House of Commons Hansard #229 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cbc.
Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-51, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.
The committee has done its work on this, and I am pleased to report that it has been reported back to the House unamended. We look forward to the House accepting this report.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-486, An Act respecting corporate practices relating to the extraction, processing, purchase, trade and use of conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa.
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce a bill entitled, an act respecting corporate practices relating to the extraction, processing, purchase, trade and use of conflict minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa.
The conflict minerals that end up in many products, such as our cellphones and game consoles, are responsible for funding and fuelling a war that has killed more than five million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The war in the Congo is the deadliest conflict since World War II. Rape is widely used as a strategy and a weapon of war.
The bill ensures that minerals used in Canadian products will not benefit armed groups engaged in atrocities. We developed the bill in consultation with industry and civil society. I urge all members to support the bill in Parliament. Let us make Canada a leader in ending rape and war in the Congo.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-487, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Income Tax Act (support for grandparents).
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard for supporting my bill.
Today, I am happy to introduce my bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Income Tax Act to support grandparents who are raising their grandchildren.
The 2011 census indicated there are over 75,000 children in Canada being raised by grandparents. These families are called skipped generation households. This is a dramatic increase of over 50% in just 20 years. In fact the figure of 75,000 children in these families is probably the tip of the iceberg, knowing that many of these arrangements are informal.
The main issue here is financial assistance for the grandparents who step up during a family crisis to take care of children. Most grandparents who raise a grandchild with no parents present are ineligible for the child care expenses deduction because they do not work or have a partner with no income. My bill will remove these barriers. My bill will also permit grandparents to receive employment insurance benefits for parental leave to take care of grandchildren under the age of five.
In some of these households, there are mental health issues, drug issues or other social issues. Thanks to organizations such as CANGRANDS, which is here today, these grandparents have stepped up to prevent their grandchildren from being placed into care and are frequently already struggling to make ends meet on limited incomes. The least we can do is recognize this and afford them the same benefits biological parents would receive.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-488, An Act respecting a National Hockey Day.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have brought this bill to the House. I am very grateful that my bill is being seconded by my wonderful colleague, the NDP critic for sport, the member for Chambly—Borduas, a great advocate for sport and for our winter national sport, hockey.
The intention of the bill is to recognize the role that hockey plays in our communities. It is a game played by all ages and by all sexes. It is important for the government to recognize this winter sport and encourage the engagement of everyone, including new Canadians, to encourage new Canadians to get out on local rinks, to flood their backyards and get to know their neighbours by inviting children over.
Hockey has played a major role in Canadian identity historically and into the future. The intention of the bill is not to put focus on those professional hockey players that people like to fight over, it is quite the reverse. It is to encourage people to get out and watch their kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews or their neighbour's kids and cheer them on. Everyone participates.
The intention is to declare the third Friday in February national hockey day. Regrettably as a backbencher I cannot say that this will be a statutory holiday, but I am sure that the government would love to adopt the bill and make it so.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am the father of three sons and one daughter, and the grandfather of two charming girls.
Today, it is in honour of my granddaughters that I am tabling a petition signed by people in Orleans and elsewhere in eastern Ontario to protect female fetuses that would otherwise be aborted simply to prevent a girl from being born. I am tabling this petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition that was sent to me by a Saint-Basile-le-Grand resident concerning this government's botched and unacceptable employment insurance reform. She works in the academic community at a Montreal university. There has been very little discussion about that particular community in the context of this reform, but people in the academic environment, teachers, staff, and so on, will be greatly affected by it.
It is my pleasure to table this petition that she signed and circulated among her colleagues in Montreal and on Montreal's south shore. This highlights just how much Quebeckers have mobilized against this reform, as have many other Canadians. I am very proud to table this petition in the hopes that the government will acknowledge it and cancel this unacceptable reform.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to present three petitions.
