House Publications

    I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation concerning its visit to Japan from May 13 to 18, 2013.

    I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation concerning its visit to France from September 9 to 11, 2013.

     moved for leave to introduce Bill C-32, an act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts.

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the reports of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union respecting its participation at the Steering Committee of the Twelve Plus Group of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU, held in Paris, France, on February 10, 2014.

    Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that I present this petition in regard to a tragedy that I am sure you are aware of that happened in London, Ontario, last fall regarding a family, a tragic murder-suicide. The undersigned call upon the Government of Canada to ensure that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is properly resourced to reach decisions in regard to applications in a fair and timely manner. They also ask that immigration officials consider all factors in regard to individual applications, including humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

    Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today.

    The first is on behalf of citizens who want to recognize the inherent rights of farmers, derived from thousands of years of customs and traditions, to use, save, select, and exchange all the seeds they produce.

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls upon Parliament and the House to support Bill C-560, to require equal shared parenting to be treated as a rebuttable presumption of custody decisions, except in cases of neglect and abuse.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of petitioners from Sault Ste. Marie, Thessalon, and Wawa, who are concerned that the government is cancelling the federal funding for the Algoma Central Railway.

    This railway is the sole point of access for many businesses, homes, and communities along its route. Cancelling the funding for this railway would be damaging to the economy, health and safety, and accessibility of the area.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of several residents in Lewisporte, Campbellton, Embree, Norris Arm, Birchy Bay, Boyd's Cove, Stoneville, and Brown's Arm, with respect to the oil from the sunken paper carrier, the Manolis L, which sank in the mid-1980s and still holds within its hull tonnes of bunker oil that is slowly leaking out. The evidence has been rampant all through the Change Islands, Twillingate area with oil on the birds being harvested and hunted. They are asking for a permanent solution, not a temporary solution, to get the oil out of that sunken boat.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of Canadians who are calling on the Government of Canada to list the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt as a terrorist organization.

    Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions today.

    The first was signed by thousands of people in my riding, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. They are condemning the cuts to Canada Post and, more importantly, the privatization of services in the town of Gaspé.

    People are very concerned about the fact that they may well lose a basic service. In remote areas in particular, it is essential that Canada Post's services be reliable and available.

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting was signed by approximately 24,000 people from northern New Brunswick and the eastern part of my riding, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. They are speaking out against VIA Rail service cuts.

    To follow up on what my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River was saying earlier, the regions need reliable service. Eastern Canada was recently pummelled by storms, and that is not uncommon in winter. They need reliable and frequent VIA Rail service. Unfortunately, there is a risk that they may lose it altogether.

    I am honoured to present these two petitions, and I hope that the government will take note.

    Mr. Speaker, I table today a petition from residents of Winnipeg North, who recognize that Canada Post is a national institution that provides valuable services to all Canadians. The petitioners are genuinely concerned about the future of Canada Post and they want the government to take action to reaffirm its commitment to this crown corporation well into the future.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today. The first one is dealing with farmers saving seeds.

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition is dealing with the extraction industry.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition signed by people who are calling for the creation of a specific offence regarding assaults against on-duty bus drivers and harsher penalties for criminals who attack bus drivers.

    Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by a number of residents of Canada who are concerned about our electoral process. The petitioners are asking the House of Commons to undertake public consultations across Canada to amend the Canada Elections Act to ensure voters can cast, among other things, an equal and effective vote; be represented fairly in Parliament, regardless of political beliefs or place of residence; are governed by a fairly elected Parliament where the share of seats held by each political party closely reflects the popular vote; and finally, to live under legitimate laws approved by a majority of elected parliamentarians representing a majority of voters.

    Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to present a petition signed by 35 Canadians, many of whom are originally from Venezuela, who are very concerned about the situation in Venezuela and are proposing a variety of courses of action for the government's consideration.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

    The first has to do with electoral fraud during the last election, specifically regarding robocalls. The petitioners are calling on the government to launch a serious investigation into this crime.

    If Bill C-23 goes ahead as unamended, we will have the investigation into the robocall fraud of the last election dropped and not completed. These petitioners want a full inquiry.

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents throughout my own riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, Brentwood Bay, Sidney. The petition is on behalf of small business owners, independent contractors, people subject to the GST, asking that the deductible be moved, in relation to real life conditions, from $30,000 to $50,000 under the GST exemption for small suppliers.

    Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.

    The first petition is pertaining to the Canada postal services.

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in regard to plant breeders’ rights and Bill C-18.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions signed by thousands of Canadians across the country, including those from my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam and Port Moody.

    The first petition is from Canadians who are concerned about cuts to Canada Post, the elimination of door-to-door service, the loss of up to 8,000 jobs, and the significant increase to postage.

    They call on the Government of Canada to reverse these cuts and look for ways to innovate areas such as postal banking.

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Canadians who want the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure responsible conservation management of sharks.

    The petitioners call on the government to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fins to Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to table petitions on behalf of people from Sault Ste. Marie, Echo Bay, Prince Township, Searchmont, Garden River, Hilton Beach, and Thessalon.

    The petition is about the closure of the ACR line passenger services. The petitioners are extremely concerned that there has been no consultation with the stakeholders. This is the sole point of access to businesses, homes and communities, and the impact on the economy, health and safety, accessibility, and tourism is quite troubling. The petitioners are calling on the government to reinstate the funding so that this passenger service can go forward.

    Mr. Speaker, in addition, I have a petition from Kapuskasing, Moonbeam, Fauquier, Timmins, Val Rita, Hearst, Ottawa, New Brunswick, and Gatineau, with respect to Canada Post.

    The petitioners are calling on the government to reverse the cuts to services announced by Canada Post, because they are concerned about the loss of jobs and services.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a few petitions here to table. The first is about unfair extra fees and consumer rip-offs. A number of my constituents and people in the surrounding area are calling on the government to take significant concrete steps in budget 2014 to make life more affordable for cash-strapped Canadian families.

    Mr. Speaker, I have another petition here from some Canadians who are calling on the government to develop a national dementia strategy. They are asking the Minister of Health and all members of the House to pass Bill C-356, an act respecting a national strategy for dementia.

    Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, signed by about 175 members of my constituency and the surrounding areas. With respect to veteran's services, they are asking the government to immediately address the mental health crisis facing Canadian soldiers and veterans by hiring the appropriate mental professionals, reverse its decisions to close Veterans Affairs offices, and prioritize and conclude the over 50 outstanding boards of inquiry on military suicides so that the grieving families may have answers and closure.

    Mr. Speaker, finally, I have a petition signed by a number of my constituents and people in surrounding communities calling on the government to stop cuts to our postal service.

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

    Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 27, 2014, by the member for Avalon, regarding the government’s response to written Question No. 176.

    I would like to thank the hon. member for Avalon for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon. Minister of State for their interventions.

    In raising the matter, the member for Avalon explained that the government's response to written Question No. 176, tabled on March 6, 2014, regarding projects approved in Avalon by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency constituted a different answer than those previously supplied to similar questions.

    The member stated that the accuracy of the information provided was not the issue; rather, he contended that by changing the departmental process by which information was gathered and responses made, the minister was obstructing the release of information and thereby infringing on the member’s ability to carry out his parliamentary functions.

    In responding to the member’s claim, the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that, in fact, an answer had been provided, but without the amount of detail or exact information that the member sought. Thus, he felt that the complaint was actually a debate over the adequacy of the response. For his part, the Minister of State for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency explained in greater detail the response preparation process followed by his department over the past several years in responding to questions from the member for Avalon.

    The Chair has been asked on many occasions to weigh in on issues with respect to written questions. Through these questions of privilege, the Chair has had the opportunity to confirm for all members the role of the Chair in this regard, as well as the practices and principles that govern written questions. Some of these bear repeating today.

    House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 522:

    On February 8, 2005, Speaker Milliken, at page 3234 of Debates, made a similar point:

    On April 3, 2012, in my ruling on another question raised with respect to the government’s response to a written question, I reaffirmed this practice.

    The Chair understands that the member is not asking for a judgment on the accuracy of the answer provided. However, he is asking the Chair to judge the actions of the minister and the effect these have had on his ability to function as a member of Parliament. To do so would require the Chair to judge not only the content of answers provided, but also to delve into internal departmental processes past and present. Regardless of whether the department's internal processes on written questions have changed or not, it remains beyond the role of the Chair to undertake an investigation into any such matter or to render any judgment on it.

    The Chair’s role is limited to assessing the evidence presented in order to determine whether there has been interference in a member’s ability to perform his or her parliamentary duties. In the present circumstances, the Chair can find no evidence to suggest that the member has been unable to perform his duties.

    I therefore cannot find grounds to rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege.

    I thank the House for its attention.

    The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is rising.

    Mr. Speaker, as I promised on Monday, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Victoria. The hon. member rose to claim in the House that the House has been intentionally misled. No such thing has happened here.

    Ultimately, what we have here is simply a matter of debate. The hon. Minister of State for Finance said that the proposal by New Democrats for Canada pension plan reforms could lead to 70,000 job losses in Canada, a reckless proposal in our current economy.

    The finance department's analysis of a proposal to double the so-called replacement rate of the Canada pension plan, which is at the heart of the NDP proposal, would require a 5.45% increase to the contribution rate within the current range of pensionable earnings. The department concluded that such an increase in payroll taxes could see 70,000 Canadians without work.

    As I mentioned earlier, it is clear that increased payroll taxes have negative consequences for the Canadian economy. However, members should not take it from me. Let me quote a third-party expert on this. Laura Jones, the executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had this to say:

    The hon. member for Victoria was at pains on Monday to point out that the finance department's analysis covered a one-year implementation window, not his seven-year phase-in period. In fact, the Department of Finance uses one year as a simplifying assumption adopted to compare the economic impact of various CPP expansion proposals. Shockingly, the New Democrat plan would see this economic pain spread over seven years as opposed to just one. That is not something that Canadians would appreciate, so it is no wonder the member was up on a question of privilege, trying to distract from the inconvenient truth that his party's pension policy presents.

    I should note that a CFIB report on doubling the CPP replacement rate, which reflects the same phase-in period as the NDP proposes, claims that up to 235,000 jobs would be lost. That is a lot more than just 70,000. In this case, the Minister of State for Finance chooses to use the numbers provided by the Department of Finance, not the higher numbers used by the CFIB. We are not only mindful of the expert finance department analysis, but we also share the concerns of small business and the CFIB.

    Citation 31(1) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, sixth edition, aptly sums up the situation confronting us here:

    That principle has been endorsed a number of times by the Chair, including for example, Madam Speaker Sauvé in her ruling of December 3, 1980, at page 5293 of the Debates.

    More recently, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, restates this principle at page 510:

    Even more succinct than that is this quotation from Mr. Speaker Fraser's ruling on December 4, 1986 at page 1792 of the Debates:

    In conclusion, this is simply a matter of debate and perspective about the walloping impact on the Canadian economy that would result from the New Democrats proposal for the Canada pension plan.

    Whether these consequences for Canadians would be felt in a single year or spread over several does not change the fact that it would create serious discomfort and uncertainty for hard-working Canadians.

    Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you can easily dispense with the complaint of the hon. member for Victoria because there is no prima facie case of privilege here.

    It is hard to know where to start, Mr. Speaker.

    Obviously, as happened last week, the parliamentary secretary is avoiding the real issue. It was the basis of the point of privilege raised by the member for Victoria. There is no document such as the minister attested to. Quite simply, the parliamentary secretary has reinforced the fact that the government does not have the document it has attested to having.

    I will be reading the statement by the parliamentary secretary in the blues very carefully, and I will be coming back later today with a response.

    The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has 15 minutes left to conclude his speech.

    Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to limit my speech to just 15 minutes because this is a huge bill—it is over 350 pages long. It is hard to cover and explain everything in it. It is complicated and huge and fundamentally anti-democratic. I have plenty of quotes from the Prime Minister and other Conservatives who used to say that omnibus bills like this one were disastrous and tragic for Parliament.

    We have learned to call these “ominous” budget bills because, while technically omnibus in nature, what we see in these 350 pages, with over 500 clauses and 40 laws being changed in this one act alone, is the Conservatives continuing down their very anti-democratic path of fundamentally disrespecting Parliament and the institutions. We see it in the unfair elections act, and we also see it in the next omnibus bill, Bill C-31, which contains so many aspects that it is difficult to cover in the short time we have.

    Before politics, I was a small business owner. The riding I represent in northwestern British Columbia is both rural and resource sector based. I bring those experiences to bear as the finance critic for the official opposition. Therefore, my orientation toward matters of the economy, financial affairs, and the budget is based on those small and medium-sized businesses, which are at the very heart of our economy, providing more than 70% of all new jobs. At the heart of our economy lies the resource sector. Virtually 80% of the equity traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange relies on the resource sector of Canada, that natural wealth and endowment. Therefore, one wonders, while casting through the hundreds of pages in this omnibus bill, exactly what the government has done to help the resource sector, small and medium businesses, and the overall fragility of the Canadian economy.

    Canada right now sits at a crossroads. Four hundred thousand manufacturing jobs have been lost and not replaced since the government took power. Three hundred thousand net jobs have been lost since it took over that have also not been replaced. Personal household debts are at record highs.

    The trade deficit hitting $45 billion is now seen as a casual event; a country like Canada having massive trade deficits with our trading partners presents no problems or concerns to the government. We are a trading nation. We are not trading well right now, and the government seems not occupied with that. The Bank of Canada, the IMF, and the former finance minister have decried the half-trillion dollars of dead money sitting in our economy that is not being used by the private sector. It is simply because, when the government hands over its corporate tax cuts, they come with no strings attached. Its ideological drive, that all tax cuts must directly and implicitly lead to job creation, has shown not to be true in this case.

    According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 85% of the jobs created last year alone were created in short-term, temporary, part-time jobs. These are not our numbers. These are numbers gathered by the business community in Canada. We have seen the government blow open the temporary foreign worker program. More than 300,000 temporary foreign workers went to work this morning in Canada. That has a dual effect. It replaces Canadian workers who were training to do those jobs. I had a phone call from a young woman this morning. She is fully ticketed. She has gone through all the programs, has taken out student loans, is ready to work in the resource sector, and cannot find work because the contractor working on the gas pipeline operation has hired temporary foreign workers from all over the world. She is frustrated. She is trying to pay the bills, and the government turns a blind eye. We saw it with the HD Mining case in British Columbia. Two hundred workers were needed to work in the mine. The way the company got around the small barriers that the Conservatives put up was to say workers must be fully ticketed to work in a mining operation and fluent in Mandarin. That was a requirement that was somewhat difficult to meet in the Canadian labour force market. The employer said they could not find 200 fluent Mandarin-speaking miners in Canada, so they would need a temporary foreign worker licence permit, which the government happily granted with no conditions attached, until it became public; then there was obvious backlash. Then the Prime Minister went with the ethnic media in Vancouver. We have all sorts of criticisms about the temporary foreign worker program, but just to one section of the media; it has never since repeated those criticisms out loud.

    Royal Bank of Canada laid off workers and replaced them with temporary foreign workers. We have seen 300 welders recently laid off in Alberta and replaced with temporary foreign workers. The resource wealth that we are endowed with deserves to be respected.

     Let us review the six principles of how to properly develop the oil wealth in Alberta, put forward by that lefty radical, former premier Lougheed. Let us review what this radical had to say.

    The first principle is “[act] like an owner”. Is the current government doing that when it comes to resource wealth? Not at all.

    Second, he said, is “[get] your fair share”. Particularly when it comes to natural resources, like oil, which cannot be replenished, one only gets to do it once. If they do not collect their fair share, it is a missed opportunity.

    The third principle is “Save for a rainy day”. Can members imagine what former premier Lougheed would have said about Conservatives, who have not only accrued the largest debt in Canadian history, but they also have the record for our two largest deficits and adding to our largest national debt ever?

    The fourth principle that former Premier Lougheed talked about is “[adding] value” to the resources. What do the Conservatives push? They are pushing raw bitumen pipelines. What do they allow? They allow raw log exports. What they allow for is not adding value to the mineral wealth of this country. We know that is where the greatest gain in jobs can be. For those Conservatives who represent parts of Saskatchewan and British Columbia and Alberta, one has to wonder about all those jobs that have been foregone by their policies. All of those jobs and opportunities are lost, and all those families who could be paying the rent and helping to raise kids on those value-added jobs are lost.

    Fifth, former Premier Lougheed also said “Go slow”. Why? Because we see what the boom can do; it always leads to a bust. The former MP for Fort McMurray, Brian Jean, on his way out the door of this place, said that the main problem in the oil patch in northern Alberta is that we are going too fast. We see that those are wise words and correct, if one visits Fort McMurray and talks to the workers and the municipal leaders there. It is a bit of a shame that he only found that conscience when he was leaving Parliament and the Conservative caucus. He did not say it when he was here. I know that many Conservatives also share his views.

