Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2013

Procedure and House Affairs

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

(Motion agreed to)

Motion

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Senate Accountability

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with my wonderful colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

I am extremely pleased to be back in the House after this Parliament was prorogued for a month, a decision made by the Conservative government. The Conservatives decided to take an extra month because they did not want to talk about the Senate. Now that we are here, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the NDP's motion on Senate accountability.

First of all, with this motion, the NDP is proposing practical solutions to the problems in the Senate and is asking that the government put an end to the partisan work done at taxpayers' expense. Senators should no longer be able to attend weekly caucus meetings, engage in fundraising or political organization, or promote a political party using Senate resources.

Second, the government needs to put an end to travel that is not directly related to senators' legislative duties and is paid for by taxpayers. Current Senate regulations clearly indicate that partisan activities are an inherent and essential part of a senator's parliamentary duties. The regulations also provide details concerning what a senator may or may not be reimbursed for.

Last May, the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration made 11 changes to the rules on travel. However, the new rules still allow senators to take part in various partisan activities. Basically, the Senate's origins go back to the time of Confederation. The mission that the Fathers of Confederation gave to the Senate was to review and enhance the legislation passed by the House of Commons.

In fact, the Senate was created under the Constitution Act, 1867, primarily to protect regional interests, but also to provide what George-Étienne Cartier called a power of resistance to oppose the democratic element.

In theory, senators from different sectors of society are supposed to review bills passed by the House of Commons in an objective, non-partisan way. In practice, however, the Senate has never really played this role. Instead, senators vote in the interests of the parties they represent rather than in the interests of the regions they are required to represent.

Today, the Senate is nothing more than an extension of the government in power. It is just as partisan; it is perhaps more partisan than it has ever been. Although the Senate is supposed to give careful consideration to House of Commons bills with a view to proposing amendments to them, the reality is that senators usually support the positions of their parties. The Senate has not vetoed a bill since 1939.

Moreover, senators are chosen by the Prime Minister himself. He never misses an opportunity to appoint someone from his own party. In a number of cases, the Prime Minister has gone so far as to appoint Conservative candidates who have been defeated in previous elections, if you can imagine.

The Prime Minister, who once described the Senate as, and I quote, a “dumping ground”, now seems to find it very useful as a way to reward his henchmen. He personally has appointed 59 senators, although he promised not to appoint any.

The Senate has become a platform used by the party faithful for fundraising campaigns and to promote the agenda of the government in power. Senators are actually raising money for the parties they represent while they are being paid, housed, fed and ferried around at taxpayers' expense. With all the services senators receive, the Senate costs Canadians almost $100 million per year, not counting senators' retirement pensions. Given their insignificant role, that is a lot.

Here is what Michael Fortier, a former Conservative senator appointed by the Prime Minister himself, had to say about the Senate in a CBC Radio interview recently, in March 2013 to be precise:

I was very naive...I thought it would be a different place than the one I found. I found it to be extremely partisan...on both sides, including my own. And it was very annoying because these people were trying to be members of parliament and they weren't....[I]f I had to choose today, I would say that I'm probably closer to closing the place down. I just don't see the usefulness.

Canadians should not have to wait for the Senate to be more transparent and accountable when solutions can be put forward right now.

The Liberals and the Conservatives are defending the Senate, saying that the upper house is a chamber of sober second thought on proposed bills. However, the Senate seats are now held by organizers, financial backers and former candidates of the Conservative and Liberal parties.

The reality is that, most of the time, senators act solely in the best interests of the party that appointed them. Senators may have to travel to review legislation or even to conduct studies, but Canadians should not have to pay for senators' personal or partisan travel.

Three senators appointed by the Conservatives—Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau—are, to say the least, currently tainted by a scandal dealing with housing and travel allowances that were wrongfully claimed. They are all under investigation by the RCMP.

Since 2010, Pamela Wallin has claimed $300,000 in travel expenses not related to travel to her province of origin. She has also been seen at numerous Conservative fundraising events. In question period on February 13, 2013, the Prime Minister confirmed that he was aware of the senator's travel expenses and that everything was in order. After an audit by Deloitte, Senator Pamela Wallin must repay some $140,000 that she owes. However, she feels that the process was unfair.

