Debates of June 4th, 2014

Motions in Amendment

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that question is very relevant to this debate, and it is far more relevant than much of what I have been hearing from the government benches.

My colleague spoke about the Jacques-Cartier Bridge, but I believe he meant to say the Champlain Bridge. However, this decision will also affect the Jacques-Cartier Bridge.

In general, tolls are used as a traffic control measure. The decision to place a toll on this specific piece of infrastructure will clearly have an impact on the other entry and exit routes.

If a toll is specifically imposed on the Champlain Bridge, many motorists and truck drivers will choose to use other routes, such as the Jacques-Cartier Bridge, the Victoria Bridge or the Louis-Hippolyte-LaFontaine tunnel. That tunnel will also likely need some work done.

In that context, this one decision will have a major impact on the city and on the provincial economy. As I said, nearly one-fifth of Quebec's GDP now crosses the Champlain Bridge.

We cannot call it ignorance, since the Conservative government has five Quebec MPs. However, we can say that the government is showing its contempt for the vision that the Quebec government and the Montreal authorities have for Montreal and the new Champlain Bridge.

The Champlain Bridge needs to be replaced because it is falling apart. The federal government failed to meet its responsibility to take good care of the bridge and now wants to make commuters pay the bill, even though the bridge serves Quebec's entire economic community.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-31, an act that will implement important measures contained in economic action plan 2014.

It is a pleasure to speak to the budget this evening, since the provisions it contains would bring us to our long-term goal of balancing the budget.

Our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: growing the economy and helping create jobs. Canada has now created over one million net new jobs since the depth of the global recession in July 2009. Since coming to office, our government has had one of the best job creation records in the G7, and we are leading overall in economic growth.

While Canada is doing a better job than our international allies, we are not immune to economic challenges beyond our borders, and indeed, our finance ministers have warned us that the economies are still very fragile. That is why our Conservative government is continuing to work hard at home to ensure our economy stays strong.

Most of the over one million net new jobs that have been created since the recovery began in July 2009 are high-wage, full-time, private-sector jobs. That said, our government acknowledges that imbalances between unemployment and job vacancies persist.

It was highlighted in the Department of Finance's “Jobs Report: The State of the Canadian Labour Market”, that too many Canadians are still out of work or underutilized at a time when skills and labour shortages are re-emerging in certain sectors and regions. A shortage of skilled labour is an impediment to growth, and that is why our government constructed a strategy to address this and to develop a skilled, mobile and productive workforce.

Our government acknowledges how important apprenticeship programs are for those in skills training. Employer surveys have indicated that skilled trades are among the most difficult jobs to fill. Our budget has included measures to encourage the take-up and completion of apprenticeships by providing support to apprentices and the employers that hire them.

In particular, the Red Seal apprentices would be able to apply for interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per period of technical training. Canada's Red Seal program allows qualified tradespeople to practice their trade anywhere in Canada where that trade is designated, without having to write further examinations.

It is expected that at least 26,000 apprentices will apply for the $100 million in loans. This is critical, when we consider the significant costs apprentices can face in the periods of technical training required by their programs. Aiding our apprentices to the completion of their training would directly contribute to the supply of skilled labour across Canada.

Our role does not end there. Even with the appropriate qualifications, it may take time for job seekers to connect with employers. Our government will help Canadians connect to jobs that match their skills.

The economic action plan proposes to launch an enhanced job-matching service to ensure that Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs in their local area. Through this program, job seekers will be provided with modern and reliable tools to find jobs that match their skills, and provide employers with better tools to look for qualified candidates. We want to ensure that Canadians acquire the skills they need for the workforce, and that employers are matched with the skilled labourers that they need.

With that said, our government also acknowledges that immigration plays a significant role in the continued success of our economy. Economic action plan 2014 outlines a plan to launch a new recruitment system, the expression of interest system, to be implemented in January 2015. Fourteen million dollars will be provided over two years, and $4.7 million per year ongoing to Citizenship and Immigration Canada to support the successful implementation of the system.