I am still receiving petitions from Canadians who are hoping that the government will reverse the decision to close the unique world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area. These petitioners are from Winnipeg.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents in the Vancouver area. Given the sensitivity of the coastlines of British Columbia and particularly the navigational hazards of the British Columbian coast, the petitioners say the movement of oil tankers will make spills inevitable. Therefore they call for a permanent ban.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, last are petitions from residents of the Toronto area highlighting the human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China. Petitioners call on the government to act to protect, in particular, practitioners of Falun Gong and Falun Dafa, and I am sure that extends to other minority groups within China.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition signed by men and women of Pierrefonds who want to bring our attention to the fact that trafficking in persons and sexual exploitation are serious crimes that we must fight vigorously. They are asking the House to support Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons).
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is an honour to come before you regarding the right of a member of Parliament to introduce an S. O. 31.
Our policy manual, O'Brien and Bosc, at page 60 states the classic definition of “parliamentary privilege”. It says:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively…and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions....
What are those functions? What are those responsibilities? They are found on page 212 of O'Brien and Bosc, where it states:
Members sit in the House of Commons to serve as representatives of the people who have elected them to...office.
It also states:
The member of parliament represents his constituency through service in the House of Commons.
That is our ultimate responsibility, as members of Parliament, each having the great honour to represent our communities. I am honoured to represent the community of Langley.
It goes on, in O'Brien and Bosc, to say:
—the privilege of freedom of speech is secured to Members not for their personal benefit, but to enable them to discharge their functions of representing their constituents....
It says it there again, the importance of having that privilege, freedom of speech, to represent constituencies.
On page 62 of O'Brien and Bosc, it says, “Privilege essentially belongs to the House”, to yourself, Mr. Speaker. It belongs to the House “as a whole; individual Members can only claim privilege insofar as any denial of their rights, or threat made to them, would impede the [functions] of the House”. Therefore, it clearly says that we each have responsibilities and we have privileges and rights to ensure that we fulfill the responsibility of representing our constituencies.
It also goes on, at page 82 of O'Brien and Bosc, to state:
Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege”....
Last Thursday, it was my turn to present an S. O. 31. I was ready and prepared to introduce the S. O. 31.
Some would ask what an S. O. 31 is. In the Standing Orders, clause 31 states:
A Member may be recognized, under the provisions of Standing Order 30(5), to make a statement for not more than one minute. The Speaker may order a Member to resume his or her seat if, in the opinion of the Speaker, improper use is made of this Standing Order.
It refers to Standing Order 30(5). That Standing Order states the days and the times that S. O. 31s can be made. However, back to S. O. 31, it is clear that each member in the House of Commons has the right, the privilege, of presenting an S. O. 31, on a rotational basis that gives each member in the House equal opportunity to represent their constituents.
That has been managed by yourself, Mr. Speaker, for those who are independent members of this Parliament. For those who are members of an official party, as I am a member of the Conservative Party, in an organized way, we, the Liberal Party and the NDP provide you with a list of those who will be making S. O. 31s. However, what has to be guaranteed is that each member of the House has the equal opportunity to make an S. O. 31.
If at any time that right and privilege to make an S. O. 31 on an equal basis in this House is removed, I believe I have lost my privilege of equal right that I have in this House. I was scheduled on March 20 from 2:00 to 2:15 to make an S. O. 31. Fifteen minutes prior to that time, I was notified that my turn to present the S. O. 31 had been removed. The reason I was given was that the topic was not approved. However, there is no reason why an S. O. 31 should be removed.
The only person who can remove that is you, Mr. Speaker, according to S. O. 31. The authority to remove an S. O. 31 from any member of this House is solely in your hands, and the guiding force is under S. O. 31. Again, it states:
A Member may be recognized, under the provisions of Standing Order 30(5), to make a statement for not more than one minute.
So we cannot go over one minute. It could be less.
Then it states:
The Speaker may order a Member to resume his or her seat if, in the opinion of the Speaker, improper use is made of this Standing Order.
Therefore, it is only in your authority, Mr. Speaker, to ask a member to return to his seat if you feel that the S. O. 31 being made is not in order.
