House of Commons Hansard #230 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Question No. 1169Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

With regard to C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder): (a) in developing this legislation, on what (i) studies, (ii) case law, (iii) doctrinal sources did the government rely; (b) what statistics does the government track with respect to people found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder; (c) for each of the last ten years, broken down by province and territory and by type of offence, (i) how many people have been found NCR, (ii) which people found NCR have been released without conditions, (iii) which people found NCR have been released with conditions, (iv) how long has each person found NCR spent in treatment prior to release, (v) which people found NCR and released have been convicted of a subsequent offence, (vi) what was the nature of the subsequent offence, (vii) which people found NCR and released have been found NCR of a subsequent offence, (viii) what was the nature of the subsequent offence; (d) for each of the last ten years, what was the recidivism rate for all federal offenders; (e) broken down by province and territory, (i) which treatment facilities accept people found NCR, (ii) which of these facilities are privately owned, (iii) what is the capacity of each facility, (iv) how many people are currently housed in each facility; (f) what analysis has the government performed to determine whether this legislation will result in a need for increased capacity in these facilities; (g) what are the conclusions of this analysis; (h) what steps is the government taking to ensure adequate capacity in these facilities; (i) what funds are currently designated for (i) the construction of new facilities to house people found NCR, (ii) the expansion of existing such facilities; (j) what government programs exist to fund any such facilities that are privately owned; (k) what funds have been allocated to any such programs for each of the past ten years; (l) what steps is the government taking to mitigate Charter litigation with respect to people found NCR who may be unable to secure space in an appropriate facility; (m) has Bill C-54 been examined by the Department of Justice to ascertain consistency with the Charter; (n) which officials performed the examination, (i) when was the examination initiated, (ii) when was the examination completed, (iii) what were the conclusions of this examination; (o) when was the Minister of Justice presented with these conclusions; (p) was a report of inconsistency prepared; (q) was a report of inconsistency presented to Parliament; and (r) has there been an assessment of the litigation risk relative to the enactment of this legislation and, if so, what are the conclusions of this assessment?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

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

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

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 notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Search and RescueRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

March 27th, 2013 / 3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Search and RescueRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, I wrote to you today to ask permission pursuant to Standing Order 52(2) to hold an emergency debate on the closure of the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre by the Canadian Coast Guard, a special operating agency of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

As of April 15, less than 19 days from now, the St. Lawrence River estuary and the northern part of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which are currently served by the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre, will become the responsibility of the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Halifax.

The reason for the emergency debate is this. The government announced the transfer last Friday at 5 p.m. From what we heard, the transfer was to take place in the fall. The Commissioner of Official Languages investigated and, sometime around April 22, he was to verify whether the recommendations he made to the government had been implemented. All of a sudden, we learn that the transfer will take place on April 15.

The House of Commons will adjourn tomorrow until April 15. That is why an emergency debate must be held immediately. It is not just a question of official languages or someone whose rights have been violated. We are talking about the rescue sub-centre put in place for fishers, for people travelling on the St. Lawrence River. That is something else.

The rescue sub-centre was created 32 years ago for safety reasons and because of the language spoken in the region. This is important because lives are at stake. That is why a press conference was held today, attended by the media, people from Quebec and francophones from across Canada. The only bilingual rescue sub-centre in Canada is being closed down.

We do not want to leave any stone unturned, so that we do not have to come back one day and say, “We told you so.” That would be a disaster.

I believe it is your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to grant this emergency debate. You have the power, pursuant to Standing Order 52(2). This request complies with the law and with our Standing Orders.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think you want to be the one who refused such an important debate. People's lives are at stake here. That is what the experts are saying. We personally consulted people in Quebec City. We met with experts, and they all told us that this is a ticking time bomb and a serious threat.

I trust that you will make the smart decision to grant this emergency debate so that we leave no stone unturned. If the government decides to close the sub-centre, it will bear the responsibility. It will not be on us or on you.

Search and RescueRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I would like to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for raising this question.

