2016-04-20

The Speaker: It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.
[Members sang the national anthem] 
Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is imposing closure today for the very first time, and he is doing so to attack Quebec's aerospace industry.
Why is he so determined to make trouble for one of Quebec's leading industries?
Instead of enforcing the existing law, the Prime Minister is changing it to help offenders export jobs out of Quebec even though he demonstrated alongside illegally terminated Aveos workers. Now he is ready to turn his back on them in an instant. This is outrageous. 
When the government gives its word that it will sell armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, that is sacred, but when it gives its word to workers, that is a different kettle of fish. It is despicable for a government that says it wants to reform parliamentary democracy to use closure to trample on the rights of 2,600 families. 
The more things change, the more they stay the same. This is not what the Liberals were voted in for. This has to change.
Debert, Nova ScotiaMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1948, Paleo-Indian artifacts were discovered near the airfield in Debert, Nova Scotia. Subsequent excavations have revealed thousands of artifacts, and radiocarbon dating indicates that the community was inhabited around 13 and a half thousand years ago. This makes Debert the oldest known human settlement in Canada. 
This is a special place, a place of national significance both to Canada and to the Mi'kmaq. Unfortunately, many of those important artifacts are now in storage, including at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, unseen by Canadians. It is our goal that a properly curated museum can be created with the help of the federal government and the Mi'kmaq to ensure the story of the first settlement in Canada can be preserved and indeed celebrated.
Ted MarianixMr. Kerry Diotte (Edmonton Griesbach, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in a few days it will be Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month. There are 100,000 Canadians living with this crippling disease known as MS and there still is no cure.
 It has been almost a year now since my dear friend Ted Marianix died after living with MS. He was only 70 years old. He was a police officer for almost 40 years, and a minor hockey coach. However, Ted never let MS stop him from living a full life, even though he needed a scooter to get around. 
When I campaigned for civic politics in Edmonton, Ted was my most frequent volunteer. When I ran for federal politics, Ted was always there. He was like a father who taught me a valuable lesson: anything is possible with hard work.
Many of us were deeply saddened when MS got the better of Ted. He died on June 13. His wife Louise is still grieving. 
Therefore, when we mark MS Awareness Month in May, let us remember Ted and join #TeamFight to #endMS.
SeniorsMr. Dan Ruimy (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the election, I met with many seniors in my riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge looking to improve the quality of their lives. The new horizons for seniors program is one way of helping them do just that.
 I am pleased to announce that this year four deserving organizations in my riding received $71 ,000 in funding. The Golden Ears United Church is getting a new entrance and flooring to improve accessibility for seniors involved in the volunteer thrift shop program. The Maple Ridge Lawn Bowling Club is getting new patio tent covers. The Katzie Seniors Network is developing an emergency preparedness guide for seniors. The Ridge Meadows Seniors Society will now get new chairs and a sound system to support its community events.
 I am happy these groups will be able to continue their great community initiatives to keep seniors active and healthy. 
Saskatchewan Indian Institute of TechnologiesMs. Sheri Benson (Saskatoon West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a great institution in my riding of Saskatoon West.
 On April 21, the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies is celebrating 40 years of empowering learners and realizing potential. Established in 1976, the college became the primary delivery agent for all adult level courses for indigenous peoples across Saskatchewan.
 Today, SllT is a province-wide system of three main campuses, eight career centres and numerous community sites. As a first nations institution, SllT proudly offers post-secondary education programs and services in direct response to the needs of its students. 
Thanks to the vision of the original board members, more than 54,000 first nations and Métis people have attended classes and training programs in an environment that promotes traditional ways and fosters student success.
I congratulate SllT. Beyond skills training, it has also delivered hope, and 40 years of hope has an impact beyond measure.
Farnham Ale & Lager MicrobreweryHon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Brome—Missisquoi is well known for the quality of its wine products, its hotels, and its locally made and locally grown products.
Today I am pleased to recognize the talent and creativity of some of our brewers, specifically at the Farnham Ale &amp; Lager microbrewery, which recently distinguished itself at the fifth edition of the Barcelona Beer Festival after winning three prestigious awards. 
I think it is important to acknowledge the efforts being made by all the brewers in my riding. While promoting our region, they are also making a huge contribution to its economic growth. I want to raise a glass to them here today.
Once again, bravo, Farnham Ale &amp; Lager, and bravo to all our brewers. Keep up the good work and keep making Brome—Missisquoi the best riding in Canada.
Battle of Vimy RidgeHon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, tonight the French ambassador hosts the annual Vimy reception to honour the special relationship between France and Canada forged on the battlefield of Vimy Ridge. Next year marks the 100th anniversary of this defining Canadian moment, and I am very proud of the preparations under way in both our countries.
 In the Durham region, 26 Schools held their Vimy day walk, where students started in four different locations, marking the four Canadian divisions, and each group walked a sombre 3600 metres, marking the number of fallen at Vimy Ridge. 
I would like to congratulate the board, and staff and students from Maxwell Heights, Clarington Central, Bowmanville High, Port Perry High and Courtice Secondary.
 Last Saturday, I had the honour of attending the Sam Sharpe gala where Uxbridge Secondary staff and students honoured their World War I MP and alumni, bringing the community together while also raising funds for the students' trip to Vimy 100.
 I salute these organizers, teachers and students who show Canada that 100 years later we hold the torch of remembrance high.
Governor General's AwardMs. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, two of the most influential women in the Canadian art community recently received the 2016 Governor General's Award for their contribution to the arts, and they share something in common, Oakville Galleries.
Like our two dynamic and creative Governor General Award winners, Marnie Fleming and Suzy Lake, Oakville Galleries strives to stimulate thought, shift perspectives and inspire engagement.
 Marnie Fleming served as curator of contemporary art at Oakville Galleries for over 20 years. Her innovative exhibition programming and an adept collection strategy has made Oakville Galleries a pivotal player on the Canadian art scene.
Suzy Lake, an influential feminist artist with strong ties to Oakville and Oakville Galleries, uses a range of media to explore issues of the identity, gender and politics of the human body.
I congratulate and thank the Oakville Galleries, and Suzy and Marnie for their contribution to the arts.
Pita PitMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate an entrepreneurial success story from my riding
A franchise began in Kingston 21 years ago when two friends, John Sotiriadis and Nelson Lang, decided to open a fast food place that offered different and healthier fare. With little money in their pockets, Johnny and Nelson rented a small storefront below their second floor Princess Street apartment in Kingston.
 Although most Canadians might not recognize Johnny and Nelson by name, they most certainly know their restaurant, which became an instant hit with university and college students. Twenty-one years later, Johnny and Nelson now have restaurants in 13 countries throughout the globe.
 Johnny and Nelson are the founding partners of the Pita Pit, and have just celebrated the huge milestone of opening their 600th store.
 I congratulate these two Canadian entrepreneurs from Kingston and the Islands, and wish them luck as they strive toward their ultimate goal of 1000 restaurants globally, a milestone I have no doubt they will achieve.
Yvan-Miville Des ChênesMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last Saturday evening, the Fondation aérovision inducted the late Yvan-Miville Des Chênes into the Quebec air and space hall of fame. 
Mr. Des Chênes is well known by Quebeckers for having been an on-air aviation expert for nearly 30 years. He was a great communicator who was gifted at sharing his love of aviation. To hear him speak, and to see him, you knew you were going to learn something and truly understand it because he was so skilled at breaking down complex issues.
Mr. Des Chênes was an air traffic controller, a professor, an event organizer, a member of the airport board of directors, and the list goes on. We celebrated his extensive career on Saturday. 
Yvan was a constituent in Louis-Saint-Laurent, but more importantly, he was a close friend. That is why the foundation asked me to present the award to his wife, Carmen, who was there with his daughters, Ann and Lynn. I also had the pleasure of reading the letter of congratulations from the Minister of Transport.
I commend and thank the Fondation aérovision for paying a well-deserved and eternal tribute to Yvan-Miville Des Chênes.
VolunteerismMrs. Alaina Lockhart (Fundy Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week was National Volunteer Week. Fittingly, the Governor General presented the sovereign's medal for volunteers to what he described as the team Canada of volunteers.
I was honoured to attend the ceremony, as one of the 55 recipients from across Canada is a pillar of the community in Hampton in Fundy Royal, Jim Hovey.
Mr. Hovey has worked tirelessly in the community of Hampton for more than 30 years. Most notably, he served eight terms on Hampton town council, five of those as mayor. As is the case with many volunteers, he also gave his time freely to many other community organizations and played an instrumental role in the creation of a community theatre.
 In fact, he continues to serve the community now. Since his retirement in 2008, he has volunteered on the town's health care and public works advisory committees. 
Mr. Hovey is a true inspiration to the community and to all Canadians. I am proud to stand here today to honour, congratulate, and thank him for his continued contributions.
Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities Receives AwardMr. Stéphane Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, March 8 was International Women's Day. The theme for 2016 was “Planet 50-50 by 2030: Step It Up for Gender Equality”. 
The current government is the first in Canada to achieve gender parity in its cabinet. A cabinet member recently was given an award by the International Paralympic Committee.
I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, on being recognized for her role in the promotion of sports through the International Paralympic Committee's 2016 International Women's Day Recognition Award.
She is an excellent role model for women because she is committed to equality and integration. Once again, I extend my warmest congratulations to her.
Alberta WildfiresMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Alberta has experienced a below average snowfall and above average temperatures this spring, leading to Alberta's wildfire season starting a month early. As a result, over the past two days, dozens of wildfires have started across Alberta, requiring the efforts of over 650 firefighters, 12 helicopters, and two air tankers. 
Despite the warnings of an extremely dry and hot summer, the provincial NDP government is cutting $15 million from the wildfire management budget, jeopardizing the safety of Albertans. 
Schools and first nation communities have been evacuated, highways closed, buildings destroyed, and two firefighters injured. In my riding, air tanker pilots have been hard at work putting out wildfires near Slave Lake, even while their jobs hang in the balance due to these reckless NDP cuts. 
 I want to thank the 650 firefighters for their incredible efforts to battle these fires across the province and I call on the Alberta NDP government to restore this critical funding.
PolandMr. Arif Virani (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April is a very significant month for Polish Canadians. 
In 1940, over 20,000 innocent Poles were killed in the Katyn forest by the NKVD on the personal orders of Joseph Stalin. Every year in April, we honour the innocent Polish lives that were lost.
 We also recall another tragedy in Smolensk in 2010. In a cruel twist of fate, 96 officials of the Polish government were killed in an accidental crash that occurred en route to commemorating the Katyn massacre. 
However, for Polonia, April is not only a time of commemoration, it is also a time of celebration when Polish Canadians celebrate Pope John Paul II Day. 
The man who is now canonized as Pope Saint John Paul II was not simply a Catholic leader, he was a global leader who spread the values of peace, freedom, and interfaith dialogue. Karol Wojtyla was pivotal to the restoration of independence in Poland and the countries of the former communist bloc.
 I ask members to join me in remembering the victims of Katyn as well as the life of Pope Saint John Paul II.
 Dziekuje bardzo. 
Pay EquityMs. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): Mr. Speaker, women in Ontario work for 15.5 months to earn what a man earns in one year. 
Yesterday was equal pay day in Ontario. Women, on average, worked for free so far this year, until today.
Canada ranks badly when it comes to the gender pay gap. It is bad for poverty. It is not just.
In February, Liberals agreed with the NDP motion to finally implement pay equity. I am proud of our NDP team's approach to implementing women's equality.
The Liberals can be proud of 2004's pay equity task force report. It lays out a clear path to legislate equal pay for work of equal value. It should have been implemented 12 years ago. It would have made a big difference
Today, on equal pay day, let us make actions speak louder than words.