I believe that my privilege as a member to present an S. O. 31 was infringed upon by the actions that happened on March 20. This is my earliest opportunity to present my question of privilege to you, today. I believe it is not an issue specifically for me. I have experienced the removal of my right and my privilege, but it is a question as to how this House operates. The question for you is: Should every member have that equal right? Yes, it is clear that every member does. Therefore, how is it being managed? Is it being managed in a way that members could have that right removed? Yes, I have experienced that and others have experienced that too.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to rule the matter prima facie, a question of privilege. I also reserve the right to speak again to respond to comments that may be coming from others.
Parliament is based on rules, responsibilities and privileges. Each of us has that responsibility to represent our communities, the people who elected us. We need to have those rights ensured that we have the opportunity to properly represent our communities.
I look forward to your comments, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the opportunity to bring this to the attention of the House.
Gordon O'Connor ConservativeMinister of State and Chief Government Whip
Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the point of privilege by the member for Langley. He claims that his rights and privileges as a parliamentarian have been breached with regard to his desire to deliver a member's statement on March 20, 2013.
The practice of the House, as it developed over time, is clear with respect to the delivery of members' statements by members of recognized parties. Page 423 of O'Brien and Bosc states very clearly:
The opportunity to speak during Statements by Members is allocated to private Members of all parties. In according Members the opportunity to participate in this period, the Chair is guided by lists provided by the Whips of the various parties and attempts to recognize those Members supporting the government and those Members in opposition on an equitable basis. While Ministers are not permitted to use this period to address the House, Parliamentary Secretaries may.
Let me repeat that House of Commons Procedure and Practice says clearly in this regard, “the Chair is guided by lists provided by the Whips of the various parties”.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, while each party manages the process from a different perspective, the bottom line is that each party makes these decisions. The practice for many years in the House is for the Speaker to follow the guidance provided by the parties on which members to call on any given day. The member for Langley is essentially calling on you to inquire into the question of how such lists are prepared by the parties in the House. Essentially, you are being invited to become involved in adjudicating the internal affairs of party caucuses and their management. Under any reasonable and generous interpretation of your powers, it is not for the Speaker to assume such a novel and expansive power.
The management of caucus affairs, from voting whip lines on bills to assignment of committee responsibility, to preparation of lists for the members making statements, is done differently in all parties. However, what these have in common is that these decisions are made within parties. Put simply, this is a team activity and your role is referee. It is not your job as referee to tell the coach or manager which player to put on to play at any given time. That is a question for each team to decide.
In closing, I submit there is no case for a member's privilege being denied in this matter as the rules, as clearly outlined in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, were respected.
I ask you to rule accordingly.
Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go through the process that has been well laid out by the member for Langley, but I want to say that I too feel that my rights have been infringed on by members of the party because I am not allowed to speak on certain topics in S. O. 31s. I have had S. O. 31s removed, and I have been told that if I have one on a certain topic, I simply will not be given an S. O. 31. I believe this is infringing on my right as an MP to freedom of speech and to represent my constituents freely.
The government whip has pointed out that the procedure has evolved and the parties have been given control of these lists. I do not think I would object to that, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of individual members, but that is what has been happening. I have had my rights taken away when it comes to representing my constituents on certain topics, and I just do not think that is appropriate. Already, as you know, independents are given S. O. 31s, so it is not only recognized parties that have S. O. 31s.
In considering this issue, I ask you to consider that and to consider the possibility that members from all parties may be handled in some way as independents if they feel their rights are being infringed upon or overridden in some way by the leaderships of their parties.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest and would like to reserve the right to go through my friend from Langley's comments as well as those of the chief government whip, to understand fully.
There are two central questions that have been put to the House today: the difference between the Standing Orders, the actual rules that guide this House, and the conventions that have evolved over time when it comes to the initial statements that happen prior to question period; and who it is that controls these lists and whether there is an infringement of a member's privilege if a topic is taboo and not permitted to be spoken about or if particular members are then taken off that list by the party whips, who have a difficult job at the best of the times within each of our caucuses.
