2016-05-05

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the previous Conservative government withdrew from Iran because we disliked the regime. However, let us be clear. Not only do we dislike this regime; we abhor this regime. Iran wants to destroy Israel. Iran imprisons and tortures its own people. It sponsors terrorism around the world, and is determined to become a nuclear power. Forgive my confusion, but could the minister please tell us what he likes about Iran?

Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, following question period today because I think all Canadians would expect our Prime Minister to always conduct himself with the highest level of dignity and to demonstrate the utmost respect for an institution such as the House of Commons. That should happen whether the Prime Minister is on camera or off camera.On a number of occasions during this Parliament, I have witnessed—and I am sure others on this side of the House can confirm this—the Prime Minister behave in a manner that I would say is far below the dignity of the office he holds. In fact, I think one could even call it childish behaviour.I only stand today because I think it was particularly egregious today. I saw him, on a frequent number of occasions today, taunting and making faces at other members of Parliament as they were speaking. He certainly went too far when I saw him stick his tongue out following a question that had been put by the member for South Surrey—White Rock. That is, clearly, in my mind, far below the dignity of the office he holds.I certainly hope that the Prime Minister will stand in this place and apologize to this House, and to all Canadians, for such immature behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, for two days, the parliamentary secretary has accused small business owners of being tax cheats.She is not alone. The Prime Minister has said small businesses are just a way to avoid taxes. Just today, a Liberal member said in the House that the small business tax rate does not matter. When will the Liberals reverse their broken promise and bring the tax rate to 9%?

Mr. Speaker, this is what happens when we need the Liberals from Quebec: “Hello. You have reached the Liberal Party. All our members are currently hiding. Please stay on the line. Your call is important to us.”Can someone tell me what good the 40 Liberal members from Quebec are? They are no good. They are giving up 1,800 Air Canada jobs. They are betraying dairy farmers. They are ignoring everyone in Lac-Mégantic. They have forgotten about the unemployed, Canada Post, and the French language. Is the Liberal Party's Quebec lieutenant asleep at the switch?

Mr. Speaker, talking about putting words into action, during the election campaign and with Mayor Coderre at his side, the Prime Minister specifically promised to restore door-to-door delivery. Today, he has created a committee. Where are the Prime Minister's sunny ways now? What about his promise to do politics differently?Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that he misled Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, according to B.C.'s auditor general, the devastating Mount Polley mine disaster is the result of negligence by the B.C. Liberal government. This resulted in one of the biggest mining disasters in the province's history. Fish habitat was destroyed and mine tailings spilled into surrounding lakes and rivers. The federal government must not turn a blind eye to this clear violation of the Fisheries Act. What action will the fisheries minister take against the B.C. Liberal government?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are actually concerned by the attitude that the Minister of Finance has been demonstrating in the last number of days.This week alone, he is denying a surplus that he inherited from us. He is also mocking us openly, saying that we are stuck in this whole balanced budget thing. Then he introduced a bill that actually repeals legislation which would make balanced budgets a law.The minister said earlier this week that his kids and his grandchildren will be better off, but what part of sticking our kids and our grandchildren with debt and deficit is actually going to allow them to be better off?

Speaking of dodging, Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Prime Minister is dodging the question. I will repeat my very simple question. The Prime Minister talks about going after those who cheat on their taxes and hide their money illegally in tax havens. Today, the Canada Revenue Agency said that there is no immunity from criminal charges.The question is quite simple: Will the Liberals do everything possible under the law, including the Criminal Code, to go after KPMG and these multimillionaires who have defrauded the system?

Mr. Speaker, continuing on the theme of broken promises, it has been six months of disappointment from the Liberals, fiscally, as well.Since they have come to office, they have broken three key election promises: number one, that the tax plan would be revenue-neutral; number two, that the deficits would be no more than $10 billion; and number three, they said that they were going to balance the budget by the end of the mandate.After six disappointing months, can the Minister of Finance, despite the Prime Minister's gloating in the House today that “we keep our promises”, tell Canadians which one of these broken promises he is most proud of?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to be in favour of special treatment for the wealthy and well-connected.Today at committee, CRA officials testified that the sweetheart deal for KPMG clients did not include immunity from criminal prosecution.My question is simple. If the Prime Minister is serious about tackling tax havens, and remembering that actions speak louder than words, will he ensure that those multi-millionaire tax cheats and those at KPMG who aided and abetted them face criminal charges?

Not at all, Mr. Speaker.Because Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuit against Air Canada, we were able to make amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act, through Bill C-10. That is what we are doing.However, I remind my colleague that Air Canada is still required to perform maintenance in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said, “We are in discussions with the other parties” to set up a committee on electoral reform. He explained that the reason why it has not yet been struck is entirely the fault of the Conservatives and the NDP, since both parties will not give consent without unreasonable preconditions. This whole process is imaginary. I have met with the relevant minister exactly twice in six months, once in December at my request, and once at a breakfast, where she sat at my table for less than 10 minutes. My NDP homologue says it is the same thing with him.Why did the Prime Minister just invent this patently false story about opposition delay?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a moment on what the members on the other side of the House might be doing right now.They want to balance the budget on the backs of Canadians. What exactly would that mean? That would mean that right now we would be making cuts to services, cuts to Canadian families that would make their lives more difficult.

Mr. Speaker, the House leader is once again being thrown under the bus by his friends on the front bench. He has turned himself into a human pretzel trying to defend the justice minister's questionable fundraising, and he is now assuming the position for the trade minister and her Hollywood agreements.Will the trade minister finally table those agreements, or is she prepared to pay for the ongoing House leader's chiropractic treatments with her own money?

Actually, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was fishing for votes in our big cities, he solemnly promised to restore home mail delivery, no ifs, ands, or buts. Now he says that home mail delivery will not be restored.I have an honest question for the Prime Minister. If the previous government had done that, if—

Mr. Speaker, we saw the trans-Pacific partnership at the same time that the Liberals did, and that was after the campaign, after the election, after it was kept in secret by the Conservatives.The fact is, the minister refuses to release an impact study and refuses to launch the public consultations that the Liberals promised.The committee's work is not her own. However, we are hearing very troubling testimony. Today, RIM founder Jim Balsillie warned, “There will never be [another] large Canadian tech company under the TPP”. He has also said that Canada would be a colossal loser.Why is the minister proceeding with a deal that will so badly damage Canada's tech sector?

Mr. Speaker, the crisis that the people of Fort McMurray are experiencing is absolutely devastating.The Government of Canada will be a partner not only in the immediate emergency situation, but also in the long term, through the work we will do together in the coming months to restore the ability to grow and in the coming years to rebuild this important community and guarantee a future for everyone who has been affected by this disaster.

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and Canadians are very concerned about the government's position on support for the aerospace industry, which is extremely important to our economy.When we recently asked the Minister of Transport why he had pushed through Bill C-10 under a gag order, he said that it was to make Air Canada more competitive.Will the minister finally admit that he is leaving the door wide open for Air Canada to sacrifice good-quality jobs here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, Department of Immigration officials confirmed that prior to imposing a visa requirement for Mexico, the asylum rate was at 25%, and many of these claims were rejected as false. Normally, Canada would consider a visa exemption if the asylum rate is lower than 2%. Today at committee department officials confirmed that this rate remained very high. What assurances can the government give Canadians that there will not be another wave of unfounded asylum claims if this exemption is immediately lifted?

Mr. Speaker, P3s are a valuable tool that we respect, but we also respect the ability of the local governments to make their own decisions. We trust them to make their own decisions, unlike the previous government which imposed certain procurement processes on municipalities. We heard from municipalities. We heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We heard from big city mayors and they all support our decision to remove the P3 condition so that they are allowed to make their own decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I like the people of Iran.Yesterday, the UN rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran said that we should engage with Iran, that it was the best way to see improvements to the appalling situation of human rights in Iran.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Minister of Transport was at committee discussing his Air Canada bill. When asked by one of his own members how carrier maintenance obligations affect its competitiveness, he had no answer. Shockingly, he responded by saying, “It's a big, serious question and I don't have the answer at my fingertips..”.If the entire purpose of this legislation is to make Air Canada more competitive, could the minister at least have done his homework before introducing this bill?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour gives vague answers every time someone asks her about this. For nearly 20 years now, the upper north shore has been asking for employment insurance reform that takes its high unemployment rate and its seasonal industry into account. What the minister is denying Manicouagan, she will soon be offering to 16 economic regions in Canada. Of the 40 Quebec members opposite me, some of whom represent people struggling with the same problems as residents of the north shore, such as the people in the Gaspé, who will join me in persuading the minister that Quebec deserves the same treatment as Canada?

Mr. Speaker, six months ago the Liberals claimed they would “immediately” lift the Mexican visa requirement. Today, Liberals and officials confirmed that a standard evidence-based formal review had not been completed. Moreover, they confirmed that Mexico did not meet certain factors required to lift the visa requirements. Given this, at the upcoming three amigos meeting, will the Prime Minister publicly admit that he knows the exemption will not in fact be immediately lifted?