ManitobaMr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wear this blue rose and take this opportunity to congratulate Brian Pallister and the Progressive Conservative Party for their election victory in Manitoba.
 This morning the great people of Manitoba woke up to bluer skies, maybe not literally, but they tell me the clouds are already breaking, but certainly, as our new premier put it, a bluer Manitoba rich in hope and optimism. 
It was a giant victory for the Progressive Conservatives, winning 40 of the 57 seats. We could even say their opponents got orange crushed.
 It is no small feat defeating a governing party that had been in government for 17 years. It is a tall order, but with his 6'8" stature, Mr. Pallister is no stranger to standing tall, and he took the PCs to a convincing victory. He proved the PCs are head and shoulders above the rest and that things really are looking up in Manitoba. 
On behalf of my colleagues and I, we look forward to working together to make Manitoba an even better place.
Testicular CancerMr. Peter Schiefke (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April serves as testicular cancer awareness month. 
Having been diagnosed with, and treated in 2008 and again in 2011, I am grateful to be here today. I am grateful to my wife Paula, who is visiting Ottawa today, for being there for me during the treatments. I am thankful to the nurses and doctors at the Segal and Carbone cancer centers, as well as to the donors across the country who support the cause every single year.
I am addressing members today to show solidarity with everyone affected by cancer, including my colleagues, and to share a message with all young Canadian men. The average age at the time of diagnosis of testicular cancer is 29. One in 270 men will be diagnosed with this cancer in his life. 
The good news is that in most cases, the cancer can be treated if detected early.
The best defence is early detection. I encourage all men to conduct self-exams at least once a month. I also encourage them to learn more about the illness by speaking with their doctor or by contacting Testicular Cancer Canada.

Oral Questions
The EconomyHon. Rona Ambrose (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the independent parliamentary budget officer confirmed what the finance department and leading economists have been saying, that in fact the Conservatives left the Liberals a surplus. However, instead of celebrating this achievement, the Liberals are playing politics and pretending like it did not even happen. 
Why does the Prime Minister continue to mislead Canadians on basic facts?
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government supports and applauds the parliamentary budget officer for his excellent work. We continue to work with him to demonstrate the level of openness and transparency that all Canadians expect from this side of the House. 
The fact is we made commitments to invest in Canadians, to give a larger tax free child benefit to nine out of ten Canadian families, and that is exactly what we are doing with our investments today.
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, the surplus is real whether the Liberals want to admit it or not. Frankly, it should not take an expert in quantum computing to recognize that fact. The budget has been called the least transparent in 15 years and the Liberals' deficit and job creation numbers are way off the mark. 
If the Prime Minister will not acknowledge basic facts, how can Canadians have confidence that he will protect their jobs?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, last Fall, Canadians chose a vision that was going to invest in this country, invest in our communities, create jobs and opportunities, and put more money in the pockets of the middle class and those working hard to join the middle class. 
It would create the kind of growth that for 10 years, under the previous government, simply did not happen for Canadians. We committed to invest in our future and that is exactly what the Liberal Party is doing.
Natural ResourcesRona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I met with mayors from British Columbia who are struggling with high unemployment in their communities. These families want to get back to work. The B.C. LNG industry could create $175 billion in business investment and up to 100,000 new jobs, but these projects need to move forward. So far, all we have seen is uncertainty from the Liberals. 
Will the Prime Minister stand up and tell these families that he has their backs and he supports LNG?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the party opposite could not get things done for the natural resources sector right across the country. The reason it could not and the reason the Conservatives still do not get it is they think that they have to make a choice between what is good for the environment and the economy. 
What Canadians said loudly and clearly last Fall was that they needed a government that did both of them together, that cared for the economy and the environment at the same time. That is exactly what we are doing on this side of the House.
The BudgetHon. Denis Lebel (Lac-Saint-Jean, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the parliamentary budget officer confirmed that the former Conservative government left the current government a budget surplus.
The Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance are now the only ones who can acknowledge that fact. Earlier, the government said it trusts the parliamentary budget officer. 
Why, then, will the Prime Minister not admit that we left an operating surplus for the current year?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we support the parliamentary budget officer. We continue to work with him to improve transparency for Canadians, something they did not see at all during the 10 years that today's opposition party was in power.
The reality is that we are making massive strategic investments in Canadians' future to create growth, put more money in the pockets of the middle class, and ensure that all Canadians have a better future.
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, the current and former parliamentary budget officers have spoken out about the government's lack of transparency in its budget. In 15 years, there has never been as little information as there is now.
We hear rhetoric, but we are not getting facts. Canadians are realizing that they cannot trust this government.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to give all the information to the parliamentary budget officer and set the record straight with Canadians?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, six months ago, Canadians turned their backs on the former government. Even today, they cannot believe that the Conservative Party continues to claim it wants to talk about transparency and openness, since the Conservatives formed the most secretive government in Canadian history.
That is why Canadians chose openness, transparency, discipline, and accountability. That is exactly what we offer as a government.
VeteransHon. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government can be incomprehensibly heartless in its dealings with veterans. 
 Corporal Paul Franklin lost both of his legs in Afghanistan, but, like many other veterans, he has to fill in a pile of forms every year to prove that he is still missing both legs. 
Now that this and other cases have come to light, can the Prime Minister tell us what he has personally done to put an end to this intolerable situation?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign and in the years leading up to last fall's campaign, the Liberal Party always stood by veterans. It has always been there for them, fighting for their interests. Because of its political objectives and its approach to managing the public service, the previous government was unable to serve our veterans properly.
That is why, in the latest budget, we made a commitment to our veterans backed by historic investments. That is why we are continually listening to them. We acknowledge our great and solemn obligation to our veterans. 
Thomas Mulcair: Straight to his talking points, Mr. Speaker. Why are we not surprised?
Here is the question. Master Corporal Paul Franklin lost both legs serving this country bravely in Afghanistan. Every year, like numerous other veterans, he is obliged to fill out a pile of forms to prove that he still has not gotten his legs back. He lost his wheelchair because he could not produce another doctor's note. 
The question to the Prime Minister was not what his talking notes are on veterans. The question to the Prime Minister was, what has he done to put an end to this intolerable situation for our veterans?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite well knows, I put forward a mandate letter for our Minister of Veterans Affairs that asked him to respect the sacred obligation we have as a country toward those who serve. 
We have made sure that we have reopened the nine Veterans Affairs offices. We have increased the funding to the people who are actually helping our veterans. We are ensuring that we are cleaning up the mess left by 10 years of a government that wrapped itself in the flag every chance it got but let our veterans down every single day. 
JusticeThomas Mulcair: Let us talk about messes they promised to clean up, Mr. Speaker.
For more than three years, they promised to legalize marijuana, yet thousands and thousands of Canadians will have criminal records for the rest of their lives because they will not even decriminalize it, something that could have been done overnight. 
The simple question for the Prime Minister is this. His minister was in New York, of all places, instead of here today, announcing that maybe in 2017 they will be presenting legislation to finally do something about it. In the meantime, will the Prime Minister at least promise that there will be legislation to remove the criminal records?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am always curious to see what position the member for Outremont will have on marijuana any given time he stands up in the House.
The fact of the matter is we have been clear. We believe in the legalization and regulation of marijuana because it protects our kids and keeps money out of the pockets of criminal organizations and street gangs. 
The fact of the matter is that decriminalization, as the member proposes, actually gives a legal stream of income to criminal organizations. That is not what anyone wants in this country.
The Speaker: I would remind the hon. member for Outremont that we do not draw attention to the presence or absence of members in the chamber.
The hon. member for Outremont.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been promising to legalize marijuana for the past three years. It was an important part of their election campaign. The NDP has had the same position for the past 40 years, namely, that it should be decriminalized and people should not be sent to prison or saddled with criminal records for personal use. I want to talk about their promise.
Earlier, regarding the veterans issue, it was the Conservatives' fault. Earlier, it was the NDP that did not do enough. Let us talk about the Liberals. They wanted to be in power, and they made a promise. The only response they received was from the Toronto police chief.
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that decriminalization, when done as the member for Outremont proposes, just gives a legal stream of income to criminals who sell drugs. 
The reality is that proper legalization protects our young people and keeps billions of dollars out of the pockets of criminal organizations, which is where the money is going now. Legalization is the only way to protect our young people and our communities, and that is what we are going to do, as promised.
Ministerial ExpensesMr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade would like us to believe that she was gallivanting around sunny California promoting Canada and meeting with trade partners, but Canadians know the real reason she was there. She was there to promote herself on a popular U.S. TV show. 
The minister has stated that it was she and her department alone that organized the trip to California. If this is really the case, can she tell us who booked her stay while she was in Hollywood?
Mr. David Lametti (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again today the Conservatives are trying to make a story where none exists.
It is the job of the Minister of International Trade to promote Canada's trade interests around the world. Following the APEC summit in the Philippines, she was proud to visit California, one of our most important trading partners, where she did what she was supposed to do according to her mandate letter, which was to promote trade.
The Conservative accusations about expenses are false. All the rules were followed. The costs were in line with travel by Conservative ministers in the previous government. The details were publicly posted months ago.
Blaine Calkins: Mr. Speaker, then that member should have read them, because we know that the hotel rooms were booked for her by Time Warner, which of course owns HBO.
When she said that her department handled all of the arrangements for this trip, she misled Canadians. She claimed that this was a trade mission, but clearly it was not. Now she is trying to cover her tracks.
Why was Time Warner booking her hotel rooms if this was all planned ahead of time by her department?
David Lametti: Mr. Speaker, let me try this again. 
Once again, the Conservatives are looking for a story where there is none. They did not really like the media, but we know that it is precisely the job of the Minister of International Trade to promote Canada and its trade interests around the world. She also took the opportunity to defend and promote Canada's policy on Syrian refugees.
Even the former prime minister in the previous government and the foreign affairs minister were covered by the American media. There are times when that is very important.
Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what is not in his talking points is that the Minister of International Trade dropped nearly $20,000 in taxpayers' money for a stop in LA to appear on Bill Maher's show.
She claims she had a roundtable meeting with conservative writer Ben Domenech and Maine Senator Angus King. It turns out they were actually panellists on the very same program. The minister actually thinks that the green room is a round table.
Was there anything real about the minister's time spent in Hollywood with Bill Maher?
David Lametti: Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservatives are trying to create a story where none exists.
The purpose of the trip to Los Angeles was to promote Canadian interests with one of our most important trading jurisdictions. All the rules were followed. All the costs were publicly posted, and they were in line with the kinds of costs incurred for travel by former Conservative ministers.
 In fact, over the same November-to-March period in the last year, her Conservative predecessor incurred expenses more than $6,000 higher than hers.
John Brassard: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board's own department directs ministers to post all travel expenses for the last quarter by March 31.
He and the Minister of Finance traveled to Switzerland, the Minister of Transport travelled to Washington, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness went to Washington and London, yet their expenses have not been posted.
It is clear that the Liberals are just paying lip service to openness and transparency. Why is the President of the Treasury Board violating his own rules by hiding his expenses?
Hon. Scott Brison (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board follows all the rules, as does every member of this cabinet. We are committed to an open and transparent government.
May I say that in terms of the matter of the accusations made about our Minister of International Trade, she is a person of exceptional international reputation, somebody who came back to Canada to serve Canadians as an internationally recognized expert on the economy and issues of inequality. We are proud to have a minister of her stature who is able to claim—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, to justify her trip to Hollywood at Canadian taxpayers' expense, the Minister of International Trade listed the names of the people she met with. Surprise, surprise. Two of those people, Senator King and the lieutenant governor, were invited to the same talk show as her.