Under the expression of interest system, candidates would make an online submission to express their interest in coming to Canada and to provide information about their skills and experience. The information would be ranked, sorted and allow the Government of Canada, provinces and territories and employers to actively target highly skilled immigrants. The government would invite only the most highly ranked candidates to apply for permanent residence.

It is a privilege to address Canadians and my constituents with practical measures that would, without a doubt, continue job growth in our country. I am also pleased that our government continues to support and invest in job markets that are, and always have been, major economic drivers in our country.

As Canadians, we are blessed with an abundance of diverse natural resources. Major natural resource projects are an important source of development and job creation in all regions of Canada. We, as Canadians, must be responsible stewards of the land, while utilizing the resources given to us. Our government has done both. Mining, forestry and agriculture represent important contributions to the Canadian economy and create jobs, particularly in many rural areas. In fact, Canada's natural resource sector represents 18% of the economy, over half of our exports, and supports 1.8 million jobs directly and indirectly.

I understand the importance of the government's support in Canada's natural resource sector, and that is why I am glad to see continued incentives in this area. One of the measures in this bill would permanently eliminate the tariffs on mobile offshore drilling units used on offshore oil and gas exploration and development. This would continue to improve the global competitiveness of Canadian energy projects, while increasing the potential for valuable resource discoveries.

Our government is also pleased to support mining and exploration in this budget. Canada is one of the world's leading mining nations. According to the Mining Association of Canada, over 90,000 Canadians are employed in the mineral extraction in mining support activities across the country. That is why we are proposing to extend the 15% mineral exploration tax credit to junior mineral exploration companies for an additional year. Since 2006, the mining exploration tax credit has helped junior mining companies raise over $5 billion for exploration. It is not difficult to see why extending this credit will continue to create jobs and development across the country.

I am also encouraged to see our government's support of the agriculture industry in the economic action plan 2014. The agriculture and agri-food sector plays a significant role in the Canadian economy, accounting for over $100 billion in economic activity and providing employment to over 2.1 million Canadians in 2011.

Agriculture plays a vital role in Canada as a whole, but it also plays a vital role in my riding of Provencher. I spend lots of time listening to my constituents to understand how we can continue to improve the lives of farmers. I know all too well that sudden drops in market prices are a major source of risk for livestock producers. Starting this spring, a new pilot price insurance program will be available to cattle and hog producers in western Canada, offering insurance against unanticipated price declines. This will directly impact the lives of hard-working farmers in my community.

It is with great regret that in this time allotted to me I can only share with members a few important measures that would positively impact my constituents and all Canadians. It is measures such as the ones I have detailed that deliver results for all Canadians.

In fact, according to a recent study, Canada's middle class, after tax income, is the highest in the world. Canadian families in all income groups have seen increases in their take-home pay since we have come into office. There are now 1.4 million fewer Canadians living in poverty than under the previous Liberal government.

Not only that, the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently found that federal tax cuts since 2005, mostly by our government, are saving Canadians roughly $30 billion per year. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also determined that the most significant share of tax savings went to low and middle-income earners, thanks, in part, to our government's 2% cut of the GST.

These results reaffirm our Conservative government's focus on jobs and growth and that it is making a real difference in supporting prosperity for all Canadians.

In our home, my wife Irene and I know the importance of keeping a balanced budget. It is something we take seriously, always bearing in mind that it is not a good practice to spend more than we make. We have seen the consequences of overspending and the rewards of sound budgeting. We make cuts when we need to and we make investments when we can. Budgets are important and I am well aware that budgets do not simply balance themselves.

Likewise, my fellow Canadians value fiscal responsibility. That is why I am proud to represent a government that practices values at the highest level and to speak on the measures tonight.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government often talks about creating jobs. It told us that it has created a million jobs. That is great, but the Conservatives have yet to put forward a strategy to help the 1.3 million Canadians who are without work. There are 6.3 unemployed workers for each available job; in the Atlantic provinces, that figure rises to 10 for each available job.

