Debates of June 4th, 2014

Motions in Amendment

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments from the member from Nova Scotia with interest. He talked about the tax credit for search and rescue and tried to explain that if people were search and rescue volunteers or firefighter volunteers, they could combine their hours. Why would we not give two separate tax credits, one for the volunteer firefighter who spends 200 hours in his community with the fire department and then also spends 200 hours with search and rescue? Why would we not give both tax credits to that individual for over 400 hours of community service?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member would know that the reason this volunteer tax credit was brought in for search and rescue, and the reason we allowed those hours to be combined with volunteer firefighter hours was so many of volunteers would have enough hours to qualify for the tax break. He certainly would have some volunteers in his communities. I know I have many in my communities. Volunteers in some of the smaller departments, such as the volunteer fire departments, and some of the smaller search and rescue groups would not get enough hours to qualify for a tax break. Therefore, we allowed the combination of both search and rescue volunteer hours and volunteer firefighter hours so people would be eligible for a tax break. It is not a matter of being eligible for both; it is a matter of hopefully being eligible for one.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up that question with my hon. colleague. He lives in the Maritimes and I am sure there are a lot of search and rescue activities that go on in the area in which he lives. Could he comment on what this means to the people in his riding?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is a great tax credit for the volunteer search and rescue personnel, the auxiliary Coast Guard, the volunteer firefighters, especially in smaller communities.

I live in rural Nova Scotia. The largest community in the riding that I represent has only 8,000 people in it. Most of the communities have 1,000, 1,200, 600, 300 people or smaller. In many places there are not a lot of centres. In the community I live the centre is New Ross where 36 people live. We are talking small rural communities with a lot of volunteers, and a lot of volunteerism throughout Atlantic Canada. This tax credit is a great boost to those organizations.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to make a fairly critical comment to the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's. His complaints about the opposition are quite pathetic, given that the government holds a majority in both the House and committees.

If the government wants to earn the respect of Canadians and the opposition parties, it needs to show some courage and admit that all of the MPs who sit in the House are presenting sensible ideas—which may even be constructive—and that it is possible to discuss them. In the three years since I was elected, I have seen how this government operates. In this case, with this particular 360-page omnibus bill, all of the amendments proposed by the New Democratic Party were systematically rejected, even the ones that dealt with details that have limited scope and would not have affected the substance of certain measures included in Bill C-31.

My speech will have two parts. First, I will talk about this government's approach, about how it refuses to listen to anyone who disagrees with it and about how it simply imposes its will. The government's lack of courage is incredible. Moreover, this all started with the help of the Liberals, when we returned to the House for the last four weeks. They forced longer sitting hours on us and restrictions on procedural rules, which is surprising for the Liberals.

It is as though having a majority and the power to repeatedly shut down debate was not enough for the government. We saw it again today, when it invoked closure for the 69th time. It is absolutely unbelievable. I do not know how some of my colleagues can look at themselves in the mirror every morning or how they can sleep at night. When I see them with their eyes glued to their desks, it strikes me that wilful ignorance is the only way they can live with themselves.

I would like to reiterate that this bill is 368 pages long and contains a variety of measures. It is a hodgepodge of legislative measures that affect dozens of different laws. It is absolutely vital that the government consider the fact that the official opposition did not disagree with everything in the omnibus bill. Anyone can see that if they look at the work that has been done recently by the Standing Committee on Finance. Had some of the measures proposed by the government in this omnibus bill been examined separately, the NDP would have either fully supported them or supported them on the condition that discussions be held so that we could propose amendments to correct certain specific flaws.

Unfortunately, rather than having an open debate with all of the stakeholders, the government is imposing its will. It is particularly ridiculous to see the Prime Minister lecturing people left and right in Europe when his track record over the past 10 years is so poor that he could not even lecture someone as extreme as Vladimir Putin.

In January 2015, it will have been 10 years since this government began using all the procedural tools it could to try to impose its will, while defying traditions, legislation, and the operations and legitimacy of some of our institutions.

The government really has a very poor track record. Had this government implemented some measures to renew the CF-18 fleet, for example, we could have said that at least the Conservatives had managed to do something. Instead, by trying to find an aircraft to replace the CF-18 after over nine years in office, the government has left the skies empty of any new, safe and effective aircraft that would allow our air force to defend the country and finally do its job. It is absolutely unbelievable.