It seems on the surface that the challenge that exists right now may be entirely an internal one. The chief government whip used the analogy of a coach of a hockey team deciding which players go onto the ice and if it is the purview of the referee to make some opinions or interjections as to who is playing.
While I likely disagree with my friend from Langley's position on the issue we are talking about, we are also talking more fundamentally about the rights of members to stand and make their case if they have a mandate that they believe comes from the constituents who elected them here. That is a very near and dear right and one that we should be concerned with as a House.
As I said, the official opposition would like the right to reserve future comments. Quite soon, we will take a look at what everyone's interjections have been.
It is difficult for you, Mr. Speaker, if you do not have a specific Standing Order to guide you explicitly as to your ability to intervene with how the parties have put forward members for these statements. It would require the will and support of the parties in the House to allow you to begin such an intervention on those lists. If the member for Langley and others seek to change the Standing Orders of this place, that might be an avenue as well. However, as it sits right now, the distinction between a Standing Order, a set rule, and a convention that has grown over time is an important distinction to make when you are making a ruling as to whether this is a prima facie case of privilege.
Again I offer some very strong interest in this discussion, because when members come to this place there is an expectation that they are able to speak to the issues. On the surface, though, it seems that there is an internal Conservative caucus conversation here. I know that Speakers in the past have been loath to intervene on such internal conversations because it is very difficult as a Speaker to come out on any kind of a side that would be deemed the winning side in such a conversation.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Langley, as well as the hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright. As a specific case, may I say this is one of the most important points of privilege I have heard in the brief two years, almost, that I have been serving here? It cuts to the core of what is wrong with parliamentary democracy that the hon. government House leader could put before you a sports metaphor that we are here as teams, as brands or colours, and we are all to take instructions from our team boss.
We are not here as teams. The principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy is that we are here as representatives of our constituencies and our constituents. We are merely incidentally members of political parties. Political parties do not exist in our Constitution. They are not an essential part of our democracy. They have grown to be seen to be the most interesting thing going on, and we have grown to see politics as some sort of sport. However, democracy is not a sport. We are not playing on teams, and each individual member has individual rights, and the members for Langley and Vegreville—Wainwright feel their rights have been infringed.
I would add that I rose on a point of order to you some many months ago on the question of S.O. 31s and the fact that they were increasingly being used for purposes that, while not against our Standing Orders as they are written, are against the spirit of Standing Orders as described by former Speaker Madam Justice Sauvé, who pointed out that they should typically speak to matters of local concern in our constituencies and should not be used as a place for attacks on others, specifically ad hominem personal attacks.
At the time you said you might comment on that later. Perhaps this point of privilege might give you a chance to further elucidate when it is inappropriate for the approved S.O. 31s from the Conservative war room to be very vicious attacks and the ones that members wish to make about the concerns of their own constituents to be censored and prevented from being presented in this place.
Jim Hillyer Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on this because I feel that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. We have heard talk about being treated like independents, even though we are in a party. It is true that parties are not part of our Constitution, but we do have the right of association and we willingly choose to be part of a party. However, we have seen people choose to leave parties in Parliament.
There has been no privilege taken away. Any member can give his S. O. 31 if he wants to, but if he wants to be part of the so-called team, he has to be willing to submit to the rules and the agreements of that team. Members are never forced to vote how they are told to vote or speak on any subject they want to speak on; they are told that if they want to be part of the team, they must work with the team.
Therefore, I agree with some of the comments that this is not a decision to be made by the Speaker.
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Speaker, hearing some of the comments from some of the members, I thought I should remind members that what is being recommended to you is not necessarily a novel system. As the member from Alberta just suggested, it might be something that might not exist within the party context. If we look at the original Westminster system in the United Kingdom, it continues to operate within a set of guidelines that allows members of all parties to speak on matters like this in an organized fashion through the Speaker.
Therefore, I do not think we are talking about anything that is unique or novel. In fact, there are a number of Westminster systems that would accommodate what the member has risen on a question of privilege today to talk about.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I thank the hon. member for Langley for raising this question, and the members who have intervened today. I have heard that the opposition House leader would like to come back and make further comments. I am sure other members may be interested in this point as well. I will, of course, wait to hear those and I look forward to those further points.