How will the government get these six unemployed workers back to work, since there are six unemployed workers for every job? They will have to drive an hour from home to take a job at 70% less pay. What is the government doing to encourage them to go back to work?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for asking that question because it is something I did address in my speech.

Our government has created an enhanced program for matching employers with employees. That will be useful for matching up the skills out there that are being underutilized with employers that require services of employees in areas where labour is hard to get.

I am proud our government has taken action on the issue that the member has raised.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on the theme of employment insurance. One thing this budget does not get and does not understand is seasonal employment, seasonal unemployment and employment insurance for seasonal workers. The Conservative government does not get that people cannot just pick up and travel for work from a community that is hours away from where employment is needed, and it will try to cut back on their employment insurance benefits.

What is in this budget for seasonal workers?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers are all kinds of workers. I have a business myself that employs many seasonal workers in heavy construction and mining. Many of these people are Red Seal apprentice type people. They qualify for $4,000 per period of training. If they get that training in the off season, they can better utilize it in the on season. That money will be useful for them and will help them bridge the gap between those employment seasons.

Our government is committed to looking after all workers, including seasonal workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, throughout the night we have heard speeches. I do not think I have heard anybody speak about the First Nations Inuit people. The government is saying that it is the best government and the best manager. However, we recently saw the government cut 50% from the first nations national child benefit reinvestment initiative. This program deals with accessible and affordable daycare, which allows parents to hold down jobs, and we talk about jobs here, or even something as simple as a child nutrition program that helps send kids to school with a full belly. That is what the dollars are used for. This can help turn lives around and ensure our young first nations people of today can get back to work.

We did not hear the Conservatives talk about any investments with respect to policing on first nations, which is in dire need of funding, yet the government turns its back on first nations.

Could the member tell me how the government will turn that around? Will it ensure that it provides funding for policing and increase the first nations national child benefit reinvestment initiative?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to supporting families, whether they be first nations families or otherwise. We have enhanced the flexibility and access to employment insurance and sickness benefits. We have increased the adoption expense tax credit. We have removed the GST on more health care products and services. We have expanded the tax relief under the medical expense tax credit. We are standing up for victims of crime and we are bringing closure to families of missing person. This does not apply only to first nations people, it applies to all Canadian citizens.

These measures have been brought in by our government and they are very good measures.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House for that enthusiastic and warm welcome this evening at this advanced hour. I really appreciate the encouragement.

We are here this evening examining Bill C-31, another one of the omnibus budget implementation acts of the Conservative government, and yet again we find ourselves presented with a massive bill. The bill is over 360 pages long, and it changes a number of pieces of legislation, more than 60 acts in all.

I want to begin my remarks by pointing out again the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the government throwing into one omnibus bill much of its legislative agenda, including many measures that have nothing to do with the budget and including whole bills that should be separate pieces of legislation that come before the House and are voted on at separate committees by the members. Instead everything is thrown into one budget bill.

Because there are so many areas that the bill touches on, I am only going to be able to mention three or four this evening, unfortunately, but I want to speak first of all about the changes to FATCA. This is the foreign account tax compliance act, and Bill C-31 moves to implement a Canada-U.S. intergovernmental agreement about FATCA.

What is FATCA? The bill means that Canadian-U.S. dual citizens would find that they would have their financial information scrutinized by the American government, even though they perhaps have not lived or worked in the United States for many years, and this would include people who happen to be born in the U.S. but have not lived there perhaps most of their lives.

What the agreement would do is facilitate the transfer of sensitive Canadian financial information, individuals' financial information, to the United States. There are serious concerns that this would violate the privacy of a number of Canadians. In fact, it could adversely affect up to one million Canadians who could be affected by the bill, people who happen to be here but also hold American citizenship; so this is a great concern. In my constituency, many people have written to me or visited me, very concerned about what this means.