It is really shameful that the government is patting itself on the back when it has proposed very few practical measures to the public and has denied the legitimacy and the very basis of our work here in the House of Commons.

The second thing I would like to talk about affects me personally as the member of Parliament for Beauport—Limoilou. A major railway line passes right through the downtown core of Beauport—Limoilou, not far from the Port of Québec, where many of the riding's industrial plants are located. The trains travelling on that railway line transport a large variety of products, including solid and liquid bulk commodities. A number of those liquid bulk products are hazardous, volatile and explosive materials, such as jet fuel.

All of these products are moving through the downtown core of Limoilou, just a few metres from four schools that are located along the railroad track. There is an elementary school, a high school, a vocational school and the Limoilou CEGEP.

This is obviously a legacy of the past. I am absolutely not denying the importance of port activities or transit activities that require this means of transport. However, a few months ago, I met with a group of concerned parents, led by Xavier Robidas and Sébastien Bouchard, who were calling for more transparency and rigour with respect to rail safety.

There are some clauses in this bill that pertain to rail safety. However, it is very disappointing. Instead of correcting the problems of transparency, reassuring parents and addressing their very legitimate requests, Bill C-31 will impose a code of silence on all cabinet decisions. That is absolutely intolerable.

As far as I know, cabinet members are elected members and they are accountable. Why impose secrecy for something as vital as rail safety?

The same thing will happen every time regulatory changes are made or certain regulations are rescinded. Heaven knows that many problems with rail safety inspections were brought to light after the terrible Lac-Mégantic disaster. These problems resulted from a lack of resources and very lax compliance with regulations. This is contrary to the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board.

This bill does not promote transparency and public information. The public will not be notified of these changes. When you play the game of democracy, you have to go all the way.

This government has shown a lack of transparency for more than nine years, especially since it gained a majority and has systematically refused to account to Canadians for its legitimacy.

I will end there. I no longer have much hope of making this government listen to reason. It is not complicated: in 2015, the government will be booted out and we will be there to take its place.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for the last 10 minutes, I have listened to the hon. member make some disparaging comments and complain about his inability to comment on the bill before us, Bill C-31. For 90% of the time, he complained about the process instead of commenting on the bill.

However, I did hear him make one comment about the bill. He said that there were some good things in the bill that the NDP actually liked. If he cannot find anything to complain about in the bill, I would like him to use his time to tell us what is good about it.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I agree with what my colleague just said. I did spend a lot of time talking about the process, which is deeply flawed.

I want to help my colleague understand that there has been a fundamental shift in the legislative process. Bills can be introduced in radically different ways, but if the government truly wants to earn respect, then it should not impose such ridiculous working conditions on all the representatives in the House. If we look at the number of hours we have compared to the number of clauses to be studied, that leaves just a few minutes per clause. That is absolutely unacceptable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member would be aware, Canada's health care accord expired this year, and Canadians are very much concerned about health care and the future of health care. They want to see assurance from the government in the form of another accord, an agreement between Ottawa and the provinces, that would ensure ongoing support of health care into the future.

These are things that could have been part of the budget implementation bill. Maybe the member could provide some comment on that being one of the major shortcomings of this particular budget.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. That is an important aspect to consider, especially when we put it into perspective over the past 20 years.

Let us not forget that in the 1990s, the Liberals made things extremely tough for the provinces by unilaterally reducing general transfer payments and health transfers in order to balance the budget and make themselves look good. I know that my colleague has already made the argument that he was not in the House at the time. Nonetheless, he does carry the Liberal banner. At some point he is going to have to accept that legacy, including the reckless cuts that had major consequences. I know all about it. In Quebec we saw massive retirements and it was disastrous.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his speech. He talked about people's concern about dangerous goods transported on our railways. It is the same in my riding. People are worried and they talk to me about it when I go door to door.

With respect to tax measures, what are his thoughts on the fact that the government did not renew the job creation tax credit for small businesses, considering that small businesses create so many jobs?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for her question. Had I wanted to look at every item in this omnibus bill, it would have taken me at least five hours, and that would have been just my speaking time.