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I am in no hurry. In fact, I will speak very slowly to explain to my colleague.We decided to change the legislation through Bill C-10, as I have been saying from the beginning, because the governments of Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuit against Air Canada. This gives us the opportunity to clarify the legislation and give Air Canada more flexibility in making decisions regarding the maintenance of its planes.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect our government to invest in growth and in jobs, and to help the middle class and those working hard to join the middle class.That is why investments in Bombardier will be determined by the negotiations that are underway with that firm's representatives. To ensure that the business case is solid, investments will be made in the short, medium, and long term in order to support job creation in Canada and the future of Canada's aerospace industry.That is what Canadians expect, and that is what we are doing, in a responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, since the visa requirement was introduced four years ago, the asylum rate for Mexican nationals has remained below 1%. In 2008, prior to imposing a visa, the asylum rate was above 25%. The Liberals have not conducted a visa exemption review and yet they have promised to lift the restriction. What are the Liberals doing to ensure the asylum rate does not increase when they lift the visa requirement for Mexico?

Mr. Speaker, the government's proposal to add four regions to the 12 that are eligible for extraordinary employment insurance benefit extensions is a band-aid solution. What we need is true employment insurance reform that makes benefits available to everyone and is aligned with workers' actual needs. We need to get rid of the notorious black hole. What we need is an independent fund that is safe from the Minister of Finance's nimble fingers.Since the government's 40 Quebec members are keeping mum, I will take it upon myself to ask the minister to commit to reforming employment insurance so that it meets the urgent needs of Quebec workers and Quebec regions.

Mr. Speaker, if shipping the maintenance jobs out of the country is going to make Air Canada more competitive, I have some serous concerns about how the Liberals are handling this file.While Quebec's economy minister has urged the government to take its time with its bill, the Minister of Transport seems to be in a real hurry to shut down debate for reasons that he himself cannot explain. There really is something fishy going on. Can the minister clarify his position and explain why he was in such a hurry to shut down debate?

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is simply not true. The NDP opposed the TPP before even reading it during the campaign. We were all there. We made a commitment to consult with Canadians, and that is what we are doing. Next week, I am delighted that the trade committee is actively consulting with Canadians. It will be in Montreal, Quebec City, Windsor, and Toronto. This is a very important national debate. It is important not to cut it short.

Mr. Speaker, the minister just does not get it. The parliamentary budget officer's report confirms today that federal measures to foster access to post-secondary education primarily benefit students from high-income families, and the announcements in budget 2016 will change nothing. We have also learned that the government spends less on post-secondary education for indigenous students. Furthermore, almost 40% of students are more than $25,000 in debt by the time they graduate.The government says that it wants to help Canadian youth and the less well-off to join the middle class. Then what is it waiting for to make post-secondary education accessible to everyone?

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we promised to consult, reflect, and show that we understand that Canadians expect better service for less. That is exactly what we promised to do. We halted the installation of community mailboxes. We are working with Canadians and an independent panel, which will hold open consultations to ensure that Canada Post provides the best service to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives renewed the PPP Canada funding by providing $1.25 billion over five years as part of the new building Canada plan. Infrastructure projects worth over $100 million were required to go through a P3 screen to maximize the value of taxpayer dollars. But late last year, the Minister of Infrastructure announced that this screening requirement would be removed. Why are the Liberals getting rid of all the taxpayer safeguards?

Mr. Speaker, first the Liberals removed the requirement for the P3 screen, then they transferred responsibility from the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Infrastructure, and now they introduced Bill C-15, which gives the infrastructure minister the power to sell off shares and assets of PPP Canada.Something here does not add up. Are the Liberals intending to shut down PPP Canada and sell off its assets in order to pay for their out of control spending?

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I am announcing that the 86,000 seniors who were penalized by this error will receive compensation for their loss of purchasing power. This error was discovered in April 2015 and may date back as far as 2008. We will also ensure that these 86,000 seniors will not lose other benefits as a result of this error.Mr. Speaker, we are quickly working on these cases so that seniors do not have to dip into their savings to counter the effects of these administrative errors.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect good-quality service from Canada Post. That is exactly what we are offering.That is why we committed to stop the implementation of community mailboxes, and why we committed to working with Canadians to ensure that they get the service they need and they want at an affordable price. That is exactly why we are putting the time in that the previous government did not to talk with Canadians, to look at the changing world of delivery of mail and services, and to ensure that they get the right quality.That is what we committed to throughout, regardless of the fabrications the member opposite might make about what I said or did not say.

Mr. Speaker, we have committed to making sure that all Canadians pay their fair share of taxes and the CRA and the Canadian government enforces all the rules and responsibilities linked to that.That, quite frankly, is why we put $440 million more in this current budget to go after tax avoidance and tax dodging. At the same time, it was a Liberal member who launched the committee study that is being done on KPMG, and the audits, to ensure that we are actually doing that right.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government is currently in negotiations with Bombardier. As everyone knows, these negotiations are important.Now we are hearing that the government wants to be involved in managing the C Series program. Considering how the Liberals turned our surplus into a deficit, if I were a shareholder, I would be extremely worried.Since the Prime Minister likes to talk about transparency so much, this is the perfect opportunity for him to talk about how transparent he is being in this file.What are the conditions? When will we know what is on the table with Bombardier? When will we finally see the results of these lengthy discussions?

Mr. Speaker, balancing the budget on the backs of Canadians means cuts to Canadian families, hurting Canadian families today. It means not investing in the future and getting to a lower growth rate.Canadians were hopeful and optimistic. They made the choice to invest in Canadian families today with the Canada child benefit, and they made the choice to invest in Canadians tomorrow through investments. The future of Canada is going to be brighter because of the very hopeful optimistic choice they made.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister repeated this three times, so I hope we will get three apologies from him.He said, “there are ongoing discussions with the other parties...”, which is false. He said there are ongoing discussions on “the mandate” engaged with that committee, which is also false. And, he said, “We are in discussion with the other parties about how to set up that committee..”.This is where I tell the PM that even in the world of quantum computing, the non-binary repetition of an untrue statement does not make it true. So why—

Mr. Speaker, ever since the old Liberals slashed billions in funding for post-secondary education, the cost of tuition has skyrocketed. Now, according to the parliamentary budget officer, a majority of Canadian students are from higher-income families.The PBO also said that a majority of federal funding is benefiting these same wealthy families and the Liberals' recent budget will not significantly change the situation.The Liberals claim to help the middle class, but they are actually doing the opposite. Why do they not help all students to get a good, quality education?

Mr. Speaker, that is why officials in my department and I are working along with my colleagues in public safety to find ways to mitigate precisely this risk, which is high on our minds as a challenge that we have to deal with. With that being said, there are major benefits, as I mentioned earlier, in lifting the visa with Mexico. We are confident that we will be able to keep our election commitment, while at the same time mitigating those risks that the member describes.

Mr. Speaker, I think that all Canadians were proud to learn recently that Delta Air Lines has placed a large order with Bombardier for a better, cleaner, and quieter airplane.Why did they say no to expanding the Billy Bishop airport in Toronto? Why did they say they did not want to do this in Toronto? Perhaps they did not want to inconvenience certain members, but this is a whole other story.

Mr. Speaker, we often hear the minister say that municipalities should be free to make their own decisions. In Quebec, they have to go through the Government of Quebec. At present, there has been no reply. Not one project has started. There will be no work done this summer.I completely agree with my colleague: P3s are another example of the government's inability to take action that will create jobs.Do the Liberals want to sell the assets of PPP Canada to pay for their out-of-control spending? Yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, you and all members in this House know very well that during the election campaign we committed to listen to Canadians and to respect members from the regions, so that they can be strong voices here in Ottawa and Toronto, where a large number of our members were elected. We made a commitment not to reopen the tripartite agreement, to respect the will of the people of Toronto, and that is exactly what we will do. We will keep our promises.

Mr. Speaker, obviously it is not enough to just talk about dealing with tax avoidance and tax evasion. We have to do something about it. That is why we added an extra $440 million in our budget to go after tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is why it was a Liberal member who proposed the study on KPMG and tax evasion. That is why we are going to do everything we must to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, here is one of the things I said on TV during that visit: “I think it is incredibly important, particularly...after the Paris attacks, particularly now with [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] raging around the world, to stand up for real diversity and to say our diversity is our strength.”Now, more than ever, the Conservatives should be joining us in speaking up for our belief in diversity around the world, including in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to announce in February improvements to CETA's investment chapter to make it a more progressive deal. I recently travelled to Berlin and Brussels to promote its swift ratification. I was delighted to meet with German vice chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, the leader of Germany's Social Democrats, who previously had concerns about CETA, but who now says that it is clearly a “good agreement”. The Conservatives spent hundreds of thousands of dollars celebrating CETA, but the truth is they did not get it done. We will.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the minister's marketing is working so well that the trade numbers of the U.S. are down by 6.3% in March alone.The question is simple. Did the trade minister mislead the House leader? That is just not cool.Will the House leader stand in his place and apologize for not being the House leader but for being the House “mis-leader”?

Mr. Speaker, to the Contrary to the Liberals, we're always honest.I have an honest question for the Prime Minister. If the previous government had done that, what would he have said? Would he not have said that they were lying?