The minister should stop beating around the bush and confirm what we all know to be true: she went so she could be on HBO.
David Lametti: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are looking for a story where there is none.
The minister's role is to promote Canada around the world, be that through the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the BBC, or other European media outlets. She has to talk to the media from time to time to fulfill her mandate.
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, quite a few ministers have not yet disclosed travel expenses they incurred before March 1, 2016, even though Treasury Board has clear rules about that. The ministers of transport, finance, public safety, and national revenue are all behind in their disclosures. Even the President of the Treasury Board is behind. He is breaking his own department's rules.
Why are these ministers hiding their information? When will the Liberals follow the rules?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, our ministers, our government, and our Prime Minister are of course committed to openness and transparency. We will follow all the rules of the Treasury Board.
I just want to say, in terms of the matter of our international trade minister, an exceptional public servant, that she actually became a parliamentarian after having garnered international attention for her work as a financial journalist and a writer who actually tackled some of the biggest issues facing the world, including that of inequality.
She was asked, in fact, because she has international—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.
Indigenous AffairsMr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we hope that the people of Attawapiskat can start to look to the future after some very difficult years. 
We commend the minister's commitment to build a youth centre and allocate resources for cultural programs. However, the budget does not contain any new investments for mental health services for indigenous young people. Furthermore, Health Canada does not have enough staff to meet the needs.
My question is simple. Will the minister commit to immediately increase funding for mental health services?
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are extremely concerned about the rash of tragic suicides in indigenous communities across Canada.
Attawapiskat also desperately needs programs in the community.
I was very happy to hear that First Nations and Inuit Health is prepared right now to begin the land-based programming that the youth have asked for. We know this is about getting back hope and what exactly the youth said to me: that they want their identity back.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): I would like to thank the minister for coming with me to meet with the youth in Attawapiskat and committing to build that youth centre. It is a profound moment.
However, the larger issue of the crisis in mental health services in indigenous communities remains. For example, there is only $350,000 for the mental wellness framework for the entire country. How many children is that expected to save?
My question is for the finance minister. He can respond to the crisis that has taken the lives of too many indigenous children across the country by putting those resource dollars into this budget now. 
He has the power to act. Will he do it?
Ms. Kamal Khera (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to closing the gap in health outcomes for first nations and Inuit Canadians. In budget 2016, we outlined our historic investment of $8.4 billion to improve the socio-economic conditions for indigenous peoples and their communities. Health Canada collaborated with the Assembly of First Nations, community mental health leaders, and our government departments to develop our first nations mental wellness continuum framework.
The BudgetHon. Lisa Raitt (Milton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the parliamentary budget officer released his report on budget 2016. First, he confirmed that the government did indeed inherit a surplus from us. He also confirmed that the Liberals' plan will cost significantly more than the $10 billion that they promised Canadians. However, most importantly, he confirmed that their plan actually lacked incredibly important details.
When will the minister face the facts that they talk a good game but they are really not delivering on an open and honest government?
Mr. François-Philippe Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am so happy for the question from the hon. member. Let me quote from the independent parliamentary budget officer talking about our budget: 
 ...we believe that ultimately these measures will have a sizable impact on the Canadian economy”. 
 That is what the PBO said yesterday.
Our budget is for Canadian families, for the Canadian middle class. That is helping the economy. That is what the PBO says. That is what we are going to continue to do.
Lisa Raitt: Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to have confidence in a government. The Liberals inherited a surplus from us. That is what the PBO said. They manipulated private sector economists' projections for their own purpose. They padded deficit projections by the billions, and they have exaggerated how many jobs Canadians can expect out of the budget. That is what the parliamentary budget officer said. 
Does the minister realize, quite frankly, that his economic credibility is in tatters and that Canadians deserve to have somebody and some government that can actually manage their tax dollars responsibly?
François-Philippe Champagne: Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand, and everyone in this House should understand, that in the last month of the fiscal year our expenses are going up and our revenues are going down. The Conservatives have left us a deficit. 
Let me say what the independent parliamentary budget officer said about the Conservatives. He said that the Canadians economy has remained below its level of potential GDP since 2008. Thanks to Canadians, we are going to grow this economy for Canadian families, for business, and for the middle class.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, before becoming a Liberal, the Minister of Finance endorsed the Conservative plan to change the age of eligibility for seniors. In his book The Real Retirement, the minister wrote, “In 20 years' time, the economy will run better if we retire around age 66 to 67 instead of the current age of 62”, but since then, the Prime Minister has told him to change his tune.
When did the finance minister stop caring about the long-term financial security of Canadian seniors?
François-Philippe Champagne: Mr. Speaker, this budget is historic in investing in Canadians. We have reduced taxes for nine million Canadians already, which is helping our economy. We have the Canada child benefit, which is going to help nine families out of 10, lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty; and we are investing in our seniors, in youth, in clean tech, and in innovation. That is what Canadians want, and that is what we are doing.
Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, maybe they will understand the question better if I try again. One of this government's bad economic decisions was to reduce the age of retirement from 67 to 65. According to the parliamentary budget officer, this is going to cost an additional $11 billion. 
I am sorry, but we cannot afford that. What is more, that is what the current Minister of Finance said in his book The Real Retirement, and I quote , “In 20 years' time, the economy will run better if we retire around age 66 or 67.” 
I could not have put it better myself. Can the Prime Minister acknowledge that his Minister of Finance was right at the time?
Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
I am very pleased to see his interest in seniors. I am sure that he, like me, recognizes the importance of budget 2016 in addressing this issue. We reduced the age of eligibility to 65 in order to prevent 100,000 seniors from slipping into poverty and to bring the poverty rate of seniors aged 65 and 66 down from 17% to 6%. We will continue to work in that direction. 
Foreign AffairsMs. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on the Saudi arms deal, Ottawa consulted no human rights groups but asked only the Department of National Defence. After signing the export permit in secret, the minister repeated that the Liberals would scrutinize any future arms deal. However, when we proposed a transparent subcommittee to look at our arms exports, the Liberals used their majority to vote it down.
What are they afraid of? Where is the transparency they keep talking about? When will they start walking the talk?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed, we take very seriously the review we are doing about the export permits. It is a very serious decision, and I assume my decision and the ones I do in the future, certainly, I will do very seriously.
I am sure that the committee will work very seriously as well. The committee has a lot of work to do. We will ask the committee to look at the legislative changes that we will have to make to make sure Canada will be a member of the arms trade treaty. I look forward to working very positively with the committee.
Hélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, the government keeps digging itself a deeper hole on the issue of the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. The fact that the contract was a done deal and the very existence of cancellation penalties have apparently been contradicted. 
Yesterday, the Liberals voted against our proposal to create a subcommittee to study arms exports.
Why are the Liberals refusing to let parliamentarians do their job? What are they afraid of?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, since the answer I gave in English will be translated into French in the Hansard, I will not repeat it because it is the same question.
However, since the member is giving me the opportunity, I will repeat that the contract was signed by the previous government, not in part, but in full. We do not want to renege on the Government of Canada's signature. When the contract is deemed valid, the export licences arrive at the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who carefully and diligently examines them. That is what we did with full transparency.
SeniorsMr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, many of my constituents were worried that the previous government had increased the retirement age from 65 to 67. This poorly thought-out decision by the Conservatives caused a lot of anxiety for many residents of Laurentides—Labelle who wanted to plan for retirement.
Can the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development explain how the budget will reverse this bad decision in order to benefit Canadians?
Jean-Yves Duclos: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest and for this important question.
The previous government unfortunately brought in this reform without conducting any serious economic and social studies. It would have plunged 100,000 seniors into poverty, lowered the income of 20% of the poorest seniors by 35%, and taken away $13,000 from the most vulnerable seniors. We have decided to reverse this decision and to invest in our seniors. I think the whole House should be pleased about that. 
Natural ResourcesHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during question period yesterday, the Minister of Environment was specifically asked when she would make a decision on the Pacific NorthWest LNG project in British Columbia. Her answer shocked all of us. She flippantly said, “We will make a decision when we are ready to make a decision”.
When will the minister realize that the uncertainty her government has created is causing investors to flee Canada and is jeopardizing a $36 billion job-creating investment in Canada?
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the party opposite, we understand that the environment and the economy go together. The only way projects will go ahead is if they are done in a sustainable way.
At the beginning of March, the proponent brought significant new information that raised concerns about impacts on salmon, human health, and indigenous peoples. We are committed to doing a review that is based on science and facts, and we have said that once we have the necessary information we will make a decision within 90 days. That is what we will do. 
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough, because the minister first claimed that her decision would be based on science. Then the natural resources minister proudly contradicted her by saying that the decision would be political. Now the minister simply says she will make the decision whenever she feels like it. That is the ultimate uncertainty. 
Does the minister not realize that her inaction is risking a $36 billion job-creating investment in Canada?
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my answer. We will make decisions based on facts, science, and evidence. We understand the importance of getting resources to market. However, we need to be doing it in a sustainable way. That is what we are doing.
I will quote from the proponent:
 Pacific NorthWest LNG will work to assess this latest information request and continue to work constructively with federal agencies through this rigorous process. 
We are working with it. When we are prepared, we will make a decision.
Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, maybe it is agenda, third party, and magic eight ball.
The minister of environment rose yesterday and confirmed that LNG decisions will be made when and only when she feels like making them. She has just created another level of uncertainty.
The justice minister is on record as saying that LNG remains a positive prospect for many first nations. The environment minister herself cannot deny that LNG could and would replace Chinese coal.
Rather than creating more uncertainty by consulting her magic eight ball for answers, why does she not look at the actual facts and support the project?
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the member opposite maybe did not understand what I said previously, so I will repeat it.
What I said is that we are committed to making a decision within 90 days of getting the information required from the proponent. We will make decisions based on science, facts, and evidence. Because that is what Canadians expect, that is what we will do.
Canadian Coast GuardHon. Steven Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC): Mr. Speaker, according to the Emerson report, not only is the Canadian Coast Guard understaffed, but its fleet is one of the oldest in the world and is in urgent need of renewal.
Nevertheless, we learned that the Liberals are not going to continue maintaining the only Canadian icebreaker, the Louis S. St-Laurent, even though the Diefenbaker will not be operational for about 10 years.
With China and Russia planning to sail the Northwest Passage, how do the Liberals plan to meet the urgent needs of the Canadian Coast Guard?
What is the plan?
Hon. Hunter Tootoo (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as part of the Canadian Coast Guard's multi-year maintenance plan, PSPC issued an advance contract award notice to Davie shipyard to enter the Louis S. St-Laurent into dry dock for a retrofit and life-extension work.
Due to lack of available space at the Davie shipyard, the contract has been deferred until next year. That will ensure that this iconic vessel of the Coast Guard will be able to participate in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea program taking place in the Arctic this summer.
The SenateMs. Karine Trudel (Jonquière, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Senate expense scandal has been upsetting people for years. Canadians are angry that government cronies, who were inappropriately appointed, are treating taxpayers' money like an all-you-can-eat buffet. It is completely outrageous for a senator to be using his staff members, who are on the public payroll, to organize his home renovations and manage his tanning salon. 
When will the government rein in these fat cats and clean up these practices that simply do not make any sense? 
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have always said that great care must be taken with government spending and the management of public funds, and that this government will not allow anyone, under any circumstances, to misuse taxpayers' money. 
The Senate has taken control of the situation. It has changed some of its rules. We encourage it to continue to work toward openness and transparency.
Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week we are hearing of senators who are using their parliamentary staff to work in their private tanning facilities. We are hearing that they are using them to organize their home renovations.
 The Liberals congratulate themselves a lot in this House for talk about openness and transparency. However, we have recommended concrete action. We have talked about tightening the expense limits in the Senate, limiting taxpayer-funded travel, and strengthening the Senate ethics office. What we are asking for the government to do today is to stand in the House and join us in demanding the implementation of those rules by the Senate. Will it do it?