My colleague from Joliette made a very good point about a very simple, direct measure that was very popular with small businesses. The government never gave us a reason for unilaterally getting rid of that measure. It did not explain why it decided to cut such a popular, direct and active form of support for small businesses. We are still waiting for answers from the government.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and pleased to be able to speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Centre tonight on this budget implementation bill. I can assure the members opposite that these words are mine and mine alone, so any errors or omissions are attributable to me.

Before coming to speak to the House tonight, I looked up the word “responsible” in the dictionary. This is what I found: “Based on or characterized by good judgment and sound thinking”. Nothing could describe this budget better than those words.

With the leadership of the Prime Minister, Canadians can be assured that this budget, and their tax dollars, are being managed with sound thinking and good judgment. Of course, this is completely in contrast to what the New Democrats have shown us they are capable of.

I do not mean to sound like I am giving an English course here, but I also went and looked up the word “irresponsible”. Here is what I found: “Lacking a sense of responsibility; unreliable or untrustworthy”.

An example of that would be someone who thinks, for example, that budgets just balance themselves. It is clear that the Liberal leader has no idea what it actually takes to balance a budget. That is missing a pretty essential attribute for someone who would like to be the prime minister.

Can members imagine, just for a moment, what would happen if they ran a small business and did not take the operating budget seriously and if they did not take into account revenue versus expenditures and the cost of running the business and just spent whenever, whatever? I guess if people grew up with everything handed to them on a silver platter, they might think that way. They might think budgets just balance themselves, but I can assure the House that it is not the case for the rest of us. Average Canadians, like the amazingly resourceful people in my riding of Calgary Centre, remind me of this every day. They know that balancing the budget takes a lot of hard work. It takes a lot of tough choices, and yes, it does take leadership, but the rewards are many.

When I go door knocking in Calgary Centre, people tell me the same thing every time. Their number one priority is seeing a balanced budget, and they are exceptionally happy to know that economic action plan 2014, along with this implementation bill, would return us to a balanced budget in 2015. That is a promise delivered.

An interesting thing happens when we balance a budget. Suddenly we have more money, money that would have gone to the banks to pay interest. We have that money to put toward program spending and also to pay down our debt so that we are not leaving that debt for our children. We do not believe, on this side of the House, that we should be spending our kids' money.

As I said already, this did not happen by accident. For example, since budget 2010, we have done very broad based reviews in every single department that have focused on achieving savings without compromising service to Canadians. In fact, direct program spending has declined for three consecutive years. That is a trend Canada has not seen in decades.

Canadians have told us what is important to them. It is things like old age security and major transfers to other levels of government for health care and social programs. Therefore, health and social programs would continue to grow through transfers through 2018-19.

We have heard from some of the other members this evening about how important those transfers are to the rest of Canada. Our Conservative government knows that, and it continues to increase them. It is amazing that we have done all this while reducing spending on federal programs for three consecutive years while increasing the federal transfer payments to the provinces.

This has been important, too, for my province of Alberta, because we have rectified an old wrong that was perpetrated by the Liberals that previously gave Alberta less money per capita for health care than all other provinces. This budget, this year, would rectify that with $1 billion owed to Alberta coming back to it.

There is much more in this budget that deserves highlighting. For instance, last year Calgary was hit with a devastating flood. I have talked about that in the House before. It was one of the worst natural disasters in Canadian history, and I saw first-hand how people's lives were turned completely upside down.

Hundreds of my constituents asked for a national disaster mitigation program. This budget would deliver that. Once passed, it would provide $200 million over five years to establish a national disaster mitigation program.

We will work with provinces like Alberta and the territories and municipalities to build safer communities and to minimize the risk of repeating what happened last year in Calgary.

Economic action plan 2014 would also initiate a very important element, which is consultations with the insurance industry to explore a new approach to residential flood insurance.

I was amazed when I heard that Canada is the only G8 country that does not have residential flood insurance coverage. People can get flood insurance for their businesses, but not for their residences, generally. This leaves a lot of homeowners without adequate protection in the event of loss from overland flooding. We want to start that dialogue and will have it with insurance companies, along with the provinces and territories, to solve this problem.

We are not paying lip service here. These are concrete moves that are helping my constituents of Calgary Centre and all Canadians.