    The sixth and last thing that former premier Lougheed said was “Practice statecraft”. What do we have from the current government when it comes to developing our economy and natural resource wealth? The Conservatives encourage conflict. They yell and scream at opponents and call them enemies of this state if they do not agree with Conservative ideology. They say that they must be foreign-funded radicals. They get into their “grassy knoll” theories over there in the Conservative Party, saying that this must be the problem.

    However, here is the result of all that conflict and tension among Canadians and between first nations and the Government of Canada, which the current government has exacerbated time and again. It leads to uncertainty. Whatever the sector, whether the resource sector or the banking sector, uncertainty is a serious problem. It is impossible to plan if people within companies and industries do not feel they have any certainty. What the Conservatives have ironically and tragically done through their abusive and bullying approach to the conversation in Canada has increased the level of uncertainty and conflict.

    Let us look at Bill C-31. Let us deal with what is in it. I can quickly walk through some of the positive measures because there are not many of them.

     The government has finally reversed its policy on charging the GST on parking when visiting a hospital. It was something that the Conservatives put in the budget. We told them to take it out, and they listened for once. The Conservatives have also extended some tax credits for families who are seeking adoption. We think this is a very positive thing. They have also introduced another proposal that we put forward to allow for a tax credit for volunteers conducting search and rescue. We think that is very important. It is a small measure, but for those who risk their lives to protect Canadians, we think it is a good measure.

    Now, let us get to the bad things that are in Bill C-31.

     Let us start with the first one, FATCA. What a great deal it is that is buried in this bill. One would think that something like a major tax treaty with our most significant trading partner would have stand-alone legislation and its own debate. That is not so with the Conservatives; they bury it. When they bury something and they release it, as they did on a Friday afternoon when they released this bill, one can anticipate that there is something they do not want to talk about. We estimate that more than one million Canadians may be affected by this tax treaty. They are Canadians who do not even know they may be implicated by this by being married to an American or former American. They are Canadians who were born to American parents. Canadians who were born here may be implicated by this.

    What this deal would do is to tell the banks in Canada to release the private personal banking information of those Canadians to the Canada Revenue Agency, which then ably and quickly would pass it along to the IRS in the United States. Passing the private banking information of more than one million Canadians to the U.S. government somehow does not seem to bother the Conservatives. There were no consultations with the Privacy Commissioner. They told the Privacy Commissioner it was happening, but did not bother to find out if it went against privacy laws in Canada.

    We do not know if this is even charter proof. Constitutional lawyers have said that this is a mistreatment of Canadian citizens and it will face a charter challenge. Again, there were no charter questions. The banks have estimated that to collect this information may cost upward of $100 million. Some have already spent tens of millions of dollars; it is hard information to get at. We asked the government how much it would cost it to wade through these millions of documents and pieces of banking information, and the government said it had no estimate, that it does not know what it is going to cost. The banks have said it would cost upward of $100 million per bank.

    The federal government signed this treaty and did not bother to find out what it might cost the Canadian taxpayer. In addition, there is no reciprocity. There is no agreement with the U.S. to have some sort of equal treatment of Canadians. Canada is not a tax haven for American money. It has never been described as such. Why institute a tax treaty to go after tax cheats and tax havens that do not exist? Why forego the privacy of so many Canadians?

    What fight did the Conservatives actually do? The Minister of Finance wrote an op-ed. He did, and it was strongly worded. He put it into a couple of papers in Washington, and that was it. Compare that with the government having spent millions of dollars toward lobbying the U.S. government on Keystone. It has spent millions on a full-scale frontal attack. The Prime Minister said that if the U.S. does not agree, this is a no-brainer, and we will wait the president out. Was this all that could be done in diplomacy?

    We spent millions, and are spending millions of dollars on diplomats running around Washington trying to convince the Americans to create 40,000 jobs in the U.S. to add value to the bitumen coming out of the oil patch in Alberta. Who came up with that number? The Canadian government did, when trying to convince American legislators. Compare that full-on assault in trying to convince people in Washington to do something, to an op-ed, when they were standing up for Canadians' rights. It is a no-brainer. This is bad policy to sell out Canadians at such a cheap level. There is so much more in this bill.

    What is not in this bill is the consumer protection that the government so often talks about. The fact that people have to pay to get their bills from companies is not in this legislation; it was in the throne speech. It said it would go after payday lenders because it is extortion. It was talked about in the throne speech, but it is absent in Bill C-31.

    On the passenger bill of rights, do members remember that one? The Conservatives had the industry minister talk about the passenger bill of rights. It is not in the bill. There is the small business hiring tax credit, something that New Democrats proposed in 2011 and the government incorporated into two subsequent budgets. According to small and medium-sized businesses, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, it works as an effective tax measure in creating jobs. Unlike the government's broad, blunt attacks on tax, it works, and the government left it out. When asked why, it did not respond and continued.

    Last, on temporary foreign workers, there is a piece in the bill that is meant to punish employers who abuse the temporary foreign worker program. The government has a blacklist. It has had a blacklist, for two years, for employers who abuse the system. Who is on the blacklist? There is nobody, not a single employer. The Alberta government has cited over 100 employers who have abused the program, and the government cannot find one.

    In summation, I will move the following amendment. However, allow me to say this. In the process that the government is using, this is fundamentally anti-democratic. It fundamentally does not help the Canadian economy, and it is more bad news for the Canadian people. I move:

    Debate will be on the amendment.

    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

    Mr. Speaker, my comment is about the remarks that the member made about the intergovernmental agreement to respond to the United States Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

    As the member mentioned, there were a couple of things that the government did not do that it should have done: first, to perhaps ask the courts whether an intergovernmental agreement that was being negotiated would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and, second, to get an official comment from the Privacy Commissioner as it was negotiating with officials from the United States.

    I think the government could have done a better job of protecting the rights of Canadians, and I would ask if my colleague would like to comment on that.

    Mr. Speaker, do members remember that old slogan that the Conservatives used during one of the campaigns, “Stand up for Canada”? Was that the first campaign? It has been so long, I suppose, that they have forgotten what “Stand up for Canada” actually means. Both on the side of pushing back and negotiating a deal that protected Canadians' privacy and rights, they have capitulated entirely. Canada was one of the last G7/G20 countries to sign the deal with the United States. It is always a good sign when we are last up with our most significant trading partner.

    This is the “ready, fire, aim” government. It puts it in place, and then after the fact says “This is a privacy issue, and perhaps we should check with the Privacy Commissioner. We'll do that later” or “Perhaps this might be unconstitutional. We have a whole bunch of lawyers here in Ottawa paid for by taxpayers, and they are constitutional experts”.

    These guys are trying to run them out of work. They do not ask them anything, especially when dealing with something so fundamental as our constitutional rights.

    “Stand up for Canada”; what a fascinating idea. They should perhaps dust off those old pamphlets from that election and actually do what they said they would do.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for raising the fact that one of the larger offences in all of the last number of years of omnibus budget bills is buried in this omnibus bill. This complex piece of legislation should never be put in an omnibus bill.

     I have previously mentioned to the House Peter Hogg, one of Canada's leading constitutional experts, who warned the Minister of Finance that this bill would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    I also want to draw the attention of the House to the opinion of Allison Christians, who is the H. Heward Stikeman chair in tax law at McGill, and Arthur Cockfield, a professor at Queen's University. I want to put their opinion on the record:

    Further they state:

    We have run out of time. I know we have a 10-minute timeframe for questions and comments, but we need some time for other members.

    Mr. Speaker, the challenges will come, and the courts will be seized with this.

    This is such a bad way to run government. The Conservatives spent a quarter of a million dollars on the Nadon appointment to the Supreme Court and then had to go back and undo it, for the first time in Canadian history.

    These things matter. Things like the Constitution actually seem to matter. Lo and behold, the Conservatives are finding that. On tax treaties, privacy rights will matter and constitutional rights will matter.

    I have another point that I was unable to raise in my speech: the lack of transparency. After all the tragedies we have seen involving rail safety, one would think that the government would put something in here to help. What it has done is give the minister the power to change training, equipment, and safety regulations without having to notify the public.

    The government has simply, unilaterally, within cabinet, decided that it is going to change the way the trains are run across this country, without ever notifying the public or the community. We would have thought, after Lac-Mégantic, that there would have been an increase in transparency to try to bring the public into what is happening on the rails, since it can so deeply affect a community and pose such a risk. Instead, the government has gone the opposite way.

     It is a shame. It is a continuation of the Conservative tendency toward insulting all measures of transparency and accountability.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his excellent speech. This is his first speech on an economic topic since he was appointed official opposition finance critic. I loved his speech.

    The question I wanted to ask was already asked, in part, by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I would like to take that one step further. She talked about the constitutional issues related to FATCA. It is becoming increasingly clear in budget bill after budget bill after budget bill that the Conservative government's process does not include enough preparation.

    They rush their bills through with very little discussion, and they introduce bills, like the last one, with monumental errors. We took a stand against that and warned the government, in the Standing Committee on Finance and in the House of Commons, that the provisions to change the appointment process for Supreme Court judges would not get past the Supreme Court itself. The Conservatives did not listen to us.

    There are other elements, such as the Conservatives' decision not to charge GST and HST on parking fees after all, even though that was a measure they proposed. We pointed out their mistake to them.

    I would like the member to comment on the growing number of increasingly serious mistakes resulting from the government's hasty approach time and time again.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his question.

    The problem with the process they are using now is that it costs a lot of money, it is very complicated and it is unfair. There are many provisions in this bill designed to improve situations created by previous omnibus bills passed by the Conservatives. That is the problem with this bill. The Conservatives are going to use another huge bill to solve the problems created by previous omnibus bills.

    Here is a very interesting quote by the Prime Minister. He said:

    Who believed that? It was the Prime Minister who used to believe that. What has this Prime Minister done? He has taken the omnibus abuses and put them on steroids. We now have omnibus bill after omnibus bill, with a kitchen sink full of measures. They are Trojan Horses that bury within them all these anti-democratic measures. The Conservatives then pretend to break it up at committee.

    The process is complete sham. We need something better. We need a competent government. In 2015, we will get ourselves one.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the official opposition finance critic for his speech, which showed just how deceiving this omnibus bill is and how it will do nothing to help the Canadian economy, growth or job creation.

    I would like the member to elaborate on these issues. How are this Conservative government's successive austerity bills stifling Canada's economy and causing us to fall further and further behind?

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her question.

    It is interesting because everyone believes that there are some basic problems with the economy right now. A bill that is over 350 pages long should present an opportunity to improve the situation, add value and send a message to young people who are really struggling in today's labour market as a result of both Conservative and Liberal governance.

    What does this bill contain? It contains many other things. One truly dangerous example is the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada. What is that? It is the group of independent tribunals whose purpose is to defend human rights and aboriginal rights. With this bill, the government is going to change who has control over all existing tribunals, thus jeopardizing their independence. I know that the government does not really like to be criticized and it does not really like people who speak out against it, but we need these truly independent tribunals. This bill raises many concerns about what will happen in the future, since its provisions do little to help the economy and a lot to undermine democracy.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31. This is the Conservatives' first bill to implement budget 2014. It is again another massive omnibus budget bill. It is 359 pages in length, with almost 500 separate clauses.

    This bill includes a host of measures that have nothing to do with a budget bill in an effort to limit debate on important issues. Completely unrelated measures are grouped together in a single bill. The Conservatives chose this route in order to adopt these measures quickly and avoid having them reviewed by Parliament.

    The inconsistency, and some would say hypocrisy, that the government is demonstrating is exemplified by the Prime Minister's own words as an opposition MP. I heard my colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley refer to this quotation a few minutes ago.

    In 1994, the Prime Minister, as an opposition MP, said in this House:

    He went on to say:

    The Liberal omnibus legislation that the then opposition member, now Prime Minister, was talking about at that time in 1994 was 21 pages in length and altered 11 pieces of legislation. That is a far cry from the 359-page document that lies before us today.

     I cannot for the life of me understand how the Prime Minister, and others who were part of that Reform movement at that time, could live with themselves today when what they are doing goes far deeper against the principles that they articulated at that time.

    The Conservatives are continuing their reckless abuse of power by using these huge omnibus bills and underhanded procedural manoeuvres to force these policies through. They are ignoring public outcry from coast to coast to coast. They are also potentially creating bad public policy, because the committees, wherein greater expertise lies and which ought to be considering and ultimately voting on these pieces of legislation, are being cut out of the discussion. Perhaps there is some level of engagement of committees when it comes to the evaluation of the legislation, but not at the critical points at which we vote at committee to pass these pieces of legislation.

    We are being asked to consider measures, for instance, of compassionate leave, sickness benefits, search and rescue volunteers tax credits, expansion of the adoption expense tax credit, and medical expense tax credits. We would actually be quite supportive of many of these measures as individual measures, and it is unfortunate that these positive measures are being lumped together with some very unreasonable and harmful and regressive measures that we cannot support.

    The bill also includes new rules around FATCA, the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. Under the bill, Canadians effectively are going to be doing the dirty work and becoming tax collectors for the IRS. Canada-U.S. dual citizens are going to be punished if they do not provide their U.S. tax number to the CRA.

    If these Canadians provide their U.S. tax numbers, the Canadian government will hand over all this information, together with information on the Canadians' bank accounts, to the U.S. This will help the U.S. collect tax on registered Canadian savings accounts, including RDSPs, registered disability savings plans; RESPs, registered education savings plans; and tax free savings accounts.

    The other night when we were at the briefing by the Finance Canada public servants, they could not answer a very simple question, and that was whether the contributions made to RDSPs and RESPs by the Canadian government as matching grants would be considered taxable by the Americans. They could not answer that basic question.

    It was never the public policy intention of RDSPs and RESPs to subsidize the American treasury. They are for helping Canadian families with members with disabilities and for helping young Canadians get good educations. Yet the Conservatives are incapable of answering that question. They have not stood up for Canadian interests during these negotiations.

    The budget bill would also change rules around rail safety, food safety, and hazardous products.

     It would centralize control over regional development in my part of the country and ACOA. It would take away the authority of regional boards in ACOA. It would dissolve those boards and move all the decision-making to Ottawa. It would dissolve ECBC without real consultation with communities, again centralizing decision-making in Ottawa on matters on which Atlantic Canadians, frankly, may have greater expertise and understanding.

    The bill would also change the number of federal judges. We would think the government would have learned something from the Nadon fiasco. Ultimately, one of the casualties of previous budget implementation bills was the government's credibility when it came to the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Members will recall that it was in a previous budget implementation act that the government changed the legislation, the Supreme Court Act, with regard to the appointment of judges to try to facilitate the appointment of Justice Nadon. We know how that ended up. It did not end well. The Supreme Court refused to go along with the government on that.

    That is the kind of bad public policy outcome we have when we force all these unrelated measures through the House in an omnibus budget bill of this scale.

    I want to talk a little bit about what is not in Bill C-31. There is very little in this piece of legislation to address some of the most serious concerns facing Canadian families today. There is little in the bill that would actually help struggling middle-class families who are having difficulty making ends meet. Conservatives have failed to recognize that large groups within the Canadian economy and society are being left out of this so-called economic recovery.

    In my part of Nova Scotia, the Annapolis Valley, Stats Canada, which tracks unemployment and employment and labour figures, gives some very telling data. I represent Hants County, Kings County, and Annapolis County. Hants, Kings, and Annapolis are represented by me and the member for West Nova.

    Since the recession, residents in this part of Nova Scotia have seen good-paying, full-time jobs replaced by temporary and part-time work. That data is laid out for us by Stats Canada. We have seen part-time jobs increase by 1,700. In the same period, the region has lost 9,800 full-time jobs. The percentage of residents in the area who are of working age and have a job, which is labour market participation, has plummeted from 61.6% to 54%.

     This is what is happening in my part of Nova Scotia. We are seeing it in families. We are seeing it in small businesses.

    We are seeing real economic challenges. The government seems out of touch when it talks about this recovery as if it were a monolithic recovery that is affecting and helping people in all regions of the country, because there are groups that are simply being left behind. A lot of families are struggling just to get by.

    These Canadians are tired of the uncertainty. They are tired of struggling to find work to try to make ends meet when they have lost full-time jobs and have had to replace them with part-time work. They are facing record levels of personal debt. The average household in Canada now owes a record $1.66 for every $1 of disposable income. Instead of using this budget to help address some of these challenging needs of middle-class families, Conservatives continue to ignore them.

    In the previous four Conservative budgets, the Conservatives actually raised taxes on hard-working Canadian families. Budget 2013 actually raised taxes on imported goods, everything from household goods to wigs for cancer patients. Sadly, the Conservatives raised taxes because they needed the money to cover for their waste and mismanagement. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising, and millions to advertise a jobs program that did not even exist. Meanwhile, the middle class is struggling under record levels of personal debt, and the Conservatives are raising taxes on it just to support its own profligacy and wasteful spending on advertising.