The Speaker: Order, please. There is some question about whether or not this is within the responsibility of the government, but I see the government House leader rising to answer the question.
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, as we have said, we have at all times understood the importance of managing taxpayer money in an appropriate way. We have thought that at any point those who are responsible for abusing or misusing taxpayer money should be held to account, and the money should be reimbursed. That includes the money that the New Democratic Party took for its satellite offices.
National DefenceMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the sun is shining and the sky is bright blue today in Manitoba after electing a strong, stable Conservative majority government last night.
Unfortunately, here in Ottawa, our military is entering another era of darkness. The Liberals' $3.7-billion defence cut from the defence budget are not only for future procurements, but they are also cutting the budget for current projects like the Arctic offshore patrol ships and the Halifax-class frigate upgrades.
Why will the Prime Minister not get the equipment for our troops now?
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is passingly strange to get a question from the Conservatives about the fiscal mess left behind. There was a perpetual mismatch between the procurement cycle and the fiscal cycle, and the Minister of National Defence is now trying to rectify that. Accordingly, there are no funds that will be not applied to projects as they are needed.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal procurement process is failing our military. The decision to withhold funding for the Cyclone search and rescue helicopter reminds Canadians of the horrible Chrétien decision of the 1990s to cancel the EH 101 helicopters.
 Why is the Prime Minister so willing to put the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces at risk by cutting military funding?
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, that is from a member of Parliament who was part of a government that made lapsing military funding an art form in order to get to a bogus balanced budget.
There are no monies being cut from projects. Had the members opposite spent more time getting the fiscal and procurement cycles in order instead of climbing in and out of fake airplanes, and did the hard work that is needed to match those cycles, then just possibly, the men and women in uniform would be getting their—
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have already sunk the Department of National Defence into darkness. They have put off some crucial procurements until after the next election, but that is not the worst of it, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen. The Liberals are putting on hold procurement projects that are already under way, such as offshore patrol ships, Cyclone helicopters, and the CF-18 replacements.
Will the minister show us what kind of weight he has in this government? Will he step up and ensure that these projects continue to move forward?
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, once again, had the former government, the party opposite, actually done its work, then the procurement cycle would have matched the fiscal cycle and accordingly, we possibly would have had some procurements met. The mess left behind on the procurement cycle by the party opposite means that we are having to realign all of our fiscal priorities. Accordingly, we are now funding matters as they become due.
EmploymentMs. Filomena Tassi (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, constituents in my riding celebrated the announcement by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to greatly increase the funding available through the Canada jobs program. Considering the reaction, I had no doubt that we would see more employers take advantage of this opportunity and help start to train the future workforce of our country.
Would the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour please give the House an update on the current state of participation in regard to the Canada jobs program?
Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas is absolutely correct. Funding was doubled for Canada summer jobs this year, and we are on track to create 70,000 jobs for youth this summer. Applications are up 30% from the year before, with over 36,000 applications. It means more jobs and opportunity in Hamilton and each and every riding across Canada.
CommunicationsMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals may not realize it but they are playing a very high-stakes poker game with the Government of Quebec. Bill 74 would allow the Government of Quebec to force federally regulated Internet service providers to act as censors, blocking Quebeckers' access to Internet gaming sites. This clearly raises concerns about Quebeckers' rights to the Internet and censorship.
Will the Liberals show their hand and tell us what their position is on this legislation?
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we believe in net neutrality. We will be having ongoing discussions with our counterparts in Quebec regarding that question. 
I had the opportunity of meeting many stakeholders that have raised issues regarding that particular bill. It will be a pleasure to have further discussions on this subject.
Canadian Coast GuardMs. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Comox coast guard centre is slated for closure on May 10. We have heard troubling testimony at committee around the technology failures, HR challenges, and even possible tsunami risks, yet the minister is showing a disregard for the committee, for Parliament, and for residents.
Will the government protect our coastal communities and keep the Comox MCTS centre open, or will it just keep repeating the same excuses as the Conservatives used while it shuts down this important marine safety centre?
Hunter Tootoo: Mr. Speaker, again I rise to respond to this question. 
As the member pointed out, the staff were notified late last month exactly when the closure would happen, although they were notified that the closure would happen in 2014. 
The modernization of the centre has been a long-standing project that began in 2007, and the closure of the Comox station is the last one to be done. We are moving forward with that plan.
TransportMr. Nicola Di Iorio (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for all intents and purposes the driverless car is quite literally at our doorstep.
 Technology in this area is advancing rapidly. In some countries, large amounts of money are being invested, and more and more driverless car projects are appearing. How does the government plan on supporting, regulating, and developing driverless cars in Canada?
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question, especially since I believe innovation in the transport sector is extremely important, so that we can improve safety on our roads and boost the Canadian economy. Connected and automated vehicles and the regulation of these vehicles are fundamental sectors of innovation.
I am also pleased that the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications accepted my proposal to carry out comprehensive studies on these vehicles.
Public SafetyErin O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness proposed outsourcing RCMP occupational health to provincial compensation boards in Bill C-7, he claimed that compensation would be reasonably consistent across the country. Yesterday in committee, we heard that in Lloydminster in his own province this could result in thousands less for one RCMP member depending on which detachment that officer came from, the Saskatchewan side or the Alberta side.
 When will the minister acknowledge our concerns about fair treatment and strike clauses 40 and 42 from Bill C-7?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government has indicated a new regard for the work of parliamentarians on parliamentary committees. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants to see the work of parliamentarians be adequately supported and invigorated. 
If the committee which is hearing all of the evidence with respect to this matter has suggestions to make about the shape of the legislation, the President of the Treasury Board and I would be more than happy to entertain that advice.
The EnvironmentMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership in Paris and for attending the upcoming Earth Day signing at the United Nations. 
However, our current target does not reflect that leadership. Our current target does not meet the climate urgency and emergency situation we face. In fact, it is still the weakest target in the G7. It is still the target of the previous government. It is urgently required that we ratchet up our target.
Will the Prime Minister please reassure Canadians that we plan to put in place a tougher target and soon? That would be leadership.
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her question and for her hard work on the environment, including with us in Paris.
When we talked about and actually got to an agreement, the talks were about increasing ambition of targets for countries like Canada and countries around the world as we move forward.
We are working with the provinces, municipalities, industry, business, and with individuals to make sure that we continue to build a strong economy while protecting the environment in a way that for 10 years the previous government was unable to do.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of of five finalists for the 2015 Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for Political Writing: Greg Donaghy, Norman Hillmer, Andrew Nikiforuk, John Ibbitson, and Sheila Watt-Cloutier.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
[Interjection]
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today the House of Commons in the United Kingdom voted unanimously to recognize that Christians, Yazidis and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria were suffering genocide at the hands of ISIS. On March 15, U.S. House of Representatives also unanimously declared that genocide was taking place in Iraq and Syria by ISIS.
In light of this and after discussions that have taken place among all parties, I hope you will find unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, for the following motion: That the House declare that ISIL is responsible for atrocities such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, against ethnic and religious groups, namely, but not limited to, Christians, Yazidis and Shia Muslims in Syrian and Iraq, and that it strongly condemn these atrocities and call for an independent investigation and for perpetrators to be brought to justice.
The Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
[Interjection]
Ms. Pam Goldsmith-Jones: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House declare that ISIL is responsible for atrocities, war crimes and crimes against humanity of a genocidal nature against ethnic and religious groups, namely, but not limited to, Christians, Yazidis and Shia Muslims in Syria and Iraq, and that it strongly condemn these atrocities and call for an independent investigation, including into possible genocide, and for perpetrators to be brought to justice.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.

Government Orders
Business of Supply[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: It being 3:15 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion relating to the business of supply.
Call in the members.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:) 
Vote #39
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Please forgive me. I noticed some confusion at the Table. I did intentionally abstain. I do not approve of the fundraising, but I thought the business of supply was too much of a—
The Speaker: I thank the member, but this is not a point of order.

Routine Proceedings
Canadian Human Rights TribunalThe Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 61(4) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the 2015 annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This report is permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.
Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1Dominic LeBlanc:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Interparliamentary DelegationsCheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the reports of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the joint meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Interparliamentary Council, the subcommittee on NATO partnerships, and the subcommittee on transatlantic economic relations, Kyiv, Ukraine, June 8 to 9, 2015; and the 61st annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Stavanger, Norway, Oct. 9-12, 2015.
Committees of the HouseHon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage entitled “Main Estimates 2016-2017”.
Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day. 

The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Speaker:  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Call in the members. 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #40
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Government Orders
Air Canada Public Participation ActDominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That, in relation to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. 

The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on March 22, 2012, the then member of Parliament for Papineau stated, “The law is very clear. Air Canada has to maintain the maintenance in Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver.” We need to continue this debate so that every member understands that the maintenance provision of the act states that overall maintenance must be undertaken in and around Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga, and not in Vancouver. 
Will the government allow this debate to continue in order to provide the opportunity for the member to clarify his comments?
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the good news is that because Air Canada, the Government of Quebec, and the Government of Manitoba have stopped their litigation, this offers us the opportunity to clarify the bill known as the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This is an important bill that we have been wanting to clarify. This is our opportunity to do so.
However, I would remind the member and everyone across the aisle that the amendment that we are proposing would still require Air Canada to undertake maintenance in the three provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec. That is the gist of the bill, and we feel confident that there will be good job opportunities with Air Canada in the aerospace world in the years to come.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, using the word “clarify” is Orwellian Newspeak. 
What the Liberals are doing is let a rich and powerful corporation off the hook for breaking the law, and they are doing it in a retroactive manner that has never before been seen here in the House of Commons. It is properly scandalous for them to claim that this is a clarification.
Thousands of workers lost their jobs because the government is refusing to enforce the Air Canada legislation. When the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount was on the opposition side, he said that Canadians were starting to realize that the government was not honouring what it said about transparency six and a half years earlier. That is quite something.
You heard that right, Mr. Speaker. When that same person stood in the House to criticize the Conservatives, he said that Canadians were starting to realize that what the Conservatives promised six and a half years earlier—to be open, transparent, and accountable—was false. The Conservatives would always shut us down after four or five days of debate, but the Liberals are doing it in one, and they are doing this after only six and a half months in power.
This is identical to the KPMG case. The signal being sent by the government is that there is one law for the rich and powerful and one law for everything else. The basic rule in our society is the rule of law, law that applies equally to everyone. That is being broken by the Liberal government.
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague raised in his comments the fact that there had not been enough debate, but I would like to remind him that it is the member for Beloeil—Chambly, seconded by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who moved the following amendment last Friday:
 That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting...the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-10.... 
In other words, the New Democrats proposed last Friday that we not continue with this bill, yet now they want to debate it some more. Where is it that the NDP stands on this issue? I am in favour of taking this bill to committee, where witnesses will have a chance to speak, and then bringing it back here and going to third reading. 
There is plenty of opportunity for debate, yet the NDP wanted to kill this bill last Friday.
Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Madam Speaker, is the government moving this time allocation motion because it is worried about the increasing and mounting opposition in places like Winnipeg from Air Canada's maintenance workers, who are worried about their jobs and livelihoods? Is that why the government wants to limit on the bill? 
Is it because the Liberals see that Air Canada workers in Winnipeg at the maintenance facilities are truly worried that the bill would eliminate their jobs and livelihoods? Is that why the government is moving in this direction to shut down debate?
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague that Air Canada and the Government of Manitoba concluded an agreement that said that at least 150 jobs would be created in Manitoba. That agreement satisfied the Government of Manitoba to the point that it said it would no longer be taking Air Canada to court.