Mr. Speaker, it is my job to promote Canada to the world. That is what I did in California, meeting with business leaders, cultural leaders, and the international media.The Conservatives oppose the positive message that I delivered on television about Syrian refugees, and to the LA Times about reducing income inequality. I was proud to do it, and I would do it again.The Conservatives' failure on these issues is why Canadians rejected their government last fall and why they are sitting on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. The rebuild of Fort McMurray will take many years, and this government will be a strong partner to the province, the municipality, and to the thousands of Canadians who will be rebuilding their lives in that important part of the country.The thoughts of all Canadians are with the residents of the Fort McMurray area, as well as with the first responders who are working to keep them safe, and the courageous firefighters who are combatting the fire. Over 80,000 people have been evacuated, with many still in transit. Approximately 1,600 homes have been destroyed. Although the full scale of this disaster is still not yet known, the situation continues to evolve, and the Government of Canada is actively involved in ensuring that we provide support in every way we can, now and into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I like to remember the most important promise that we made to Canadians. We are going to achieve a better future for Canadians.What we are doing with the measures in our budget is that we are going to achieve a better future. We put, in our budget, measures that will lead to 0.5% faster growth this year; 1% faster growth next year. The parliamentary budget office and the Bank of Canada have confirmed that our measures will in fact grow the economy. That is what we are trying to achieve. That is the legacy for our kids and for our grandkids.

Mr. Speaker, as I have implied a couple of times, Canada attaches great importance to our friendship with our second North American partner and to the closer ties that will come from lifting the visa, and to the economic benefits to many middle-class Canadians who will benefit with jobs from the additional tourism. At the same time, we are not unaware of the problems raised by my colleague, the member Markham—Unionville. I can assure him that we are all working assiduously to deal with those problems and to mitigate them.

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague's comments got off track. The reality is that we are very proud of the 40 Liberal members from Quebec, who represent the interests of our province.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' complete lack of transparency on spending taxpayer dollars now extends to their negotiations with Bombardier. While they negotiate to give $1 billion to a corporation, we have been given no details, no details on how that will be paid back, and no details on what taxpayers will receive in return. When will taxpayers get to see the bailout deal for Bombardier so that they can find out if it is actually worth their money?

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post provides important services for my constituents in Laurentides—Labelle and for all Canadians.All across the country, people are dismayed at the lack of respect and service cuts that the previous Conservative government imposed on Canada Post. In rural ridings like mine, these impacts are even more noticeable. During the last election, the Liberal Party committed to a comprehensive review of the crown corporation. Would the minister responsible for Canada Post please update this House on the status of that review?

Mr. Speaker, with that answer, it is clear that the Minister of Transport still has not done his homework. I also asked if he could tell the committee what Air Canada's maintenance costs are, to which he responded: “No, I can't tell you what the costs are..”.Let me try again. The minister obviously cannot explain the bill. Can he at least provide a shred of evidence to support it?

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada promised Canadians that they would have a say in the service that Canada Post provided. Today, we are keeping that promise. Today I announced an independent review of Canada Post. The review will be a two-phase process, which will be completed by the end of this year.An independent task force will prepare a discussion paper that presents viable options for Canada Post, following which a parliamentary committee will consult with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We are encouraging all members of the public to take part in this very important review.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is opposed to the TPP without having read it, but this government is committed to consulting Canadians, and that is what we are doing.Next week, the Standing Committee on International Trade will consult Canadians in Montreal, Quebec City, Windsor, and Toronto. This will be a very important consultation and debate for our country. I appreciate the contribution of the opposition members.

Mr. Speaker, I always do my homework before I speak. I want to make it very clear that one of the reasons we are amending this act is not only to prevent litigation in the future, but also to allow Air Canada to have more flexibility when it is competing in a very competitive environment domestically and internationally. We know that by removing from Air Canada a certain obligation with respect to where it must do its maintenance, we will allow it to be more competitive. We are convinced of this, and that is why we are doing it.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize through you to the member in the House. We are engaged in many different processes. We know how important electoral reform is and how passionately members of the House feel about it. I look forward to ensuring that we get moving on this committee in short order.

Mr. Speaker, 65% of federal funding to fight homelessness is allocated to the housing first approach. That leaves only 35% of the funding for the homelessness partnering strategy for other types of intervention, including prevention.Crisis centres are having to close beds for lack of funding. Quebec is pleading for a return to a general homelessness strategy. This week, I introduced two bills; the first is on recognizing the right to housing, and the second aims to establish a national housing strategy.Will the government support these bills so that people no longer end up in the street? Will the government respect Quebec's wishes?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question because we know that there is a loophole that allows some to use the tax rate to get out of paying the personal income taxes the rest of us pay all year. But we do understand small business and I understand small business and we know they need a robust economy and they need strong consumers. With our middle-class income tax cuts, the child benefits, the investments in infrastructure, in broadband, in incubators and accelerators, in tourism marketing, the list goes on, absolutely all of it helps small and medium-sized businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we have removed the P3 condition is to allow the local economy and local governments to make their own decisions on how they procure infrastructure. Furthermore, it also allows them to tap into federal resources at a larger amount, at 50% of the project costs. Under the previous government, they only qualified for 25% of the funding because of that particular condition. Our plan will deliver more for all Canadian communities.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that employment is a fundamental right of Canadians. We all want to see employment for citizens, no matter whether they are in Quebec, or Newfoundland or Alberta. Our goal is to have a robust economy. By investing in infrastructure and our economy, we are going to build a strong and sound economy, and put more Canadians to work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind all members of the House that my door is always open. We will deliver on our commitment to modernize our electoral system. We will deliver on that promise just as the Prime Minister delivered on our promise to reinstate the long-form census and return to evidence-based decision-making, just like he made good on his commitment to bring forward a gender-balanced cabinet, and just as he made good on his promise to introduce a merit-based, independent appointment process for appointing senators.I am confident—

Mr. Speaker, any changes to northern shrimp allocation could affect jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Nunavut. However, we would not know it from the so-called independent advisory panel the minister has set up. Three of the four members are from Newfoundland and the other is from British Columbia. Five of the seven public consultations will be held in Newfoundland and Labrador. How can the minister expect to have an honest, independent review of the northern shrimp policy when he is excluding so many communities, or is the fix already in?

Mr. Speaker, the guaranteed income supplement can make all the difference for some seniors. During the last election campaign, many seniors from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles talked to me about this.In March, the government finished making retroactive payments of the guaranteed income supplement to vulnerable people who did not receive it. What does the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development plan to do to compensate these people in need?

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that we have completed the first phase of EI reform and are in the process of doing the second phase. It is much broader and more comprehensive. It is looking at flex time, maternity leave. It is dealing with some of the more challenging problems of vulnerable workers and seasonal workers. This will include every region of Canada. I look forward to everyone's input.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to reiterate something that Canadians know well; that is, the Prime Minister's deep respect for Parliament and every member of this House of Commons. One of the priorities the Prime Minister has set for his government is to work collaboratively with all members of the House of Commons to improve decorum in the House of Commons. If my colleague in front of me were honest, he would agree that we can all do more to improve decorum in the House and we should—

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the crisis in northern Alberta is getting worse by the hour. Additional communities have been evacuated. The province has now declared a state of emergency.Can the Prime Minister give us his assurance that, once the crisis is over, Fort McMurray and the surrounding area will be a priority for infrastructure funding in order to assist in the rebuilding?

Mr. Speaker, I do understand the importance of the shrimp fishery to those who depend on it. We committed to review the last in first out policy. I have appointed a ministerial advisory panel. I can assure the member it is an independent panel. Members of that panel were appointed, and names were requested from both sides of the industry, and they are on there. It will be an independent panel. I look forward to the great work it is going to do.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing in budget 2016. We are helping 250,000 lower-income Canadian students with grants that are going from $2,000 to $3,000, which is a 50% increase. We are helping another 100,000 middle-income Canadian students, going from $800 to $1,200, which is a 50% increase. We are making an enormous difference for the students of today. We know that is going to help us today, and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out to the hon. member what I have said many times in this House. The negotiations are ongoing. We believe in a strong future for the aerospace industry in this country. We know that there are many good jobs associated with it, not just in Quebec but right across the country. We are looking for a solid business case to make sure that the investments Canada makes in Bombardier or in the aerospace industry have benefits for Canadians, for good jobs and for our economy not just for the short term but for the medium and long term as well. That is the engagement we have made to Canadians, and that is the commitment we are keeping.

Mr. Speaker, following what I am sure was a very productive week in our constituencies, getting in touch with all our constituents, we are back at it now this week. I wonder if the government House leader would update the House as to what the business will be tomorrow and for the rest of next week.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we are all convinced that our commitment to lift the visa for Mexico will indeed provide major economic benefits in tourism as well as a stronger partnership with our second North American partner. That being said, I am working with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, to ensure we mitigate any risks arising from irregular immigration that could arise from this policy change.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the trans-Pacific partnership will have serious consequences for Canada. We are talking about losing 60,000 jobs and our sovereignty. The arguments against the partnership continue to mount. This morning, at the Standing Committee on International Trade, Jim Balsillie, said that under the trans-Pacific partnership, the best thing that a Canadian technology company could do is to move to the United States.Is the government refusing to release an economic impact study on the trans-Pacific partnership precisely because there are so many problems with the agreement?