    Canadian youth are struggling. This bill ignores the unemployment and underemployment challenges of young Canadians. Due to Conservative inaction on youth unemployment and underemployment, we risk losing a generation of potential. We will feel the economic consequences of this disinterest in young Canadians for decades.

    For young Canadians, there are 265,000 fewer jobs than there were before the downturn. TD Economics has estimated that prolonged high levels of unemployment and underemployment among young Canadians will cost the Canadian economy $23 billion.

    For those who like to argue that youth unemployment is always bad following a recession, it is time to look beyond the simple unemployment rate and examine the whole story. For example, the gap between Canada's youth unemployment and adult unemployment has recently reached an all-time high. Our young people are simply being left out of this so-called recovery.

    What is more, the unemployment rate does not reflect the fact that some young people are so discouraged that they are not even looking for work any more.

    Students are having a harder time finding summer work. Many of them are taking unpaid internships just for work experience. A lack of paid work means that students are graduating from university with high levels of debt. The need today for government intervention and summer jobs, post-recession, is actually greater than it was before the downturn, yet the Canada summer jobs program last summer created half the number of summer jobs it did back in 2005.

    The need is greater today, and the government is doing half as much to create jobs for students during the summer.

    This is not just affecting young Canadians. It is affecting parents, and in many cases grandparents, who are footing the bills. According to TD Bank, more than half of baby boom parents are providing financial support to adult children who are no longer in school. It is nearly half, and 43% have allowed their adult children to live at home, rent-free, for extended periods of time.

    Helping adult children make ends meet is actually leading a lot of middle-class families into greater levels of debt. They are dipping into retirement savings. It is also one of the reasons Canadian parents 55 years of age and older with children are more likely than those without children to refinance their mortgages. Their average household debt is actually twice that of their childless peers. They are more likely to take on higher non-mortgage debt, such as higher credit card debt and lines of credit, which is one of the reasons non-mortgage debt in Canada continues to climb. The average Canadian owes $28,000 in non-mortgage debt today. That is a record high.

     There are too many young Canadians looking for work and there are too many middle-class Canadian families struggling under crushing levels of personal debt. The bill would do little to help Canadian youth or middle-class families and offers no real vision for the future.

    I would like to speak again about something in this budget implementation act, and these are the measures regarding FATCA. The Conservatives want to actually turn Canadians into American tax collectors through this budget implementation bill. Earlier this year, when the Conservatives signed an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. to implement FATCA, we had hoped that some of the concerns we had would be addressed.

    Canada and the U.S. had previously achieved an agreement to exchange information on suspected tax cheats, but FATCA goes a step further than any other tax-sharing legislation has. It requires Canadian banks to give the CRA the account information of every U.S. citizen living in Canada. The CRA will then give this information to the IRS, and those U.S. persons will have to file taxes in the U.S.

    The problem is that there are many U.S. citizens living in Canada, and they do not even know that they are considered Americans for tax purposes. These include any person born in the U.S. or born to an American parent, even if they have not lived in the U.S. since they were toddlers. The Canadian government has agreed to help the IRS find these individuals.

    This will also affect Canadians who are not even U.S. citizens but are married to one, because their joint accounts will now be reported to the IRS. This is a remarkable breach of Canadians' privacy by their own government. Not only will the CRA provide the IRS information with tax identification information and the account balances of U.S. persons without their knowledge, it will impose a $100 penalty for each instance of non-compliance. Why are Conservatives prepared to do Uncle Sam's work in this case and potentially penalize Canadians with dual citizenship or their Canadian spouses?

    U.S. persons living in Canada would be required to report and pay taxes to the U.S. on their RDSPs and RESPs. These accounts are supposed to help Canadians pay for education or help disabled Canadians avoid poverty. The Canadian government money was not intended to be used to subsidize the U.S. treasury. Why are the Conservatives allowing this to happen, when it so clearly is inconsistent with the objectives of RDSPs and RESPs?

    The other night, as I mentioned earlier today, we asked the public servants at the briefing whether Canadian government contributions, the matching grants to RESPs and RDSPs, would be considered taxable by the Americans, by the IRS. They could not answer the question. The idea that we would sign an agreement when we do not know something as basic as this speaks to the way the government has lost influence, power, and authority in negotiating with the Americans.

    The FATCA agreement is very important, and it should be a stand-alone piece of legislation. We should be doing a more thorough evaluation of the agreement the government has signed, and it should not be part of a budget implementation bill, an omnibus bill. Constitutional law experts such as Peter Hogg have raised concerns about whether the agreement violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are real issues around this that will be given short shrift through the process by which a budget implementation act, which is such a massive omnibus bill, has been given to Parliament.

    There are also provisions in this budget implement act for demutualization. I have heard from insurance providers in Nova Scotia who worry that these changes potentially will hurt rural Canadians. Even the government's own report on demutualization tells us, quote:

    Again, measures on demutualization are something we need to consider more thoroughly.

    What is clear is that this tired, out-of-touch Conservative government is devoid of vision and ideas. It is not just anti-democratic; it is totally out of touch with young Canadians and struggling middle-class families. Canadians deserve better.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for his speech. I have the pleasure of sitting with him at the Standing Committee on Finance. We have had a number of opportunities to discuss important issues there, including one that is in this bill.

    I am talking about the FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States. It has to do with the United States going through Canada to collect taxes from people it considers to be U.S. citizens. I raise this issue not just because it is important, but because we have studied the issue of tax havens and tax evasion at the Standing Committee on Finance. Some, including me, believe that we only scratched the surface, while others believe we studied the matter at length. Even though I do not feel we spent very much time on this study, it was extremely intense because the issue is quite broad and complex.

    At the Standing Committee on Finance, we will be studying this budget implementation bill in its entirety, so the committee might need several weeks to get through all the complexities of the FATCA agreement. Can my colleague comment on that?

    Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's question.

    Indeed, it is important for us to take a close look at tax havens and to implement appropriate measures. I do not agree with the government's approach to the FATCA agreement with the U.S. government. According to experts, this agreement could violate our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, among other things.

    I agree with my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques that we should work harder with Canadian banks to develop an approach on tax havens. The overall capacity of our banks and their presence around the world should enable us to do more and to take more leadership on this issue. However, the Conservative government does nothing to address tax havens in its approach to FATCA.

    Mr. Speaker, there are many complex aspects of this omnibus legislation. Certainly, even the title, FATCA, foreign accounts taxation and compliance agreement, is one of the most complex.

     It certainly would, as the hon. member stated, affect people who have no idea whatsoever that they could be caught in this broad ambit of people who are considered U.S. persons, people like me who were born in the United States but have nothing to do with the United States, who in my case has never lived there as an adult, but purely as a Canadian citizen and renounced U.S. citizenship.

    This could apply to me, or my daughter. Then the information is handed over to the IRS without our knowledge.

    Now, I want to draw attention to the charter argument, specifically section 15 of the charter, which says “Every individual is equal before and under the law...”. As my hon. colleague mentioned, the leading constitutional law experts of Canada have said that this will violate the charter.

    So, as with other legislation, it will get pushed through this place. As in the case of the Nadon appointment or with some of the mandatory minimum sentence laws that were passed, we have clear evidence that we are being asked, as parliamentarians, to push through a piece of legislation that would be offensive to our fundamental rights of equality under the law, under section 15. I ask for the member's comments.

    Mr. Speaker, this speaks to the challenge of these omnibus bills.

    We were denied the opportunity at the appropriate committees to consider all aspects of these changes in a more thorough, methodical, and thoughtful way. There are legal and constitutional issues to consider.

    Members of the justice committee, for instance, ought to have been more engaged on the changes to the Supreme Court Act in the last omnibus bill, but instead we ended up getting into an embarrassing fiasco around Justice Nadon's appointment. This was embarrassing not just for the Conservatives but our citizens as well.

    There is some expertise at the finance committee studying FATCA, but there is also a need to work with other committees.

    Parliament could be mobilized and engaged more thoroughly if we did not have these kinds of disparate measures lumped together in one budget omnibus bill.

    I would agree with the hon. member.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this bill does very little to help young Canadians find jobs. I am very concerned about the fact that if young Canadians struggle to find a job for a year or two during their youth, this will effect their earning potential and their ability to contribute to the country's economy for the rest of their lives. We see this happen to women who stay home while their children are young.

    There will be a lifetime impact on earnings potential. If we do not do something now about all the young people who are still looking for jobs after the last recession, this sector of our economy, this cohort of young Canadians, will be hurt for the rest of their lives.

    Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question from my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. This bill does not do anything for young people and for middle-class families. The youth unemployment rate is higher than it was before the recession. We have lost 255,000 jobs for young people since the recession. This will have a terrible long-term effect on the economy.

    According to TD Economics there is a $23 billion cost to the Canadian economy as a result of the scarring effect of young Canadians not getting a good start. This is leading to an unprecedented level of unpaid internships and growth in inequality of opportunity. Bill C-31 would do nothing to address the challenges faced by young Canadians or middle-class families.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kings—Hants for mentioning demutualization and the impact it would have, especially on certain regions of Nova Scotia. However, the bill does not indicate exactly what this government's intentions are in terms of demutualization. The Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies stated that these companies do not want the government to create a framework that would include incentives for demutualization.

    I would like the hon. member to speak more about the potentially negative impact of demutualization, not just for certain regions, but for people who have invested in mutual companies, especially the members, because they are the ones who invest in them.

    Mr. Speaker, clearly mutual companies are against demutualization. The government's intentions with this bill are not clear. We hope that when we discuss this bill in committee, we will get a better understanding of the direction the government wants to take. This is another case where, with omnibus bills, the government is making it difficult for us to do our jobs and assess bills responsibly.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-31, economic action plan 2014, no. 1.

    I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

    As the bill's short title would indicate, this piece of legislation would implement some of the measures passed in economic action plan 2014.

    I have noted through the years that my opposition colleagues take exception to the term “economic action plan”. They are welcome to. While they are concerned with titles and labels, we on this side of the House are concerned with action on jobs, long-term growth, and continued prosperity for all Canadians. We have focused on reducing taxes for all Canadians; lowering government debt; increasing competition in the Canadian marketplace; creating the best educated, most highly skilled, and flexible workforce in the world; and building the modern infrastructure that we need to compete abroad and enjoy living in livable communities at home.

    These priorities were outlined in our first mandate in a document I would encourage all MPs to read. All Canadians would benefit from doing so. It is called “Advantage Canada”. It is available on the Department of Finance website. That document was written in better times, before the global recession. While times have changed, our priorities have not.

    In the intervening years we have weathered the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression, but we stuck to our priorities, the priorities that Canadians elected us to address. Our commitment to that course has paid dividends for Canada. In every way that Canadians pay taxes, whether sales tax, income tax, or customs and tariffs, this government has lowered them.

    We are now poised to return to a surplus fiscal position. I cannot over-emphasize how important it is that we return to this balanced budget and reduce our long-term debt charges.

    We have reduced unnecessary regulations. We have made progress in cutting red tape. We have concluded major free trade agreements. We have invested an unprecedented amount in our post-secondary institutions and the skilled trades. Right across this great country, Canadians have seen their local infrastructure renewed, from wastewater facilities to community centres. Locally, this has meant unprecedented investments in Wilfrid Laurier University, my alma mater, as well as the world-renowned University of Waterloo and Canada's top polytechnic institute, Conestoga College.

    New computer science and engineering facilities provide students the best environment to learn. Many of these students will become graduates who want to start one of the high-tech businesses for which Waterloo region is so well known. When they do, they can take advantage of the federally supported new Communitech Hub, which offers the latest technologies for their use as experts in building high-tech businesses.

    When we talk about high-tech businesses, what we will build is beyond our imagination. Quantum computing and nanotechnology are just two of the bleeding-edge fields now being pursued thanks to significant support from this government. When I say it is beyond our ability to imagine, I clearly remember, when I was a school board trustee back in 1978, that the computer housed in the school board offices was huge. It occupied almost a full room. Today we can compute far more than that on these little devices we hold in our hands, which each one of us in the House is privileged to use. Not only will those kinds of technology advancements from 1978 increase again, but they may also possibly double or triple in quantity.

    Community centres from St. Clements to Kitchener have been built or renovated. Highway 8, our connection to Highway 401, has had its capacity increased to handle the increased volume that comes with our region's explosive growth.

    We have done all of this during the worst times the world has seen since World War II, while reducing taxes for Canadians, and without cutting support for health care or education like the previous government did.

    Canada has outperformed every other G7 country in job creation thanks to this government's commitment to long-term prosperity, as identified in the five priorities I listed earlier. Canadians have also experienced the strongest real per capita growth in the G7.

    As chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, I am especially proud of the key investments our government has made to protect and preserve our natural habitats. This government has invested over $17 billion in clean transportation initiatives, renewable fuels, clean air, clean energy, energy efficiency, and green infrastructure. This bill would build on that legacy, making it easier and more affordable for Canadians to donate ecologically sensitive lands for preservation.

    As I mentioned earlier, this budget would put us within a hair's breadth of a return to surplus. In our party, this is important. The leader of the third party claimed that budgets will simply balance themselves. While Canadians of a certain generation will remember that Pierre Trudeau had a similarly cavalier attitude toward budgets, many more Canadians will remember the painful actions it took to clean up the mess that Trudeau left. The truth is that it took decades for Canada to dig itself out of the hole that Trudeau left. If budgets balance themselves, why is the United States unable to do so; why is the Wynne government in my home province of Ontario unable to balance its books? Deficits and debts out of control, that is Pierre Trudeau's fiscal legacy.

     Now, the leader of the third party wants to bring us back to that. We on this side of the House are preparing for a brighter future, not a return to the dark days of deficits and debts spiralling out of control. Not only were they spiralling out of control, but they were also followed by very drastic cuts to health care and education, which many people in this room and many, especially in Ontario, will still remember with a great deal of pain.

    On this side of the House, and among a few members on that side—not today but usually—we believe in fiscal discipline. A balanced budget allows us to spend more of the tax dollars that we collect to serve Canadians, and means less for the bankers and bondholders who fund that debt. When the government borrows less, interest rates drop for Canadians who are seeking to borrow for a home or a car, and for provincial governments like my own that seem addicted to spending the money they do not have. That is our vision. Unlike the third party, we will not mortgage our children's and grandchildren's future in a vote-buying exercise.

     We focus instead on the fundamentals. This act would make it easier for small businesses to grow and hire by reducing the amount of time and resources they must devote to administrivia, allowing them instead to focus on their business.

     This act would make life a little easier for Canadians struggling with health issues, by making the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act more flexible for employees, and allowing compassionate care leave for employees with critically ill children.

    As well, this act addresses an issue that has so infuriated Canadians of late. We have seen senators accused of serious irregularities being suspended by their peers. They have no staff, no offices, no responsibility, but they are still accumulating pensionable service. To average Canadians, the middle-class Canadians the third party struggles so hard to define, this does not reflect any reality they have ever experienced.

     In my home of Waterloo Region, business people tell me that they cannot access the talent they need. This act would make it easier for Canadians to pursue a skilled trade by offering financial assistance to apprentices. These business people also tell me that the current system of training is broken, focused on filling seats and not on producing results. I was especially pleased when members of the Ontario government finally agreed to participate in the Canada jobs grant program.

    We are focused on jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. The budget this act would implement will move us further toward those goals. By every measure, under this government Canada's economy has outperformed the world.

     I know that the members opposite are screaming from the rooftops that this budget is the end of the world. They have been sticking to that Chicken Little routine every budget since Canadians first gave us the responsibility of governing, but they have been wrong every year and are wrong again. They are again wrong this time, and the evidence is that our approach is working. I ask the members opposite, especially those who have served more than one term, to listen to themselves, review what they predicted about previous budgets, and then review what happened, to see how wrong they have been year after year. I do not have time to go into all of the evidence, but maybe during the questions I will.

    Under this government, Canada has led the world. That may be an uncomfortable fact for the opposition members, but it is a fact they cannot deny.

    Mr. Speaker, I listened to the lecture that the hon. member has given us. Unfortunately, the Conservatives like to ignore what they are doing and especially what they are not doing.

    Looking at budget 2013, we see that there were numerous tax increases, either because of the removal of the provincial tariff exemptions or because the government applied GST on many items, such as parking at hospitals. I would like to know where the hon. member actually was when the Conservatives decided to impose the GST on parking at hospitals, a measure that was so bad they have now chosen to remove it with budget 2014 and this BIA.

    Mr. Speaker, this gives me a chance to add some material that I did not have time to do earlier. It is important for all members of the House and all Canadians to realize that it is on this side of the House, in this government, that we are working to reduce the tax burden on Canadian families. In fact, the average Canadian family currently pays $3,400 less in taxes than it did in 2006 when we took office.

    There are a number of other facts I would like to clear up because they were misinterpreted earlier. Over one million net new jobs have been created in Canada, and over 85% of those are full time and 80% are in the private sector.