I have no doubt that this is a very important issue to the hon. member. However, I should point out that we have already had four days of debate on the budget, so we have had the opportunity to talk about many things that are the government's responsibility. Today, we are still debating the government's budget policy in general. I believe that the members will have the opportunity to speak to this issue today, as they have had the opportunity to do over the past few days.

For those reasons, I do not believe it is necessary to agree to the member's request.

Department of Justice--Speaker's RulingPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 6, 2013 by the member for Winnipeg Centre regarding the Minister of Justice's statutory obligation to examine government bills and regulations to determine whether they are inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for having raised this matter, as well as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition and the members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Winnipeg Centre, Mount Royal and Gatineau for their comments.

In raising this question of privilege, the member for Winnipeg Centre explained that, pursuant to certain statutory requirements, the Minister of Justice is required to examine all government bills and regulations in order to determine whether they are actually inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights. He cited section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which states:

...the Minister of Justice shall…examine every regulation…and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons.

The hon. member then claimed that if the allegations contained in an action filed in the Federal Court by Mr. Edgar Schmidt, a Department of Justice official, are proven to be true, the minister has flouted these statutory requirements. He contends that the minister manages the risk of inconsistency in a cavalier fashion, and he argues that by allowing legislation to be introduced in the House that has a possibility of being inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Bill of Rights, the minister misleads Parliament, thus leaving members with no reliable assurance that proposed legislation is not in violation of the charter and the Bill of Rights.

The member asked that the Chair find that the minister's approach had thus effectively impeded members in performing their duty to exercise due diligence in considering government bills. I note that to do so, the Chair would first need to establish whether the Minister of Justice had acted in accordance with his statutory obligations.

That said, while the member for Winnipeg Centre went on to admit that there exists no evidence that the Minister of Justice deliberately, or even implicitly, gave the House inaccurate information, he claimed that there are serious deficiencies in the examination and vetting of draft government legislation by the Minister of Justice as evidenced by a number of legal challenges to legislation believed to be inconsistent with the charter and the Bill of Rights.

The member contended that even though the matter is before the courts, the sub judice convention does not prevent the House from considering this question of privilege, as it is in no way dependent on the findings of the court, nor will the debate on the question of privilege interfere with the court in carrying out its duties. Acknowledging that questions of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity, the member for Winnipeg Centre assured the House that he brought this matter to the attention of the House as quickly as he could bring the research together, given the complexity of this question of privilege.

In response, the Minister of Justice insisted that the matter was not raised at the first opportunity since the court action in question was filed on December 14, 2012, leaving the member many opportunities to have raised this matter in the intervening months—as many other members had done in both committees and in the House. Second, the minister argued that the Chair has no jurisdiction over questions of law, which are for the courts alone to decide. Third, the minister suggested that the sub judice convention dictates that since the matter is before the courts, the House should allow the courts to resolve the matter before undertaking any debate on the matter.

The Minister of Justice noted that the member for Winnipeg Centre had failed to provide any evidence that the House and its members were in any way impeded in carrying out their duties. The minister stated categorically that “this government has never introduced any legislation that I believe was inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Canadian Bill of Rights”.

He went on to remind the House that the member for Winnipeg Centre had acknowledged that he had “no evidence” to suggest that the minister provided deliberately inaccurate information to the House about government bills.

The Chair has listened attentively to members’ interventions on this matter and it seems to me that this question of privilege involves three key points: namely, the timeliness of the question of privilege; the sub judice convention; and the Speaker’s role in determining matters of law.

Regarding timeliness, both the member for Winnipeg Centre and the Opposition House Leader explained that it was only after some time-consuming initial research that the member felt compelled to raise the matter in the form of a question of privilege.

Furthermore, I was interested in the statement of the member for Gatineau, who noted that this question of privilege was raised only after efforts to consider the matter in committee had failed.

While I might come to a different conclusion if the question at issue related directly to a specific incident in the House with regard to this particular question of privilege, I am satisfied with the explanations offered and will not rule this question out of order purely on the basis of timeliness.