Of course, in Quebec, we know the situation there. The Quebec government decided to stop its litigation with Air Canada in view of the fact that Air Canada has undertaken not only to buy up to 75 of the C Series aircraft but to do the maintenance for the next 20 years.
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Madam Speaker, what the Liberals are imposing on us and on 2,600 families is outrageous. I am proud of my colleagues, proud that we are here fighting this bill.
When the Conservatives got a majority in 2011, the first thing they did was crush the postal workers' union. Now we have a Liberal government, and the first thing the Liberals are doing is crushing the Air Canada workers who lost their jobs. They are such hypocrites. In opposition they called on the Conservatives to comply with the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Now, they are changing the legislation to legalize job losses that were illegal yesterday. That is— 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order.
The hon. Minister of Transport.
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, the situation has changed a lot since 2012. We know today that the governments of Quebec and Manitoba are satisfied with the position Air Canada has taken on job creation in Quebec and Manitoba.
The amendment we are proposing in this bill requires Air Canada to keep jobs in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. There will truly be job creation, which allows us to clarify the Air Canada Public Participation Act and avoid more litigation in future.
Lisa Raitt: Madam Speaker, the last time we saw the Liberals make a snap decision, it had to do with inserting themselves in a question that had been asked about extending the runway at Billy Bishop airport. The beneficiary in that snap decision was Air Canada. 
Now we have another snap decision brought to the fore very quickly, as we are stopping debate on the topic. Who is the beneficiary of this knee-jerk reaction? It is Air Canada.
I wonder what other sweetheart deals the Liberals have in store for Air Canada. Quite frankly, they do not need to make any legislative amendments to allow a private company to enter into agreements that would bring litigation to a close. They do not need to do this, so why are they doing it and what are they getting out of it?
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, I would encourage my hon. colleague not to indulge in conspiracy theories. These are two completely separate matters. 
I made it very clear that our decision with respect to Billy Bishop had to do with achieving the proper balance between economic development and community priorities, particularly with respect to the development of the waterfront.
In the case of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, we have taken a measure to avoid further litigation and to recognize that Air Canada must compete on a level playing field to the same extent as its competitors. That is one of the reasons we have given it more latitude.
I would remind everyone that Air Canada must still provide jobs in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec.
Daniel Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the duplicity of the Liberals on this issue has been appalling, frankly. 
They were duplicitous on the substance when the Prime Minister, the member for Winnipeg North, and other members got up and pretended to be the champions of aerospace workers in Winnipeg and across the country. Then, at nearly the first opportunity after forming government, the Liberals introduced legislation that would completely betray those workers and contradicted what the Liberals had been saying in opposition. That duplicity was shameful.
Now the Liberals are showing the same appalling duplicity on the process. The member for Winnipeg North, for instance, had some great things to say about time allocation in the last Parliament. I would like to share them with the hon. Minister of Transport. He said:
 The government, by once again relying on a time allocation motion to get its agenda passed, speaks of incompetence. It speaks of a genuine lack of respect for parliamentary procedure and ultimately for Canadians. It continues to try to prevent members of Parliament from being engaged and representing their constituents on the floor of the House of Commons. 
Does the Minister of Transport agree with the then member of Winnipeg North, who apparently is not the same member—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order, please. The hon. Minister of Transport.
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, may I remind the member for Elmwood—Transcona that during the debate on Monday, he suggested that it may be worthwhile to hear from Air Canada on this file, and not just the government. I could not agree more. That opportunity is going to occur when this bill goes to committee.
However, last Friday the NDP wanted to kill this bill, depriving Air Canada of the opportunity to speak. I do not understand how this NDP thinks.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Housing; the hon. member for Hochelaga, Housing; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, International Trade.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Montcalm.
Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, this is another sad day for our parliamentary democracy. For months, the minister rose in the House and in response to our questions told us that he was happy to support a lawbreaker, a company that does not obey the law. How can we expect the thousands of families of Aveos workers to now trust our institutions? Prior to and during the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that he was fed up with politicians who said one thing before being elected and then did the opposite after being elected. We are appalled that this government is ignoring families that believed in the Prime Minister's promises. Now, it is over. The minister should stand up and apologize because he is one of the 40 Quebec caucus MPs and he is ignoring Aveos's Quebec workers. 
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague that it was the Province of Quebec that decided, after discussions with Air Canada, to drop the lawsuit. Why? Because Air Canada decided to make a serious commitment to Quebec by purchasing Bombardier aircraft and also to open a centre of excellence for the maintenance of Air Canada's new aircraft for at least the next 20 years. That is good news. That will create good jobs. I do not understand why my colleague is not pleased that good jobs will be created in Quebec.
Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, if only I could have leave to articulate all of the issues, there are many things that I could comment on with respect to this matter. That said, my question is in regard to the fact that the Province of Manitoba and the Province of Quebec have been very candid over the last number of years in trying to challenge Air Canada to provide the jobs that were in the legislation framework for the Air Canada act.
In working with the provinces and the different stakeholders, it has come to the surface that indeed there is an obligation for the federal government to work with the different stakeholders, including the provinces, to try to resolve this issue going forward.
My question is for the minister. Would he not agree that there is an onus of responsibility on the Government of Canada to work with the Province of Manitoba and the Province of Quebec, along with other stakeholders, to protect Canada's aerospace industry in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba?
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, certainly the Government of Canada wants to promote one of the technical areas where Canada really plays in the big leagues. I am talking about the aerospace industry. I know Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg and the other companies there. In fact, when I was president of the Canadian Space Agency, we went to Bristol Aerospace to have one of our spacecraft built. I am very cognizant of the fact that Manitoba has a critical mass of expertise. I am also aware of the fact that my own province also has some impressive capabilities, as does Ontario. These are provinces that are excellent in the aerospace industry. We want to help these provinces so that Canada continues to be the fifth largest in the world in the aerospace—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.
Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is certainly nice to hear the member for Winnipeg North speaking during this time allocation motion. 
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport noted that the government is in a rush to get this legislation to committee because the government to date has not held a single consultation on this legislation.
The question I have is this. If the government proposing closure on this debate, will it at least admit that this legislation is being proposed and rushed to benefit Bombardier?
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, the answer is no. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba have decided they will not pursue Air Canada. This allows us the opportunity not only to clarify this bill but also to allow Air Canada to be more competitive. Not only has Air Canada been restricted to specific cities for its maintenance, but it has had other restrictions imposed upon it, such as official languages, where it has its headquarters, and foreign ownership. These are things that were imposed upon Air Canada 28 years ago. We have decided that, at this time, it deserves more latitude with respect to the maintenance of its aircraft.
Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): Madam Speaker, what we have here is a situation of regulatory capture. We have been holding hearings on rail safety, and it is becoming absolutely evident that we have a situation of regulatory capture with the rail industry. We now have a situation where Air Canada is required by law to provide these jobs in these three Canadian communities. It has cut a deal with the government saying it does not want that law anymore because it has some contracts it can enter into and it might cause problems in its business dealings. This is of deep concern. If we cannot have a full debate here, will the minister ensure that every one of his members of the committee will allow that every single witness who wants to be heard on this issue is heard at committee?
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, needless to say, I do not agree with my hon. colleague on her analysis with respect to regulatory capture.
Let me ask this. If the NDP really wanted more debate on this bill, why did it disrupt the debate last Friday with its obstructive amendment at second reading? 
I understand the government made many offers to the NDP to allow its MPs to speak, but apparently it just could not take yes for an answer.
As an officially recognized party, the NDP has a seat on the transport committee. I look forward to that member's positive contribution at committee on this important bill.
Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC): Madam Speaker, I found an interesting quote from a couple of years ago by the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood. This is a Liberal fundraising email. He stated:
 By keeping Air Canada’s maintenance in Canada, we ensured a superior level of safety with tight regulations and a highly skilled aerospace workforce. By shuttering Canadian overhaul centres, Canada is losing its ability to ensure that our aircraft meet safety regulations. 
Therefore, I have a couple of questions. 
The first one is this. Will the government allow debate to continue so that the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood can address his safety concerns to his own government?
Also, I noticed that the Minister of Justice seconded this closure motion today. I am wondering if there were any staff members from Air Canada at a recent fundraiser in Toronto.
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, with respect to the quality of the maintenance that is done in this country—and I have a responsibility from a safety point of view at transport—I have no concerns at this point that we are not providing the highest levels of maintenance quality in places like Winnipeg, Montreal and Mirabel, and places in Ontario, in Toronto. These are world-class capabilities that we will continue to use, and the modifications that we are bringing to the Air Canada Public Participation Act would in no way have any effect on that.
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): Madam Speaker, mark this date. Wednesday, April 20, 2016, is when sunny ways became dark days in the House of Commons.
What we see now is a mimic of the same actions we saw over a decade of Conservative rule, where debate was simply shut down, and every time there was an opportunity to bring up important issues, like 2,600 jobs that are being killed, the Conservatives would bring in closure, as the Liberals are doing now, and then they would blame the opposition parties, just as the Liberals are doing now.
The Minister of Transport did not used to feel that way. In fact, if we quote him from 2013, he actually called closure undemocratic. He actually said back in 2012 that Canadians do not like closure and that they were waking up to the way that government was doing things. He was referring to the Conservatives then; he is obviously referring to the Liberals now.
Why is he using closure to kill the jobs of 2,600 Canadian families?
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague went on at quite a bit of length about cutting off debate, so I have to ask him this again. Why did his party, and I am talking about the member for Beloeil—Chambly, seconded by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, move last Friday, “That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-10...”.
That is one way to kill the debate as well, and I would like to understand why the NDP is proceeding this way when we have the opportunity to do debate, to go to second reading, to go to third reading, to take it to the Senate. There is plenty of opportunity for debate.
Could the hon. member please explain to me why the NDP wants to kill the bill?
David Graham: Madam Speaker, our government is still flying VFR in these sunny ways, I am happy to note.
Can the minister confirm that the changes proposed in the bill would indeed increase Air Canada's ability to compete in the international aviation industry on a more even playing field, would modernize the act to remove obsolete references to things like the defunct Montreal Urban Community, and would benefit the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, and my home province of Quebec by loosening the restrictions on where within those provinces maintenance work must take place?
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, I would just echo what my hon. colleague said. What we have continued to say in the amendment to this act says it very clearly, that Air Canada still has an obligation to provide maintenance in the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario. It would give Air Canada a little more latitude with respect to where it does its maintenance. I think that is a good thing.
As he mentioned, the Montreal Urban Community does not exist anymore. We have expanded it to give more latitude to Air Canada in Quebec with respect to where it wants to do its maintenance.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Madam Speaker, on March 27, 2012, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, the current minister, stated:
 Respecting the law means protecting the Montreal, Mississauga and Winnipeg centres. That is clear. 
Will the government let this debate continue long enough to give our minister time to tell the Montreal workers why he has flip-flopped on this issue? While he is at it, maybe he could ask the member for Winnipeg North to explain why he has flip-flopped on process.
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: May I repeat, Madam Speaker, that the reason we have proceeded with the bill is very simple? It is because the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba have come to an agreement with Air Canada, and they are dropping their litigation. They are obviously satisfied that there will be the creation and the maintenance of jobs in their respective provinces.
 It is no more complicated than that, and we want to make sure that this law is clarified to prevent further litigation in the future and also to allow Air Canada to perform better in a very competitive field, both domestically and internationally.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am very troubled by the coincidence. We know that when the announcement was made, the government was under pressure to help Bombardier because it was having difficulty with the C Series. In the end, the announcement was made the same day that the governments of Quebec and Manitoba announced that they were dropping their lawsuit. At the same time, Air Canada announced that it planned to purchase some planes and open a hypothetical maintenance centre. 