Mr. Speaker, let me share some information with the House. Despite allocating almost $2 billion for Quebec in 2014, the previous government delivered zero dollars. We are committed to delivering that money to Quebec along with new money under public transit, under green infrastructure, and social infrastructure. We are here to support communities. We are here to support—

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my hon. colleague is simply going on a fishing trip here. It is expensive for our airlines to maintain their airplanes to make sure they are very safe. It is a significant amount of their fiscal expenditures every day of the year.We are providing Air Canada, which has over 400 airplanes, with some flexibility in deciding where it will do its maintenance while holding on to the obligation that it must do some maintenance in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the crisis in northern Alberta seems to be worsening. Additional communities have now been evacuated, including emergency response centres, and the province has now declared a state of emergency. Residents are very worried about what the future will hold for them. Once this crisis passes and the reconstruction begins, will the Prime Minister assure the residents of Fort McMurray and region that infrastructure funding will be top priority for them?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her interest in this issue that is so very important to us.In fact, in budget 2016 we announced an investment of 50%, the first since 1999. This means an increase of $50 million a year for the next two years to support the fight against homelessness in our communities.I am also pleased to say that I am listening to our partners and the provinces and territories and I am working with them to ensure that this is addressed properly.

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, as always.This afternoon, as everyone knows, we will continue our debate at second reading of Bill C-15, the budget. We will continue this important debate tomorrow.On Monday, I know members are really looking forward to this. We are going to commence report stage and third reading debate on Bill C-7, the RCMP labour relations bill, until 2 p.m. In the afternoon, we will resume debate on Bill C-15.I am hoping and working hard to reach an agreement with my colleagues in the House to be able to conclude the debate on Bill C-15 on Monday evening. That certainly would be my hope. I think Canadians would benefit from that legislation being in committee. Those conversations are ongoing.On Wednesday, we will resume debate on Bill C-7.Finally, next Tuesday and next Thursday will be opposition days, something I know members are looking forward to a lot.

Mr. Speaker, we value our relationship with the B.C. government and with all provincial governments, our partners. We will work with them to address any issues that come forward, and deal with them appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians in my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville are eager to take advantage of the benefits of CETA, which would give our exporters unprecedented access to over 500 million people and a GDP of some $20 trillion. Could the Minister of International Trade update the House on what she is doing to ensure a deal is promptly signed and ratified?

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we understand exactly the problems faced by students today. That is why we included some measures in budget 2016 to help them.For example, we are going to increase grants by 50%, from $2,000 to $3,000, for 250,000 students. Grants for middle-income students will increase from $800 to $1,200. That is a big change for them and for the country.

No, Mr. Speaker, I thought I would try to table the “Fiscal Monitor” from February—

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the crisis in northern Alberta is getting worse by the hour. Additional communities have been evacuated. The province has now declared a state of emergency.Can the Prime Minister give us his assurance that, once the crisis is over, Fort McMurray and the surrounding area will be a priority for infrastructure funding in order to assist in the rebuilding?

Mr. Speaker, for two days, the parliamentary secretary has accused small business owners of being tax cheats.She is not alone. The Prime Minister has said small businesses are just a way to avoid taxes. Just today, a Liberal member said in the House that the small business tax rate does not matter. When will the Liberals reverse their broken promise and bring the tax rate to 9%?

Mr. Speaker, according to B.C.'s auditor general, the devastating Mount Polley mine disaster is the result of negligence by the B.C. Liberal government. This resulted in one of the biggest mining disasters in the province's history. Fish habitat was destroyed and mine tailings spilled into surrounding lakes and rivers. The federal government must not turn a blind eye to this clear violation of the Fisheries Act. What action will the fisheries minister take against the B.C. Liberal government?

Speaking of dodging, Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Prime Minister is dodging the question. I will repeat my very simple question. The Prime Minister talks about going after those who cheat on their taxes and hide their money illegally in tax havens. Today, the Canada Revenue Agency said that there is no immunity from criminal charges.The question is quite simple: Will the Liberals do everything possible under the law, including the Criminal Code, to go after KPMG and these multimillionaires who have defrauded the system?

Mr. Speaker, continuing on the theme of broken promises, it has been six months of disappointment from the Liberals, fiscally, as well.Since they have come to office, they have broken three key election promises: number one, that the tax plan would be revenue-neutral; number two, that the deficits would be no more than $10 billion; and number three, they said that they were going to balance the budget by the end of the mandate.After six disappointing months, can the Minister of Finance, despite the Prime Minister's gloating in the House today that “we keep our promises”, tell Canadians which one of these broken promises he is most proud of?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister repeated this three times, so I hope we will get three apologies from him.He said, “there are ongoing discussions with the other parties...”, which is false. He said there are ongoing discussions on “the mandate” engaged with that committee, which is also false. And, he said, “We are in discussion with the other parties about how to set up that committee..”.This is where I tell the PM that even in the world of quantum computing, the non-binary repetition of an untrue statement does not make it true. So why—

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the minister's marketing is working so well that the trade numbers of the U.S. are down by 6.3% in March alone.The question is simple. Did the trade minister mislead the House leader? That is just not cool.Will the House leader stand in his place and apologize for not being the House leader but for being the House “mis-leader”?

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Minister of Transport was at committee discussing his Air Canada bill. When asked by one of his own members how carrier maintenance obligations affect its competitiveness, he had no answer. Shockingly, he responded by saying, “It's a big, serious question and I don't have the answer at my fingertips..”.If the entire purpose of this legislation is to make Air Canada more competitive, could the minister at least have done his homework before introducing this bill?

Mr. Speaker, with that answer, it is clear that the Minister of Transport still has not done his homework. I also asked if he could tell the committee what Air Canada's maintenance costs are, to which he responded: “No, I can't tell you what the costs are..”.Let me try again. The minister obviously cannot explain the bill. Can he at least provide a shred of evidence to support it?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to be in favour of special treatment for the wealthy and well-connected.Today at committee, CRA officials testified that the sweetheart deal for KPMG clients did not include immunity from criminal prosecution.My question is simple. If the Prime Minister is serious about tackling tax havens, and remembering that actions speak louder than words, will he ensure that those multi-millionaire tax cheats and those at KPMG who aided and abetted them face criminal charges?

Mr. Speaker, let me share some information with the House. Despite allocating almost $2 billion for Quebec in 2014, the previous government delivered zero dollars. We are committed to delivering that money to Quebec along with new money under public transit, under green infrastructure, and social infrastructure. We are here to support communities. We are here to support—

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect our government to invest in growth and in jobs, and to help the middle class and those working hard to join the middle class.That is why investments in Bombardier will be determined by the negotiations that are underway with that firm's representatives. To ensure that the business case is solid, investments will be made in the short, medium, and long term in order to support job creation in Canada and the future of Canada's aerospace industry.That is what Canadians expect, and that is what we are doing, in a responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question because we know that there is a loophole that allows some to use the tax rate to get out of paying the personal income taxes the rest of us pay all year. But we do understand small business and I understand small business and we know they need a robust economy and they need strong consumers. With our middle-class income tax cuts, the child benefits, the investments in infrastructure, in broadband, in incubators and accelerators, in tourism marketing, the list goes on, absolutely all of it helps small and medium-sized businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour gives vague answers every time someone asks her about this. For nearly 20 years now, the upper north shore has been asking for employment insurance reform that takes its high unemployment rate and its seasonal industry into account. What the minister is denying Manicouagan, she will soon be offering to 16 economic regions in Canada. Of the 40 Quebec members opposite me, some of whom represent people struggling with the same problems as residents of the north shore, such as the people in the Gaspé, who will join me in persuading the minister that Quebec deserves the same treatment as Canada?

Mr. Speaker, since the visa requirement was introduced four years ago, the asylum rate for Mexican nationals has remained below 1%. In 2008, prior to imposing a visa, the asylum rate was above 25%. The Liberals have not conducted a visa exemption review and yet they have promised to lift the restriction. What are the Liberals doing to ensure the asylum rate does not increase when they lift the visa requirement for Mexico?

No, Mr. Speaker, I thought I would try to table the “Fiscal Monitor” from February—

Mr. Speaker, the guaranteed income supplement can make all the difference for some seniors. During the last election campaign, many seniors from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles talked to me about this.In March, the government finished making retroactive payments of the guaranteed income supplement to vulnerable people who did not receive it. What does the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development plan to do to compensate these people in need?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a moment on what the members on the other side of the House might be doing right now.They want to balance the budget on the backs of Canadians. What exactly would that mean? That would mean that right now we would be making cuts to services, cuts to Canadian families that would make their lives more difficult.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said, “We are in discussions with the other parties” to set up a committee on electoral reform. He explained that the reason why it has not yet been struck is entirely the fault of the Conservatives and the NDP, since both parties will not give consent without unreasonable preconditions. This whole process is imaginary. I have met with the relevant minister exactly twice in six months, once in December at my request, and once at a breakfast, where she sat at my table for less than 10 minutes. My NDP homologue says it is the same thing with him.Why did the Prime Minister just invent this patently false story about opposition delay?

Mr. Speaker, the House leader is once again being thrown under the bus by his friends on the front bench. He has turned himself into a human pretzel trying to defend the justice minister's questionable fundraising, and he is now assuming the position for the trade minister and her Hollywood agreements.Will the trade minister finally table those agreements, or is she prepared to pay for the ongoing House leader's chiropractic treatments with her own money?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the previous Conservative government withdrew from Iran because we disliked the regime. However, let us be clear. Not only do we dislike this regime; we abhor this regime. Iran wants to destroy Israel. Iran imprisons and tortures its own people. It sponsors terrorism around the world, and is determined to become a nuclear power. Forgive my confusion, but could the minister please tell us what he likes about Iran?