As for Senator Mike Duffy, he had to leave the Conservative caucus on May 17, 2013, because of the controversy surrounding his expenses. The Prime Minister's former chief of staff secretly paid Senator Duffy $90,000 so he could repay the housing allowance he claimed illegally as a senator. Mike Duffy's name also came up in another matter. According to the RCMP, the senator apparently hired a friend for phoney service contracts worth $65,000.

Lastly, the Senate cut part of Senator Patrick Brazeau's salary, starting in July, since the senator had not repaid the $49,000 he owed. Mr. Brazeau had claimed a housing allowance when he was not entitled to it.

The government has only itself to blame if its Senate reform has not moved forward in the too many years that it has been in power.

The Conservatives could have counted on the NDP's openness, but they chose to put reform at the bottom of their list of priorities. They were elected seven years ago with the mandate of reforming the Senate. They have failed utterly. It is a complete failure. Like the Liberals, they are now part of the problem.

On this first opposition day, now that we are back in the House for this new parliamentary session, we are facing a critical situation. The government in Ottawa is not working because it is caught up in Senate scandals.

What does the Conservative government intend to do? Does it intend, once again, to let everything go and say that it is not a big deal and that the Senate will be reformed in five or 10 years, or does it intend to finally take action on this, as the NDP motion proposes?

We simply want to make senators accountable and capable of looking taxpayers in the eye and telling them that it is true that they do not deserve what is happening to them right now and that the government must take action.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Québec for her very passionate remarks.

Like me, she must have met with a lot of constituents this summer. That is what I did, and this was a hot topic wherever we went. Whether in Chisasibi, Chicoutimi, Kuujjuaq or Paspébiac, it was what everyone was talking about throughout the summer.

The Conservatives asked for an extra month to properly prepare their throne speech; yet they were practically silent on the issue in the speech.

How does my colleague explain the government's almost utter silence on an issue that is so important to the democracy of our country?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

It is true. We know that the Conservative government did not want to have to deal with questions about the Senate because the Senate is clearly its Achilles heel. That is where the government has failed on every count. It appointed a number of senators who have been playing politics for many years, probably at taxpayers' expense in some cases. Perhaps that is not true and we will have to see what the RCMP investigation says, but this is clearly a serious problem.

With regard to the Speech from the Throne, it is true that the Prime Minister did not see fit to address the issue. When I asked the Minister of Transport a question about the throne speech, she said that I was not supposed to speculate on the speech. That is strange, because everywhere in the media, whenever I turned on the radio or television, there were questions about the government's intentions. Let me just remind my Conservative colleagues that the whole point of the Speech from the Throne is to make the government's intentions known, so it is only natural for people to ask questions.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my NDP colleague for her fine speech. I hope it was an eye-opener for our Conservative colleagues regarding the Senate.

What troubles me is that, during yesterday's question period, false statements were made about our position on the Senate. I would like my NDP colleague to remind hon. members what we would do about the Senate.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague and other NDP members, many of us went to our constituencies because we are riding-oriented MPs. We asked people what they thought about everything that was going on in the Senate. They are disgusted with what is happening. It has become a farce, and we absolutely have to put an end to the farce and all the scandals.

We New Democrats know how difficult it is to make ends meet every day. None of us would ever think of spending $100,000 here and another $100,000 there. We know that every penny is earned by the sweat of our brow. Frankly, it is time to put an end to this and to show Canadian taxpayers a little more respect.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her eloquent remarks.

Having gone door to door in my riding, I know that people all say they have had more than enough of these senators who use their money to promote their own party.

How did her Quebec City constituents respond when she went door to door?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people in Quebec City, like Canadians everywhere, think that taxpayers are already paying a lot. The burden on Canadian taxpayers has grown enormously. Household debt has reached 168%; this is terrible. And in the midst of it all, these scandals emerge.