    I could go on, but I have to give someone else a chance.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech, which targeted the Liberal Party. I appreciated it a great deal, because we are working to oppose this government.

    My Conservative colleague talked about the environment and some of the things the government is trying to do. Why did it not bring back the ecoENERGY retrofit homes program?

    This was a program that encouraged people to make homes more energy efficient in order to save them money when living in their homes. It was for everyone, and also helped to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

     It was really a win-win situation. It helped local businesses, saved energy, saved money, and reduced Canada's greenhouse gas footprint.

    Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that my colleague drew attention to the fact that I did target the Liberal government. In fact, it was the previous Liberal government that actually nudged me out of my complacency and to get involved in politics in the first place, because of some of the mismanagement I saw there.

    Specifically, we have invested, since 2006, more than $17 billion in support of the environment.

     The member references the ecoENERGY program. Well, all of us in the House knew it was a time-limited plan. When we established it, it was a time-limited plan. It was a Conservative plan. However, the funny thing is that these people voted against it when we implemented it and now are asking us why we are not continuing it.

    Greenhouse gases in this country have decreased by 8% since 2005 during a time when the economy grew by over 8%. Under the so-called Kyoto accord, greenhouse gases did not go down like they were supposed to, but actually increased by 30%. So, on the environment, I am proud of the record of our government.

    Mr. Speaker, specifically following up on the environment, I just want to say that the government recently announced $4.4 million of support, in partnership with the Nature Conservancy of Canada, for 743 hectares of land just outside of the Oliver-Osoyoos area in the South Okanagan Similkameen.

    This is a major effort by the government to conserve, and I will quote Linda Hannah, B.C. regional vice-president of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, who says:

    Obviously, government has a role to make sure that these valuable lands are conserved, but the member mentioned in his speech that government can also get out of the way and encourage people to donate their own land. I would like him to comment on that.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for drawing attention to the parks. Under this government, we have increased the area of our national parks by 58%. The square-mileage of our parks has increased.

    Regarding the donation of ecologically sensitive land, this is an important aspect. When people do have these prized possessions, many of which are like the lands Ducks Unlimited Canada is currently administering and creating, it is important that they be allowed to donate these without a huge tax burden.

    Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to highlight several features of budget 2014. Each year we bring out a new budget with new particulars but with the same steady principles and long-term priorities. We have looked at our economic circumstances and listened to Canadians and we know that they support our government's continued efforts to secure jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity.

    This government is proud to serve Canadians in both domestic and international affairs. On the domestic side, I would like to speak to specific job-creating and economic measures as well as our low-tax plan on the road to balance. Moving to international issues, I hope to address economic immigration, free trade agreements, and Canada's relationship with the United States.

    Allow me to start with an issue that is near and dear to all Canadians: jobs. Our government knows that Canadians are willing to work hard to get ahead, but we recognize the gap between the demand for skilled work positions and our current graduates and trainees. We are taking action to address these challenges. We would encourage students to enter the skilled trades by making interest-free loans available for Red Seal apprentice programs. Apprentices would be able to get interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per technical training period.

    Our government is committed to workers who have lost their jobs and those who need retraining. Economic action plan 2013 introduced the Canada job grant to address this very issue. The grant would go toward training Canadians for jobs in high-demand fields and will be fully implemented in fiscal year 2017. The plan is to invest $300 million in the new program from the existing $500 million labour market agreements with the provinces. Budget 2014 would continue this implementation process.

    In addition to training Canadians for available jobs, we are making it easier for businesses to hire them. As a member of the Red Tape Reduction Commission, I am pleased to say that this government would now implement another one of its recommendations. We would cut the administrative burden on more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account of source deductions.

    Despite these and other measures, the Canadian economy will experience periodic labour force gaps. Companies can address these gaps with temporary foreign workers if there are no Canadians available to do the work. Our government sees the value of the foreign worker program and its ability to help businesses in need, but we strongly believe that Canadians should always get the first shot at available jobs. To that end, we would commit $11 million over two years and $3.5 million each year going forward in reforming the labour market opinion process.

    In addition to training, cutting red tape, and filling labour gaps, our government continues the trend of keeping corporate taxes low. Low taxes encourage more start-ups and attract more international companies to move here. Our steady course on corporate taxes works nicely with our reduction in personal taxes, but I will speak more on that later. To supplement these direct measures, budget 2014 includes several less direct approaches that would encourage economic activity by creating a more conducive climate.

    New inventions, ideas, and methods give Canada an economic edge over international competitors. Our government helps to foster these innovations and discoveries by funding research and development projects throughout the country. In 2014, we would continue the trend of increasing annual R and D funding, with the total proposed spending now at $1.6 billion over five years.

    We all know that sometimes brilliant ideas come from surprising sources and that the Internet is the single greatest advance in knowledge sharing in generations. Getting more people online increases the chances of new ideas coming to the fore. Budget 2014 proposes to spend $305 million over five years to extend and enhance high-speed broadband access to roughly 280,000 households in rural and northern Canada.

    Of course, information flowing online is not the only thing that needs to move in Canada. People and goods require quality roads and rails to navigate our vast country. We have set aside $53 billion for the building Canada plan. Among other things, this plan would fund transfers to provinces and municipalities and would accept applications for the building Canada fund. It would also renew the P3 Canada fund to find new ways for state and private actors to co-operate on projects. It would contribute to on-reserve infrastructure, and much more.

    Canadians know that governments pay for these kinds of infrastructure projects through taxes. However, if taxes get too high, it can actually slow the economy down. With that in mind, since 2006, we have introduced over 160 tax-cutting measures. The average family of four's yearly taxes are now around $3,400 lower.

    Building on that solid record, budget 2014 includes many individual cuts. For example, we propose increasing the GST exemption measures, such as exempting training in coping tactics for people with disorders and disabilities. One of my personal favourites, due to the exciting technology element, is the exemption for eyewear specifically designed to electronically enhance the vision of people with impairments. Along with a host of other cuts, these measures would continue to make life just that much easier for Canadians.

    Governance is about trade-offs, such as tax relief versus deficit elimination. Our government is doing both, which brings me to my personal favourite part of budget 2014: staying on track to balanced books and surplus.

    Canadians trust our government to protect the nation's finances, to tax wisely, to rein in spending, and to respond to crises. Responding to the great recession of 2008 took a heavy toll on the budget. However, I can proudly say that the budget is on track to balance for the next fiscal year, and the sooner the better. As a small businessman, I can say first-hand that I understand the occasional need for borrowing, but I also understand the immense joy and relief of being in surplus again.

    We are eliminating the deficit in two ways: by increasing revenue and by cutting spending. By fostering a healthy economic climate, our government has helped the GDP rise, which increases tax revenue without raising taxes. Unlike what the inexperienced Liberal leader thinks, budgets do not just balance themselves. Unlike what the reckless New Democrats may hope, a carbon tax on everything depresses GDP and lowers tax revenue.

    The second way we are tackling the deficit is by making concerted efforts to reduce the size of government through attrition and modernization.

    Growth in GDP and population brings me back to the matter of immigration I introduced when speaking of the LMOs earlier.

    Along with most Canadians, our government believes that our immigration system should benefit Canada. As such, we have taken several important steps to reform the system, including proposing replacement of the immigrant investor program by the immigrant investor venture capital fund. The new program would ensure that this class of immigrants would make substantial contributions to our economy.

    Immigration is just one way that we interact with the wider world. Canada also trades extensively, and trade is good for economic growth.

    As I mentioned, we have managed to grow GDP without raising taxes; in fact, we have grown our GDP by cutting taxes over 160 times.

    Increasing resource development and increasing trade are two of the best ways to increase our GDP. With the signing of the Canada-European trade agreement late last year and the Canada-Korea trade agreement a few weeks ago, Canada has secured new opportunities for growth.

    Of course, trade requires goods and services to exchange. Canada is blessed with abundant natural resources, fertile soil, and the workforce needed to translate those assets into exports. I am particularly pleased to note that budget 2014 continues funding for agricultural development through the Growing Forward 2 framework. I also appreciate the proposed expansions to the types of livestock qualifying for tax deferral on sale by farmers dealing with drought or excessive rain.

    Measures like these clearly show that our government is pursuing a sound strategy of diversifying our economy through developing our resources, opening new markets with new partners, and drawing closer to old friends and allies.

    The great thing about trade is that it is not a zero sum game. Seeking out new trade opportunities in the Asia-Pacific zone and in Europe does not diminish our existing trade with the United States. The fact is that the United States is, and will continue to be, our closest ally and greatest trading partner. Our government is determined to increase that trade through improved cross-border infrastructure, such as the new international trade crossing between Windsor and Detroit. Budget 2014 proposes to provide $470 million over two years on a cash basis for the procurement and project delivery parts of the new bridge project. Since the Windsor-Detroit corridor handles 30% of Canada-US trade by truck, and since that trade is forecast to increase, expanding our infrastructure is an obvious choice.

    Whether it is implementing direct job-related measures, cultivating a high-growth economic climate, cutting taxes while balancing the budget, or launching new trade initiatives, our government is taking solid steps for the good of the country. All Canadians can benefit from the sound governance budget 2014 demonstrates and from the prosperity to which it contributes. That is why I am looking forward to seeing the budget implemented.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the member who just spoke achieved something quite remarkable. We have before us a 350-page bill that will change, create and amend over 50 pieces of legislation. The member managed to speak for 10 minutes without even addressing one single aspect of the bill we are discussing in the House.

    I know that the member's riding is close to the United States. One item in particular is important in this bill, and that is FATCA. Many people in his riding who are Canadian citizens and do not consider themselves American could be targeted by the U.S. revenue service, according to which they might owe thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars because the U.S. government sees them as American citizens. Those people's files could be transferred to the revenue service without their knowing it and could ultimately be subject to claims. Should that happen, those people will go to the member in question.

    I would like to know what the member will tell the people targeted by the U.S. intelligence and revenue services about the fact that they might owe thousands of dollars that they do not think they owe to the U.S. government.

    Mr. Speaker, what I would like to point out is that as we look at this budget, we are looking at a balanced way of approaching things.

    What I mentioned in my speech was the fact that it is not just one thing that is going to make a difference in this country. Just cutting corporate taxes or any other of a number of issues is not going to be what makes the difference. It is a combination of things that we do, including reducing spending, which I talked about in terms of government spending. I talked as well about reducing taxes, about immigration, about trade deals. There is a whole host of issues that we need to continue to work on in order to make our economy strong and to prosper.

    Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the other side today that the government is focused on growth and that on every measure it is outperforming other countries.

    However, I would like the Conservatives to reconsider their statements. This week's issue of The Economist shows that Canada's economy is predicted to grow by just 2.3% in 2014. This is well behind the U.S., which is slated to grow at 2.8%, and Britain, at 2.9%, and Australia, at 2.6%.

    I wonder if the member will revise these statements and admit that Canada's growth is beginning to lag behind our partners.

    Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have noticed in my role as chair of the foreign affairs committee is the number of individuals from other countries who approach me, whether they are ambassadors or the like, to talk about some of the amazing things that have been going on here in Canada.

    If we look at what has happened since the economic downturn in 2008, we understand that many countries did not fare nearly as well and as a matter of fact were absolutely crippled by what happened during that downturn.

    One of the things that is constantly raised to me by these ambassadors and other individuals is that there is more and more desire on the part of parliamentarians from other parts of the world to come to Canada to talk about the successes we have.

    We continue to move forward. I know that if we look at the debt to GDP ratio, we see that ours remains the lowest in the G7 by quite a bit. I know we will continue to move forward as we implement our action plan over the coming years.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his great speech.

    I would like to thank our previous finance minister, the Hon. Jim Flaherty, for the excellent position he has put our country in, and for this budget. I wish my new colleague all the best as well.

    I would like to ask my colleague a question. He talked about the debt to GDP ratio. I would like him to establish how that affects debt servicing payments and how returning to a balanced budget will affect debt-servicing payments and leave more of our taxpayers' money to provide services. Could the member expand on how positive that would be as well?

    I will briefly remind members that the former finance minister is still a member of the House. We usually try to avoid using members' names.

    Mr. Speaker, obviously, reducing the amount of the debt that we have to service frees up more dollars for other programs.

    One of the things I did not get a chance to mention is that I am particularly proud of this government and finance minister for introducing the adoption expense tax credit. It is something that I believe is very important. It further recognizes the unique costs that families incur as they adopt children, and the kinds of one-time expenses they have. Of course, there will also be ongoing expenses, but this is particularly important.

    As the member mentioned, as we continue to reduce the debt, it continues to free up dollars and we can look at additional programs and tax incentives.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-31. This is the fourth budget implementation bill that I have had the opportunity to discuss and debate in my tenure as deputy critic for finance and international trade for the official opposition.

    A fairly obvious trend has emerged with these budget bills that I have debated. There is a pattern or a modus operandi, if you will.

    I am going to do something that the government rarely does when debating the budget bill: I am going to discuss the budget bill. The last two speakers did not talk about it. In fact, they used the precious time of this House to talk about the budget and initiatives and also to pat themselves on the back, while ignoring the most negative aspects and this government's often poor record on the economy.

    I was saying that there is a trend that has emerged with these budget implementation bills. I have noticed that the government routinely adheres to eight criteria when it introduces such bills.

    The first concerns size. Budget bills are always mammoth affairs. As my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned, the English version of the bill is 350 pages long, and the French version is even longer, at 380 pages.

    Not only is the size—380 pages—absolutely incredible, but what the bill covers is absolutely incredible because it talks about a lot of things.

    Size is one of the criteria. There are 380 pages in the French version. In the past, some bills have been 700 to 800 pages in length. One budget bill even reached 920 pages, if I am not mistaken. That seems to be one of the government's criteria in its attempt to confuse and expedite a complex process. It wants to get through it as quickly as possible and with as much confusion as possible. However, the government should tread carefully in this process.

    The government's second criterion is that a budget implementation bill should create, eliminate or amend at least 10 laws. In this case, more than 50 laws are amended or created with a single bill.

    At the end of the process, the House will vote on a series of measures. We can give only a single yes or no, not including the votes that took place at the reading stages or during committee work, which I will touch on later.

    The third criterion that the government seems to adhere to in drafting its budget bills is that the bill must include several elements that have nothing to do with the budget or fiscal matters. For example, this bill will amend the Judges Act and add four judges to the Quebec Superior Court and an extra one in Alberta. All of that is in a budget bill. Why does the government not want to introduce a bill to amend that act on its own, so that it can be studied independently? That is not the case here.

    Using budget bills as a catch-all seems to be one of this government's tactics and a criterion for drafting such bills. People have spoken out against it. Many opposition speeches in the House quoted comments the Prime Minister made when he was in opposition and he strongly criticized the approach that he is now using on a regular basis.

    The fourth criterion is that not only must the bill include several elements that have nothing to do with fiscal matters or the budget tabled, it must also create, not amend, laws that have nothing to do with the budget or fiscal issues. For example, the last three divisions of part 6 of the bill create three different laws, including one about the Champlain Bridge and one about the management of administrative tribunals. Those are extremely important elements that should, if we are talking about creating a law, be studied separately from a budget implementation bill.

    The government seems to be favouring a fifth criterion. We have seen this a number of times in previous bills, and we are seeing it again here. The government thinks that a budget bill should put and concentrate new powers in the hands of various ministers. Last year, we saw bills that gave unprecedented powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to the Minister of Finance, and to various ministers, in fact.

    This time is no exception. Indeed, in the Hazardous Products Act amended by this bill, derivatives in securities will be amended by giving much more discretion to the ministers in question. Obviously, we can only engage in minimal discussion on the matter, because the bill is 350 pages long, and the government will push it through as quickly as possible. If the government stays on trend, which it usually does, it will start with a time allocation motion that is likely to come some time today or maybe tomorrow.

    The government is using a sixth criterion. Actually, criteria 6, 7 and 8 are a lot alike. According to this sixth criterion, at least one legislative amendment should be in a bill like this one to restrict the rights of workers. This was systematic in previous bills and it is this time, too, since changes are being made to the Hazardous Products Act. The bill will amend features relating to occupational health and safety, as in previous bills that also restricted the rights of workers. These bills not only restrict the rights of workers, but they restrict the rights of immigrants as well.

    Two specific clauses in this bill will affect them significantly by taking away rights and things that immigrants in Canada have access to. Those clauses will therefore limit access to social programs—or the restrictions may even be related to eligibility issues.

    Finally, there is an eighth and final criterion. It seems that this budget bill, like previous budget bills, absolutely must contain at least one measure related to the government's so-called law and order agenda. Why is such a measure being included in a budget bill? The reason is that the government thinks it can get away with including this measure without providing any real reasons for doing so.