It appears that the agreement was negotiated with the protection of the banks in mind, as opposed to the individual protection of individual Canadian citizens. This entire agreement is included in this omnibus budget bill, as opposed to having something that is so fundamental and so important and affects so many Canadians carved out as a separate bill that could be debated and given due consideration. That is very troubling.

One of the key problems with the FATCA provisions in the bill is that there is nothing in this that would inform Canadians that their privacy is being violated, that their information is being turned over to the IRS. We proposed some reasonable amendments to these provisions, but as usual, they were all rejected by the Conservatives.

Next, I want to talk about the rail safety provisions, or lack of rail safety provisions, in the bill.

The bill would allow the government to change and repeal a wide variety of railway safety regulations, including standards for engineering worker training, hours of work, and maintenance and performance, all without informing the public. There would be no public debate on these changes. These could be done in secret, by cabinet, and could affect the transport of dangerous goods.

Now, I do want to say that, in my riding of Parkdale—High Park, in Toronto, we have three different rail lines that traverse our riding. Community members there have been very concerned about the transport of dangerous goods. Certainly, they have seen what happened in Lac-Mégantic and other parts of the country and in the U.S. and have expressed serious concerns. They have signed petitions. They have been trying to have a meeting with Department of Transport officials. I am hoping the minister will approve that, at some point, and allow the officials to come. They are very concerned about this, and to have a situation where changes could be made that could affect community safety when the public may not even be aware of it is the opposite of transparency and a cause for great concern. I do want to flag that.

Third, I want to flag the issue of trademarks and copyright.

I sit on the industry committee—I am the industry critic—and parts of the bill did come to the industry committee. Although we did not get to vote on anything, because it all goes back to finance, one thing we did hear was testimony about trademarks.

I want to quote the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada because, while the government says that the changes it has made on trademarks are to have compliance with international agreements, in fact, the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada says that the proposed elimination of the need to use trademarks prior to their registration presents a serious concern. These are the experts saying this. It goes beyond what is required by accession to the three international treaties and may disadvantage Canadian trademark owners.

What we heard in testimony reinforces that and amplifies that because, going against all past practice and previous legislation, trademarks could now be registered without ever using them and so we could have trademark trolls, who register all of these trademarks and then a legitimate business that wants to get that trademark for its legitimate business concerns would have to get into expensive litigation and take on these trademark trolls just in order to brand their small business. This is the opposite, again, of transparency and of even logic. We have heard no good rationale from officials, from the minister, or anyone as to why this is taking place.

Therefore, there are serious concerns. Again, these trademark changes are something that should be in a separate piece of legislation and be made available for adequate study at the industry committee. Instead, they are rushed through the finance committee with this omnibus budget bill.

Last, I have to talk about the lack of commitment to infrastructure.

We already have a $300 billion infrastructure deficit in the GTA, in Toronto, where I am from. We finished last out of 19 global cities, when it comes to commute times. Yet, we have a government that, in the previous budget, cut $5.8 billion in infrastructure funding. There are future commitments to infrastructure, but they are way down the road, and our city and, indeed, the country are in urgent need of quick action. We need to see spending, now, by the government. We should be doubling the gas tax, so we can invest in our communities across the country. The budget would do nothing to help redress the infrastructure deficit.

I look forward to the questions from my colleagues in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, today there were representatives of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada on the Hill. They were there to ask the government to renew social housing agreements. I know that there are co-operative housing units in my colleague's riding and that social housing is an important issue for her.

I would like to know what she thinks of the fact that there is money for social housing in the budget, but there is absolutely nothing about the renewal of long-term agreements between CMHC and social housing groups such as co-operatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would like to begin by thanking my colleague opposite. I would like to correct what I said earlier. When I talked about doubling the gas tax, I meant doubling the transfer of an existing tax. I want to clarify what I said about that.