As federal MPs, obviously, we find this reprehensible. What I hear, particularly in Quebec City, is that things are not working in Ottawa; whenever you open the paper and read news about Ottawa, you read about the dysfunctional Senate, which is nothing but a symbol of corruption, collusion and so on.

People in Quebec City and across the country deplore the situation. I would so much like to offer a more positive image of what we are doing here in Ottawa. That is why I am very sincerely inviting my Conservative colleagues to support this NDP motion, which is actually a very fair and very honourable position. If everyone here in the House voted unanimously for this motion, perhaps a sin confessed would be half forgiven.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member who spoke before me for her passionate remarks. I would also like Canadians to know how pleased I am to rise in support of the motion that my colleague from Toronto—Danforth has introduced on this first opposition day.

Speaking of knocking on doors, I knocked on many myself as I walked through Dorval, Montreal West, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Lachine this summer. I met with thousands of my constituents. I asked them what they thought about the job I am doing, about the job the current government is doing, and about whether they thought we were on the right track. I asked them about their interests and their passions.

They talked a lot about job losses and the struggling economy. The aerospace sector in Montreal is not at all what it once was. They also talked about youth employment. However, one subject came up a lot: all the problems with the Senate. Remember, at the end of the last session of Parliament, there were a number of scandals in the Senate. Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy, for example, were names we heard often.

Montrealers are increasingly cynical about politics. They told me they were horrified by the current political system. A lot of money is wasted in the Senate, and that is cause for concern. People are asking what the Senate is for and whether having this second chamber is of any use at all to Canadians. People are asking what senators do for us and why they have such large expense accounts. Those questions came up frequently. As I told my constituents, I am in favour of abolishing the Senate, pure and simple. I am going to continue along those lines.

I am very pleased today to speak to the motion moved by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. Let me just read it.

That, in the opinion of this House, urgent steps [and I really emphasize the word “urgent”] must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate, and, therefore, this House call for the introduction of immediate measures to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings, and to limit Senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business.

When I read this motion, which was moved by my friend and colleague from Toronto—Danforth, I felt that it was a good one. It gave me an excellent opportunity to tell my constituents how absurd I feel it is that a senator can take part in the caucus of the party he or she represents.

In the past, the Senate was established to ensure that experienced people could review the laws and assess them critically, since senators were in the chamber for a longer time. They were supposed to provide a non-partisan opinion. Senators participate in the caucus that they represent. For example, every Wednesday morning, the Conservative senators meet with the members of the Conservative caucus, and the Liberal senators meet with the Liberal caucus. I wonder whether a senator can really offer a non-partisan assessment. I know what a caucus is. Members of Parliament participate in caucus to get an explanation of the party line and to be told what will happen this week and where the emphasis is going to be. Am I supposed to believe that a senator is non-partisan? Really. That time is spent studying our party platform. We talk about our values and what we believe in. Am I supposed to believe that a Conservative or Liberal senator is non-partisan? There is something completely absurd about this concept.

As we know, at the moment, senators are not elected: they are appointed by the Prime Minister’s Office. As we saw in the last session, they are not accountable. Many of them are even under investigation. This summer, some people told me they were not sure they wanted to abolish the Senate, since it might be useful. In response, I talked about the National Assembly of Quebec. I told them that Quebec once had an upper chamber, and that in 1968 parliamentarians discussed the issue and came to the conclusion that it made no sense to invest taxpayers’ money in that chamber. Senators’ work duplicates ours. Senators are appointed, not elected. People have no say in the matter.

On December 31, 1968, the second chamber of the National Assembly of Quebec was dissolved. What a great gift to ring in the new year.

Truly, it was a great thing to do.

When I asked people whether they thought there was any real difference between the House of Commons of Canada and the National Assembly as regards the relevance of what is said about bills, not one person told me that the Senate was really useful. No one thought it was.

What is the Senate at the moment? It is a platform used by the party faithful to raise funds and promote the government’s agenda. As my colleague said earlier, it is a chamber of failed candidates. That is what happened in the last election. In my riding, candidate Smith was not elected, and right after the election the Prime Minister made him a senator. What is that? Disgusting is what it is.