The House resumed from March 25 consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government and of the amendment.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.
The budget tabled last week by the government raises a number of concerns for the future prosperity and sustainability of the economies of my riding of Edmonton—Strathcona, the city of Edmonton, the province of Alberta and Canada. It most certainly raises questions about how well the Conservative government has listened to Canadians about their future prospects. In sum, the economic action plan 2013 is rife with promises and a display of now defunct programs, but short on long-term vision, timely delivery of needed supports and missed opportunities.
The province I come from has a long history of leadership in energy. It is not just in energy resource extraction, but also in innovation and consultation in new energy ideas. The Alberta clean air strategic alliance has a long record of multi-stakeholder consultation and consensus in decision-making on cleaner energy standards. The concept of sound decision-making through consultation and consensus is one that is apparently foreign to the Conservative government.
Alberta industry and the public alike have long called for a dialogue on a cleaner energy strategy for the province of Alberta and for the country. Recently the premier of Alberta called on the federal government to endorse this concept. The concept of a more sustainable energy future has been endorsed by other well-known centre of right leaders, including Preston Manning and the late Peter Lougheed. However, on the so-called jobs, growth and, in very small print, long-term prosperity economic action plan, there is no mention in the budget and no dollars for action on a Canadian clean energy strategy. This is despite the fact that we still have in place, as far as I am aware, a Canada-U.S. clean energy dialogue.
Of note, the term “long-term” appears to have been added to the title in small print as a mere afterthought. The budget certainly seems to have given short shrift to a longer-term sustainable economy. There is no commitment or dollars for consultation with the public or the diverse energy sectors, let alone energy consumers, on a Canadian energy strategy. All of this is despite calls by a number of premiers, including Alberta's, despite calls by major energy sectors, including oil and gas, energy efficiency and renewable power sectors, and despite calls by existing and potential major economic players, including first nations.
Sound decision-making on allocation of taxpayers' money for energy projects requires consultation and a cogent plan. This budget also fails in recognizing the potential for substantial cost savings and job creation from investment in energy efficiency, and cost savings to families, business and to government. In fact, the Conservative government appears to have completely disregarded the potential for reducing its massive deficit simply by reducing its own energy use instead of cutting jobs.
By way of example, this budget allocates no dollars whatsoever to the return of the extremely popular ecoENERGY home retrofit program. It was brought back in 2011 for one year only. It was very popular, oversubscribed and then unceremoniously cut.
Here is what one of my constituents, a property manager, wrote to me. Mr. Tarek Merhej, vice-president of KARST Property Management, said:
I read your comments this morning in the Edmonton Journal relating to the ecoEnergy Program where you mentioned: “There's not even the return of the eco-energy retrofit program that helped homeowners make their houses more energy efficient and it is a sector where Alberta has shown leadership.” And I couldn't agree more. I was one of the many people I'm sure who were too late to take advantage of this program. I had selected my builder on large principle by the fact that their houses were Energuide engineered and rated but unfortunately by the time I had received my possession date, the program had expired. I have shared this disappointment with many and I simply wanted to thank you for speaking up as you do and demonstrating, as you put it so well, that “this budget shows a lack of understanding of Canadians' priorities.”
Energy retrofits, whether for homes, businesses or government facilities have huge potential for creating well-paying jobs. The Energy Services Association of Canada shows a tenfold increase in jobs per billion dollars spent between coal fire power and building retrofit. The Alberta Federation of Labour study forecasted 6,500 to 14,000 new jobs in just a two-year period from this sector. It also suggested that a good bridge in jobs between boom and bust years in the energy economy would be energy retrofitting.
It also reduces energy costs for homes, businesses and government. Approximately 15% of household costs are for heating. We have been told in committee that energy efficiency for commercial buildings can reduce energy consumption costs by 50%. It would also reduce pollution and carbon. BOMA, an association that works on buildings to increase their energy efficiency, reports that buildings contribute 20% to 30% of greenhouse gases in this country.