Mr. Speaker, we saw the trans-Pacific partnership at the same time that the Liberals did, and that was after the campaign, after the election, after it was kept in secret by the Conservatives.The fact is, the minister refuses to release an impact study and refuses to launch the public consultations that the Liberals promised.The committee's work is not her own. However, we are hearing very troubling testimony. Today, RIM founder Jim Balsillie warned, “There will never be [another] large Canadian tech company under the TPP”. He has also said that Canada would be a colossal loser.Why is the minister proceeding with a deal that will so badly damage Canada's tech sector?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives renewed the PPP Canada funding by providing $1.25 billion over five years as part of the new building Canada plan. Infrastructure projects worth over $100 million were required to go through a P3 screen to maximize the value of taxpayer dollars. But late last year, the Minister of Infrastructure announced that this screening requirement would be removed. Why are the Liberals getting rid of all the taxpayer safeguards?

Mr. Speaker, first the Liberals removed the requirement for the P3 screen, then they transferred responsibility from the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Infrastructure, and now they introduced Bill C-15, which gives the infrastructure minister the power to sell off shares and assets of PPP Canada.Something here does not add up. Are the Liberals intending to shut down PPP Canada and sell off its assets in order to pay for their out of control spending?

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the crisis in northern Alberta seems to be worsening. Additional communities have now been evacuated, including emergency response centres, and the province has now declared a state of emergency. Residents are very worried about what the future will hold for them. Once this crisis passes and the reconstruction begins, will the Prime Minister assure the residents of Fort McMurray and region that infrastructure funding will be top priority for them?

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we are all convinced that our commitment to lift the visa for Mexico will indeed provide major economic benefits in tourism as well as a stronger partnership with our second North American partner. That being said, I am working with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, to ensure we mitigate any risks arising from irregular immigration that could arise from this policy change.

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I am in no hurry. In fact, I will speak very slowly to explain to my colleague.We decided to change the legislation through Bill C-10, as I have been saying from the beginning, because the governments of Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuit against Air Canada. This gives us the opportunity to clarify the legislation and give Air Canada more flexibility in making decisions regarding the maintenance of its planes.

Mr. Speaker, balancing the budget on the backs of Canadians means cuts to Canadian families, hurting Canadian families today. It means not investing in the future and getting to a lower growth rate.Canadians were hopeful and optimistic. They made the choice to invest in Canadian families today with the Canada child benefit, and they made the choice to invest in Canadians tomorrow through investments. The future of Canada is going to be brighter because of the very hopeful optimistic choice they made.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, following question period today because I think all Canadians would expect our Prime Minister to always conduct himself with the highest level of dignity and to demonstrate the utmost respect for an institution such as the House of Commons. That should happen whether the Prime Minister is on camera or off camera.On a number of occasions during this Parliament, I have witnessed—and I am sure others on this side of the House can confirm this—the Prime Minister behave in a manner that I would say is far below the dignity of the office he holds. In fact, I think one could even call it childish behaviour.I only stand today because I think it was particularly egregious today. I saw him, on a frequent number of occasions today, taunting and making faces at other members of Parliament as they were speaking. He certainly went too far when I saw him stick his tongue out following a question that had been put by the member for South Surrey—White Rock. That is, clearly, in my mind, far below the dignity of the office he holds.I certainly hope that the Prime Minister will stand in this place and apologize to this House, and to all Canadians, for such immature behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is simply not true. The NDP opposed the TPP before even reading it during the campaign. We were all there. We made a commitment to consult with Canadians, and that is what we are doing. Next week, I am delighted that the trade committee is actively consulting with Canadians. It will be in Montreal, Quebec City, Windsor, and Toronto. This is a very important national debate. It is important not to cut it short.

Mr. Speaker, if shipping the maintenance jobs out of the country is going to make Air Canada more competitive, I have some serous concerns about how the Liberals are handling this file.While Quebec's economy minister has urged the government to take its time with its bill, the Minister of Transport seems to be in a real hurry to shut down debate for reasons that he himself cannot explain. There really is something fishy going on. Can the minister clarify his position and explain why he was in such a hurry to shut down debate?

Mr. Speaker, talking about putting words into action, during the election campaign and with Mayor Coderre at his side, the Prime Minister specifically promised to restore door-to-door delivery. Today, he has created a committee. Where are the Prime Minister's sunny ways now? What about his promise to do politics differently?Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that he misled Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, 65% of federal funding to fight homelessness is allocated to the housing first approach. That leaves only 35% of the funding for the homelessness partnering strategy for other types of intervention, including prevention.Crisis centres are having to close beds for lack of funding. Quebec is pleading for a return to a general homelessness strategy. This week, I introduced two bills; the first is on recognizing the right to housing, and the second aims to establish a national housing strategy.Will the government support these bills so that people no longer end up in the street? Will the government respect Quebec's wishes?

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada promised Canadians that they would have a say in the service that Canada Post provided. Today, we are keeping that promise. Today I announced an independent review of Canada Post. The review will be a two-phase process, which will be completed by the end of this year.An independent task force will prepare a discussion paper that presents viable options for Canada Post, following which a parliamentary committee will consult with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We are encouraging all members of the public to take part in this very important review.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was fishing for votes in our big cities, he solemnly promised to restore home mail delivery, no ifs, ands, or buts. Now he says that home mail delivery will not be restored.I have an honest question for the Prime Minister. If the previous government had done that, if—

Mr. Speaker, the crisis that the people of Fort McMurray are experiencing is absolutely devastating.The Government of Canada will be a partner not only in the immediate emergency situation, but also in the long term, through the work we will do together in the coming months to restore the ability to grow and in the coming years to rebuild this important community and guarantee a future for everyone who has been affected by this disaster.

Mr. Speaker, ever since the old Liberals slashed billions in funding for post-secondary education, the cost of tuition has skyrocketed. Now, according to the parliamentary budget officer, a majority of Canadian students are from higher-income families.The PBO also said that a majority of federal funding is benefiting these same wealthy families and the Liberals' recent budget will not significantly change the situation.The Liberals claim to help the middle class, but they are actually doing the opposite. Why do they not help all students to get a good, quality education?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect good-quality service from Canada Post. That is exactly what we are offering.That is why we committed to stop the implementation of community mailboxes, and why we committed to working with Canadians to ensure that they get the service they need and they want at an affordable price. That is exactly why we are putting the time in that the previous government did not to talk with Canadians, to look at the changing world of delivery of mail and services, and to ensure that they get the right quality.That is what we committed to throughout, regardless of the fabrications the member opposite might make about what I said or did not say.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing in budget 2016. We are helping 250,000 lower-income Canadian students with grants that are going from $2,000 to $3,000, which is a 50% increase. We are helping another 100,000 middle-income Canadian students, going from $800 to $1,200, which is a 50% increase. We are making an enormous difference for the students of today. We know that is going to help us today, and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we understand exactly the problems faced by students today. That is why we included some measures in budget 2016 to help them.For example, we are going to increase grants by 50%, from $2,000 to $3,000, for 250,000 students. Grants for middle-income students will increase from $800 to $1,200. That is a big change for them and for the country.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' complete lack of transparency on spending taxpayer dollars now extends to their negotiations with Bombardier. While they negotiate to give $1 billion to a corporation, we have been given no details, no details on how that will be paid back, and no details on what taxpayers will receive in return. When will taxpayers get to see the bailout deal for Bombardier so that they can find out if it is actually worth their money?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are actually concerned by the attitude that the Minister of Finance has been demonstrating in the last number of days.This week alone, he is denying a surplus that he inherited from us. He is also mocking us openly, saying that we are stuck in this whole balanced budget thing. Then he introduced a bill that actually repeals legislation which would make balanced budgets a law.The minister said earlier this week that his kids and his grandchildren will be better off, but what part of sticking our kids and our grandchildren with debt and deficit is actually going to allow them to be better off?

Mr. Speaker, it is my job to promote Canada to the world. That is what I did in California, meeting with business leaders, cultural leaders, and the international media.The Conservatives oppose the positive message that I delivered on television about Syrian refugees, and to the LA Times about reducing income inequality. I was proud to do it, and I would do it again.The Conservatives' failure on these issues is why Canadians rejected their government last fall and why they are sitting on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we have removed the P3 condition is to allow the local economy and local governments to make their own decisions on how they procure infrastructure. Furthermore, it also allows them to tap into federal resources at a larger amount, at 50% of the project costs. Under the previous government, they only qualified for 25% of the funding because of that particular condition. Our plan will deliver more for all Canadian communities.

Mr. Speaker, any changes to northern shrimp allocation could affect jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Nunavut. However, we would not know it from the so-called independent advisory panel the minister has set up. Three of the four members are from Newfoundland and the other is from British Columbia. Five of the seven public consultations will be held in Newfoundland and Labrador. How can the minister expect to have an honest, independent review of the northern shrimp policy when he is excluding so many communities, or is the fix already in?

Mr. Speaker, following what I am sure was a very productive week in our constituencies, getting in touch with all our constituents, we are back at it now this week. I wonder if the government House leader would update the House as to what the business will be tomorrow and for the rest of next week.