I would be curious to know how that coincidence occurred. Can the minister confirm that he and his department had nothing to do with any of these decisions and that they were made independently, or was the government involved in these decisions? Did the government attempt to use its power of persuasion on the two provincial governments and Air Canada in order to get itself out of a difficult political situation, sacrificing the jobs of 2,600 workers in the process?
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, the hypothesis that was presented is false. The only reason we decided to introduce Bill C-10 to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act is that the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba indicated that they were going to drop their lawsuit. The amendment allows us to clarify the act and ensure that there will not be any litigation in the future.
Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC): Madam Speaker, I just would like to say that it did not take long for the new government to swallow itself whole on the issue of closure, did it? Not only that, on the issue of this bill, we had the Minister of Transport  himself saying that these jobs must be protected, these centres must be protected.
When he was in opposition, sitting on this side of the House, we had the member for Winnipeg North, every single time the previous government was trying to get its legislative agenda passed through the House, saying that it was the end of Canadian democracy, that we just could not believe how this was padlocking Parliament, shutting down debate, denying the people of Canada their rightful place in this House; and today, he is the one asking the questions of the same Minister of Transport.
It is funny that, when they change sides of the House, their principles go out the window.
I would like to ask the Minister of Transport how it feels to have exposed himself to allegations of hypocrisy so soon into this mandate.
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, I have to admit it feels pretty good being on this side of the House.
We have been very clear.
 I have to ask the question. If everybody was so interested in the debate, why did the NDP, last Friday, propose that we amend everything. Its amendment proposed that we actually kill the bill. That, to me, is not encouraging a proper debate through the normal processes that occur in Parliament.
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): Madam Speaker, I must admit that this is a dark day for our parliamentary democracy. Today, the minister is introducing a time allocation motion to limit debate to one day. Meanwhile, when he was a member of the opposition, he was ready to tear his hair out every time the Conservative government introduced a time allocation motion.
What changed overnight between October 19 and 20? Why is the minister now prepared to introduce a time allocation motion, shut down debate in the House, and turn his back on parliamentary democracy?
[Interjection]
Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, in fact, there have been two days of debate: Friday and Monday. There will still be a little more debate after the next vote. Then this bill will go to committee. Witnesses will have the opportunity to appear. After that, the bill will be read a third time and it will go to the Senate.
The process is intact. We are going to follow it. Democracy will be respected.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Call in the members.
[Stage Direction]
 And the bells having rung: 
The Speaker: The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Speaker: [Chair read text of motion to House]
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #41
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division and the proceedings from the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 40 minutes. 
[Interjection]
John Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on an answer given by the Minister of Immigration yesterday in the House to my question regarding the cost of $6.4 million to renovate Canadian forces bases to accommodate refugees who were never housed. The minister stated, “My colleague beside me, the Minister of National Defence, confirms there is nothing truthful in the member's comments about defence.” 
The question was based on an Order Paper question, signed and tabled by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. Question No. 18 has already been tabled in the House. The substance of my question and the figures that were used were based on information derived from this very document.
One of two things possibly happened. Either the Minister of Immigration misunderstood the Minister of National Defence's confirmation of the information given to him, or he misled the House and Canadians. 
The Speaker: This sounds more like debate. I guess the member has made his point and now we will go on.
The hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties and I hope if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent that the government's response to Question No. 70 be made an order for return and that the response be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Speaker:  There is no consent.
The hon. government House leader.
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling, in both official languages, the government's response to Question No. 70.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to feel the support of my dear friends, but that is certainly not what Aveos workers are feeling today.
Normally, I am pleased to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Longueuil and Saint-Hubert to talk about bills that matter to them. Since I was elected in 2011, I have been saying that I am my constituents' ears at home in Longueuil and Saint-Hubert and their voice here in Ottawa.
Today, however, I am rising to express their dissatisfaction, disgust, and concern with regard to Bill C-10. God knows that I share those feelings. I cannot believe that things have gotten to this point. When I think of all the things that this Liberal government and previous Liberal governments have done, this takes the cake. The government is signalling left and turning right.
The Liberal government recently boasted about its love and support for the aerospace sector, a leading-edge sector that we can all be proud of, particularly in Quebec. However, when it came time to take real action to support this sector, the government got off track and made a shocking 180-degree turn. It does not make any sense. It is shameful.
Not only will Bill C-10 dilute the guarantees for the City of Mississauga, the City of Winnipeg and the Montreal Urban Community that are in the law, but it will also allow Air Canada to determine the acceptable number of jobs that will remain in Canada instead of complying with the previous provisions of the law.
This will open the door to international outsourcing that Air Canada will consider necessary in order to remain competitive. In short, the government could not care less about the hundreds of good jobs across the country. 
It would seem that with the knowledge that Air Canada is committed to buying Bombardier's C Series aircraft, which is an excellent business decision in itself, the Liberal government is passing the buck by easing the legal rules around aircraft maintenance. It is as though production and maintenance are being pitted against one another and the government is not thinking of the Canadian aerospace sector as an industrial ecosystem. I will come back to this later in my speech. 
In short, Bill C-10 sends a very ominous message to aerospace workers. It is very worrisome, and I am expressing these concerns on behalf of thousands of people in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert who work in the aerospace sector.
Not all MPs may know this, but the aerospace sector is of particular importance to the people in my riding. Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is home to the Canadian Space Agency, which is located very close to the École nationale d'aérotechnique, a specialized school affiliated with the CEGEP Édouard-Monpetit that trains new workers for high value-added jobs in this sector. 
I have had the honour of representing this riding since 2011, and the vitality of the industrial sectors is especially important to me. The industrial cluster employs thousands of people in our region's SMEs.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order. I would ask those who are not here for the debate to take their conversations elsewhere.
The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
[Interjection]
Pierre Nantel: Madam Speaker, thank you for bringing the House to order. After all, jobs are at stake.
In Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, the aerospace sector is made up of companies like MCS-Servo, which makes electrohydraulic control systems, and Héroux-Devtek, which specializes in landing gear. The first leg of the LEM, or lunar module, that landed on the moon was created back home. MAX Technologies is in software and simulators. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention one of the biggest employers in my riding, Pratt &amp; Whitney, a leader in the field of aircraft engine manufacturing, whose achievements include the famous quiet C Series engine. Beal Technology specializes in variable speed drives and load controllers. TechNOW Automation specializes in ultrasound inspection devices. We also have MSB Design and Usinage Netur for components, and Automation Machine Design RC, which specializes in automated equipment. I would not want to forget Amrikart, which is a master in the field of 3D digitization. The list is long, and I could name many more.
¼The point I want to make here is that the aerospace industry cannot be described in monolithic terms. As I said earlier in my presentation, it is an industrial ecosystem, and the vitality of the industry stems from more than just the large corporations, like Bombardier.
I really like using the example of Aéro Montréal and its MACH initiative. Here is how the organization itself describes the initiative: 
 ...the MACH initiative aims to strengthen the supply chain structure and companies involved in it by creating special collaboration links among customers and suppliers....By doing so, it aspires to help develop a world-class supply chain...[and] optimize its performance...in an effort to increase its global competitiveness....The initiative will progressively make available to participating companies services, tools and methodologies to evaluate and improve their performance and market position and further develop business opportunities. 
Aéro Montréal should be really proud of this initiative, which will help the supply chain become more competitive. However, the ecosystem comparison does not stop there, and two crucial aspects need to be explained.
There is the contribution of the education system, especially the École nationale d'aérotechnique, which I mentioned earlier, but there is also considerable support from the university sector, especially the École de technologie supérieure, which helps promote new blood, new ideas, and the next generation of workers in this important economic sector. The same can be said for a program like the master's in aerospace engineering, offered jointly by the École polytechnique de Montréal, the École de technologie supérieure, Université Laval, McGill University, Concordia University, and the Université de Sherbrooke.
Above all, there is political will. Take, for example, the Government of Quebec, which decided to take the bull by the horns and invest in innovation in the aerospace sector, recognizing the positive economic impact it can have on Quebec.
I want to quote Suzanne Benoît, the president of Aéro Montréal, talking about the Government of Quebec's strategy:
 This strategy will contribute actively to the development of the high value-added aerospace sector which is generating increasing revenues every year. In 2015, they totalled $15.5 billion, an increase of more than 12% compared to 2014. 
These impressive figures illustrate the Government of Quebec's political will. For its part, the federal government seems to be headed in the completely opposite direction. Bill C-10 sends some particularly worrisome signals.
The Liberal government is completely destabilizing the ecosystem of the aerospace sector, as I said earlier. We have to think of the aircraft maintenance services as a supply chain of integrated firms. If Air Canada is released from its legal obligations to have its maintenance work done in Canada, not just the company that provides those services will suffer, but also all the companies that supply the parts, the machinery, and the technology. The supply ecosystem is being attacked, and that is serious.
What message are we sending to the current workers and those who want a career in the aerospace sector in the future? We are saying it is no big deal to send jobs overseas, as long as Air Canada remains competitive. The other reason it is no big deal is that we are keeping jobs at Bombardier to build the C Series. That is not how it works.
I think what the government is trying to say is that aerospace production is good, but maintenance is less important. That does not work. We have the legislative means to outsource even more of the manufacturing base. If I were the Liberal government, there would be nothing stopping me from making the big players and Air Canada happy. The employees are being shortchanged.
Shipping jobs abroad, where they likely will not pay as well and come with unknown working conditions, will create uncertainty for many families here at home. This is increasing social inequality. Everyone sees where this is going. We are starting to get quite far away from the sunny ways that the leader of the Liberal Party promised us during the election campaign. Is this his plan for jobs in Canada?
We have two Liberal governments, one in Quebec and the other in Ottawa. They are making decisions that are inconsistent, go every which way, and threaten to undermine an industrial ecosystem that is the envy of the entire world. They are creating utter uncertainty for hundreds if not thousands of workers.
Indeed, Bombardier is important. However, Bombardier is not the only company in Canada that works in the aerospace sector.
Today, I am standing up for the small players, the small businesses, and, of course, students, such as those at the ÉNA. These companies and these people play by the rules. They dedicate themselves to development programs, such as Aéro Montréal's MACH Initiative. To them, this bill sanctions Liberal hypocrisy.
Aerospace workers in Longueuil, Saint-Hubert, and the rest of Quebec will always be able to count on my NDP colleagues and me to condemn this bill, which poses a real threat to good-quality, high value-added jobs in Longueuil and Saint-Hubert. That is unacceptable, so I will be voting against Bill C-10 at second reading.
Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the member's remarks. We must recognize that the Government of Canada has an obligation to the aerospace industry and it is meeting that obligation. One only needs to look at the most recent budget. 
In a sense of co-operation between Ottawa, and in particular on this issue, the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, both provincial jurisdictions have determined with the stakeholders that it is in the best interests to drop the lawsuit believing that the aerospace industry will be healthier in both my home province of Manitoba and the province of Quebec, not to mention the province of Ontario as well.
Would the member not acknowledge that as a national government, we have a responsibility to listen to what provincial governments are saying? In this case, the province of Quebec has agreed to drop the lawsuit. 
Why would the NDP argue that the Liberal government should not listen to the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba?
[Interjection]
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I find that strange because if there is one person who spends a lot of time talking here, it is that member. However, he seems to have mixed up some very simple terms. Dropping the lawsuit, as he puts it, is one thing, but changing laws is quite another. It is completely different.
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, I note that we still have not heard responses from Liberal members on the following key issues: the cost savings for Air Canada, the minimum number of maintenance jobs that would remain in Canada, and whether the government would have introduced this legislation if Air Canada had not purchased the C Series aircraft. What other options were considered to support Air Canada's competitiveness? Why is the government in such a rush to introduce this legislation?