I would like to thank my NDP colleague for her question about affordable housing and co-operatives.

It is just disgusting. The Liberal government cut funding for the national affordable housing strategy. Now agreements on affordable housing and co-operatives are about to expire. The people who live in these units are really worried because of the lack of funds and the lack of a government plan for the future of their housing. The government needs to invest in affordable housing and co-operatives to protect the housing that hundreds of thousands of Canadians depend on.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about the gas tax, which she talked about in her speech.

What I hear from a lot of municipalities is that they are finding it difficult to use the gas tax money because it is so restrictive in terms of what they can use it on. A lot of smaller municipalities that could really use the gas tax money are finding it very restrictive.

The government has made some changes but not a lot of changes. I wonder if the member could comment a little bit further on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, so much of our infrastructure across the country is the responsibility of the federal government, yet there is a real lack of strategy and clear commitment about how this infrastructure will be maintained and future infrastructure invested in.

I will say that the new building Canada plan would not correct these deficiencies, because the problem is that, under this new funding scheme, only a maximum of one-third of the cost of any given project would be funded. So many cities and municipalities across the country are already cash-strapped. They do not have the means to be able to raise funds. They cannot just go out and raise taxes. They do not have the wherewithal. Yet to get the federal money, they have to put in a third of the money themselves or find it from some other source. We are finding that much of this money cannot be accessed by municipalities.

The other thing is that the requirement of public-private partnerships delays projects. It means there are other hurdles that have to be faced, and it is not always clear that it is going to provide a better, more cost effective access to public infrastructure. That is what is needed across country.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the federal member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to represent the interests and concerns of my constituents as their representative in the Government of Canada.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of my Conservative caucus colleagues on the finance committee as we debate Bill C-31 as reported from their committee. A line-by-line review of any legislation is a tedious yet very necessary process. This is how we make good legislation better.

As I reviewed the committee testimony as well as the previous debates surrounding the budget implementation bill, there seemed to be a considerable lack of understanding on the part of the opposition in the complexity of running a G7 economy and the measures necessary to keep an advanced industrialized economy running efficiently.

More important, the type of interventions promoted by the Liberal Party in finance committee demonstrate how far the party has shifted to the left under the influence of the disgraced former Ontario Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty's advisor Gerald Butts.

Residents of Ontario, who are suffering from paying the highest electricity rates in North America, will recognize the name Gerald Butts as one of the authors of the so-called Green Energy Act—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt my hon. colleague, but I wonder if the Speaker has any views as to relevance. I do not see Mr. Butts' name in Bill C-31 anywhere.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That is not a point of order. Certainly the relevancy issue, it seems to me, is quite clear on the point that the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is making.

Continue, please.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I mention the name of the individual, who the Ottawa media have labelled “the puppeteer” because of his Rasputin-like control over the Liberal leader, to give a sense of the type of ruinous policies that would be implemented in Ottawa if Liberal Party insiders like Gerald Butts or Mike Crawley ever had their way.

The only green in that Ontario Liberal policy is the green that it put in the pockets of Liberal Party insiders like party president Mike Crawley, who received a $475-million contract to build industrial wind turbines nobody wants at prices nobody can afford. Worst of all, electricity from these wind turbines is then dumped, at a loss, to our economic competitors, costing Ontario taxpayers over $1 billion last year and countless lost jobs. Ontario's poor economic performance is dragging down Canada's economy.

Those are the findings in a recent study co-authored by economics professor Livio Di Matteo of Lakehead University. The study, “Can Canada Prosper Without a Prosperous Ontario?”, examines Ontario's shift from the economic engine of Canada to a have-not province that received $3.2 billion in equalization payments—handouts—from Canadian taxpayers in 2013-14. “Ontario’s poor record on GDP growth, employment and business investment reflects a damaged provincial economy that’s dragging down the national economy...”, Professor Di Matteo comments.