The suggestion has also been made that the sub judice convention, in and of itself, prevents the consideration of this question of privilege at this time.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 627 states:

The interpretation of this convention is left to the Speaker since no “rule” exists to prevent Parliament from discussing a matter which is sub judice.

As Speaker, I must endeavour to find a balance between the right of the House to debate a matter and the effect that this debate might have. This is particularly important given that the purpose of the sub judice convention is to ensure that judicial decisions can be made free of undue influence. While O’Brien and Bosc states on page 628, in reference to a March 22, 1983, ruling by Speaker Sauvé,

…the sub judice convention has never stood in the way of the House considering a prima facie matter of privilege vital to the public interest or to the effective operation of the House and its Members.

it also speaks of another aspect of this convention that is too critical to ignore when at page 100 it states:

The sub judice convention is important in the conduct of business in the House. It protects the rights of interested parties before the courts, and preserves and maintains the separation and mutual respect between the legislature and the judiciary. The convention ensures that a balance is created between the need for a separate, impartial judiciary and free speech.

Strictly speaking, in the case before us, while the sub judice convention does not prevent debate on the matter, the fact remains that the heart of this question of privilege is still before the courts, which have yet to make a finding. I believe that it would be prudent for the House to use caution in taking steps that could result in an investigatory process that would, in many ways, run parallel to the court proceedings, particularly given that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is already a party to the court proceedings and would be a central figure in any consideration the House might give this matter.

Arguments over the timeliness of the intervention of the member for Winnipeg Centre and the extent of the restraints we might choose to impose on ourselves because of the sub judice convention are ancillary matters. It seems to me that the central element of this question of privilege asks the Speaker to determine if the government is meeting its obligations under the law, as set out in section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights and section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act and their relevant regulations. The member for Mount Royal distilled this issue down to its fundamental element in stating:

What is rightly before this House, raised as a question of privilege, is whether minister has satisfied himself of the constitutional compliance of legislation.

This is the very matter the member for Winnipeg Centre has placed before me for my consideration in raising this question of privilege.

Numerous previous Speakers’ decisions point to a very clear practice for the Chair to follow in instances such as this. In a ruling given by Speaker Fraser, on April 9, 1991, which can be found at pages 19233 and 19234 of the House of Commons Debates, he said:

The Speaker has no role in interpreting matters of either a constitutional or legal nature.

In a ruling given by Speaker Jerome, on June 19, 1978, which can be found at page 6525 of the House of Commons Debates, he addressed a complaint that the government of the day may have acted illegally. He stated:

The hon. Member also alleges the Government acted illegally in the manner in which postal rates have been increased. Hon. Members will be aware that I have a duty to decide questions of order, not of law, and furthermore, I understand that this issue is now before the courts. In my opinion, therefore, it is an issue to be settled by the courts, and the Chair should not intervene.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 261, also provides valuable insight. It states:

...while Speakers must take the Constitution and statutes into account when preparing a ruling, numerous Speakers have explained that it is not up to the Speaker to rule on the “constitutionality” or “legality” of measures before the House.

In a ruling on a similar matter, Speaker Milliken, on April 12, 2005, at page 4953 of the Debates, did articulate the limited kinds of legal or constitutional matters the Chair could rule on.

He stated at that time:

What they may decide is whether the terms of a bill are in compliance with a prior resolution of this House, a ways and means motion, for example, or a royal recommendation in respect of a money bill, but beyond that, Speakers do not intervene in respect of the constitutionality or otherwise of provisions in the bills introduced in this House.

More recently, I have also been called upon to make rulings which effectively asked me to interpret the law. On October 24, 2011, at page 2405 of the Debates, I stated:

…it is important to delineate clearly between interpreting legal provisions of statutes—which is not within the purview of the Chair—and ensuring the soundness of the procedures and practices of the House when considering legislation—which, of course, is the role of the Chair.