    The government does not take the role of the House seriously. I do not think that it takes the essential democratic nature of the House seriously. It has never done so and continues to disregard it. As I mentioned, the Conservatives plan to move a time allocation motion. They have done so systematically with every other budget bill and with all of the legislation they introduce. The Conservatives seem to think that debate in the House is a trivial matter. Right now, they have a majority and they can do what they want. They can vote how they want and use their majority to pass the various bills that they, as a government, have deemed to be a priority. What is left for us as the opposition in the House? What remains of the role of the House if the government ignores the specific nature of the House of Commons when debating bills?

    The specific role that MPs play, regardless of whether there is a minority or majority government, is to debate the essence of the government's bills and proposals. That is the real value of the House. We do not debate for the fun of it or to fill the pages of Hansard but to determine what the strengths and weaknesses of the government's proposals are. We do not debate bills just so that we, as MPs, can get informed but so that the government can learn about any inherent weaknesses in its bills. It is only natural that there will be problems, since we are all human. The people who propose and draft bills are human. Some factors may have been overlooked or may not have been considered.

    It is our role as the official opposition and as MPs on the other side of the House to point these things out to the government, whether it be through debates in the House or through the discussions that take place at meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, which is where budget implementation bills go to be examined.

    The government is bypassing the entire process. At second reading, instead of allowing many members to participate in the debate, the government is limiting the number of speeches to 15 to 20 members, depending on the government's time allocation motion, or the gag order, as it is known in Quebec. The government is doing itself a disservice. With this approach, the government is hurting itself and the good governance of the country.

    I still do not understand why it systematically acts in this way. Since it was elected in 2011, the government has imposed some 60 gag orders during the study of various bills. Why? What is the danger? We can debate those bills and find shortcomings, whether at second reading, at report stage or at third reading. This is an opportunity to rectify the situation and to prevent the government from doing itself a disservice.

    The latest problems facing the government in its implementation of the provisions of the budget implementation bill are indicative of the weak position in which the government puts itself.

    This budget implementation bill contains a major correction to a measure that we had denounced at the time and brought to the government's attention. Why did budget 2013 have to impose the GST on the parking revenue of hospitals? Hospitals were excluded from that measure. In 2013, when the government brought it in, we said that it was a mistake.

    The government should not try to tax hospitals, since they play a specific role and parking is a source of revenue for them, but certainly not a source of profit. However, the government turned a deaf ear and decided to impose the GST on the parking revenue of hospitals. Then the Conservatives realized that we were right and they were wrong. Budget 2014 and this bill are reversing that measure. They once again exempt hospitals from GST on their parking revenue.

    Not only are the Conservatives backtracking after ignoring the opposition's recommendations, but they are also trying to hide their mistake, claiming that this is a new tax cut. However, this is a tax that they themselves imposed.

    Let us be honest and recognize that no party in the House has a monopoly on truth; no party can claim never to have made a mistake. Let us recognize that we should work together to improve bills. We can disagree on the government's agenda for the economy. We have made no secret of that; we talk about it and debate it all the time. However, when it comes to implementing specific measures that affect all Canadians, we should take our role much more seriously.

    I would like to give another example of something that happened in budget 2013 and subsequent implementation bills to show that the government does not learn from its mistakes. My colleague mentioned this, and it is worth bringing up again. I am talking about the rules for appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court ruled on the appointment of Marc Nadon. The government tried to change the rules retroactively in a section of its last budget implementation bill, which we talked about. Over and over in the House and the Standing Committee on Finance, we told them that, first of all, it had nothing to do with the budget and should be studied separately, and second, that they could not change the rules retroactively, that they got themselves in trouble and that they should fix the problem without resorting to the budget or trying to pass retroactive legislation that would have no impact. We were right, and the Supreme Court agreed. We predicted the Supreme Court's reaction.

    Are those the only elements? No. Other mistakes have happened because the government forces us to study such huge, complicated bills so quickly. Last year, the government passed a measure to eliminate an exemption for credit unions and caisses populaires.

    This involved a lower tax rate for not-for-profit credit unions, which were benefiting from a special tax exemption. Although they were being taxed at 11%, the government wanted to tax them at the overall corporate tax rate, 15%. However, the bill and the wording of the amendment were so botched that in the end, the government did not take certain details into account that would have brought the tax rate for these credit unions and caisses populaires not to 15%, but to 28%. They would have paid 13% more than chartered banks whose primary objective is to make a profit and pay dividends to their investors and shareholders.

    That was the result of a process that completely ignores the role of the House and our role as parliamentarians, MPs and representatives of our constituents. We must act in their best interest, always taking into account the common good and all the consequences our actions can have for laws and regulations.

    I will take the few minutes I have left to talk about a final point that, I think, demonstrates this government's blatant disregard for the process. We often hear about a democratic process. The government should adopt a process of good governance specifically with respect to budget bills. I would like to talk about how these issues are dealt with in committee.

    I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. When we have to conduct certain important studies, we take our time in order to do them properly. That committee is currently examining the highly problematic issue of youth employment. We will be dedicating 10 committee meetings to it. Last year, we dedicated 12 committee meetings to the issue of tax credits for charitable organizations, to determine whether we could improve the process and enhance Canadians' contributions to charitable organizations.

    When a bill of 350, 400 or 500 pages that amends 40, 50 or 60 laws comes to the Standing Committee on Finance, we may have four or five meetings at most, including meetings with the people responsible and with government representatives. Four or five meetings to discuss complex issues, such as FATCA, which could violate the privacy of thousands—if not tens of thousands—of Canadians who could be considered by the U.S. government as American citizens who owe taxes. These people could have their personal file handed over to the U.S. government without their knowledge, and they could end up owing a considerable amount of money, even though they no longer consider themselves to be American, even though they were in the past.

    This issue alone should take at least four, five or six meetings. We spent six to eight meetings discussing tax havens, and FATCA, which I just mentioned, was a key part of the debate we had at the Standing Committee on Finance. However, this will be just one of many dozens and dozens of issues we will have to discuss in that committee.

    The very first time the government introduced an omnibus bill, we called on the government to separate the bill into parts so that the parts could be discussed in the relevant committees. The government separated the bill, but it sent the parts to the committees—such as the immigration, public safety or justice committees—for one meeting. These committees do not even have the right to propose amendments that could then go back to the Standing Committee on Finance.

    This made the whole process a farce, and the budget implementation bill, regardless of what this government says, is also a farce. I urge the government to take these issues seriously, not only for the House, but also for all Canadians, whom we represent. they have the right to a competent and transparent government. The government has always claimed to be that kind of government, so it should demonstrate that right now by separating this budget into different parts to ensure that it can be carefully studied by the committees responsible for these issues.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his speech. I always find him to be a very reasonable person, so I was quite happy to hear his views as the deputy critic for finance for the official opposition.

    My question is very specific. He mentioned some of his concerns regarding the regulation, particularly to this budget implementation act, of derivatives. Derivatives are very complex formulas or algorithms that are used to calculate, particularly in the banking industry. Canada's banks are some of the world's most secure and obviously we want to keep them secure.

    He said that he had specific criticism of it. What specific criticism would he have of the proposals in this budget implementation act and, if he has time, what would he give as an alternative proposition?

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his question, which was actually very pertinent. The issue of derivatives is a very complex one. We have seen, among other things, the role played by derivatives, especially non-bank asset-backed commercial paper, in the 2008-09 financial crisis, not just in North America but around the world. Derivatives should therefore be studied carefully.

    I am not criticizing the regulations which, although not perfect, were more stringent in Canada than in many other countries. Such organizations as the Caisse de dépôt et de placement du Québec were affected rather negatively, along with many others, by the abuse of toxic derivatives they purchased.

    My objection or my concern about this budget implementation bill as it pertains to derivatives is that it gives the Minister of Finance the power to make regulations for derivatives. With something like this, we must be able to see the consequences of this concentration of power, which permanently takes away the power of Parliament to act.

    This is an important issue and it should require a specific study. Unfortunately, it will be studied along with all the measures in this budget bill.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a question about what is not in this bill. This bill does little to help young people find work. At this stage in a young Canadian's life, failing to find work will have a negative impact on the rest of his life.

    I would like my colleague to comment on that.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

    It is a good question because the Standing Committee on Finance has looked at the issue of youth employment and is still studying it today. Since at least the beginning of the financial crisis and therefore the economic crisis of 2008, the youth unemployment rate has consistently been roughly twice that of the general population. It is around 14% to 15%.

    I think it is good that the committee is meeting to discuss this. What is more, the NDP moved a motion at the Standing Committee on Finance to study the issue of youth employment and to come up with solutions; however, those solutions are missing from this budget implementation bill.

    There are solutions out there. I know that the NDP is looking at a number of possibilities for creating incentives for hiring young people, including tax incentives. It has worked for countries like Germany. We have to be able to take the best practices and try to incorporate them as much as possible to deal with the issue directly, but the budget implementation bill does not do that.

    Mr. Speaker, I too rise in the House to express my opposition to this omnibus process that is clearly calling into question the ability of parliamentarians to properly represent their constituents through informed debate on very specific issues. Instead, everything is thrown into an omnibus bill.

    I would like to ask my esteemed colleague the following. The government could have done a lot of things in this bill. I believe with all my heart that the future of this country, and probably the future of all the industrialized countries of the world, depends on the creation of new, clean technologies in order to meet our energy needs. The eco-energy program could have been brought back, for example.

    Could my esteemed colleague enlighten us by explaining what other similar measures could have been put in this bill in order to help future generations?

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Pontiac is quite right.

    Regardless of what government members may propose in the speeches we are about to hear, judging by the two speeches we have heard this morning, there will be no mention of the opportunities that the government has missed, such as moving to the energy transition that we will have to make eventually or genuinely stimulating the economy in a productive fashion. The eco-energy program is an excellent initiative.

    The government always forgets about tax multipliers. Investments are not all equal. Investments in infrastructure and in low-income Canadians, through employment insurance, have a much greater impact on the economy than cuts to income and sales taxes for companies and individuals.

    The government should consider its own recommendations, recommendations made by its own finance department, in order to come up with measures that will really help the Canadian economy and not the measures we find here.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague and those who elected him to Parliament. He does an exceptional job.

    I would like him to comment for us on the tax credit that has not been renewed in the Bill C-31. This is the tax credit the NDP proposed in 2011 that stimulates job creation by helping small business with hiring. As the Conservatives should know, when small businesses in Canada do well, Canada does well.

    Can my colleague tell us the consequences for small business if this tax credit is not renewed?

    Mr. Speaker, that is an issue that I could have addressed, but we are only given so much time for our speeches.

    People call this measure a tax credit but it is actually an EI premium credit that was granted to SMEs for each person they hired. SMEs are the biggest driver of job creation in this country. For two years, the government gave SMEs a holiday from paying employment insurance premiums for creating new jobs.

    This measure was renewed each year until now. We were very much in favour of this measure. We supported the government and we even included this measure in our 2011 platform. This credit did great things. We even wanted to take this one step further by proposing a second credit, not only for job creation, but also for job retention.

    The government must consider such initiatives and support them. However, instead, it quietly decided to discontinue this tax credit. Nevertheless, many organizations found it useful, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as did the members on this side of the House. We have always supported SMEs in their efforts to grow and level the playing field so that they can prosper. We are very disappointed. The government is on the wrong track, and the answers that are being given by the Minister of Finance are not at all reassuring for Canadians or the economic community.

    Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to discuss the bill on economic action plan 2014. I will be sharing my time with the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

    It is a great honour for me to speak in favour of the economic action plan and its implementation.

    As a chartered accountant, I am very impressed by the contents of the plan and the opportunities it creates for Canada's economy. As a mother, I appreciate that it makes Canadian families a priority, and as the member for Winnipeg South Centre, I am proud of the means it makes available to communities to improve infrastructure and services.

    As everyone knows, our Conservative government is working to create jobs, ensure economic growth and secure long-term prosperity for all Canadians—not just our generation, but all future generations.

    Our economic action plan 2014 includes numerous measures to promote our country's economic growth. I would like to talk about some of those measures.

    For example, we are going to be connecting Canadians with available jobs, training people for jobs that actually exist, and providing new graduates with real opportunities. We are going to have more paid internships for young Canadians, investing $55 million to create paid internships for recent graduates in both small and medium-sized business and high-demand fields. We are going to be supporting job creation and innovation.

    We will support job creation, innovation and trade.

    Over the next decade, we will invest $1.5 billion in post-secondary research through the Canada first research excellence fund.

    We will promote Canadian-made products, develop a “Made in Canada” campaign to promote high-quality Canadian products here and around the world, and work with our partners to reduce internal barriers to trade.

    We want to ensure responsible resource development, conserve Canada's natural heritage and invest in infrastructure and transportation, specifically through the conservation of recreational fisheries and further investment in infrastructure.

    We want to expand tax relief for health-related items and services, cap wholesale wireless rates to make telecommunications services more affordable, crack down on cross-border price discrimination, and much more.

    We will establish a $200-million national disaster mitigation program to help communities prepare for natural disasters.

    The economic action plan looks to return to a balanced budget in 2015. As a chartered accountant and the member for Winnipeg South Centre, I am proud to be a member of the government that has made this commitment to taxpayers. Unlike previous governments, we will not do it at just any price. That is a very important point. We respect taxpayers.

    For example, major transfers to the provinces for health care, education and other services that Canadians depend on will also continue to increase to record levels. While we are controlling departmental spending, federal support to Canadians, such as seniors' benefits, will continue to grow.

    Our Conservative government is squarely focused on what matters to Canadians: job creation, economic growth and Canada's long-term prosperity. With the help of Canada's economic action plan, the Canadian economy has seen the best economic performance among all G7 countries in recent years, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery. In addition, Canada is the only G7 country that has received the highest possible rating—AAA—from all major credit rating agencies.

    Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is, by far, the lowest in the G7. For the sixth straight year, the World Economic Forum has deemed Canada's banking system to be the most stable in the world.

    For example, the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, have both projected that Canada will have among the strongest economic growth among all G7 countries in the years to come. That is a remarkable accomplishment.

    Since the end of the recession in July 2009, over one million net new jobs have been created in Canada. Over 85% of them are full-time jobs, and close to 80% are in the private sector.

    Unlike the high-tax NDP and Liberals, our Conservative government believes in low taxes and leaving money where it belongs: in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job-creating businesses. We are cutting every kind of tax: personal, consumption, business, excise and more. I have many examples of how we are doing that, but I do not think I have time to share them.

    It is important that the people of Canada recognize that we are here for all Canadians. We are doing things for young Canadians and older Canadians. For example, the youth employment strategy, the YES program, would help young Canadians get the skills and work experience they need to transition to the workplace. It is an important investment of $330 million per year. To streamline and modernize the Canada student loans program, we are investing $123 million. This is among other previously established initiatives to support our young people.

    It is also important to recognize what we have done to help senior citizens. They are the beneficiaries of our historic and landmark creation, the tax-free savings account, TFSA. It has been beneficial to senior citizens, as neither income earned in a TFSA nor withdrawals from a TFSA affect their federal income-tested benefits and credits, such as the guaranteed income supplement.

    I am proud of this legislation. I am proud of our economic action plan 2014.

    I look forward to taking any questions from my colleagues on this important budget.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre for her speech. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

    I want to talk about something that directly affects my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou. I asked a question about this issue on Tuesday. A committee called Vigilance train Limoilou was created and launched a Facebook page yesterday. Tomorrow it will hold a press conference. One of the clauses in this monstrous bill will allow cabinet's decisions on changes to safety standards for the transportation of dangerous goods be kept secret.

    My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques was right to conclude his speech by talking about the government's lack of transparency. I would like to ask my colleague how she can condone enshrining this secret cult in law?

    Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague on the other side of the House needs to understand that our government is focused on job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity. These are the goals of economic action plan 2014.

    Mr. Speaker, my question is about the high, in fact record level of personal debt. It is now $1.66 for every $1 of annual income. This is the debt that individuals in Canada owe.

    For all the talk of the Conservatives about how many jobs have been created since the very depths of the recession, which they always use as the starting point, the individual debt has increased. At the same time, the government's debt has increased under the Conservative government, and across the country, in the personal accounts of Canadians.

    Why did the budget not try to tackle the personal debt issue that has been increasing over the last several years?

    Mr. Speaker, this question is terrifyingly misguided. The Conservative government is placing money in the pockets of Canadians because it believes in Canadians and their competency and capacity to make the right decisions for themselves and their families. That is unlike the previous government, which balanced the budget on the backs of our children and seniors. Our children's education transfer payments were cut and our seniors' health transfers were cut.

    We are balancing the budget responsibly, as every family has to.

    It is absolutely crucial that the hon. member understands the difference of approach. We have put $3,400 in the pockets of each family. We do not want to have concerns like this.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her wonderful speech. I find her to be a great colleague to work with.

    My question is very short, due to time. In this budget implementation act, there is a provision that would allow the automatic entry of people who would receive an HST or GST cheque into the program, so that people with low incomes, or seniors and pensioners, no longer have to apply. We are cutting red tape here. We are making sure that the people who deserve the support get it.