Would the member like to comment on any of these points I have raised and whether or not he agrees that some of these other issues should have been addressed? 
[Interjection]
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.
For the people who live in my part of the world, in Longueuil and Saint-Hubert, the aerospace industry is something that has really shaped the landscape. Earlier, I briefly mentioned Pratt &amp; Whitney and Héroux-Devtek. A federal budget that barely mentions the aerospace industry is insulting for people in my riding. It is a slap in the face.
The Liberals made all sorts of nice promises during the election campaign. Some of my neighbours are engineers, men who are now about 75 years old. They worked on the PT6 engine, which is known as man's best friend, after dogs and horses. These people have aeronautics in their blood, and they think that a budget like this one that does not do anything for this industrial sector is pathetic. I would like to remind members that Héroux-Devtek, in my riding, is the company that made the landing gear for the Apollo lunar module.
As far as we are concerned, there are some measures that could have been included, particularly for SMEs, which once again got the short end of the stick. They made their budget forecasts taking into account a tax cut that was supposedly promised to them but that they will never see.
Daniel Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
Does he think that this major coincidence, where the provinces decided to drop their lawsuit, is really plausible? Is it not more likely that when there was a change in government and the new government indicated that it was prepared to change the law, the provinces decided that the time was right to negotiate in order to get something? They knew that the federal government was no longer on the side of Air Canada workers.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has 35 seconds.
[Interjection]
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, 35 seconds is only long enough to speak out against what is happening.
My colleague is quite right to describe that scenario. It is absolutely pathetic, and it is important to remember how bad everyone felt for the Aveos workers. Those people and those faces were there when it was convenient for the Liberals to look at them, to say how scary it was. We saw the Prime Minister demonstrating with a sign that read “So-so-so-solidarity”.
What are the Liberals doing now? They are abandoning those workers, so they can move on to the next thing. That is just great, thanks. What a fine commitment to the people of my region.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Resuming debate. The hon. member for Windsor West. I want to remind the hon. member that we will be breaking after about seven minutes.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this debate that is taking place in the House is an important one for all Canadians. This industry is shaped and moulded across this country and it has been contributed to by a lot of incentives from taxpayers. It is also one that is part of the value-added chain of manufacturing which many of the things we do in this chamber, in committees, and so forth try to esteem to. We try to work toward value-added jobs.
I remember being on a committee where the Conservatives refused to allow a motion to go forward because of the term “value-added”. Now they have been replaced by a government that not only does not like the term “value-added”, but is working against that proactively. That is the truth of the matter. This is not just about Winnipeg, Toronto, and the region just outside of Montreal, Quebec, in particular.
 There are many colleges and universities right now that have worked at transitioning. Look at the auto industry. Diversification has included the mould-making and tool-and-dye organizations in recovery, apart from our aerospace industry. They are value-added jobs where people can go to school, get an education, and at least have a hope of paying for their education. That is a simple Canadian dream that is slipping through our fingers every single day, and the Liberals are complicit in the effort to ensure that the working class diminishes in this country.
Why is it so vivid and so offensive with regard to this? This legislation that we are dealing with just had closure put on it. I remember when the Liberals sat on this side and they complained and grumbled about closure, but then they got over there to that side and it did not take long. It was really swift. This is about an issue that is so important for workers and their families and for young people who want to live the Canadian dream. That dream is to be able to go to school, get an education, and find a place of employment so they can—
Mr. Adam Vaughan:  Bet on sports.
Brian Masse:  Mr. Speaker. I just got a critical comment from across the way from the Liberals about betting on sports.
 Let us talk about betting on sports, as we did last night, a bill which the Liberals are against. They put up a member who supported that bill, but spoke against it. By the way, the previous Liberal comment from the member for indignation, I think, complained to this House about the provinces not being listened to, and that we have a role. By the way, my bill that would actually take away money from organized crime and put it into health care, education, infrastructure, and training is supported by the provinces. Surprise, surprise.
With no heckling and no catcalls, I would like to have that debate at any point in time. I am willing to do it in this chamber or outside this chamber. I am happy to do that because the jobs that I was talking about before I was interrupted actually count for something that is so important. Again, people can pay off their debt. They can have a family. I was one of those Canadians who felt insecure about their income. I worked for a not-for-profit agency for persons with disabilities. My wife and I held off having children until we paid off our student debt. We delayed having a family for that. These jobs also have pensions. I would like somebody to google the debates of the House of Commons to see how many times pensions have come up. These are private pensions that other taxpayers in Canada do not have to pay for because that is the value-added agreement that those workers achieved with their unions in the collective bargaining process. That gives them pensions in the future so they can continue to contribute to the Canadian economy and open more doors for Canadians.
We also have the mere fact, as I touched on briefly before, that this is actually retroactive legislation. That is so offensive. This would go back in time to cover conditions that were allowed in the previous guarantees of the bargaining agreement.
I guess the next will be if a Liberal gets a speeding ticket, a law will be passed that states that as of last week, it is no longer a speeding ticket. That is the type of thing the Liberals are doing right now. They are undermining a collective bargaining process. That also sends a message to the world. It tells investors about instability. Investors coming into Canada want that stability. It is not about a corporate tax cut. It is about knowing the rules and investing capital in our country. They expect those rules and they follow through with them. Now their competitors will notice a retroactive sweetheart deal because the Liberals happen to be buddying up to their old friends, pals and fundraisers to make something happen that should not happen.
It would be great if we all could make decisions retroactively, for example, if I found out my car was being sold for $2,000 cheaper somewhere else, I could tear up that contract and buy the other car, or if I signed a mortgage deal and at a later date I found a lower rate so I tore up my original mortgage to get the lower rate. We are talking about allowing people to go back and get the lower rate. It does not work that way for hard-working men and women.
 We used to have a donkey, a carrot and a stick approach. We have decided to feed the stick to the donkey and keep the carrot. Then when it goes through its system, it leaves something behind that is not good for anybody.
 “That the amendment be amended by adding the following: 
 “(e) is being rushed through Parliament under time allocation after little debate and insufficient scrutiny.”” 
This has been seconded by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby who has also worked on this file and others related to aerospace, which are very clear and true to our part. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The subamendment is in order.
It being 5:55 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): [Chair read text of motion, amendment, and amendment to the amendment to House]
The question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota):  All those in favour of the subamendment will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Call in the members. 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:) 
Vote #42
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
The next 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: 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
Vote #43
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #44
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. 
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that, because of the delay, there will be no private member's business hour today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting. 
I encourage members to take their discussions outside so we can continue with the late show. 

Adjournment Proceedings
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved. 
Sheila Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, I am taking up the conversation we were having about affordable housing back in December. I want to reiterate how affordable housing helps everything. It helps every kid get the best start. It helps support local business and the local economy. It helps human health. It helps shelter from domestic violence.
Over the years the NDP has proposed a number of legislative measures to support affordable housing. Examples of these measures include adopting a national housing strategy, ensuring investment in social and co-operative housing, renovations of existing housing stock, building new housing units, and funding community-based initiatives to combat homelessness.
I want to talk with the government about some of the specifics on how it may be able to follow some of those initiatives, but I want to describe two community projects in my town of Nanaimo, just to give a sense of what kind of support we are are looking for.
In Nanaimo, a new supportive housing facility is opening in May. This the Boundary Crescent facility. It is being operated by three community groups: the Vancouver Island Mental Health Society; the Nanaimo Affordable Housing Society, which does such good work in our community for so many people; and Haven Society, which provides emergency shelter for victims of family violence, women and children especially.
The Boundary Crescent facility was built with funding from the province and the City of Nanaimo and it will help homeless men and women transition from life on the streets. It has a strong emphasis on serving women who have struggled with chronic homelessness.
 However, we have heard that this facility, as welcome as it is, barely scratches the surface of the need for supportive housing for women with children and for affordable housing in our community. We need the federal government at the table working with indigenous communities, provinces, and local partners.
Here is another great example. Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre is proposing a 25-unit affordable housing complex on Nanaimo's Bowen Road. It is a community-led project for urban aboriginal students and families. It is the first family-focused affordable housing project funded and built in Nanaimo since 1999. That describes how starved community organizations have been of affordable housing funding.
The City of Nanaimo has committed the land and will waive property taxes. The Regional District of Nanaimo has committed funding, and great news came just today: BC Housing has announced that it is going to support some of the funding around feasibility study work and initial construction. This is the first passive energy house in western Canada, so it has a zero energy environmental footprint as well. It is something we are really proud of.
These two community examples really illustrate how much community partners need partners. I am urging the government to describe to us what specific support such projects can expect in this year as they are building and opening. Because existing affordable housing needs federal support, I am also hoping that the government can describe what specific action it is taking this year to preserve the funding to resurrect expiring housing agreements, without which—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.
Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe our government has been very clear in budget 2016 about our plans to invest in affordable housing, and I will take advantage of the opportunity that the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith provides me to reiterate our commitment to affordable housing for the benefit of members on all sides of the House.
During last year's election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that a Liberal government would re-establish federal leadership in affordable housing and create a comprehensive national housing strategy to help ensure that all Canadians have access to the housing they need. This is exactly what we are doing. With the budget that was tabled by the Minister of Finance last month, I am proud to say that we are taking concrete steps toward fulfilling this commitment. 
In the short term, budget 2016 provides $2.3 billion in funding for affordable housing to help boost Canada's economic growth, build stronger communities, and help tens of thousands of families access housing that is safe and affordable. This funding is over and above the $2 billion the federal government already spends on housing each and every year and will be targeted to address some of the most pressing housing needs facing low-income and other vulnerable Canadians across the country.
These new investments include more than $504 million to create and renovate affordable housing and improve housing affordability, over $200 million to build or renovate affordable housing for low-income seniors, $90 million to build or renovate more than 3,000 shelter spaces for victims of domestic violence, $574 million to repair and improve the energy and water efficiency of existing social units, up to $30 million to renew subsidies on a transitional basis for all federally administered social housing projects with operating agreements expiring in the next two years, and $554 million to improve housing conditions for first nations people living on reserve. The list goes on. There is $178 million to address the unique housing challenges in the north and Inuit communities, and $111 million to tackle homelessness. These are significant investments and they will all be delivered over the next two years to address urgent housing needs across the country.
Budget 2016 also includes two important initiatives to support the construction of affordable rental housing. First, we will create a new affordable rental housing innovation fund, with funding of $208 million over five years, to test innovative business approaches to lower the costs and risks of financing for affordable rental housing projects. The second initiative, the proposed affordable rental housing financing initiative, would provide up to $2.5 billion in low-cost loans over five years to municipalities and housing developers during the earliest and riskiest phase of development. 
As we deliver these immediate investments, we will also be developing a comprehensive and forward-looking national housing strategy that will promote innovative new approaches to diverse housing challenges and opportunities that exist across Canada. In this context, the federal government will be engaging the provinces and territories, indigenous communities, and other housing stakeholders across the country in the coming months.
[Interjection]
Sheila Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, when we first started this conversation in December, these details had not been revealed. I am very glad that the parliamentary secretary is able to describe the very ambitious program that is outlined for the next two years. We look forward to working with community partners to actually get results on the ground.
We lost a lot of ground over the last decade. Hopes are very high and the need is very strong. We look forward to working with all community partners, all levels of government. I will reaffirm again and again that a roof is a right and our communities benefit when our senior partners support such community work.
[Interjection]
Terry Duguid: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member's riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith is a riding with significant needs to reduce poverty. She can rest assured that helping vulnerable Canadians find suitable, affordable, and sustainable housing is and always will be a priority for this government and, indeed, for members on both sides of the House.