It would be good for business. Realtors and building owners advise that energy efficient buildings are in the highest demand for leasing. It would trigger private investment where governments adopt supportive policies or infuse matching supplementary grants.
Who has testified to this? The Energy Services Association of Canada, the Building Owners and Managers Association of Canada, or BOMA, and the Real Property Association of Canada, are hardly environmental radicals. All have testified in a current study before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on significant potential job creation and cost savings, for the federal government alone, through expanded energy efficiency.
Let me share a few of the examples that they have shared on projected savings. Before the Centre for Inland Waters was retrofitted, 50% of its operating budget was spent on energy and water, $1.5 million a year. Post the retrofit, it is projected to save $9.1 million. Due to an energy retrofit for CFB Halifax, it is achieving a guaranteed $1.4 million a year in savings. Place du Portage is being guaranteed an annual savings in energy bills of over $450,000.
A total of $43 million per year is projected from energy bills from the overall current federal retrofit program, and it could be more if a long-term strategy and commitment to seeking reduced energy costs for the 40,000 buildings that are owned or leased by the government was approached. That is hardly small potatoes.
Energy retrofits and energy efficient equipment manufacturing are important sectors in my constituency and deserve policy measures to support and foster their growth. Yet, there are no prospects for similar savings for homeowners or small businesses because this budget provides zero support for them.
The government, with great fanfare, announced its removal of tariffs on hockey equipment. Yet based on the estimated cost by Ottawa's Valiquette's sports, a one time purchase of hockey equipment for a child in midget or minor hockey costs about $1,000. The removal of the tariff would reduce that by about $180. Of course, that is a saving for those families who could afford to buy the equipment in the first place.
If support had been provided instead, or in addition, frankly, for home energy retrofit for an average middle-class home, that same value or more in savings could be gained each year, not as a one-off.
What about skills training that was talked a great about by the government? Indicative of the government's lack of comprehension of the global shift to investment in clean energy and energy efficiency, very little recognition is evidenced in this budget for the potential job market if targeted assistance were provided for skills training in this sector.
Few small firms can afford to pitch in the requisite $5,000 to match federal-provincial support. There is terrific potential for small energy audit and retrofit enterprises, including student jobs, and including for aboriginal communities and technical graduates or apprentices, but can they afford a start-up of $5,000? Then again, apparently neither the provinces nor territories have been consulted on the matching grant scheme anyway. Who has been consulted on the skills training or job creation priorities? The big question is, has the energy efficiency sector even been consulted?
With regard to the accelerated capital cost write-off, it is an excellent initiative if parallel measures are instituted to actually trigger the purchase and deployment of the equipment toward cleaner energy production or pollution abatement. Regrettably, the budget is limited in developing clean energy technologies, and we see no new measures to actually trigger the uptake of this equipment. Sadly, the budget allocates a mere $1 million this year for sustainable development technology. More is proposed for the future, but we will wait to see how the government pays down its deficit.
Sadly, in the budget, the key word for education is “commercialization”. There is no support for pure research. There is no backing off on firing scientists or shutting down of the renowned Experimental Lakes project, despite substantiated results in cleaner waterways arising from their research.
Infrastructure is the same story. Some money is coming forward, but not enough to actually address the rising infrastructure deficit. In sum, the budget is more about politics and short-term interests than a road map for long-term sustainable prosperity for all Canadians.
Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona on a well-presented speech. She happens to be the very best MP in Alberta, bar none.
My question for the best MP in Alberta concerns the tax hike that apparently does not exist in the budget. The Conservatives have repeatedly said that there is no tax hike, but they have failed to tell Canadians that they will be paying taxes on parking at hospitals. That is a tax hike to me.
As we know, health care is expensive. Could you explain why the Conservatives are now going to tax Canadians who park at hospitals? Could you also tell me why the Conservatives are not telling Canadians about this tax hike?
Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I cannot, but perhaps the member for Edmonton—Strathcona could. I would remind all members to please direct their comments to the Chair, not to individual members of the House.