Given the Chair's limited scope to consider legal matters, and based solely on what is within my purview to consider, I cannot comment on the adequacy of the approach taken by the government to fulfill its statutory obligations. I can therefore find no evidence that the member for Winnipeg Centre's privileges have been breached and cannot see how this rises to a matter of contempt. Accordingly, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank all members for their attention.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the hon. Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act—Chapter 1.

Bill C-370, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (St. Lawrence Islands National Park of Canada)—Chapter 2.

Bill C-293, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (vexatious complainants)—Chapter 3.

Bill C-58, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2013—Chapter 4.

Bill C-59, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 5.

Bill C-53, An Act to assent to alterations in the law touching the Succession to the Throne—Chapter 6.

Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations—Chapter 7.

Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 8.

Pursuant to an order made on Friday, March 22, I wish to inform the House that because of the statements made earlier today, the time for government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, Regional Economic Development; the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, Firearms Registry; the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, Aerospace Industry.

S. O. 31PrivilegeRoyal Assent

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is really an honour for me to add a couple of comments in support of the member for Langley, who yesterday alleged that his parliamentary privilege had been breached.

Members will appreciate that this is a unique situation and an important point of privilege, and that it deals with the collective rights of all members of the House. The member for Langley alleges that his parliamentary privilege was affected in that on March 21, he was denied what was his expected and promised slot to deliver an S. O. 31, also known as a member's statement. The reason he states that his promised slot was removed was that the topic “was not approved”.

I am troubled by this turn of events, and I and most members believe that it is larger than what might have been the subject matter of that S. O. 31. I suggest that all members of the House should be troubled by the turn of events last Thursday. S. O. 31 reads as follows:

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.

According to the rule, it is clear that the Speaker, and only the Speaker, can order a member to resume his or her seat if the member's statement is over one minute or is improper for some other reason. Denying an S. O. 31, according to the words of the Standing Order, is the exclusive prerogative of the Speaker. No other member of the House has the authority, delegated or otherwise, to deny a private member the opportunity to make a member's statement.

When members' statements were first introduced in S. O. 31 in 1983, then Speaker Sauvé stated on January 12, 1983, that this period was intended to provide members with an opportunity “to voice serious issues of international, national or local concern”. Although the S. O. 31 came into force in 1982, its genesis is in a rule that existed in the House from Confederation until approximately 1940. The practice was that members could seek unanimous consent of the House to move a motion without notice. Unanimous consent was almost always given and was so routinely given that the House had to eventually restrict it to matters of “urgent and pressing necessity”.

However, the matters of urgent and pressing necessity prerequisite was so routinely ignored and so many members were rising, that more formal rules were considered and adopted. Therefore in 1982, a special procedure committee concluded that the former practice requiring unanimous consent was used for purposes for which it was never intended. They opted for a new Standing Order that would become Standing Order 31, which would enable members to make statements on current issues on a daily basis during the first 15 minutes of the sitting.

Previous Speakers have been guided by a number of well-defined prohibitions. On January 17, 1983, when introducing statements by members, then Speaker Sauvé stated that members may speak on any matter of concern, and not necessarily on urgent matters only. As well, personal attacks are not permitted and congratulatory messages, recitations of poetry and frivolous matters are all out of order. Marleau and Montpetit state at 363 that these guidelines are still in place today, although Speakers tend to turn a blind eye to the latter restrictions.

Therefore, nowhere in the Standing Orders or in the enunciated guidelines do the members' statements need to be vetted by any other member or committee of members. Since 1983, additional restrictions have been placed on members' statements by the previous occupants of your chair. Subsequent Speakers have ordered members to retake their seats when offensive language has been used, when a Senator has been attacked, when the actions of the Senate have been criticized, when a ruling of a court has been criticized and if the character of a judge has been attacked.

It is true that certain practices and customs have evolved to provide some order and predictability to the 15 minutes prior to question period. It is also true that it is written in the commentary:

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.

However, the Speaker retains discretion over the acceptability of each statement and has the authority to order a member to resume his or her seat if improper use is being made of these Standing Orders.