Over the next year, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and I will be consulting with the provinces, territories, indigenous people, and other stakeholders to develop a strategy that delivers better housing outcomes in all regions of the country, including the north, indigenous communities, and of course, Vancouver Island.
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my first questions tie into my colleague's and will be about renewing social housing agreements. There could be negative outcomes for 365,000 social housing units. This is not just about the housing units; it is about the people who live in those homes: the men, women and children who could be in jeopardy if the agreements are not renewed. We are talking about a $1.7-billion budget. 
Some dollar amounts were specified in the budget. The minister has talked about them too. For example, we have heard about $15 million per year for two years, but that is just for certain agreements that involve the federal government directly. Agreements handled by the provinces seem to be funded by the agreement on affordable housing, which is how the Conservatives did it in recent years. I think there are some problems with that and some things that need clarifying. That is why I am asking the parliamentary secretary for some clarification this evening. 
For instance, the $15 million a year over two years is only a short-term measure. Two years is not very long. Unfortunately, this creates uncertainty and can have a negative effect. Let me explain. Consider the example of a co-operative that must choose between two renters but does not know whether, at the end of those two years, the rent subsidies will be renewed. If it has the choice between two tenants, one who can afford to pay the market price and the other who needs a long-term subsidy because he cannot work, it may give priority to the tenant who can pay.
This means that social housing is at risk of disappearing because of that. In addition, it could also make some already difficult, precarious situations even worse for certain people and certain households. As we know, waiting lists are already quite long. A lot of people are living in this kind of uncertainty.
I would also like to know if that is an indication that the Liberal government intends to continue the federal government's withdrawal from social housing that has occurred over the past 20 years. Ever since the government stopped building social housing 20 years ago, there have been some very negative repercussions. There has been no new construction since the 1990s, and ever since then the housing situation has deteriorated. Many people are even talking about a housing crisis.
Something else is missing from the budget. There is absolutely no mention of the lapsed agreements. What will happen to those people? Some people have lost their rent subsidies, and they have very difficult decisions to make: will they pay for food or will they pay the rent? It is therefore not surprising that there is a lot of child poverty.
The provinces and territories must cost-match most of the investment in affordable housing. What will happen if the province or territory does not have the money for that? According to the member for Spadina—Fort York, this money will be put into the federal gas tax fund. However, this fund goes to infrastructure, not housing. Thus, we would lose the money for housing.
Furthermore, developers could use the incentives to build affordable housing for a few years and then jack up the rent, which is another risk. We need long-term agreements to prevent that.
Terry Duguid: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member for Hochelaga. 
I can assure her that the government shares her concern for low income households that may be impacted by the expiry of long-term social housing operating agreements. In fact, budget 2016 addresses this very issue with significant short-term investments to preserve existing rent-geared-to-income units in social housing projects across the country.
Our government believes that new approaches are needed to improve housing outcomes for all Canadians, including those living in social housing units. This is why we have committed to consult with the provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous people, and housing stakeholders on a national housing strategy that will identify innovative, long-term solutions to current and future housing challenges.
At the same time, we recognize that action is needed to address pressing problems in the short-term, including the potential loss of rent-geared-to-income units when operating agreements expire over the next couple of years. As well, much of the existing social housing stock requires major capital repairs and modifications.
Our government pledged during the election campaign to provide leadership in supporting affordable housing. Budget 2016 is an important step in this direction with proposed new funding of $2.3 billion over two years to give Canadians greater access to affordable housing.
 As the member for Hochelaga will know, this new funding includes close to $574 million to support the renovation, and energy and water efficiency retrofit of existing social housing units. This investment will improve living conditions for thousands of households, and will also make these units more affordable to operate and maintain over time.
More to the point in regard to the member's question, budget 2016 includes measures to preserve affordability for low income households in social housing as operating agreements expire. Up to $30 million will be provided to renew existing subsidies for all federally administered social housing projects with operating agreements expiring in the next two years.
This funding will be provided on a transitional basis until the end of March 2018. To receive assistance, housing providers will be required to maintain or increase the number of rent-geared-to-income units for low-income households. 
For federally administered projects where operating agreements expire prior to April 1, 2016, funding from the investment in affordable housing can be used to provide rent subsidies or other forms of assistance. Housing providers should contact the housing agency in their jurisdiction to inquire about funding assistance.
As for social housing projects administered by the provinces and territories, budget 2016 will double federal funding for the investment in affordable housing over the next two years. This investment will be cost-matched by the provinces and territories. Combined with current funding for the IAH, this will provide just under $1 billion in federal funding that can be used to protect affordability for low income households living in projects where operating agreements will expire before March 2018.
As I have noted, this is a transitional measure while the government consults with the provinces, territories, indigenous, and other communities on a national housing strategy.
[Interjection]
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, I have some very specific questions about what the parliamentary secretary just said, and I would appreciate some specific answers.
He spoke about the national housing strategy. He talked about consultations. I would like to know whether there will be consultations, and we can ignore what people are telling us, or whether there will be a partnership. Will the decisions be made together? The groups want to know.
The groups also want to know the deadline for planning this strategy. Are we talking about six months, one year, or eight years?
The other question has to do with retrofitting. We hear about energy retrofitting, but is that the only kind? For example, if the elevators in the towers in Toronto need to be replaced, can that be included, even if it is not an energy issue? 
[Interjection]
Terry Duguid: Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the member for bringing this matter before the House.
Canada benefits from a strong and healthy housing system, but we can do much better. We will shortly be releasing some of the details that the hon. member has asked about. We will be helping vulnerable Canadians find sound, suitable, and sustainable housing. That is a priority for our government.
I would remind the member that budget 2016 includes $2.3 billion in new funding over the next two years. We will be consulting stakeholders. We will be consulting the provinces, territories, indigenous communities, and of course, the members opposite.
International TradeDaniel Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my follow-up on the perils of the temporary foreign worker provisions in the trans-Pacific partnership, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the results of yesterday's election in Manitoba. I would like to pay tribute to the outgoing premier, Greg Selinger, and to the 16 years of good NDP government in Manitoba, and what that has meant for our province.
Outgoing Premier Selinger brought his experience as a social worker and social activist first to city council and then to the Manitoba legislature as minister of finance in the government in 1999, until he took over the leadership from Gary Doer. He led a government that was focused on investing in people and in the infrastructure of Manitoba at a time when governments across the world were embracing austerity and paying the price for those policies of austerity.
 In Manitoba, we had great economic performance compared to other provinces. We were building social housing and child care spaces. Over those 16 years, that is one of the unsung achievements of the NDP publicly.
 However, one of our biggest accomplishments there was the neighbourhoods alive program. It is a program that provides seed funding to community organizations. It is not a model of government coming in and telling communities what to do, but building community capacity so they can guide their own future. It is a model that has applications well outside the area of community development, and could be well applied within other government departments to ensure community people are in the driver seat when it comes to government investment,.
Again, I am proud of the record of the NDP government, and we will carry on fighting. We will give the new government a run for its money in 2020.
Part of the work we are here to do is to stand up for working people. We have heard the government itself say that there are serious problems with the temporary foreign worker program. The minister has committed to a review of that program and has said that it is one of her priorities to fix.
 However, when we look at chapter 12 of the trans-Pacific partnership, we have language around temporary foreign workers that essentially will recreate and perpetuate the problems of the temporary foreign worker program. Therefore, on one hand we hear criticism of the TFW program, but on the other hand, we hear nothing but praise, frankly, from the government for the trans-Pacific partnership. 
I would like to hear a commitment from the government today that the Liberals' study of the temporary foreign worker program will include within its scope a study of chapter 12 of the TPP to ensure that what they say they are fixing with the one hand, they are not taking away or putting back with the other hand.
David Lametti: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona for his comments on the election of the Conservative government in Manitoba and the NDP's record in that province.
I will proceed to answer the question I thought I would get.
Our country depends on global trade. The reality is that the global trading environment has changed since NAFTA and the WTO, and there are many barriers that our companies face in getting products, people, services and even data across borders on a day-to-day basis.
On February 4, the government signed the TPP in order to ensure that Canada would remain at the table, and that the Government of Canada would be able to continue consulting with Canadians. As the Minister of International Trade explained in her open letter to Canadians, signing the TPP is only a first step and does not equal ratification by our government. Signing does not affect the objective of the Government of Canada to continue consultations, including holding a full parliamentary debate on the outcomes of the TPP.
The government has already met, and will continue to meet, with a broad range of stakeholders, including businesses, unions, farmers, civil society, academics, and youth. The Minister of International Trade has met with unions and labour associations such as the National Union of Public and General Employees and the Canadian Labour Congress.
I have met with a number of groups, including Unifor. I can tell the hon. member that we have not taken a position. Indeed, everything we hear is not positive. We hear both positive and negative. Therefore, he erred in his statement in that regard.
As previously stated by the member of Burlington, since the swearing in of the Minister of International Trade in November, the government has had more than 250 interactions with over 400 stakeholders to discuss the TPP.
The mandate of the Minister of International Trade is to consult Canadians on Canada's potential participation in the TPP, and that is what we are doing and will continue to do.
The government is determined to create well-paying jobs for Canadians and protect the integrity of our national labour market. Canada's general approach when it comes to temporary entry in its free trade agreements is to authorize the entry of certain business people based on a reciprocity principle. That means that temporary entry is offered only to trade partners who are prepared to do the same for Canadian business people who are looking to export and invest abroad.
Temporary entry usually covers visiting business people, investors, people transferred within a company, and highly specialized technicians and professionals. Furthermore, the integrity of Canada's labour market is also protected by safeguards respecting requirements on compensation, education, and experience.
Canada's free trade commitments regarding temporary entry are determined jointly by Global Affairs Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; and Employment and Social Development Canada. This helps us gain access to foreign markets, while limiting access to segments of the Canadian labour market that are deemed vulnerable.
The government is committed to adopting a responsible approach in reviewing all the details of the trans-Pacific partnership. 
[Interjection]
Daniel Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt that the government has heard positive and negative things about the TPP. There are lots of negative things to hear about the TPP. What I said was that I have not heard them say negative things about the TPP. I have only heard them say positive things, so I do not believe I hear it in that regard, unless the parliamentary secretary has some negative comments about the TPP that he would like to share with us tonight, which he knows members of his party have put on the record, of which I am not aware.
I would agree with the parliamentary secretary that Canada depends on trade, but what it does not depend on, the last time I checked, is bringing over temporary foreign workers who have no security here and who could be sent back at any time by the employer. They are being exploited because they are afraid to raise workplace safety and health concerns. They are afraid to complain if they are not being given their due wage, and in the meantime they are undermining the position of Canadian workers here.
The concern with the temporary foreign worker program, and it is a concern that the government acknowledges, is that this will be repeated under the TPP. What we want to hear is that the government's study of the TFW program will include a study of chapter 12 in the TPP to ensure that this does not become a back door for another TFW program that is now enshrined in a trade deal.
[Interjection]
David Lametti: Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to consulting widely on these questions of labour mobility in Canada.
With regard to foreign workers in the TPP, the workers envisioned there tend to be professionals and others who have higher paying jobs and higher education levels and who tend to work with companies that they are moving with in the normal course of business. It is not the same clientele that is envisioned by the temporary foreign worker program as we have known it.
As a trading nation, Canada's economic growth is directly linked to international trade. The government strongly supports free trade as a way to open markets to Canadians' goods and services, grow Canadian businesses, and create well-paying middle-class jobs.
The government has committed to bringing forward the TPP to a debate here in the House, and therein we will hear both positive and negative comments about the TPP. The fact is that we are committed to open consultations. This is a promise we made during the election and one that we are seeing through.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:30 p.m.)