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and Canadians are very concerned about the government's position on support for the aerospace industry, which is extremely important to our economy.When we recently asked the Minister of Transport why he had pushed through Bill C-10 under a gag order, he said that it was to make Air Canada more competitive.Will the minister finally admit that he is leaving the door wide open for Air Canada to sacrifice good-quality jobs here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, this is what happens when we need the Liberals from Quebec: “Hello. You have reached the Liberal Party. All our members are currently hiding. Please stay on the line. Your call is important to us.”Can someone tell me what good the 40 Liberal members from Quebec are? They are no good. They are giving up 1,800 Air Canada jobs. They are betraying dairy farmers. They are ignoring everyone in Lac-Mégantic. They have forgotten about the unemployed, Canada Post, and the French language. Is the Liberal Party's Quebec lieutenant asleep at the switch?

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post provides important services for my constituents in Laurentides—Labelle and for all Canadians.All across the country, people are dismayed at the lack of respect and service cuts that the previous Conservative government imposed on Canada Post. In rural ridings like mine, these impacts are even more noticeable. During the last election, the Liberal Party committed to a comprehensive review of the crown corporation. Would the minister responsible for Canada Post please update this House on the status of that review?

Mr. Speaker, I like the people of Iran.Yesterday, the UN rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran said that we should engage with Iran, that it was the best way to see improvements to the appalling situation of human rights in Iran.

Mr. Speaker, six months ago the Liberals claimed they would “immediately” lift the Mexican visa requirement. Today, Liberals and officials confirmed that a standard evidence-based formal review had not been completed. Moreover, they confirmed that Mexico did not meet certain factors required to lift the visa requirements. Given this, at the upcoming three amigos meeting, will the Prime Minister publicly admit that he knows the exemption will not in fact be immediately lifted?

Mr. Speaker, I apologize through you to the member in the House. We are engaged in many different processes. We know how important electoral reform is and how passionately members of the House feel about it. I look forward to ensuring that we get moving on this committee in short order.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, Department of Immigration officials confirmed that prior to imposing a visa requirement for Mexico, the asylum rate was at 25%, and many of these claims were rejected as false. Normally, Canada would consider a visa exemption if the asylum rate is lower than 2%. Today at committee department officials confirmed that this rate remained very high. What assurances can the government give Canadians that there will not be another wave of unfounded asylum claims if this exemption is immediately lifted?

Mr. Speaker, the minister just does not get it. The parliamentary budget officer's report confirms today that federal measures to foster access to post-secondary education primarily benefit students from high-income families, and the announcements in budget 2016 will change nothing. We have also learned that the government spends less on post-secondary education for indigenous students. Furthermore, almost 40% of students are more than $25,000 in debt by the time they graduate.The government says that it wants to help Canadian youth and the less well-off to join the middle class. Then what is it waiting for to make post-secondary education accessible to everyone?

Mr. Speaker, I always do my homework before I speak. I want to make it very clear that one of the reasons we are amending this act is not only to prevent litigation in the future, but also to allow Air Canada to have more flexibility when it is competing in a very competitive environment domestically and internationally. We know that by removing from Air Canada a certain obligation with respect to where it must do its maintenance, we will allow it to be more competitive. We are convinced of this, and that is why we are doing it.

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, as always.This afternoon, as everyone knows, we will continue our debate at second reading of Bill C-15, the budget. We will continue this important debate tomorrow.On Monday, I know members are really looking forward to this. We are going to commence report stage and third reading debate on Bill C-7, the RCMP labour relations bill, until 2 p.m. In the afternoon, we will resume debate on Bill C-15.I am hoping and working hard to reach an agreement with my colleagues in the House to be able to conclude the debate on Bill C-15 on Monday evening. That certainly would be my hope. I think Canadians would benefit from that legislation being in committee. Those conversations are ongoing.On Wednesday, we will resume debate on Bill C-7.Finally, next Tuesday and next Thursday will be opposition days, something I know members are looking forward to a lot.

Mr. Speaker, the government's proposal to add four regions to the 12 that are eligible for extraordinary employment insurance benefit extensions is a band-aid solution. What we need is true employment insurance reform that makes benefits available to everyone and is aligned with workers' actual needs. We need to get rid of the notorious black hole. What we need is an independent fund that is safe from the Minister of Finance's nimble fingers.Since the government's 40 Quebec members are keeping mum, I will take it upon myself to ask the minister to commit to reforming employment insurance so that it meets the urgent needs of Quebec workers and Quebec regions.

Mr. Speaker, that is why officials in my department and I are working along with my colleagues in public safety to find ways to mitigate precisely this risk, which is high on our minds as a challenge that we have to deal with. With that being said, there are major benefits, as I mentioned earlier, in lifting the visa with Mexico. We are confident that we will be able to keep our election commitment, while at the same time mitigating those risks that the member describes.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my hon. colleague is simply going on a fishing trip here. It is expensive for our airlines to maintain their airplanes to make sure they are very safe. It is a significant amount of their fiscal expenditures every day of the year.We are providing Air Canada, which has over 400 airplanes, with some flexibility in deciding where it will do its maintenance while holding on to the obligation that it must do some maintenance in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, I do understand the importance of the shrimp fishery to those who depend on it. We committed to review the last in first out policy. I have appointed a ministerial advisory panel. I can assure the member it is an independent panel. Members of that panel were appointed, and names were requested from both sides of the industry, and they are on there. It will be an independent panel. I look forward to the great work it is going to do.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government is currently in negotiations with Bombardier. As everyone knows, these negotiations are important.Now we are hearing that the government wants to be involved in managing the C Series program. Considering how the Liberals turned our surplus into a deficit, if I were a shareholder, I would be extremely worried.Since the Prime Minister likes to talk about transparency so much, this is the perfect opportunity for him to talk about how transparent he is being in this file.What are the conditions? When will we know what is on the table with Bombardier? When will we finally see the results of these lengthy discussions?

Mr. Speaker, as I have implied a couple of times, Canada attaches great importance to our friendship with our second North American partner and to the closer ties that will come from lifting the visa, and to the economic benefits to many middle-class Canadians who will benefit with jobs from the additional tourism. At the same time, we are not unaware of the problems raised by my colleague, the member Markham—Unionville. I can assure him that we are all working assiduously to deal with those problems and to mitigate them.

Mr. Speaker, to the Contrary to the Liberals, we're always honest.I have an honest question for the Prime Minister. If the previous government had done that, what would he have said? Would he not have said that they were lying?

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I am announcing that the 86,000 seniors who were penalized by this error will receive compensation for their loss of purchasing power. This error was discovered in April 2015 and may date back as far as 2008. We will also ensure that these 86,000 seniors will not lose other benefits as a result of this error.Mr. Speaker, we are quickly working on these cases so that seniors do not have to dip into their savings to counter the effects of these administrative errors.

Mr. Speaker, obviously it is not enough to just talk about dealing with tax avoidance and tax evasion. We have to do something about it. That is why we added an extra $440 million in our budget to go after tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is why it was a Liberal member who proposed the study on KPMG and tax evasion. That is why we are going to do everything we must to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. The rebuild of Fort McMurray will take many years, and this government will be a strong partner to the province, the municipality, and to the thousands of Canadians who will be rebuilding their lives in that important part of the country.The thoughts of all Canadians are with the residents of the Fort McMurray area, as well as with the first responders who are working to keep them safe, and the courageous firefighters who are combatting the fire. Over 80,000 people have been evacuated, with many still in transit. Approximately 1,600 homes have been destroyed. Although the full scale of this disaster is still not yet known, the situation continues to evolve, and the Government of Canada is actively involved in ensuring that we provide support in every way we can, now and into the future.

Mr. Speaker, we often hear the minister say that municipalities should be free to make their own decisions. In Quebec, they have to go through the Government of Quebec. At present, there has been no reply. Not one project has started. There will be no work done this summer.I completely agree with my colleague: P3s are another example of the government's inability to take action that will create jobs.Do the Liberals want to sell the assets of PPP Canada to pay for their out-of-control spending? Yes or no?

Not at all, Mr. Speaker.Because Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuit against Air Canada, we were able to make amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act, through Bill C-10. That is what we are doing.However, I remind my colleague that Air Canada is still required to perform maintenance in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her interest in this issue that is so very important to us.In fact, in budget 2016 we announced an investment of 50%, the first since 1999. This means an increase of $50 million a year for the next two years to support the fight against homelessness in our communities.I am also pleased to say that I am listening to our partners and the provinces and territories and I am working with them to ensure that this is addressed properly.

Mr. Speaker, I think that all Canadians were proud to learn recently that Delta Air Lines has placed a large order with Bombardier for a better, cleaner, and quieter airplane.Why did they say no to expanding the Billy Bishop airport in Toronto? Why did they say they did not want to do this in Toronto? Perhaps they did not want to inconvenience certain members, but this is a whole other story.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is opposed to the TPP without having read it, but this government is committed to consulting Canadians, and that is what we are doing.Next week, the Standing Committee on International Trade will consult Canadians in Montreal, Quebec City, Windsor, and Toronto. This will be a very important consultation and debate for our country. I appreciate the contribution of the opposition members.