I have a couple of observations regarding the Chair being guided by lists provided by the whips of the various parties.

First, it is the Speaker who has the discretion to deem a member's statement unacceptable. Nothing in the rules allows this discretion to be delegated, and there is no suggestion that the Speaker has delegated the authority to any other member of Parliament.

Second, the wording in the usage is “guided by”, not “bound by”, so I would submit it is permissive, not mandatory. Therefore, while the Speaker may be guided by lists provided by the various whips, the Speaker is in no way bound by these lists.

I can see that these lists are certainly convenient for the Chair in providing an orderly introduction of the 15 members who will be presenting S. O. 31s on any given day, but nothing in the Standing Orders or in practice authorizes the whip to choose the 15 speakers.

Moreover, it is submitted that convenience for the Chair through providing an orderly rotation so that when one member sits, the next one stands can violate neither the letter nor the spirit of the standing order.

For these reasons, I support the member for Langley in his case that his parliamentary privilege has been compromised by having to submit his proposed member's statement for vetting. This is a process that is not contemplated by the standing order and would appear to be completely contrary to the stated purpose of the member's statement, which is to allow members to address the House for up to one minute on virtually any matter of international, national, provincial or local concern.

We do not know if the rejected statement from the member for Langley would have fitted into one of those broad categories. Since he was not allowed to deliver it, we will never know. That is a violation of not only the member's right to deliver a statement but also of the right of this House to hear his statement.

Accordingly, I would ask that under the circumstances you find a prima facie case of breach of privilege with respect to the member for Langley.

In a Parliament where the government and the opposition control such a large portion of the parliamentary calendar and agenda, private members' bills, motions and S. O. 31s are the very few mechanisms that members have to bring forward matters of importance for their constituents.

I would submit that if the House does not jealously protect the rights of members to bring forward matters of concern to their constituents and if it does not strictly enforce those rules, the roles of the private member, Parliament and ultimately democracy have all been equally compromised.

S. O. 31PrivilegeRoyal Assent

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I thank the hon. member for his further contribution on the question currently before the Chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Prince Albert.

The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here today. It has been a busy afternoon in the House of Commons, so it is nice to get on with the debate and the country's business.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

The people of B.C. are just as excited about this budget as the people of Saskatchewan, because there are so many good things in it for our constituents and Canadians right across Canada.

Canada has been doing very well throughout the global crisis. The World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system as the safest in the world. We have a good, solid banking system, so our constituents can take comfort in knowing that their deposits are safe and secure. Another thing to point out is that Canada has a AAA credit rating, the best credit rating in the world. Canada has been doing very well in light of the financial crisis that has been going on around us.

One of the other things we should talk about is job creation. While other countries are losing jobs and suffering massive unemployment, we are creating new jobs here in Canada. We have created 950,000 net new jobs since the start of the 2008 global crisis. That is amazing if we look at what is going on around the world.

Saskatchewan is in a unique situation when it comes to jobs. The unemployment rate in Saskatchewan is sitting right at 3.7%. That is basically telling me that anybody who wants a job in Saskatchewan can get a job.

When I go back to my riding and talk to business owners about what they require in order to see more expansion and growth, the common theme is the lack of employees. They are looking for ways to get not just new employees but skilled employees. They need plumbers and electricians. They need people with their journeyman status.

Canada's economic action plan 2013 addresses those needs. The first action our government took was to bring in the Canada job grant. This program would allow a maximum benefit of up to $5,000. The federal government will put in $5,000, the business will put in $5,000 and the provincial government will put in $5,000 for skills training.

When I talk to people like some of the ag machinery dealerships in my riding, they tell me that they need more heavy-duty mechanics. They can embrace a program like this and take advantage of it. With the free skills training, they can create heavy-duty mechanics out of a common employee. Those are the kinds of things that businesses require, and they are there in economic action plan 2013.