Even in the toughest economic times, our government has worked hard to reduce taxes for Canadian families and businesses, and these again are things from which we all benefit, even the members of the opposition. The federal tax burden is now the lowest it has been in 50 years. That is quite incredible.

Since taking office, our Conservative government has cut taxes 160 times. We have lowered the GST from 7% to 5%. We have introduced pension splitting for seniors, which leaves more money in their pockets. Did members know that now a single senior can earn $20,054 without paying any tax? A senior couple can have income of $40,108 and pay no income tax. Three hundred and eighty thousand seniors have been removed from the income tax rolls. That is real progress.

We have created the working income tax benefit to help ensure that low-income workers are now better off by taking a job than by not working.

Now an average family of four pays $3,400 a year less in tax. That is money in their pockets they can use or spend as they see fit.

However, we all know that taxes also help fund programs and services that Canadians rely on, so we are doing things like helping the sandwich generation. That is all of us who are looking after our moms and dads and our kids at the same time and are feeling stressed because we have jobs as well. The Canadian employers for caregivers action plan would work with employers to help people stay in the workforce while they are looking after that very important loved one.

We are going to keep closing tax loopholes so that all Canadians pay their fair share.

Quality of life is also important to us, so I want to spend a minute talking about quality of life initiatives for all Canadians.

Did members know that arts and culture contribute $8 billion every year to Canada's economy? That is not to mention the thousands of amazing rock performances and piano concertos and everything we love to go see. In my riding alone, this budget would help fund non-profit arts and culture events like Expo Latino, GlobalFest, the International Children's Festival and the Calgary Stampede. I look forward, as do my constituents of Calgary Centre, to attending a lot of those this summer.

Last, I want to talk about my second favourite colour, next to blue, and that is green, and that is because our government is making Canada greener every day. This Conservative government has added an area the size of Greece to our national parkland, and that is a legacy for us to enjoy now and for our kids to enjoy in the future. It is a real game-changer. The former U.S. energy secretary, Steven Chu, says that it is one of our country's most amazing accomplishments, and he does not know why we are not touting it elsewhere. I want Canadians to know that we are protecting our parkland.

This budget would also invest $391.5 million over the next five years for Parks Canada to make improvements to highways, bridges, and dams that are located in our national parks and along historic canals. This would build on our commitment to preserve Canada's natural heritage. We have continually allocated money to do this in iconic places like Sable Island, the Nahanni, and Waterton National Park. These are for future generations to share.

I am proud of this budget. This budget is a rock-solid example of balance, good judgment, and sound thinking.

I would be remiss if I did not add my thanks and those of my constituents to the late Jim Flaherty, on whose foundation our current finance minister is building.

This is a responsible budget that will continue to build on the Flaherty record and will continue to build on the Conservative strength of job growth and long-term prosperity.

Finally, I am also proud of what is not in this budget. There is no reckless spending, no NDP carbon tax, and no pie in the sky Liberal thinking.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, what is in this budget and what I would like to ask the hon. member opposite about is the lack of transparency when it comes to railway safety. This particular omnibus budget bill, for some reason, includes railway safety provisions, except that what it would do is weaken and undermine railway safety. It would allow the government to change and repeal a wide range of safety regulations in the railway sector without informing the public. This would include standards for engineering, worker training, hours of work, maintenance, and performance. I know that in my community, constituents are very concerned about railway safety and the transport of hazardous goods.

Can the member tell us why the government would undermine railway safety with secretive measures that are going to negatively impact Canadians?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this, and I thank the hon. member opposite, because the hon. member knows that the Minister of Transport has been working very hard to improve rail safety. A number of measures have already been announced, which I am sure she is well aware of.

There is another thing the NDP could be doing. New Democrats know that the safest way to transport many of the goods that are going by rail now is through pipelines. Yet the party opposite continues to oppose pipelines and even goes so far as to undermine efforts by Canadians to build pipelines in other countries by going down to the States and working against our industry. If they want us to use the absolute safest method to transport things like oil and gas, for example, they should get on the pipeline bandwagon.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Centre said the number one concern in her riding was having balanced budgets. If we put that into perspective, the Conservative government has not had a balanced budget, not one balanced budget.