    I know that the member has a lot of seniors in her riding. I would like to hear her comments.

    Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The members of my constituency are absolutely delighted. They are also delighted that the Conservative Government of Canada has taken 380,000 seniors off the tax rolls.

    The concern in my province in particular is that our province has not matched that generosity, but it certainly is a help for seniors. I concur with the red tape reduction. The example I used in my remarks to the House is that TFSA earnings do not in any way impinge on GIS payments.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1. It is not often that I rise during debates on legislation, but I want to share a few thoughts on this particular bill. That is because I believe this bill and our recent budget, which it would implement, are of particular importance to my constituents in York—Simcoe.

     Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, our government has stayed true to our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians and has remained determined to see our plan through.

    Last Friday, I was proud to introduce this bill on behalf of the Minister of Finance. It constitutes our latest initiative, focusing on our key priorities: creating jobs and economic growth, supporting and protecting families, and returning to balanced budgets in 2015. This bill would implement initiatives to connect my constituents with available jobs, invest in infrastructure, and expand our focus on trade and responsible resource development.

    My constituents are pleased to see action connecting them with available jobs and fostering job creation. York—Simcoe is a hard-working riding. People are proud to work with their hands to do real things to see a positive result at the end of a day of hard work. This is a budget for them and for their children.

    Apprenticeship training plays an important role in Canada's education system, and is a key provider of the vital skills and knowledge necessary to power and grow the Canadian economy. Recognizing this, economic action plan 2014 no. 1 would provide apprentices registered in the Red Seal trades with access to interest-free loans of up to $4,000 for a period of technical training. I want to ensure that my young constituents are given real opportunities to find jobs and build careers. Many are doing so, getting jobs in Ontario or courageously striking out and moving west for opportunity. In either case, I want them to be given that chance.

    In York—Simcoe, we are experienced with the use of temporary foreign workers. The country's most valuable market gardening in our fertile Holland Marsh muck soils depends heavily on temporary foreign workers from abroad who fill tasks that are impossible to get filled locally, but that has always been done carefully. Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen failures in the temporary foreign workers program elsewhere in Canada, where officials have approved foreign workers despite the ready availability of Canadians qualified and willing to do the work. Some of my constituents have been affected by this situation.

    It is not acceptable. Our government remains committed to a temporary foreign worker program that operates in the national interest, so included in this bill are measures to ensure that Canadians would be given the first opportunity at available jobs by strengthening the labour market opinion process.

    The bill also would continue our commitment to support families like those in York—Simcoe. In last year's Speech from the Throne, we committed to lower prices and greater competition in the telecommunications market. In this bill, we would make significant progress by capping wholesale domestic wireless roaming rates. Further support for families is included through a proposed increase, to $15,000, of the maximum amount of the adoption expense tax credit to help make adoption more affordable for families.

    We would also make changes to ensure the tax system reflects the evolving nature of the health care system and the health care needs of Canadians. This includes exempting naturopathic doctors and acupuncturist services from the goods and services tax, or the harmonized sales tax, as it is in Ontario now. In York—Simcoe, my constituents increasingly rely on alternative health care providers, and this measure would help them in real and tangible ways.

    The measures set out in economic action plan 2014 have one very important element in common with all of our previous budgets: they will produce results for Canadians and their economy.

    In 2009, after the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression, our government introduced its first economic action plan. Since then, the economic policies that we have put in place through our economic action plans have been extraordinarily successful. The reality is that Canada is an economic leader among the major developed countries of the G7. While economic uncertainty is still a reality for many developed economies, our economic action plans have enabled Canada to recoup all of the jobs lost during the recession, and more.

    Since our first economic action plan, our government has created more than a million net new jobs. That is the strongest job growth performance of all the G7 countries during the recovery. Nearly all of the jobs created since 2009 have been full-time positions, 85% are in the private sector and over two-thirds are in high-paying industries.

    As well, Canada's real gross domestic product is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7 again.

    Despite all of these accomplishments and despite what is obviously a plan that works for Canadians and their economy, the opposition continues to oppose our important economic initiatives at every opportunity.

    Most important to York—Simcoe is the fact that this budget bill has us on track to eliminate the deficit and balance the budget in 2015. That matters to them because they understand that government debt is their debt, and they understand that when the opposition opposes our measures, it is because the opposition wants bigger government, higher spending, higher taxes, more deficits, and deeper debt. This is not what York—Simcoe residents want from Ottawa.

    From my time as the Minister of International Trade, I can tell the House that our government's ability to propose concrete measures to complement our already sound framework and to steer them through Parliament in a timely manner makes Canada stand out among developed economies.

    In contrast, in many other countries saw political paralysis rein and governments collapse. All the while those other domestic economies cried out for help. People abroad would say to me that they had confidence in Canada's government. Contrasting us with the U.S. and much of Europe, they would say that at least we can get things done in Canada.

    Getting things done has been an important hallmark of this government. We have actively worked to facilitate a hard-working, orderly, and productive House of Commons. In York—Simcoe, constituents usually ask me why it takes so long to get things done in Parliament. They tell me that they elected us to make decisions.

     Mr. Speaker, with my hard-working, results-oriented constituents in mind, to facilitate the certainty of being able to come to a decision on this bill, I move:

    The motion is in order. Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who may wish to ask questions to rise in their places now so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

    Thank you. We will proceed in a fashion similar to a normal question and comment period. Members will have about a minute or a minute and 15 seconds to put a question and also for the government to respond.

    Questions, the hon. minister for Burnaby—New Westminster.

    Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. We are not ministers yet, but it is certainly coming, especially after this quite despicable act. It is coming. On October 19, 2015, you will be calling many of the folks on the NDP side as ministers, so we appreciate your getting the practice in right now.

    We had the government House leader, soon to be opposition House leader, rise in this House and speak to the budget. This is a rare thing. He has not done this very often.

    The problem with time allocation is that he is now shutting out most members of Parliament from being able to speak to this budget bill. Most members of the opposition, but also dozens of Conservatives, have not spoken to a single government bill since the beginning of the session. They are being told by the government House leader that their constituents do not have the right to be represented in the House of Commons. If their constituents do not have the right to have them stand up on their behalf and speak to this bill, most members of the opposition and most members of government are being disenfranchised. That is appalling. It is over 60 times now that the government has shut down debate. Hundreds of members of Parliament will be disenfranchised by this action.

    The simple question is this: given how low the credibility of the current government is with the Canadian public, how does it have the nerve to cut hundreds of members of Parliament out of the budgetary process?

    Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, Canadians gave our government a very strong mandate to govern and to focus on the economy. At the point of the last election, all Canadians knew that with the economy in the midst of a global downturn, there was only one party they had faith in to take control of Canada's economy and help build and create jobs.

    Canadians expect their government and the opposition to move this type of legislation forward. They expect the government to take decisions and to take action on the commitments that we have already brought forward in the budget. That is what our government has done in the House of Commons over the years that we have served as the Government of Canada.

    Our government has faced continued attempts by the opposition, as we saw again this morning, to delay and obstruct these important bills with amendments that are really just calling for the shutdown of the entire budget package. We have seen the opposition filibuster.

    We certainly look forward to continued debate here in the House of Commons.

    Mr. Speaker, it was with absolute astonishment that I saw the head of the Conservative Party stand up and move time allocation on something so big and so complicated as a bill that would have such an enormous impact on this country of ours as we move forward. Does the member have any shame at all that his party can sit back and allow this to go forward without having proper debate?

     I would ask the member this. How many different bills are in the bill we are talking about? There must be 50 or 60, if not more, changes of significance to major things that are going on in our country. Does he not have any shame or concern about the impact that would have on Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, many of us still remember 2005, the last time the member had the opportunity to sit in government. That Liberal government's last budget implementation bill did much the same. It amended many different bills, dozens of different pieces of legislation.

     Let us be clear. It is not the size of the budget legislation that the opposition cares about. It is not about which bills are in or which are not. We have had much larger budget implementation acts or bills in the past. It is that the opposition wants to stop the necessary and vital economic reforms that are in this bill.

    Even though the opposition likes to suggest otherwise, it has been common practice to include various measures in a bill and in the subsequent budget implementation bill. That has been common practice. This is nothing new or groundbreaking. The opposition would have the Canadian public believe that these are extraordinary measures that have never been implemented in the past. Budget implementation bills often deal with legislation from different departments, with monies and so forth, so it is nothing that is new or groundbreaking. It simply reflects the central role of a budget to a government's agenda.

    That is what this implementation act does. It brings forward the mandate and the agenda that we have to continue to bring forward positive policy that will help create jobs and build prosperity for all Canadians in a very fragile recovery.

    Mr. Speaker, if I understand the minister of state's argument, it is that the Conservatives are just like the former Liberal government, only on steroids. Is that his argument in defence of this action?

    This omnibus budget implementation act, which follows a long series of similar bills, is over 350 pages and almost 500 clauses in length, and contains so many changes that have never been brought forward in a budget bill. I just want to highlight two that are of particular concern to so many of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park, and I am sure members are hearing this across the country.

    First of all, with the changes around FATCA, a totally new bill is housed within Bill C-31 that would affect so many people who happen to hold Canadian-American citizenship, and is doing so without answering vital questions around privacy and what it would mean to people's private banking information. We need to have a thorough debate on that.

    A second change is to rail safety. My riding is bounded by three railway lines, and people are very concerned about rail safety. When I read in the bill that the government would be able to change and repeal a wide variety of railway safety regulations without even telling the public, I think Canadians deserve a debate on that.

    My question for the minister of state is how can he justify suppressing the democratic right to debate such fundamental changes the Conservative government would make?

    Mr. Speaker, again, we did have the opportunity to listen to a number of speeches this morning from the government and the opposition sides. With all due respect, the opposition brought forward concerns regarding the FATCA agreement, which this member has talked about, and there are many people across Canada who are questioning exactly what FATCA is. Let me say that the agreement addresses those concerns.

    The agreement addresses the concerns that Canadians had when the United States imposed certain regulations based on the treaties it has with many different countries. Consequently, this government responded very quickly and negotiated a very solid intergovernmental agreement, or IGA, with the Americans. It is an agreement that relies on the existing tax framework under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty.

    CRA will not assist the Americans, it will not assist the IRS, in collecting U.S. taxes. Also, there are no new taxes being implemented through FATCA, and no new taxes that Canadians need to worry about. In our negotiations, we obtained a number of significant concessions that would not normally have been included, such as not including RRSPs in disclosure, not including RDSPs, not including tax-free savings accounts, and many others.

    Again, FATCA is a policy that is here basically to safeguard Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, I found it odd in several respects as this debate started that the member for York—Simcoe mentioned that people in his riding told him that they just wanted things done. If I lived in his riding, I would tell him, quite frankly, that he does not get out much, because what we are looking at here is something that is getting done, but not in a way that people feel is right for the country. I think it is irresponsible for the Conservatives to say that they just want to get it done quickly by using things such as this omnibus legislation.

    The minister of state talked about the practices back in 2005 when the Liberals were in power. I remember that time and was here when the Conservatives took particular issue with the fact that the Atlantic accords were within the budget legislation. The Conservatives wanted these as a separate vote, and they got their way because of the Conservative members from Newfoundland Labrador. Things have changed. One, there are no Conservative members from Newfoundland and Labrador, among other things.

    So, if the Conservatives did not like it then, when will they start practising what they used to preach?

    Mr. Speaker, we very much look forward to the next election when we will have members from Newfoundland and Labrador sitting in the Conservative caucus again so that Newfoundland and Labrador can have a voice not only in the caucus but also in cabinet. I think that member has recognized the problem that Newfoundland and Labrador does not have those opportunities. That said, we have many very strong members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada and across the country who are standing up and talking about the issues that are affecting Newfoundland and Labrador.

    We look forward and anticipate, after the next election, Conservative members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like our Conservative, tax-cutting heroes—who have allegedly liberated taxpayers—to tell us about the 125,000 workers who use the Champlain Bridge each day.

    What will those workers do when they wake up to find that they have to pay a tax to get to work and another to get back home at night?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians now have a government that has brought forward the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history. The infrastructure being implemented across this country will serve Canada well for decades and decades. Many years ago, it was not the role of the federal government to be as active in federal infrastructure spending. This is a very positive measure that we brought forward to help create jobs and grow our economy in the downturn. However, the opportunities in the future are going be immense.

    In Montreal and other places, bridges are being constructed. We need those pieces of infrastructure to move people and produce. More and more, Canadians are realizing that we need access to other markets. The hon. member talked about the toll for the Champlain Bridge. Many of the programs we are doing are called P3 programs. Part of the commitment for that bridge was that it would be a toll bridge, and we have others like it across the country. If there were to be the bridge, there would be a toll.

    Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the hon. government House leader decided to shut down debate. He made a speech and then, well I cannot remark on where he might be, questions are being taken by the hon. parliamentary secretary.

    The hon. government House leader had the gall to tell the House, on behalf of his constituents, that the government did not believe in big government. What is not “big government” about it asking the banks to root through the private information of Canadian citizens and turn that information, without their knowledge or consent, over to a foreign government? That is not just big government, that is big brother government. This measure deserves treatment in something other than an omnibus bill that has limited debate time.

    I will not be able to speak a full 10 minutes because with time allocation, debate never comes around to the smaller parties. This is both an affront to democracy and a violation of the charter, as well as further abuse of our parliamentary system.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the member that I am answering questions. I believe it is an honour to stand in the House and promote the budget implementation act of 2014.

    On this FATCA, without an agreement in place our financial institutions would still have had to comply with FATCA. That is the problem. It is not whether or not our financial institutions would have had to comply with the rule of law dealing with those American citizens who are abiding here in Canada. Every financial institution in Canada, except the very small ones, would have had to comply with the Americans, and if they did not, there would have been huge consequences to their being involved in the United States, to their activity in the United States. It would have required banks to report information to the IRS. Canadian banks would have been reporting to the IRS.

    The agreement we were able to negotiate says that those financial institutions can disclose information on American citizens living in Canada and their finances to the Canada Revenue Agency, which is then responsible for moving the information forward.

    If that had not happened, banks would have had to deny basic banking services to clients. That is one of the major concerns that banks had, that they would in effect have to say no to American citizens or those who may be dual citizens, saying that they could not do business in Canada.

    Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, closure prevents us from discussing the financial insecurity of Canadian families.

    We will not be able to discuss credit card interest rates, which destroy the financial capacity of Canadian households.

    We will not be able to discuss “pay to pay", the practice whereby companies charge additional fees to people who pay by Canada Post. Despite this government's throne speech, nothing is being done about this.

    Lastly, as for pensions, it is the same story about the grasshopper and the ant. I would like someone to explain to me how not saving now will give us an income in the winter of our lives.

    Mr. Speaker, I had a hard time following the member's question initially because he was speaking about the dire circumstances of Canadians as a result of interest rates being too low. Does that mean that the New Democratic Party is proposing that interest rates dramatically increase? Does it believe that a big increase in interest rates would help to drive the economy? Does it believe that high interest rates are going to encourage small and medium-size businesses to hire more employees? Does it believe that high interest rates would build our economy?

    The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin on a point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, he is stating the very opposite of what I said. The answer must reflect the question. I was speaking about high credit card interest rates—

    That is not a point of order, but a matter of debate.

    The hon. minister of state.

    Mr. Speaker, the other concern he had was in regard to retirement. I wish I had more time. We have three very strong pillars to retirement in Canada: the OAS, GIS, and CPP. We also have the pillar of all the other incentives for Canadians that our government has brought forward, incentives like the pooled registered pension plan and the tax-free savings account. All of these were brought in because we are focused on the retirement security of Canadian seniors. When I travelled the country during the prebudget consultations and after the budget rollout, Canadians thanked us for the measures the government had brought forward. We are looking out for the—

    The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

    Mr. Speaker, any economist would tell us that if we want to see manufacturers export more, we need to have a strong system of both intellectual property and international trade agreements. Our government has had a very strong record of taking action to strengthen Canada's intellectual property system. Trademarks help protect a company's brand and reputation, and ensures that consumers have confidence that the products they buy are legitimate.

    The existing framework for protecting intellectual property is not currently aligned with international practices, creating unnecessary costs for businesses. International treaties, like the Madrid protocol, the Singapore treaty, and the Nice classification, recognize trademarks and make it easier for companies to do business. I know that under these treaties Canadian companies could benefit from promoting their brand, both at home and abroad.

    Could the Minister of State for Finance please tell the House what the government is doing to assist Canadian businesses with regard to trademarks and branding?

    Mr. Speaker, our government is known for reducing red tape. We brought forward commissions that would help reduce red tape. We are focused on what we can do to help small, medium, and all businesses succeed. That means reduced red tape. That is part of our effort to protect the interests of the Canadian workforce. That is what we are here to do.