Another thing people in Saskatchewan are looking for is a way to get their journeyman status more quickly. This has been addressed in economic action plan 2013. We need more journeymen mechanics, plumbers and electricians in Saskatchewan. I am looking at remodelling a house, and I have to wait up to four months just to get a plumber. I have to wait up to three months for someone to put in a furnace. The skills shortage in my riding of Prince Albert is extreme, and this action plan will hopefully help to alleviate some of those concerns.

I want to point out some things that are unique to my riding of Prince Albert.

Aboriginal youth come to Prince Alberta from northern ridings looking for work. These are the people we need to get into the skills training program, and we have set up funding to do that. We are going to see more of that going forward. More aboriginal people are going to be participating in the economy. When we talk to chiefs with James Smith Cree Nation and Muskoday First Nation, this is something that they want. They want to participate in the economic boom going on in Saskatchewan, and this plan will allow their band members to do that. This is going to be great for Canada as a whole.

Another thing in the budget is the new building Canada plan. When I talk to my mayors, councillors and reeves, they tell me they want to see some sort of bankable method of payment from the federal government. The community improvement fund is a consistent fund of $32.2 billion over 10 years. Municipalities will be receiving funds they can bank on. They can use the money for a variety of different projects. They can use it for water or sewer, as may be done up in Nipawin, or they may want to use it for road construction in Kinistino. These are indexed funds that they can count on going into their coffers year after year. They are bankable and predictable, so municipalities can budget around them and plan on them and use them according to their needs.

The nice thing about this fund is that it is fairly wide open with respect to utilization. Municipalities can use it for a variety of projects. As I said, it can be used for a water project or to build a road or pave a street; those options are there. That is the nice thing about this fund.

I was talking to a couple of reeves over the weekend, who were very excited because these funds are bankable and predictable. It is something they asked for, and we actually gave it to them.

Then there is $14 billion for the new building Canada fund. One thing we have to recognize is that Canada is an exporting nation, but we need to keep building infrastructure. We need to take advantage of the resources we have, but in order to do that, we have to build infrastructure. We have to build roads. We have to put in infrastructure to get to the mines. We have to put in infrastructure to get the product to market. These are things that will be addressed by the $14 billion fund. Canadians recognize it as an important need and as something that will help our economy grow for a long time into the future.

We have the $1.25 billion renewal of the P3 Canada fund. The Province of Saskatchewan is embracing that fund. I know other provinces have embraced it. Here is a practical way to get projects built in a way that allows both the private sector and the public sector to participate, and the benefit is for the taxpayer, without a doubt.

Of course we have $6 billion under the current infrastructure programs for the provinces, territories and municipalities from 2014-15.

When we look at the new building Canada plan, there is over $53 billion over 10 years for infrastructure. That is a substantial amount of money, and it is probably the longest period of time that any money has been consistently given to the provinces and municipalities for infrastructure needs. It has never been done in the history of Canada for this length of a period of time.

Saskatchewan is an agricultural province that has gone from agriculture to mining. It has lots of resources, but it also has great world-class research. Genome Prairie is a good example, and it is nice to see core funding of $165 million going to the Genome projects that will be spread across Canada. That is groundbreaking research from which we will see benefits for years and years to come, and I am happy to see it in the budget.

We are also supporting and helping businesses to invest in innovation, thus making them more competitive and creating more high-paying jobs here in Canada.

Those are the items in the budget that will provide long-term growth and prosperity, not just for members sitting here but for our kids and our grandkids.

We cannot forget families. The family structure is such an important structure. We have to look at the variety of ways we can help families.

One of the things in the budget that is really great and unique is enhanced tax relief for families that are adopting children or those using home care services. That is important. That is actually something that families and taxpayers can use. They can look at it and say they have a government that appreciates their needs and requirements. It is in the budget, so I cannot see how members would ever vote against something like that.

I am a hockey player, and many of us have hockey kids. If parents can get baby clothes tariff-free and get cheaper, tariff-free hockey equipment, that again is supporting the family structure and is very positive.

We have $1.9 billion over five years going for homelessness and housing. The $1.9 billion is a substantial amount going into something that is drastically needed.