The people said that they did not want this person representing them, and the Prime Minister’s Office disregarded that and appointed him to the Senate.

What is the Senate? It is a $90-million annual expense. In fact, expenses have risen to $92.5 million a year. I find that horrible.

Senators' partisanship is blatant. The Senate does not work. Last May, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration made 11 changes to the rules governing travel. However, despite these 11 changes, senators can still participate in partisan activities. Indeed, a senator can travel to a riding, claim hotel expenses, per diems and travel expenses to take part in partisan activities.

I am going to read what the Senators' Travel Policy provided in 2012 and included in the definition of “Parliamentary functions”. It points out that certain activities are excluded:

...but does not include activities related to (a) the election of a member of the House of Commons during an election under the Canada Elections Act, or (b) the private interests of a senator or a member of a senator's family or household.

This policy allows all senators to travel to engage in fundraising activities or to attend a Conservative cocktail. The current rules are not adequate. I am going to provide some numbers to support this, because I find it rather incredible. I am also a taxpayer and it sickens me to pay for that.

Over the last three years, Senator Irving Gerstein spent $998,771. That is the cost to taxpayers. Moving on. Another Conservative senator, Judith Seidman, spent $633,258. Davis Smith, a Liberal senator, spent $935,705. James Cowan, another Liberal, spent $1,362,852. Yet another Liberal senator—the Liberals are having a rough time—logged $999,454 in travel expenses. Grant Mitchell spent $1,209,704. Larry Campbell spent $923,535. Over a period of three years, these seven senators spent close to $7 million. That is incredible.

I see that I have only one minute left. I will be quick even thought there is so much to say about the despicable things that are going on in the other place that it is difficult to limit oneself to a brief 10-minute period.

A lot of money is spent uselessly in the other chamber.

Let me get back to my colleague's motion. Since we cannot abolish the Senate until we take office in 2015, we want to put a stop to the partisan activities that are carried out at taxpayers' expense, and to travel that is not directly related to senators' functions.

In closing, I would like to quote someone who enlightened me considerably regarding this debate. I am referring to Michael Fortier, a former Conservative senator appointed by the current Prime Minister. In an interview on CBC radio, he said:

I was very naive. I thought it would be a different place than the one I found. I found it to be extremely partisan on both sides, including my own. And it was very annoying because these people were trying to be members of Parliament and they were not. If I had to choose today, I would say that I am probably closer to closing the place down. I just do not see the usefulness.

I think those comments speak volumes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member, but I am somewhat surprised in the sense that I have had the opportunity, as she has, to canvass constituents. I have had ample opportunity to get a sense of what those important issues are, and there is no doubt that the behaviour of some senators is being held to question and that there is a lot of concern over what is happening on the other side; however, one of the biggest concerns I thought Canadians had was with regard to the Prime Minister's Office and the $90,000 cheque: what did the Prime Minister know, what did he not know, and did he mislead the House of Commons? That seems to be the big issue of the day.

Given that we have the very first opposition day, does the member not believe that her constituents would like to see us focus our attention on the Prime Minister's Office and the very real, very tangible scandal that appears to be there? Is that not what we should be holding the government to account for today on this very first opposition day?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

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

First, as a constituent, if a Liberal member came to see me, I would certainly not talk about abolishing the Senate. I know how closed off the Liberals are to new ideas and I know that their position on the Senate is to maintain the status quo. I would therefore not want to waste my time telling the member what I think. At any rate, the Liberals do not listen to their constituents. That is what I think.

Second, we are entitled to a certain number of motions and opposition days. It is our right to use them for whatever topic we choose. My constituents told me that they are worried about the Senate in general. That does not mean that they are not worried about what the Prime Minister did; it was just crazy. In addition, it is very difficult right now to know who is telling the truth. We all agree on that.

There is the economy, which is in a very dangerous situation. There are a lot of topics. Railway safety is also important and it was not mentioned in the throne speech. However, at some point, you must decide on a topic and this is the one we chose for today's debate.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask my colleague a question. Her speech was excellent.