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we promised to consult, reflect, and show that we understand that Canadians expect better service for less. That is exactly what we promised to do. We halted the installation of community mailboxes. We are working with Canadians and an independent panel, which will hold open consultations to ensure that Canada Post provides the best service to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, P3s are a valuable tool that we respect, but we also respect the ability of the local governments to make their own decisions. We trust them to make their own decisions, unlike the previous government which imposed certain procurement processes on municipalities. We heard from municipalities. We heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We heard from big city mayors and they all support our decision to remove the P3 condition so that they are allowed to make their own decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to announce in February improvements to CETA's investment chapter to make it a more progressive deal. I recently travelled to Berlin and Brussels to promote its swift ratification. I was delighted to meet with German vice chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, the leader of Germany's Social Democrats, who previously had concerns about CETA, but who now says that it is clearly a “good agreement”. The Conservatives spent hundreds of thousands of dollars celebrating CETA, but the truth is they did not get it done. We will.

Mr. Speaker, you and all members in this House know very well that during the election campaign we committed to listen to Canadians and to respect members from the regions, so that they can be strong voices here in Ottawa and Toronto, where a large number of our members were elected. We made a commitment not to reopen the tripartite agreement, to respect the will of the people of Toronto, and that is exactly what we will do. We will keep our promises.

Mr. Speaker, we have committed to making sure that all Canadians pay their fair share of taxes and the CRA and the Canadian government enforces all the rules and responsibilities linked to that.That, quite frankly, is why we put $440 million more in this current budget to go after tax avoidance and tax dodging. At the same time, it was a Liberal member who launched the committee study that is being done on KPMG, and the audits, to ensure that we are actually doing that right.

Mr. Speaker, I like to remember the most important promise that we made to Canadians. We are going to achieve a better future for Canadians.What we are doing with the measures in our budget is that we are going to achieve a better future. We put, in our budget, measures that will lead to 0.5% faster growth this year; 1% faster growth next year. The parliamentary budget office and the Bank of Canada have confirmed that our measures will in fact grow the economy. That is what we are trying to achieve. That is the legacy for our kids and for our grandkids.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the trans-Pacific partnership will have serious consequences for Canada. We are talking about losing 60,000 jobs and our sovereignty. The arguments against the partnership continue to mount. This morning, at the Standing Committee on International Trade, Jim Balsillie, said that under the trans-Pacific partnership, the best thing that a Canadian technology company could do is to move to the United States.Is the government refusing to release an economic impact study on the trans-Pacific partnership precisely because there are so many problems with the agreement?

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that we have completed the first phase of EI reform and are in the process of doing the second phase. It is much broader and more comprehensive. It is looking at flex time, maternity leave. It is dealing with some of the more challenging problems of vulnerable workers and seasonal workers. This will include every region of Canada. I look forward to everyone's input.

Mr. Speaker, here is one of the things I said on TV during that visit: “I think it is incredibly important, particularly...after the Paris attacks, particularly now with [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] raging around the world, to stand up for real diversity and to say our diversity is our strength.”Now, more than ever, the Conservatives should be joining us in speaking up for our belief in diversity around the world, including in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out to the hon. member what I have said many times in this House. The negotiations are ongoing. We believe in a strong future for the aerospace industry in this country. We know that there are many good jobs associated with it, not just in Quebec but right across the country. We are looking for a solid business case to make sure that the investments Canada makes in Bombardier or in the aerospace industry have benefits for Canadians, for good jobs and for our economy not just for the short term but for the medium and long term as well. That is the engagement we have made to Canadians, and that is the commitment we are keeping.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind all members of the House that my door is always open. We will deliver on our commitment to modernize our electoral system. We will deliver on that promise just as the Prime Minister delivered on our promise to reinstate the long-form census and return to evidence-based decision-making, just like he made good on his commitment to bring forward a gender-balanced cabinet, and just as he made good on his promise to introduce a merit-based, independent appointment process for appointing senators.I am confident—

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians in my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville are eager to take advantage of the benefits of CETA, which would give our exporters unprecedented access to over 500 million people and a GDP of some $20 trillion. Could the Minister of International Trade update the House on what she is doing to ensure a deal is promptly signed and ratified?

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to reiterate something that Canadians know well; that is, the Prime Minister's deep respect for Parliament and every member of this House of Commons. One of the priorities the Prime Minister has set for his government is to work collaboratively with all members of the House of Commons to improve decorum in the House of Commons. If my colleague in front of me were honest, he would agree that we can all do more to improve decorum in the House and we should—

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that employment is a fundamental right of Canadians. We all want to see employment for citizens, no matter whether they are in Quebec, or Newfoundland or Alberta. Our goal is to have a robust economy. By investing in infrastructure and our economy, we are going to build a strong and sound economy, and put more Canadians to work.

Mr. Speaker, we value our relationship with the B.C. government and with all provincial governments, our partners. We will work with them to address any issues that come forward, and deal with them appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague's comments got off track. The reality is that we are very proud of the 40 Liberal members from Quebec, who represent the interests of our province.

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague's comments got off track. The reality is that we are very proud of the 40 Liberal members from Quebec, who represent the interests of our province.

Mr. Speaker, we value our relationship with the B.C. government and with all provincial governments, our partners. We will work with them to address any issues that come forward, and deal with them appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that employment is a fundamental right of Canadians. We all want to see employment for citizens, no matter whether they are in Quebec, or Newfoundland or Alberta. Our goal is to have a robust economy. By investing in infrastructure and our economy, we are going to build a strong and sound economy, and put more Canadians to work.

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians in my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville are eager to take advantage of the benefits of CETA, which would give our exporters unprecedented access to over 500 million people and a GDP of some $20 trillion. Could the Minister of International Trade update the House on what she is doing to ensure a deal is promptly signed and ratified?

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to reiterate something that Canadians know well; that is, the Prime Minister's deep respect for Parliament and every member of this House of Commons. One of the priorities the Prime Minister has set for his government is to work collaboratively with all members of the House of Commons to improve decorum in the House of Commons. If my colleague in front of me were honest, he would agree that we can all do more to improve decorum in the House and we should—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind all members of the House that my door is always open. We will deliver on our commitment to modernize our electoral system. We will deliver on that promise just as the Prime Minister delivered on our promise to reinstate the long-form census and return to evidence-based decision-making, just like he made good on his commitment to bring forward a gender-balanced cabinet, and just as he made good on his promise to introduce a merit-based, independent appointment process for appointing senators.I am confident—

Mr. Speaker, I will point out to the hon. member what I have said many times in this House. The negotiations are ongoing. We believe in a strong future for the aerospace industry in this country. We know that there are many good jobs associated with it, not just in Quebec but right across the country. We are looking for a solid business case to make sure that the investments Canada makes in Bombardier or in the aerospace industry have benefits for Canadians, for good jobs and for our economy not just for the short term but for the medium and long term as well. That is the engagement we have made to Canadians, and that is the commitment we are keeping.

Mr. Speaker, here is one of the things I said on TV during that visit: “I think it is incredibly important, particularly...after the Paris attacks, particularly now with [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] raging around the world, to stand up for real diversity and to say our diversity is our strength.”Now, more than ever, the Conservatives should be joining us in speaking up for our belief in diversity around the world, including in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that we have completed the first phase of EI reform and are in the process of doing the second phase. It is much broader and more comprehensive. It is looking at flex time, maternity leave. It is dealing with some of the more challenging problems of vulnerable workers and seasonal workers. This will include every region of Canada. I look forward to everyone's input.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the trans-Pacific partnership will have serious consequences for Canada. We are talking about losing 60,000 jobs and our sovereignty. The arguments against the partnership continue to mount. This morning, at the Standing Committee on International Trade, Jim Balsillie, said that under the trans-Pacific partnership, the best thing that a Canadian technology company could do is to move to the United States.Is the government refusing to release an economic impact study on the trans-Pacific partnership precisely because there are so many problems with the agreement?

Mr. Speaker, I like to remember the most important promise that we made to Canadians. We are going to achieve a better future for Canadians.What we are doing with the measures in our budget is that we are going to achieve a better future. We put, in our budget, measures that will lead to 0.5% faster growth this year; 1% faster growth next year. The parliamentary budget office and the Bank of Canada have confirmed that our measures will in fact grow the economy. That is what we are trying to achieve. That is the legacy for our kids and for our grandkids.

Mr. Speaker, we have committed to making sure that all Canadians pay their fair share of taxes and the CRA and the Canadian government enforces all the rules and responsibilities linked to that.That, quite frankly, is why we put $440 million more in this current budget to go after tax avoidance and tax dodging. At the same time, it was a Liberal member who launched the committee study that is being done on KPMG, and the audits, to ensure that we are actually doing that right.

Mr. Speaker, you and all members in this House know very well that during the election campaign we committed to listen to Canadians and to respect members from the regions, so that they can be strong voices here in Ottawa and Toronto, where a large number of our members were elected. We made a commitment not to reopen the tripartite agreement, to respect the will of the people of Toronto, and that is exactly what we will do. We will keep our promises.

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to announce in February improvements to CETA's investment chapter to make it a more progressive deal. I recently travelled to Berlin and Brussels to promote its swift ratification. I was delighted to meet with German vice chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, the leader of Germany's Social Democrats, who previously had concerns about CETA, but who now says that it is clearly a “good agreement”. The Conservatives spent hundreds of thousands of dollars celebrating CETA, but the truth is they did not get it done. We will.