    I am pleased to tell the member that the legislation we are here to debate today, economic action plan 2014 act no. 1, would implement all three of those international trademark treaties. This would reduce red tape for Canadian businesses and support our trade agenda. These measures would aid in streamlining the granting and protection of intellectual property rights in Canada and around the world. Harmonizing Canada's intellectual property regime would help Canadian businesses access new markets, lower costs, and draw foreign investment to Canada, while reducing the regulatory burden and red tape.

    Our trade minister, our agriculture minister, and many other ministers and members of Parliament have travelled the world trying to gain access to new markets. One of the stumbling blocks has been that we have not been signatories to some of the treaties, like the Madrid one and others. This would help implement that.

    Before I go to questions and comments, I want to remind all hon. members that you ought to stand when questions and comments are called, not just stand for an extended period hoping to be recognized many minutes before there is an opportunity.

    The hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

    Mr. Speaker, once again, considering that this is the 61st gag order that the government has imposed since winning the 2011 election, it is clear that the government does not care about democracy. It wants to once again limit the debate on a fundamental issue, especially considering that the number of proposed amendments in this omnibus bill means that we will not have the time to properly debate them, which would have allowed us to really get to the heart of the matter. There are so many issues in this bill, issues that need a much more thorough debate. Consider, for example, the creation of a national securities commission, the Champlain Bridge and apprenticeship grants. There are many other potentially volatile areas that could really affect the economy. We are also wondering why the bill includes funding for the automotive industry in Ontario. There is also funding for fishers in Newfoundland, but there is no compensation for Quebec's cheese and dairy producers following the free trade agreement with the European Union. For the Quebec economy, there are many things that are not found in this bill, and we will not have time to debate it because, once again, the government is limiting the time, which is a complete affront to democracy.

    Mr. Speaker, I am not certain exactly what the question was. I can tell the hon. member that the Canada-European Union trade agreement is an agreement that would give us access to 500 million people. It is going to be a huge benefit to Canada's economy. Certainly when we meet with manufacturers, with the agricultural industry, and with many others, they understand the importance of that free trade agreement, and all the free trade agreements we have, to our country.

    Canada leads the G7 with more than one million jobs created since the depth of the global economic recession, but we are not immune from the challenges from beyond our borders. We cannot afford to become complacent. For that reason, we stepped forward with free trade agreements, as the hon. member mentioned here today. We have brought forward agreements that will help employment in Canada and the economy in Canada. They will help all Canadians.

    I would encourage the member to meet with Canadians in different sectors and find out about the importance. He mentioned dairy producers. It is going to be good for all of agriculture. It was specifically mentioned that there are certain measures in place to protect.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the original purpose of this debate, which concerns why debate on this legislation should be limited. We are debating time allocation.

    In this omnibus bill, there are corrections to mistakes in previous omnibus bills. It seems as if every omnibus bill has to correct every previous omnibus bill. All of these bills have had debate limited and have been pushed through faster than they really should have been. They have contained a lot of different material unrelated to the budget.

    My question for the parliamentary secretary is this: if this is a pattern that each of these bills has to correct the previous one, why do we not just do it right for once? Why do we not just take our time and get it right?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians got it right in 2006. Canadians got it right in 2008. Canadians got it right in 2011 when they asked this government to be the government to shepherd or take the economy through a very difficult economic time. Canadians got it right.

    Even as I travelled across this country, from one coast to the other, in the pre-budget consultation, we heard from industry, from moms and dads, from academics, and from manufacturers. We heard different groups come forward to say what they would like in the budget. They understood. They understood that this government was the government that can help build jobs, help create jobs, and help save jobs and that wanted to see the economy move ahead quickly.

    Everything in the bill supports our low-tax plan for Canadians. It supports our low-tax plan for jobs and growth. What the opposition is not talking about today is that Canada's economy grew much more in January than members opposite ever expected it would or that the economists expected it would. That is what members want to stifle.

    Mr. Speaker, we know that since the depths of the recession, Canada has had the best job creation in the G7 under this government's leadership. Over one million net new jobs have been created since July 2009, overwhelmingly full-time, well-paying jobs in the private sector. Private sector employers across Canada say that the biggest challenge they are facing is a lack of skilled workers. This is particularly problematic in certain sectors and regions, where thousands of jobs are going unfilled, because not enough skilled workers are available to fill them.

    Given this government's success in previous years in job creation and in connecting Canadians with available jobs, would the Minister of State (Finance) please tell this House about the measures in the bill that would contribute to this aspect of the economy?

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank that member of Parliament for the very important and strong work he is doing, first, on the Ukraine file, as he was undoubtedly the most supportive in bringing that issue forward.

    I also want to thank him for hosting me as we went across the country on a pre-budget consultation. He brought a group of businessmen and chambers together, and they, again, shared what they hoped would be in the budget.

    In response to his question, I would like to highlight a couple of important initiatives found in this budget.

    First, it would invest $11 million over two years and $3.5 million per year ongoing to strengthen the labour market opinion process. All of us understand the need there as we meet with constituents. This would help ensure that Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs.

    We would also provide $14 million over two years and $4.7 million per year ongoing toward the successful implementation of an expression of interest economic immigration system. This, again, would help support Canada's labour market needs.

    Budget 2014 is a budget that would equip apprentices registered in the Red Seal trades with access to interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per period of technical training.

    Last, we would help reduce red tape. We want to see red tape cut for more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account of source deductions.

    There is much in this budget. Those are just a number of the points that would help with job creation and would help strengthen our economy.

    It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

     Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion the yeas have it.

    And five or more members having risen:

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

    I understand that there have been discussions and that the House would like to have a full round of statements. Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Speaker, in our 2011 campaign platform we committed to being here for law-abiding Canadians.

    Canadians want to know that their streets are safe and that their children are protected from predators. They believe in supporting the rehabilitation of offenders but also that the punishment fit the crime. Canadians also agree that the justice system should not put the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims. They believe that one victim is one victim too many.

    Today, with the introduction of the victims bill of rights, we will entrench the rights of victims into legislation at the federal level. The bill addresses the needs most often noted by victims: the right to information; the right to be protected; the right to participation; and the right to restitution and financial assistance.

    This legislation is long overdue.

    Under the leadership of our Conservative Prime Minister and our Conservative government, we will always stand on the side of victims.

    Mr. Speaker, I took part in a few community events over the past two weekends. Many of my constituents told me that they are very concerned about the lack of available jobs and the increased cost of living.

    What really got my attention is that some of them spoke about a drop in their credit rating. These people are deep in debt. They are unemployed students, people who cannot find a better paying job, part-time and low-wage workers, and victims of fraud. Canadians who are in debt are not necessarily potential thieves or fraudsters. On the contrary, most reported frauds are committed by people taking advantage of high credit ratings.

    These people are caught up in the maze of bureaucracy and a business philosophy that advocates increased premiums and interest rates for the most vulnerable.

    Mr. Speaker, last week our government introduced the fair rail for grain farmers act to address the rail capacity challenges currently affecting western Canada, especially farmers.

    This week, the agriculture committee has been hearing testimony from all members of the supply chain on this decisive legislation. We are pleased that so many stakeholders are reacting positively to what this legislation seeks to accomplish. According to the Canadian Canola Growers Association, “The measures announced in [last week's] Bill, along with other efforts recently implemented demonstrate the Government is listening to farmers concerns”.

    We could not agree more. The opposition has committed to moving this legislation forward without delay and we sincerely hope that the opposition keeps its promise. We look forward to a constructive clause-by-clause review and passage of this important legislation next week.

    Farmers are counting on us.

    Mr. Speaker, 2014 marks the 150th anniversary of the Charlottetown Conference, the event that hosted our Fathers of Confederation.

    This week, Charlottetown hosts the East Coast Music Awards. Although Atlantic Canada is famous for its fiddle music and kitchen parties, Charlottetown will experience all genres of music this week. Rock, pop, R&B, folk, jazz, blues and more will be on full display at the numerous venues around the city.

    The East Coast Music Association is over 1,000 members strong and provides an invaluable local community for emerging and established artists from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and my province of Prince Edward Island. P.E.I. alone boasts artists like Meaghan Blanchard, Tim Chaisson, Paper Lions, Irish Mythen and more.

    I wish to thank the East Coast Music Association for recognizing the value of Charlottetown's history, venues, hotels, restaurants and, most importantly, its people. We are proud to welcome such a regionally important event to Prince Edward Island's capital city.

    Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to inform the House that Hades has frozen over.

    My dad has retired after 51 years as the president of C.D. Armstrong Insurance Limited. My dad graduated from Acadia University. After a very successful career and three years as a starter in the varsity basketball program, he took over the family business. My dad got married and raised four children with the proceeds from that business. At 74 years young, he has finally made the decision to retire.

    I want to thank my dad personally for all the years of hard work and effort he put in so that I and my three sisters Ann, Martha, and Sarah could go on to university and do the things we wanted to do. My dad put in many years of hard work and effort.

    Dads all across the country and moms all across the country make sacrifices so their children can do better. My dad did that for us, as did my mother Tilly.

    I also want to pass on my condolences to my mom Tilly, who now has to put up with my dad 24/7.

    Mr. Speaker, for some time now, the people in my riding have been dealing with a serious situation, a polar bear invasion.

    This invasion has led to 15 attacks so far and has caused many accidents on the highways, since the polar bears tend to blend in with our snow-covered roads.

    What is more, mating between these polar bears and our black bears has produced offspring that look exactly like panda bears. This is bringing in unprecedented waves of tourists that we are unable to accommodate because our infrastructure is not designed to handle 25,000 tourists a day. I invite every expert in the matter to join me for DocuMenteur, a unique fake documentary festival being held this week in Rouyn-Noranda, a festival where truth and lies have been meeting for 10 years now.

    I would like to congratulate the many volunteers and commend the co-founders of Festival du DocuMenteur: Carol Courchesne, Émilie Villeneuve and Ariane Gélinas.

    Mr. Speaker, I have just received notice that Agrium's Carseland fertilizer facility has gone down due to mechanical failure. Agrium's Redwater, Alberta, nitrogen facility is expected to go down in mid-May, partway through spring seeding. Prices have already skyrocketed in the last few months, and it is not obvious why this has happened.

    As well, grain companies across Canada have driven down the price they are paying farmers for their grains and oilseeds. This is not due to a drop in world prices, but has only been possible because of the slow grain movement by CN and CP.

     There seems to be a common thread here. It seems to me that these types of cost increases for farm inputs are only possible because of a lack of competition, and the lower grain prices are only possible because of a lack of competition in that sector. This is always hard to prove, but I doubt we would see these issues, which are so difficult for farmers to deal with, if there were more competition. Any further reduction in competition should not be allowed, at least until companies prove they can do the job.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a service club in my riding that recently received a Prime Minister's Volunteer Award under the social innovator category. Two weeks ago, I hosted a function in Brockville, Ontario, in my riding of Leeds—Grenville, where I, MPP Steve Clark, and Brockville mayor David Henderson, recognized the achievement by this hard-working club.

    The May Court Club is a small service organization of about 150 women that was formed in 1959. The members of the club are committed to enriching their community by providing financial and volunteer support to individuals and organizations. In doing so, they enhance the lives of many members of their community. Funds are raised in a variety of ways, and their work includes such items as a breakfast program in schools, the construction of accessible playground structures, and support for several local hospital programs.

    The May Court Club of Brockville has made a huge long-term impact in Brockville, and I am proud to salute all of the volunteers and all of their efforts.

    Mr. Speaker, I recently discovered that 60 tank cars containing 30,000 barrels of oil from the oil sands will probably be running on the tracks of Boucherville, Varennes, Verchères and Contrecoeur, which are all cities in my riding. This is worrisome and the government has not yet imposed a deadline for the complete elimination of DOT-111 tank cars. This issue was raised many times by the public and the mayors I met during the public consultations on rail safety that I held in Verchères together with my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie. People across the country have mobilized to condemn this government's inaction and to share their concerns with us.

    Worst of all, we have learned that there are more things hiding in a new omnibus bill. The Conservatives are now dismantling safety standards for the transportation of hazardous goods. That is unacceptable and, in terms of transparency, the government could not have a worse track record. Canadians are worried. It is the government's duty to protect public safety and to ensure that rail safety is key. I hope that, for once, the Conservatives will be responsible enough to forget about partisanship and think of Canadians' safety.

    Mr. Speaker, we all know where the Liberal Party stands on firearms. After all, it was former Liberal attorney general Allan Rock who said that he came to Ottawa firmly of the view that only the police and military should have firearms. This attitude was a slap in the face to hunters, farmers, and sport shooters.

    However, the Liberals have now topped that out-of-touch statement. Michael Bryant, former Liberal attorney general in Ontario, said that only police have the skill set to determine if a gun should be prohibited and that members of Parliament are the least qualified to make these decisions. This Liberal then went on to say that the thousands of gun owners who were upset by the arbitrary and unfair reclassification of firearms by the Canadian firearms program was simply a “tantrum”.

     Conservatives disagree. Canadians sent members of Parliament to Ottawa to make decisions, not hide behind unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. The Liberals cannot hide their deep-seated resentment of law-abiding gun owners. Only Conservatives will stand up and defend the interests of farmers, hunters, and sport shooters.

    Mr. Speaker, we received confirmation this morning that Marie de l'Incarnation and Monsignor de Laval will be canonized. As I speak, Cardinal Gérald Cyprien Lacroix, Archbishop of Quebec City, Sister Louise Gosselin, Superior General of the Ursulines of the Canadian Union, and Father Jacques Roberge, Superior General of the Séminaire de Québec, are holding a press conference to celebrate this announcement.

    The announcement in the paper by the diocese of Quebec City says that Saint François de Laval was the first bishop of Quebec City and the founder of Quebec City's seminary. He was also the founder of the Notre-Dame parish of Quebec City, which celebrates its 350th anniversary this year. Sainte Marie de l'Incarnation founded the Ursuline convent of Quebec City and the first girls' school in North America 375 years ago this year. Both of them left their mark on the history of Quebec. After the opening of the Holy Door and after Monsignor Gérald Cyprien Lacroix was elevated to the rank of cardinal, the diocese is once again celebrating with the Église catholique de Québec a great event.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to recognize one of this year's Loran Scholars, Mr. Sachin Pasricha.

    After 25 years, the Loran Scholar program is Canada's largest and most unconventional merit award, recognizing a mix of academic achievement, extracurricular activity, and leadership potential.

    This year, 30 Loran scholars were selected from an initial pool of nearly 3,500 applicants, for their integrity, determination, entrepreneurial spirit, and overall leadership promise.

    A student at Upper Canada College and a proud resident of Don Valley West, Sachin was recognized for his character, service, and leadership potential.

     Sachin has chaired Ontario Model Parliament for two years, and previously co-founded a student-run publication for the program. He is also the news editor for his school newspaper and captain of the cross-country team. In the summer, he works as a special needs counsellor.

    Well done, Sachin.

    Mr. Speaker, the United Nations fears that South Sudan is imploding, but with so many competing crises around the world, it is getting scant media attention.

    Political divisions within South Sudan have resulted in heavy fighting and mass atrocities, committed by rival pro-government and anti-government forces. Ethnic mobilization threatens wider intercommunal violence. Communities face horrendous suffering, including disease and malnutrition.

     With the rainy season imminent, the desperate situation will only get worse. Life-saving supplies must be deployed to the hardest to reach in order to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. Air drops are taking place now, and famine is probable.

    The international community has a special obligation to South Sudan, as it is a new and young country. I urge this House to come together to encourage the international community to work toward a successful peace and reconciliation process and respond to the changing humanitarian needs in South Sudan.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to pay tribute to two important people in Quebec history who have been canonized by the Vatican.

    On Thursday, Pope Francis signed a decree that allows for the canonization of Marie de l'Incarnation and François de Montmorency-Laval. These two French missionaries were actively involved in the evangelical movement in North America.

    Marie de l'Incarnation was one of the founders of the Monsastère des Ursulines in Quebec City, and François de Laval is the founding bishop of the diocese in the province's capital. Both of them are buried in Quebec City, and the faithful can visit the tombs of the saints today and tomorrow.

    I am proud that there will now be a St. Marie de l'Incarnation and St. François de Montmorency de Laval. It is a privilege for me to leave evidence of that in the heritage of our Canadian Parliament.

    Mr. Speaker, sandwiched between the fiascos of their unfair elections act and nomination meetings—where the enterprising Dimitri is blinded by his love for his lady—we find the grain transportation debacle, the dismantling of Canada Post, the closure of service offices for our veterans, leniency towards railway companies that transport dangerous goods a stone's throw from our schools, and systematic denial of environmental issues.

    However, that mismanagement sandwich would not be complete without mention of the sad existence of an unelected, undemocratic Senate, which is being asked to hastily approve an equally undemocratic reform cooked up by the party in power, for the party in power.