I would also like to remind you that all hon. members are subject to the same rules. Whether we are talking about the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering, Yukon, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lévis—Bellechasse, Kitchener—Waterloo or Don Valley West, we are all subject to the same rules, which say that we must not travel for partisan purposes.

For instance, as a member of Parliament, I would not be able to travel at taxpayers' expense for the general meeting of a constituency association.

Why do the rules that apply to senators allow them to travel for partisan purposes when MPs are not allowed to do so?

This motion asks that the rules be the same. My hope is that the government will support it so that MPs and senators will be subject to the same rules.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

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

In fact, I find it very worrisome to know that my money and that of my family, my neighbours and my constituents in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is being used to pay a senator who is going to give a partisan speech in a riding that is far from his or her own jurisdiction. I find that very worrisome.

Senators should look into legislation and study it, something they are not doing. I fail to see how attending partisan activities at the expense of taxpayers can help senators better understand the legislation or do their job better. I find this very unfortunate.

Basically, I think it is very wrong. The goal of our motion is to state that there is no problem if people want to hold partisan activities, but they must pay their own way. In any case, senators are well paid. In short, these activities should not cost taxpayers money.

Transportation of Hazardous Materials

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, public safety must not be taken lightly. However, it seems that the federal government has not learned from its mistakes. After the listeriosis and E. coli crises, where deregulation and industry self-regulation were singled out as root causes, a study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives on the deadly tragedy at Lac-Mégantic has criticized the government for its "regulatory failure".

Researchers found that the rail safety budget was cut by 19% between 2010 and 2014. However, the number of carloads of oil has risen from 500 to 140,000 in recent years and is still expected to increase. In addition, there are currently only 35 field inspectors.

It was this government that gave MMA permission to use a single conductor. The government must now take responsibility and give answers to the hundreds of Quebec communities on rail lines that have legitimate concerns about the transportation of hazardous materials.

Canadian Centre for Child Protection

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, parents all across Canada are increasingly concerned their children could be victimized through the misuse of technology. This is why I was honoured to be part of Cybertip Awareness Day at the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre.

On September 26, Mrs. Laureen Harper and the hon.Minister of Justice came to Winnipeg to announce the donation of $100,000 from the Government of Canada to the centre. This is Canada's gift on the birth of His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge.

What a wonderful choice, because many children will benefit and be protected as Canadians join in the celebration of Prince George's birth.

I would like to commend the contribution of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in ensuring that all Canadian children and youth are safe online and in their communities.

Small and Medium-Sized Businesses

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is BDC Small Business Week, and we are celebrating the contribution that small and medium-sized businesses make to the Canadian economy. Each year, we celebrate entrepreneurship with some 200 activities that draw nearly 10,000 business people.

Small and medium-sized businesses in Canada represent 99.8% of all businesses and are a vital economic development driver. There are many success stories in my riding of Québec.

I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Québec, which was recently given an entrepreneurship award by the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec in recognition of the success of the first Foire des entrepreneurs. In Quebec and across Canada, there are women and men who are living their dream. They are our entrepreneurs. They are innovators, builders and, above all, job creators.

Please join me in paying tribute to these hard-working people who, time and time again, make our country stand out internationally.

Canadian Consulting Engineering Awards

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the winners of the annual Canadian Consulting Engineering Awards, presented by the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies Canada.

Our prosperity and quality of life depend on building and maintaining our public infrastructure. Engineers play a critical role in ensuring the safety and integrity of our public buildings, water systems, roads, and bridges.

We all must work together to provide quality infrastructure for our communities. Our government has announced our new building Canada plan, which will invest an unprecedented $53 billion over 10 years to ensure that Canada's public infrastructure continues to meet the needs of Canadians.

The Canadian Consulting Engineering Awards recognize outstanding achievements in engineering and celebrate the highest level of innovation and ingenuity. Congratulations to all of the winners.

David Lewis Public School

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on May 10, 1990, David Lewis Public School opened its doors for the first time. Since then, thousands of young students have walked through those doors in pursuit of an education.

Karen Peach, the principal, has been at David Lewis for the past 11 years. She and her staff teach 362 students, ranging from junior kindergarten to grade 8. The school serves a culturally diverse community, which is celebrated by the school community and the community at large.