If Ontario adopts smarter policies focused on competitiveness and economic growth rather than interventionist government, it could unleash its private sector and improve Ontario's economy for the benefit of taxpayers in Ontario and across Canada. In other words, follow the lead of the federal government.

He goes on to say that Ontario's economic struggles over the last decade, which led to becoming a have-not province, receiving federal transfers instead of serving as a foundation for the national economy, has implications beyond its borders. Ontario is facing an $11.7 billion deficit in the current fiscal year as well as a manufacturing industry hobbled by high electricity rates.

Professor Di Matteo blames an incomplete transition to a more competitive world economy aggravated by high energy costs and interventionist government policies.

Ontario's failure to come to grips with its economic productivity and growth issues has serious implications for itself as well as the future growth of the Canadian economy.

“Ontario is a vast pool of human, physical and financial capital that is not living up to its potential”, Professor Di Matteo wrote.

As I have noted on previous occasions in this chamber, it is important for Canadians to take note of who is providing economic leadership in Canada. Only a Conservative government led by our current Prime Minister can be trusted with our nation's finances.

In Ontario, thanks to interventionist policies, seniors and others on fixed incomes are now faced with energy poverty, a new term in what was Canada's most prosperous province. Only a strong, steady hand on the finances of Canada by our Conservative government has prevented the Ontario economy from becoming something even worse.

The high level of youth unemployment in Ontario is a direct result of the Liberal electricity rate policy. It does not matter who—

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize on a personal level to the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, because I am very fond of her, but with all due respect, where on earth is there anything in Bill C-31 relevant to this speech? Perhaps the hon. member could direct us to something in Bill C-31 that has any relevance to this speech.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is using a very common strategy of debate in the House. We see it all the time. What she is saying is this is not the way to do it. Do it this way. That is what she is doing. It happens in the House all the time by members on all sides of the House. One may question the tactic, but it is still relevant to the debate that is before us this evening.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke can continue.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it does matter who is in control of Canada's national finances. Bill C-31 proposes to legislate key elements of economic action plan 2014, which commits to a return to a balanced budget in 2015. It is clear from the many consultations I have had with my constituents that the main issues for them are jobs, taxes, and the economy.

In my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, one of the largest employers is Atomic Energy of Canada. With close to 3,000 employees, it has been recognized by groups like the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus, which said that without the presence of AECL, the economic malaise brought on by the disastrous electricity rate policy of the Ontario Liberals would be much worse in this part of rural small-town eastern Ontario.

The economic action plan provides $117 million over two years to provide for the continued safe operation of Canada's world renowned nuclear research facility. It was extremely disappointing to the tens of thousands of nuclear workers in Ontario and Quebec's nuclear supply chains to listen to the ill-informed remarks of the opposition regarding Canada's success story, CANDU, following the last time I spoke in the chamber on this issue. It is clear that the opponents of the Canadian success story have done a job spreading misinformation, robotically repeated by the opposition, using events in other parts of the world, which are not the Canadian experience.

The money for AECL is money well spent, and here are a few reasons why. Number one is its groundbreaking research. AECL is one of Canada's scientific leaders. A patent is an exclusive right granted by a government to an inventor to manufacture, use, or sell an invention for a certain number of years. Patents are granted on a country-by-country basis and can only be granted in countries where formal applications have been filed. AECL submitted 18 applications during the 2012-13 fiscal year, achieving 13 patent approvals. That is more than one a month.

Among the many other AECL patents included the invention of a valve lantern ring packing cutter used in the maintenance of reactor components, an ingenious fuel bundle design to help improve reactor safety, and a novel core design allowing for a thorium fuel cycle in a heavy water moderated reactor.

For more than 60 years, AECL has served as Canada's premium nuclear science and technology organization. AECL and its laboratories are a strategic element of Canada's national S and T infrastructure as well as a national innovation system.