The government it replaced had numerous balanced budgets. Given that her number one priority for her constituents is a balanced budget, I would ask her if she does not think she might be in the wrong political party.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I love the hyperbole coming from the other side.

The member opposite is well aware that the world went through the worst recession since the 1930s in 2008, and this country emerged with the strongest economy of the G7. That was an incredible accomplishment. We did it without cutting transfer payments to the provinces, like the Liberals did, without cutting transfer payments to Alberta, like the Liberals did, and we have restored those injustices and have increased transfer payments while moving to a balanced budget next year, which the residents of Calgary Centre heartily applaud.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Calgary Centre seems to think we are debating the budget. In fact, we are debating an omnibus budget bill, Bill C-31, which makes no reference whatsoever to national parks.

However, since she did, I would like to point out that while it is commendable that we have extended the boundaries of national parks and have added new ones, it is lamentable that the fundamental purpose of national parks, the highest possible category of protection for ecological integrity, is being systematically undermined by decisions of the government, such as privatizing the hot springs in Banff, creating a privatized ice walk in Jasper, privatizing golf courses in Nova Scotia, and worst of all offences, creating a national park on Sable Island where the primary regulator will be the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, to allow seismic testing and drilling in that park. The national park system is being undermined as they expand its boundaries.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government consistently hears from the opposition how X, Y, and Z are not being done to protect the environment, when it is actually this government that is doing the most to protect Canada's environment that we have seen.

We are reducing greenhouse gas levels. That is something that went up 30% under the Liberals. We are making sure that our parkland is protected, and this budget implementation bill would go further to help us do that in the budget, which is supported by the implementation bill. We would see an increase in money going to our national parks, and we would be supporting conservation and encouraging donations to ecologically sensitive land by providing tax relief for people who give donations. We have seen a large amount of ecologically sensitive land that has been donated because of these kinds of tax measures. Those are real things that are happening to improve Canada's environment.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their warm welcome.

I think it goes without saying that I have no intention of supporting this shoddy budget, not only because of its content, which I will talk about later, but also because of the fact that the government frequently resorts to an undemocratic process.

Omnibus bills have almost become a tradition in the House. This one is 360 pages long and has 500 clauses. It amends more than 60 acts, and the official opposition is not allowed to divide the bill to study it properly in committee. Furthermore, as usual, we do not have enough time to properly study the bill and propose amendments to improve it. There is no way to properly study this budget, which I find particularly disgraceful.

I am sick of the government introducing such measures and playing games with our laws without consulting the public. I think it is disgraceful and undemocratic. I am not the only one who feels this way, since my colleagues are in the same situation as I am. We need a change, and it will come soon, since 2015 is not far off.

I also find it particularly disgraceful that there is absolutely nothing in this budget to help the 300,000 additional Canadians who have become unemployed since the recession. The government has not come up with anything to help these people or deal with the loss of 400,000 manufacturing jobs during this government's reign.

There are many measures I disagree with in this bill. However, since I do not have unlimited time to talk about them, I chose to concentrate on the measures that affect my riding and my constituents.

We have been hearing a lot about rail safety for almost a year now, since the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic. This tragedy affected many people, and my constituents are particularly worried. There are many railways, and dangerous goods are transported in close proximity to homes in many of the 25 municipalities in my riding.

When I was reading the budget, I was very disappointed to learn that decisions about the standards related to the transportation of dangerous goods will now be kept secret. Canadians will no longer be informed of those decisions. I do not understand. It would be nice to have some sort of explanation about that. These decisions need to be transparent. The government should be consulting Canadians, the official opposition and experts. That would be helpful.

As for the temporary foreign workers program, it has many flaws. The minister tried to fix them, which is great. However, penalties are not being imposed on employers who break the rules. Can we really believe the Conservatives when they say that they will enforce the rules? I have my doubts.

I would like to be wrong though, because the temporary foreign workers program is very useful and helps many employers. However, we have to prevent abuses, and we first have to make sure that people here have work.

I am somewhat skeptical about that, so I am looking forward to seeing what will happen.

I would also like to talk about the Champlain Bridge. It is not in my riding, but many people from my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, work in Montreal and have to cross the bridge every day.