I wish I had a lot more time, because I could go on for 10, 15, 20 or 30 minutes, but I am going to speed up on some of the things I also see happening here that are important to highlight.

Last year I did the Nijmegen march. I went to Groesbeek Cemetery in Holland. Not a blade of grass was out of place. Every tombstone was correct. The respect the people from the Netherlands give to our soldiers is amazing. With the increase and doubling of the funeral service reimbursement, we can do that here in Canada for our veterans also. That is very important. Taking it from $3,600 to $7,300 is something that our vets deserve, and it is nice to see it in the budget.

In closing, I would highlight something that is very important to me because I come from Saskatchewan. It is the fact that we are going to get to a balanced budget. What other country in the world is going to talk about getting to a balanced budget after going through a global recession since 2008? In 2015-16, we are going to have a balanced budget.

In Saskatchewan we have had a balanced budget. The premier has done a great job in making sure spending is kept under control--

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

He's a good premier.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

I thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He actually is a good premier, because he has balanced his books and has put a priority on where the money should be spent. If we look at the growth in the province of Saskatchewan, we see it is a province that is growing fast. Again I will repeat that the unemployment rate is 3.5%. If we could do that here federally, we can just think of what we could do and what the response would be across the country.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the member's speech. The member spoke of the government's increase in the gas tax and indexing, as requested for quite some time by the NDP. We appreciate that Conservatives finally listened to that, as requested by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

However, he also spoke about the priority being to build infrastructure for Canadian exports. I wonder if the member could speak to the years of waiting by more than 100 aboriginal communities for access to safe drinking water. Given the dollars allocated in the budget, could the member speak to how many more years many of those 100 first nations will still have to wait for safe drinking water for their families?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech. It is unfortunate that she would not vote for what was in the budget to actually provide the GST tax dollars to the municipalities. If I look at the NDP record, when it came to putting this in place, the members actually voted against it.

When it comes to aboriginal communities and safe drinking water, I think we all agree that it needs to be improved upon. Unfortunately, I cannot control what was done before me. I cannot control what the Liberal government did. However, we are making strides to make it better. We are working with the aboriginal communities. We are making it better and stronger. We recognize that there are needs for improvements, and we are taking steps to address those needs.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I notice that my hon. colleague talked about the importance of infrastructure, and I agree with him. In fact, it was Paul Martin who started to take money from the excise tax on gasoline to devote to infrastructure, which was a good thing.

Why is it that we are going to have to wait a couple of more years? If infrastructure is so pressing, why is the amount of money put toward it so light for the next couple of years? This reminds me of when the Conservative government, in 2011, during the last election, promised that it was going to double the tax-free savings allowance from $5,000 to $10,000 once the budget was balanced, some time in the future. Conservatives did the same thing with income splitting in families for income tax purposes. Once again, that was going to be done after the budget was balanced.

If everything is so urgent, why is it that on infrastructure, the amount of money for the next two years is so little?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, let us review what we are doing in the new building Canada plan.

We have $32.2 billion over 10 years for the community improvement fund. It consists of an indexed gas tax fund and incremental GST rebates for municipalities to build roads, public transit, recreational facilities and other community infrastructure. We have $14 billion in the new building Canada fund. We have $1.25 billion in the renewal of the P3 Canada project fund. There is $6 billion under current infrastructure programs for provinces, territories and municipalities in 2014-15. That is a substantial amount of money going toward building infrastructure. It is amazing, because this was not done in a lot of previous governments.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the revisionist history provided by the NDP and the Liberal Party, which voted against the largest investment in infrastructure in the history of this country with the stimulus program we brought in a number of years ago.

In Huron—Bruce we have had great success with infrastructure investments. The municipalities in my riding are now planning for the future. They are talking to architects and members of the community to come up with new ideas on what their priorities are, so I think this is well timed.

I would ask the member for Prince Albert how the Canada job grant program is going to work for him, his community and his riding. I think that is a program that will help keep their economy in high gear.