    That is almost as scandalous as a botched car wash at an Ottawa gas station. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that governs for them, not just to stay in power through voter suppression tactics reminiscent of the Republicans. Luckily, Canadians can choose the NDP, a party that will consult them, represent them and put policies in place that reflect their beliefs.

    Mr. Speaker, our government remains committed to standing up for victims of crime and giving them a more effective voice in the criminal justice system.

    Today the Prime Minister announced legislation to create the Canadian victims bill of rights. This is an historic first for our country. We are acting to entrench the rights of victims into legislation at the federal level. This will significantly transform our criminal justice system by creating clear statutory rights for the victims of crime.

    This builds on our government's strong record of putting the rights of victims first. We have already established the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, created the federal victims fund, and passed over 30 justice and public safety measures to keep our streets and communities safe.

     It also stands in stark contrast to the Liberal Party, who not only instituted a faint hope clause for convicted murderers, but also essentially ignored the pleas of victims who, for 13 years, asked for it to be repealed.

     The fact is that the Conservative Party is the only party in this House that puts the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals.

    Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives have come to power, the number of refugees admitted into Canada has dropped by 30%. Khurshid Awan was taking sanctuary in a Montreal church six months ago. Her husband has been shot by radicals in Pakistan. Doctors fear for her life. She had a near fatal heart attack when they tried to deport her the first time. Her daughter has been given asylum in Canada, but Mrs. Awan has not. The Anglican bishop of Montreal has spoken out on her behalf and asked the minister for a meeting, but he has simply refused. Why the heartless treatment?

    Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, refugee cases, asylum cases, are heard by a very professional, independent Immigration and Refugee Board. Our government is enormously proud of the steps we take to focus our asylum system on the needs of real refugees.

    We have reduced, by 87%, the number of asylum seekers coming from safe countries. The number of refugees being processed from Syria has risen to 1,700, and we are processing all of the 200 refugees referred to us so far by the UNHCR from Syria. That is a record to be proud of.

    Mr. Speaker, he is proud of deporting a woman who doctors say will die. It is his decision. He can take it and save her life. Why so heartless? That is the real question.

    Ti-Anna Wang has been working for 10 years to obtain her father's release from a Chinese prison. He earned a degree in medicine in Montreal and was working for democracy in China before he was arrested and thrown into prison for life.

    The government is going to build a monument in memory of the victims of regimes like that.

    Why is it doing nothing to help real victims today, in cases like that of Dr. Wang?

    Mr. Speaker, Canada continues to be a beacon of hope for dissidents, for the persecuted, for refugees around the world. We will take no lessons from the NDP, which has opposed our asylum reforms at every turn, reforms that were aiming to focus Canada's resources on those who need it most. We are proud of the fact that one in 10 refugees settled by UNHCR around the world continues to come to Canada. We are going to make sure that continues to be the case.

    Mr. Speaker, he is proud of doing nothing for Bingzhang Wang.

    Yesterday, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform claimed that there were regular reports of Canadians voting multiple times that could be found on Elections Canada's website. The only problem is, it is just not true.

    The only case that the minister can actually cite is a skit from a comedy show. The minister is spinning the same tall tales as his colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville, who was caught making things up a few weeks ago and had to apologize. What will it take for Conservatives to see the abject failure of this minister and withdraw this anti-democratic bill?

    Mr. Speaker, what I said was absolutely accurate. In fact, there are documented cases where people received multiple voter information cards. I gave the example, which was documented by the French CBC, where two Montrealers each received two voter information cards and therefore each voted twice. The fact that a comedy show was able to carry this out right under the noses of Elections Canada is yet more evidence that these cards cannot be relied upon. One in six of them have errors. We are not going to be allowing them to be ID.

    Mr. Speaker, that is delusional.

    Let us look at this minister's real record. He tried to use the Neufeld report, but Mr. Neufeld himself came here to say that the Conservatives were completely distorting his report.

    The Chief Electoral Officer has said that this reform is going to silence Elections Canada; investigators are saying that this reform is going to prevent them from investigating; and today, we learned that the former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, is adding her voice to the group of experts stating clearly that this bill is anti-democratic.

    Will he finally admit that the one and only goal of the bill is to help the Conservative Party?

    On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act will help to establish new rules. For example, there will be a registry for all robocalls. The authorities will be able to monitor those calls to make sure that Canadians no longer receive calls containing misleading information. It will also protect Canadians from big money and the undue influence of money, as well as requiring voters to bring a piece of identification when they vote.

    Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have written to families of Canadian Forces members killed in Afghanistan asking them to pay their own travel costs to attend a national memorial in Ottawa on May 9. Now the minister is trying to shift the blame, claiming that he is not responsible for the note sent out by his own office.

    Enough with the excuses. These families have already paid a greater price than most of us can even imagine. Will the Minister of National Defence take responsibility for this latest insult and guarantee that the expenses of the families of fallen soldiers will be taken care of completely by the government?

    Mr. Speaker, Colonel Blais' letter was premature, incorrect, and containing false information, as event plans have still not been finalized. The government's position is that expenses will be covered.

    Our government is proud to commemorate our military mission in Afghanistan on May 9 with a national day of honour. I encourage all Canadians to participate. This day will give Canadians an opportunity to reflect on the courage and sacrifices made by our brave men and women.

    Mr. Speaker, since the government seems unusually interested in statistical definitions this week, let us talk about a simple concept, the median household income. The most recent StatsCan data shows that the annual median household income has only increased by a paltry $100 since the Conservatives came to power. As for the bottom 20%, their income has fallen by $500 a year.

    Do the Conservatives have a plan to help these clearly middle class Canadian families?

    Mr. Speaker, StatsCan has confirmed that families are better off today under the Conservative government than under previous Liberal governments, without question.

    The very same statistics indicate that median net worth of Canadian families has increased by 44% since 2005. Again, after-tax disposable income has risen by over 10% across all levels of income since 2006.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government to consider a few more simple, yet worrying, statistics. The percentage of working age Canadians who today hold jobs is lower than when the government took office. Youth unemployment is at 14%, more than 2% higher than when the Conservatives came to power. Meanwhile, the number of adults working for the minimum wage has risen by 50%. What is the government's plan, apart from denial, to create better opportunities for these Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, even though the global economy remains fragile—it is a fragile recovery, especially in the United States and Europe—our economic policies have helped protect Canadians. Over a million net new jobs have been created since July 2005, with over 85% of those being full time and over 80% in the private sector. That is the best job creation record in the G7 by far. Under the action taken by the Conservative government, Canada will continue to have one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the G7.

    Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party has been asking the Conservatives to help the middle class for a long time. Yesterday, we learned why they have done nothing. The Prime Minister himself, in a reply he gave yesterday, showed that he had understood nothing and that he did not know the definition of middle class.

    Statistics Canada has shown that, since the Conservatives came to power, the average household income has increased by only $100 per year.

    When will the Conservatives begin to show some concern for the middle class?

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader has no idea what it is like to be in the middle class.

    He has voted against our tax cuts. He has voted against the budgets that were there to create jobs and protect jobs. He has voted against middle class families on every vote on budgets.

    The Liberal leader has threatened dangerous new deficit spending that would take Canada down the same roads as Detroit and Greece.

    I am not surprised that someone who believes that “the budget will balance itself” would also believe that we can spend our way to prosperity.

    Mr. Speaker, Sheila Fraser, Canada's former auditor general, who exposed the Liberals' schemes in the sponsorship scandal, says that Bill C-23 is an attack on Canada's democracy.

    Ms. Fraser, who currently co-chairs an advisory board on the electoral system, laments the fact that Bill C-23 would disenfranchise thousands of voters, undercut the independence of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and impede investigations into wrongdoing.

    Will the government listen to Sheila Fraser, withdraw its bill and go back to the drawing board?

    Mr. Speaker, we do not agree with Elections Canada on this.

    We believe that the commissioner should be independent from the Chief Electoral Officer. This is a good decision that will allow the commissioner to make his own decisions and avoid being dismissed without justification. He will also be able to conduct his own investigations, which is not possible under the current legislation. This is a major improvement that we continue to support.

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the so-called minister of so-called democratic reform claimed that the experts who are against his electoral reform are so-called experts.

    The only problem is that the current and former Chief Electoral Officers, the current and former Commissioners of Canada Elections, and provincial elections officials are against this reform. Today, it was Sheila Fraser who talked about Bill C-23 as an attack on our democracy.

    Is Sheila Fraser going to be treated like all the other officers of Parliament and experts who have criticized this reform?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians have rejected the NDP's arguments.

    The NDP says that Canadians should be able to vote without any ID. Canadians think that is ridiculous, and they support us when we say that Canadians can bring identification to vote. It is a reasonable position that is consistent with practices in other aspects of society. We will continue to support it.

    Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Minister of State for Democratic Reform ignore Sheila Fraser's serious warning, and I just cannot get over it, especially coming from the man who used the name of the former auditor general 65 times in the House to bash the Liberals, and rightly so.

    If I understand the minister's logic correctly, when Sheila Fraser uncovers the Liberals' schemes, she is quite credible, but when she criticizes the Conservatives' electoral reform, then all of a sudden she is no longer reliable.

    Could there be better proof of the bad faith and crass partisanship of this government and this minister?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are aware of Elections Canada's views on these issues. We just happen to disagree with the agency. In a democracy, we have a right to do that.

    We are a democratically elected government, and we will take all of these arguments to the Canadian people, who believe that our common sense reforms are in fact merited.

    The Canadian people support us when we bring in a registry to track robocalls to ensure that they are accurate and honest. They believe there should be penalties for rogue callers. They believe it is reasonable to expect that somebody bring one of 39 different pieces of identity when they go to vote.

    These are reasonable, common sense changes, and we will continue to support them.

    Mr. Speaker, the Assembly of First Nations has added its voice to the chorus of Canadians speaking out against the Conservatives' unfair elections act.

    Today's testimony revealed that urban aboriginals and those living in rural communities will all be negatively impacted by this bill. These are communities where voter participation is already very low.

    Why is the minister ignoring first nations' testimony and stubbornly moving forward with changes that will disenfranchise so many Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, all Canadians, I think, would agree that it is reasonable that, when one crosses the border, one should be asked to bring ID; that when one gets on an airplane, one should be asked to bring ID.

    I heard somebody claim that it is not a constitutional right, but in fact, mobility rights are in the Constitution. Crossing the border is a basic right, but when one exercises that right, one has to provide identification so that our Canadian authorities know who one is.

     The very same is true for voting. It is a reasonable position and Canadians support it.

    Mr. Speaker, the minister is just not convincing.

    The reality is that people started talking about changing election laws after widespread voter suppression calls during the last election. The calls were traced back to the Conservative central database. Yet the minister's changes not only do not improve oversight of live calling; they effectively deregulate it.

    This clearly is not about saving single moms from red tape. Why are they changing the law to make it harder for election authorities to track the Conservatives' live calling?

    Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to point to the section in the bill that deregulates automated calls, or live calls for that matter.

    Live calls are not regulated currently. We are bringing in a registry for every single live call campaign that is purchased by a political party or candidate from a call centre.

    Now, if NDP members believe that volunteers like grandmothers or stay-at-home moms who are volunteering at a campaign office should be forced to register with a national regulator, I am sorry; I just disagree with them on that.

    Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister go back to the charter, because that is not exactly what they were talking about with mobility rights.

    Conservatives have such a casual relationship with facts that it is no wonder that virtually every expert in the entire country is lined up against this fatally flawed bill.

    If one has a visual impairment, the voting rules are challenging enough under the current rules, but the minister's unfair changes would make that process even more difficult.

    Considering the fact that the bill would make it harder for people with a visual impairment to vote, does the minister still stand by his statement that everything in this bill is terrific?

    Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind card is an eligible form of ID.

     The CEO of Elections Canada has the ability to designate different forms of ID. He has so far chosen 39 different options, and among them is this card. Now he has allowed it to be used to identify who people are, but I believe that, where the card has the address of CNIB members, they should be able to use it to identify their residence as well.

    I saw one such card of a member of that association this week, and it did have an address on it; so I would encourage the CEO to allow that as a proof of address as well.

    Mr. Speaker, last Monday, the minister went to discuss the electoral “deform” bill with his friends in the Senate and said that he would be willing to amend his bill, as needed.

    However, yesterday, here in the House, he said that amending the electoral deform bill was out of the question.

    Can the minister tell us when he was telling the truth, before the Senate or in the House?

    Mr. Speaker, I said exactly the same thing in both places.

    The reality is that there are no amendments to consider, because the committee will not examine any amendments until April 25. Once we see the amendments, we will consider them.

    However, Canadians support the common sense reforms in the fair elections act, and we will continue to move forward.

    Mr. Speaker, first the Minister of State for Democratic Reform misinterpreted the Neufeld report. Then he ignored all the advice that was offered. Then yesterday he criticized my colleague for quoting the “so-called” experts.

    I have a simple question for the minister. If Harry Neufeld, William Corbett, Richard Hasen and Sheila Fraser are “so-called” experts, how can he himself claim to have sufficient knowledge of the subject?

    Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to refer to his colleague's question from yesterday, she was referring to an American professor who apparently had made some kind of comparison between Canadian ID laws and American ones. If the member understood those laws, he would know that in Canada we do not require photo ID. In the United States, south of the border, states across the American system require photo ID. In Canada, we do not, and under the fair elections action, we would not.

    Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the list of those opposing the bill is growing and growing: chief electoral officers, electoral commissioners, experts of every political stripe, and now, Sheila Fraser. Yes, the same person the Conservatives once praised for exposing the Liberal sponsorship scandal is calling out this bill as an “attack on our democracy”.

    Would the minister listen to her, Sheila Fraser, or will he act like the Liberals did and start attacking Ms. Fraser for telling the truth?

    Mr. Speaker, we have already said that we were aware of Elections Canada's position on these issues. We just happen to disagree. We believe that it is fair to have Canadians arrive with a piece of ID in order to demonstrate who they are and where they live. That is what the fair elections act requires.

    We also think it is fair that if someone wants to make a mass automated call or hire a telemarketing firm, they should have to register those calls. We think that there should be an end to the dead donor's loophole that has allowed the NDP to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from donations that were left in wills, vastly in excess of the donation limit.

    These are common-sense, reasonable reforms, and Canadians support them.

    Mr. Speaker, this is a government that sent a letter to a grieving military family demanding the refund of a pension payment. It mailed another family a one-cent cheque. Now the families who lost a member in Afghanistan have received a letter telling them, “pay your own way to the May 9 commemoration in Ottawa”.

    Last time, the defence minister promised to take action to make sure this kind of slap in the face never happens again. He failed to deliver on that.

    Rather than blame his staff, as he did in public today, when will he stand in this House and apologize?

    Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, when we were at committee earlier today, the minister was very clear that the letter was supposed to go out to inform family members of fallen soldiers that there was going to be a commemoration day and to save the date, May 9, to attend. As he said, it was a premature and incorrect letter and contained false information, and this government's position is that expenses will be covered and people will be notified as soon as the event plans have been finalized.

    Our government continues to be proud to commemorate the huge sacrifices made in Afghanistan by our brave men and women in uniform.

    Mr. Speaker, Canada has a proud legacy when it comes to welcoming refugees, such as the 36,000 Hungarian refugees who came to Canada in Diefenbaker's time.

    This minister is lagging far behind in his commitment to welcome 1,300 Syrian refugees. Sweden has already taken in 17,000 refugees and Germany has taken in 10,000. Meanwhile, the minister has admitted that fewer than 10 refugees—not 10,000—have arrived in Canada.

    What would Diefenbaker say about this minister's pathetic performance?

    Mr. Speaker, we do have a very proud legacy when it comes to protecting refugees. It dates back to the time of Diefenbaker, but was interrupted during the Liberal years, when abuse of the system began to run rampant. We are in the process of cleaning up that mess. We are in the process of getting the refugee system back on track. We have already exceeded our objectives when it comes to Syrian refugees; 1,700 applications are already being processed.

    Two hundred refugees have been referred to the government and welcomed by the high commission. Yes, we are going to do more—

    The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

    Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative John Diefenbaker would be absolutely ashamed of the disgusting performance on refugees by a successor government. Absolutely ashamed.

    Last week, the minister caved to Liberal pressure on his Orwellian plan to subject spouses to language testing before they come to Canada, but the government was also considering education and income tests for spouses.

    Will the minister do another U-turn and confirm that he will not impose tests for languages or income or education on spouses who come to this country?

    Mr. Speaker, will the member opposite agree that--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor. Members will come to order.

    The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

    Mr. Speaker, will the member opposite agree that women in Canada deserve protection from violence, and just as they deserve protection from violence in Canada, they deserve protection from violence in our immigration programs? That is what our discussion is about, and we will do everything in our power to make sure that those protections are strengthened.

    Diefenbaker would be proud of our legacy today. He would not have been proud of the Liberal legacy of promoting abuse, of taking asylum seekers from the European Union, from the United—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.