The NDP proposed four amendments at committee stage to find other solutions that would not involve a toll on the Champlain Bridge. All of those amendments were rejected and the government is imposing its unilateral decision. The Champlain Bridge will be built, but it will have a toll. I do not know how much the toll will be, between $1 and $3, perhaps. It does not seem like much, so some people might not think it is a big deal. Going to Montreal once in a while and paying $2 is not a problem. However, middle-class families use the Champlain Bridge every day. Let us do the math: $2 per trip equals $4 a day, $20 a week, or more than $100 a month. That is a lot of money for a middle-class family. A family can buy a lot of groceries for $100.

I am therefore wondering why it is necessary to make people pay for this bridge when Canada has the money needed to provide this sort of thing without making them pay. The government does not need to apply the user-pay principle to every new piece of infrastructure.

In that regard, the government announced $5.8 billion in cuts to local infrastructure. I cannot believe that the government is letting our infrastructure deteriorate so much. I do not understand it. Right now, I am touring the 25 municipalities in my riding. I am meeting with all the mayors and administrators to talk to them and see how things are going. Everyone is telling me that our infrastructure is aging. They all need money from the federal government. They cannot keep endlessly taxing residents and increasing municipal taxes. They have needs. They have to repair roads, sewers and many other things. However, the federal government is announcing $5.8 billion in cuts to local infrastructure. I do not understand the logic behind that. Is the government going to abandon our country like this? Is it going to let everything fall apart until we can no longer travel on our roads, until our sewers no longer work and until our municipalities are crushed by debt? I do not think that makes any sense.

What my party and I expect from a responsible government is for it to reverse the cuts to employment insurance, for example. We do not want people to have to travel 100 km from their home to work for 70% of their previous salary. That does not make sense. We want the age of eligibility for old age security to go back down to 65.

We also need to fight against tax havens. Rather than making billions of dollars in cuts to key areas such as infrastructure, the government could recover a lot of money by fighting against tax havens. What is more, $36 billion in cuts were made to health transfers to the provinces. It makes no sense. I am also going to promote my own cause. The bill that I introduced a year ago on a national housing strategy would help a lot of people.

I would like to send a message to the government. It would be great if it would soon realize that investing in social programs pays off.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been wanting to speak since the evening began. I very much appreciate my colleague's speech and comments.

She knows what kind of impact a budget like this has on affordable housing in her riding. It does not really help people, especially not seniors.

I sent a questionnaire about seniors to my constituents. Ms. Lebrun, who is from Moonbeam, replied saying that we need support for family caregivers, more home care for people who want to remain in their homes, and an end to the billion-dollar gifts the Prime Minister is wasting.

Does my colleague agree with Ms. Lebrun's comments? The government often says that Canadians are not interested in what we do here. I think that what we do in the House is very important. We really need help for our seniors and our veterans. We cannot forget our veterans.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very good question.

I too get lots and lots of comments from people in my riding who need help. These people are veterans and folks who have worked hard all their lives and do not really want to work two more years before they can retire. That is totally legitimate.

I agree with my colleague. I think that a responsible government should invest in social programs to make sure that people are okay and can live good lives.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about rail safety earlier. I wonder what this is doing in a budget bill. Does my colleague know why it is in the bill?

Since this is a budget bill, I wonder what my colleague thinks of the fact that municipalities will not find out until three months after a train has passed whether it was carrying dangerous goods and what those dangerous goods were. Does she think that makes sense?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this really does not make sense. I find it interesting that my colleague raises the fact that rail safety does not really belong in a budget. I was not concerned about that. However, the government seems to be in the habit of bundling together everything it wants to pass. It puts all kinds of things in the same bill, in this case the budget bill.

This comes back to what I was saying about the undemocratic process related to this bill and the fact that we do not have enough time to properly review each clause or each law that is amended in this bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the comments by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. It is clear that she works very hard for her constituents.

Earlier this evening we saw that no costing had been done for certain aspects of this budget.

What does the member think, and what do the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot think, about a government that does not even cost its budget?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

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

As I was saying earlier in response to another colleague, I hear from constituents every day, because they send me emails and letters, or drop by my office to complain about this government's schemes. They think this is particularly appalling.

People do not like this government's current approach to passing its budget and many of its bills, not to mention all the closure motions imposed this year.