Over the last five years, on the Fraser Institute school report card the overall rating of the students' academic achievements out of a possible score of 10 ranged between 9.3 and 10.

I wish the staff and students at David Lewis Public School a happy 25th anniversary and continued success over the next 25 years.

Flood Relief Efforts in Calgary

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have never been more proud to call Calgary my home.

In June's floods, the largest natural disaster in Canadian history, the people of Calgary showed incredible spirit and pulled together in the face of overwhelming adversity. They showed the world how friends and strangers help each other.

I want to thank everyone who sacrificed time, money, and effort, including our Prime Minister and his wife, cabinet ministers, and members of Parliament, who helped Calgarians dig out their basements after the floods.

In a record-breaking eight days, cabinet approved federal disaster assistance financing. By sending in military helicopters to help people get rescued from their rooftops, the government was there for Albertans.

Then in the Speech from the Throne we announced the national disaster mitigation program to reduce the impact of natural disasters like this one. This is what people in my riding have been calling for. Bravo.

Campaign for the Right to Literacy

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, everyone has the right to literacy, a fundamental skill and the foundation for participating in society, yet far too many Canadians suffer from low literacy.

I am proud to say that a national campaign for the right to literacy has begun in my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. Led by Lesley Dunn of the Dartmouth Learning Network, the campaign encourages leaders and citizens across Canada to sign a declaration calling for a national framework for literacy. I am also proud to say that the very first person to sign this declaration was the leader of the NDP. Since then it has been signed by politicians of all stripes and all levels of government.

I encourage every member of the House to take this opportunity to show their support and sign the declaration calling for a national framework for literacy.

Grain Shipments by Rail

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that farmers are the salt of the earth and I am delighted that farming is pretty good right now. Farmers have a lot to be thankful for: cattle prices are high, hog prices are on the rise, and supply management sectors are relatively stable, with new opportunity being opened up with the Canada-EU free trade agreement. This agreement, of course, is good for all sectors.

Grain farmers have produced a huge record crop. When we hear farmers complain about storage shortages or their trucking bill, we know they have a big crop.

While these comments are partly in jest, it is true that grain movement and prices will very much depend on CN and CP rail.

I want to assure farmers that my colleagues and I are aware of the importance of early and heavy grain movement and will be strongly encouraging the railways to get at it. This crop is almost in the bin and much of it is in temporary storage, but it is still a long way from market and is still very vulnerable. We will keep watching out and ensure that this crop gets moved.

Support for Small Businesses

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the tremendous work our government has done to support the growth of small business as we recognize Small Business Week across Canada.

We are continuing our work to reduce red tape by removing unnecessary and ineffective regulations, allowing businesses to grow and create more jobs.

We are reducing taxes and we are reducing the administrative tax burdens on small businesses by improving CRA's ability to provide quick and effective services.

By extending the hiring credit, we are making it easier for small businesses to expand their workforce and further stimulate economic growth. In addition, we are helping young entrepreneurs become the business leaders of tomorrow by contributing millions of dollars to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation.

We are also investing in research, development, and innovation programs that directly help small businesses with their efficiency and productivity.

It is clear that our government recognizes the critical role played by small businesses in our economy, and we will continue to provide them with our support.

Community Contributions

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the outstanding contributions of two individuals who were awarded the Quebec National Assembly medal last week.

Joanne Ouellette is the executive director of Solidarité ethnique régionale de la Yamaska, an immigration advocacy group. Ms. Ouellette is a visionary, a smart and caring woman.

Serge Tremblay is a businessman who founded the Leucan Shaved Head Challenge and the Leucan 12-Hour Ski Challenge. He is known for his contributions to many causes.

I would also like to recognize Chantal Bossé, CEO of CHABOS, who is the second Canadian woman to win the title of Microsoft PowerPoint MVP for 2013-14, and the only francophone woman among this group of experts.

I wish to personally congratulate Joanne Ouellette, Serge Tremblay and Chantal Bossé on the contributions they make to their communities.