AECL is one of the reasons our Prime Minister can proudly refer to Canada as a clean energy superpower. AECL is science at work for Canada. The breadth and depth of the work in the nuclear science and technology carried out at AECL is obviously a surprise to anyone who does not take the time to learn the facts. AECL's mandate is to deliver energy, health, environmental, and economic benefits to Canadians. This is founded on the principle of customer focus and collaboration.

AECL has a wall and curtain system, among many other things, and these are just a few of the recent examples of the scientific, groundbreaking research that is taking place in the Ottawa Valley in Chalk River, just miles down the Trans-Canada Highway from Ottawa. I am honoured to have AECL in my riding and proud to stand in support of a budget that recognizes its contributions in Canada.

If I am allowed in questions and answers, I will go on to describe the many other technologies AECL is patenting for the good of Canada and the good of the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it very ironic that my colleague talked about electricity rates and tried to blame it on the Liberals. The Liberals had something to do with it, but let us be very clear. Under the Conservatives, most of them on the front bench there, we started to see the hydro rates go up. This only proves that there is no difference between the Tories and the Liberals, for heaven sakes.

If people really want change, they are going to vote for Andrea Horwath in this provincial election, and that is coming up very quickly.

The Conservatives are quick to talk about how good they are trying to make the economy, but, all in all, we see the job situation in Canada. Under the Conservatives, almost 300,000 more people are unemployed, and there will be another 100,000 less jobs if Hudak gets in.

What do the Conservatives have against workers in our country? Why do they not ensure there are proper training and proper safeguards for people who lose their jobs? Why are they not creating the jobs they should be, as opposed to low-paying jobs and part-time jobs?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since that was blatant propaganda, I will let Canadians know about another such invention in the area of three-dimensional gel dosimetry:

Canadians fight cancer with radiotherapy every day. Prior to treatment, each patient’s dose must be accurately calculated - not too much and not too little. And the dose must be targeted for an exact location in the body. AECL scientists set out to devise a system that allows faster and more economic dose assessment for physicians. The more accurate this dose determination, the more precise the treatment, and the lower the overall radiation dose to the patient. AECL's 3-D Gel Dosimeter uses a gelled scintillator, a material which glows when struck by high-energy particles such as radiation. When viewed by a digital imaging system, this scintillator provides accurate, real-time 3-D dose distributions.

This is saving lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague started her speech by saying she represented the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and was bringing their concerns to the table.

This is a list of the people, and I am sure there are many in her riding, who would be affected by FATCA. It is far more than U.S. citizens. According to a legal expert, it would apply to Canadian citizens who are also U.S. citizens; Canadian citizens born in the U.S. who thought they lost their citizenship; Canadian citizens born in the U.S. who have lived their whole lives in Canada, having come here at maybe six months old; Canadian citizens with green cards; Canadian citizens who physically spend a certain amount of time in the U.S.; or, Canadian citizens sharing financial accounts with U.S. persons, for example one who is married to or shares a business venture with a U.S. person.

This is why it is estimated that approximately one million Canadians will be affected by FATCA.

Does the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke have some concerns for those constituents within her riding?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke who pay their taxes, who are not hiding money, do not have to worry. They are in touch with my office and we are helping them through this.

However, let me tell some more facts. AECL is a key player in the global non-proliferation and de-proliferation efforts by doing the following:

—increasing the need for alternatives to highly-enriched uranium. As part of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative’s goal to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear and radiological material located at civilian sites worldwide, AECL leads the development of a uranium molybdenum dispersion fuel....U-Mo is a high density fuel which allows the use of low enriched uranium to achieve the same fuel equivalent as some highly enriched fuels. And the spent fuel is much cleaner as well.

Therefore, not only are we doing great things in medicine and producing economical, sustainable, clean energy for electricity, but we are helping to keep the world a safer place.

Bill C-31—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.