforts across the country. These organizations are moving the yardsticks on such priority issues as getting electronic records into doctors' offices, providing guidance on the effective use of pharmaceuticals, and reporting on health system performance.
Another of these organizations, the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement, was featured in our recent budget, which proposes to provide $14 million over two years to identify efficiencies and support innovations in critical areas such as palliative care.
In addition, national coordination in key areas is provided by the Mental Health Commission of Canada and the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer.
Our government is proud to have established these organizations through significant funding, as we all know that cancer and mental health are some of our system's leading challenges. These organizations continue to help all governments and the health care community work together to effect positive change.
I am proud to say that our government also supports a number of targeted initiatives that contribute to health system improvement. They include projects that develop, test, and promote cost-effective innovations and the use of health professionals; new models for home, community, and end-of-life care; and improvements in quality and patient safety. We also have many other programs and projects that are advancing innovations to improve first nations and Inuit health care.
Through these investments, the government is actively working to accelerate innovation in health care, developing and promoting the spread of innovative practices, enabling pan-Canadian collaboration, and supporting provinces and territories in delivering care to Canadians.
Of course, Canada's health care system must continue to evolve to remain effective and sustainable in the face of demographic, economic, and other pressures. Through innovation, the system can make better use of existing resources to improve efficiency and patient outcomes.
Real health care spending in Canada has doubled between 1975 and 2011. Currently, Canada's total spending on health care stands at over 11% of GDP, the fifth-highest among OECD countries. With most provinces and territories already devoting close to 40% of their budgets to health care, there is a very real need to ensure our system is meeting the needs of Canadians in an efficient way.
Innovation is widely seen as key to improving health system productivity, efficiency, and responsiveness while fostering better, more effective patient care. Organizations like the OECD, the Conference Board of Canada, and the C.D. Howe Institute have all noted the importance of innovation, and it has increasingly served as the focus of provincial and territorial efforts.
We know that more money is not the only solution. Innovation is essential if we are to ensure that our health care system continues to improve.
Our government is committed to working with our partners to harness the tremendous potential of innovation so that together we can make better use of existing resources and achieve an efficient, more responsive, and financially sustainable healthcare system for the long term.
Not only must Canada's health care system adapt to remain responsive and sustainable, but federal efforts must also be appropriately aligned to support this adaptation. That is why, in June of 2014, the Minister of Health launched the advisory panel on health care innovation. It has been charged with identifying the most promising areas of innovation, based on learnings from across Canada and abroad, and recommending ways federal efforts might better support those areas to generate positive change across the system.
The panel, working at arm's length from government, has actively engaged provinces and territories on the challenges of innovation across Canada, and it has heard from hundreds of individuals across Canada on a wide range of issues. There is always room for improvement in the way we deploy our federal programs and resources, and I am sure the panel's work will be a key resource as the government considers its priorities and initiatives on healthcare innovation. 
I would like to close by thanking the member for bringing more attention to the important issues in our health care system. It is important that we continue to debate how we best can improve our health care for all Canadians. I especially thank the member for Nanaimo—Alberni for his tireless efforts to ensure our health care system is better.
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to debate issues related to health care, as that is something that I care deeply about, as do my constituents in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
However, I rise today to oppose this motion to implement a national strategy for innovation in health care. The only good thing about this motion is its name. Unfortunately, it offers no concrete measures to improve our health care. Worse still, the motion makes no mention whatsoever of the public health care system, which needs to be strengthened. 
On the contrary, the motion explicitly seeks to foster competition for better outcomes. That is definitely not what Canadians want. I am left to really wonder about what is really behind this motion. 
We in the NDP want to see real improvements to our health care services, and we would have preferred to see a motion that proposes restoring the Health Council of Canada, an agency that the Conservatives demolished in 2014. In its reports, that agency assessed the results of the federal-provincial health accords. It allowed us to adjust and better target our programs.
After 10 years of contempt and repeated cuts to health care, suddenly the Conservatives are claiming that they care about innovation in this field. Who would believe them? Not Canadians. Canadians are not stupid, and they want concrete measures that will improve their daily lives. 
We would also have liked to see this motion address the budget cuts imposed on our health care system. We would have liked to see the government understand that health care expenses will increase as the population ages, and that if we invest today, our seniors will be better off tomorrow.
Canadians want to get back the $36 billion that has been cut in recent years. The truth is that the Conservative government sacrificed our health care system for the sake of savings. We cannot do more with less.
When the New Democrat government comes to power in October, we will restore the health transfers to the provinces. We will talk with the provinces and will work closely with them, since that is how we will develop a real national strategy for health care innovation.
The Speaker: The hon. member will have seven minutes to conclude her remarks the next time the bill is before the House. The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:16 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, May 25, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:16 p.m.)