Mr. Speaker, P3s are a valuable tool that we respect, but we also respect the ability of the local governments to make their own decisions. We trust them to make their own decisions, unlike the previous government which imposed certain procurement processes on municipalities. We heard from municipalities. We heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We heard from big city mayors and they all support our decision to remove the P3 condition so that they are allowed to make their own decisions.

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we promised to consult, reflect, and show that we understand that Canadians expect better service for less. That is exactly what we promised to do. We halted the installation of community mailboxes. We are working with Canadians and an independent panel, which will hold open consultations to ensure that Canada Post provides the best service to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is opposed to the TPP without having read it, but this government is committed to consulting Canadians, and that is what we are doing.Next week, the Standing Committee on International Trade will consult Canadians in Montreal, Quebec City, Windsor, and Toronto. This will be a very important consultation and debate for our country. I appreciate the contribution of the opposition members.

Mr. Speaker, I think that all Canadians were proud to learn recently that Delta Air Lines has placed a large order with Bombardier for a better, cleaner, and quieter airplane.Why did they say no to expanding the Billy Bishop airport in Toronto? Why did they say they did not want to do this in Toronto? Perhaps they did not want to inconvenience certain members, but this is a whole other story.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her interest in this issue that is so very important to us.In fact, in budget 2016 we announced an investment of 50%, the first since 1999. This means an increase of $50 million a year for the next two years to support the fight against homelessness in our communities.I am also pleased to say that I am listening to our partners and the provinces and territories and I am working with them to ensure that this is addressed properly.

Not at all, Mr. Speaker.Because Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuit against Air Canada, we were able to make amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act, through Bill C-10. That is what we are doing.However, I remind my colleague that Air Canada is still required to perform maintenance in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. The rebuild of Fort McMurray will take many years, and this government will be a strong partner to the province, the municipality, and to the thousands of Canadians who will be rebuilding their lives in that important part of the country.The thoughts of all Canadians are with the residents of the Fort McMurray area, as well as with the first responders who are working to keep them safe, and the courageous firefighters who are combatting the fire. Over 80,000 people have been evacuated, with many still in transit. Approximately 1,600 homes have been destroyed. Although the full scale of this disaster is still not yet known, the situation continues to evolve, and the Government of Canada is actively involved in ensuring that we provide support in every way we can, now and into the future.

Mr. Speaker, we often hear the minister say that municipalities should be free to make their own decisions. In Quebec, they have to go through the Government of Quebec. At present, there has been no reply. Not one project has started. There will be no work done this summer.I completely agree with my colleague: P3s are another example of the government's inability to take action that will create jobs.Do the Liberals want to sell the assets of PPP Canada to pay for their out-of-control spending? Yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, obviously it is not enough to just talk about dealing with tax avoidance and tax evasion. We have to do something about it. That is why we added an extra $440 million in our budget to go after tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is why it was a Liberal member who proposed the study on KPMG and tax evasion. That is why we are going to do everything we must to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I am announcing that the 86,000 seniors who were penalized by this error will receive compensation for their loss of purchasing power. This error was discovered in April 2015 and may date back as far as 2008. We will also ensure that these 86,000 seniors will not lose other benefits as a result of this error.Mr. Speaker, we are quickly working on these cases so that seniors do not have to dip into their savings to counter the effects of these administrative errors.

Mr. Speaker, to the Contrary to the Liberals, we're always honest.I have an honest question for the Prime Minister. If the previous government had done that, what would he have said? Would he not have said that they were lying?

Mr. Speaker, as I have implied a couple of times, Canada attaches great importance to our friendship with our second North American partner and to the closer ties that will come from lifting the visa, and to the economic benefits to many middle-class Canadians who will benefit with jobs from the additional tourism. At the same time, we are not unaware of the problems raised by my colleague, the member Markham—Unionville. I can assure him that we are all working assiduously to deal with those problems and to mitigate them.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government is currently in negotiations with Bombardier. As everyone knows, these negotiations are important.Now we are hearing that the government wants to be involved in managing the C Series program. Considering how the Liberals turned our surplus into a deficit, if I were a shareholder, I would be extremely worried.Since the Prime Minister likes to talk about transparency so much, this is the perfect opportunity for him to talk about how transparent he is being in this file.What are the conditions? When will we know what is on the table with Bombardier? When will we finally see the results of these lengthy discussions?

Mr. Speaker, I do understand the importance of the shrimp fishery to those who depend on it. We committed to review the last in first out policy. I have appointed a ministerial advisory panel. I can assure the member it is an independent panel. Members of that panel were appointed, and names were requested from both sides of the industry, and they are on there. It will be an independent panel. I look forward to the great work it is going to do.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my hon. colleague is simply going on a fishing trip here. It is expensive for our airlines to maintain their airplanes to make sure they are very safe. It is a significant amount of their fiscal expenditures every day of the year.We are providing Air Canada, which has over 400 airplanes, with some flexibility in deciding where it will do its maintenance while holding on to the obligation that it must do some maintenance in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, that is why officials in my department and I are working along with my colleagues in public safety to find ways to mitigate precisely this risk, which is high on our minds as a challenge that we have to deal with. With that being said, there are major benefits, as I mentioned earlier, in lifting the visa with Mexico. We are confident that we will be able to keep our election commitment, while at the same time mitigating those risks that the member describes.

Mr. Speaker, the government's proposal to add four regions to the 12 that are eligible for extraordinary employment insurance benefit extensions is a band-aid solution. What we need is true employment insurance reform that makes benefits available to everyone and is aligned with workers' actual needs. We need to get rid of the notorious black hole. What we need is an independent fund that is safe from the Minister of Finance's nimble fingers.Since the government's 40 Quebec members are keeping mum, I will take it upon myself to ask the minister to commit to reforming employment insurance so that it meets the urgent needs of Quebec workers and Quebec regions.

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, as always.This afternoon, as everyone knows, we will continue our debate at second reading of Bill C-15, the budget. We will continue this important debate tomorrow.On Monday, I know members are really looking forward to this. We are going to commence report stage and third reading debate on Bill C-7, the RCMP labour relations bill, until 2 p.m. In the afternoon, we will resume debate on Bill C-15.I am hoping and working hard to reach an agreement with my colleagues in the House to be able to conclude the debate on Bill C-15 on Monday evening. That certainly would be my hope. I think Canadians would benefit from that legislation being in committee. Those conversations are ongoing.On Wednesday, we will resume debate on Bill C-7.Finally, next Tuesday and next Thursday will be opposition days, something I know members are looking forward to a lot.

Mr. Speaker, I always do my homework before I speak. I want to make it very clear that one of the reasons we are amending this act is not only to prevent litigation in the future, but also to allow Air Canada to have more flexibility when it is competing in a very competitive environment domestically and internationally. We know that by removing from Air Canada a certain obligation with respect to where it must do its maintenance, we will allow it to be more competitive. We are convinced of this, and that is why we are doing it.

Mr. Speaker, the minister just does not get it. The parliamentary budget officer's report confirms today that federal measures to foster access to post-secondary education primarily benefit students from high-income families, and the announcements in budget 2016 will change nothing. We have also learned that the government spends less on post-secondary education for indigenous students. Furthermore, almost 40% of students are more than $25,000 in debt by the time they graduate.The government says that it wants to help Canadian youth and the less well-off to join the middle class. Then what is it waiting for to make post-secondary education accessible to everyone?

Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, Department of Immigration officials confirmed that prior to imposing a visa requirement for Mexico, the asylum rate was at 25%, and many of these claims were rejected as false. Normally, Canada would consider a visa exemption if the asylum rate is lower than 2%. Today at committee department officials confirmed that this rate remained very high. What assurances can the government give Canadians that there will not be another wave of unfounded asylum claims if this exemption is immediately lifted?

Mr. Speaker, I apologize through you to the member in the House. We are engaged in many different processes. We know how important electoral reform is and how passionately members of the House feel about it. I look forward to ensuring that we get moving on this committee in short order.

Mr. Speaker, six months ago the Liberals claimed they would “immediately” lift the Mexican visa requirement. Today, Liberals and officials confirmed that a standard evidence-based formal review had not been completed. Moreover, they confirmed that Mexico did not meet certain factors required to lift the visa requirements. Given this, at the upcoming three amigos meeting, will the Prime Minister publicly admit that he knows the exemption will not in fact be immediately lifted?

Mr. Speaker, I like the people of Iran.Yesterday, the UN rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran said that we should engage with Iran, that it was the best way to see improvements to the appalling situation of human rights in Iran.

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post provides important services for my constituents in Laurentides—Labelle and for all Canadians.All across the country, people are dismayed at the lack of respect and service cuts that the previous Conservative government imposed on Canada Post. In rural ridings like mine, these impacts are even more noticeable. During the last election, the Liberal Party committed to a comprehensive review of the crown corporation. Would the minister responsible for Canada Post please update this House on the status of that review?

Mr. Speaker, this is what happens when we need the Liberals from Quebec: “Hello. You have reached the Liberal Party. All our members are currently hiding. Please stay on the line. Your call is important to us.”Can someone tell me what good the 40 Liberal members from Quebec are? They are no good. They are giving up 1,800 Air Canada jobs. They are betraying dairy farmers. They are ignoring everyone in Lac-Mégantic. They have forgotten about the unemployed, Canada Post, and the French language. Is the Liberal Party's Quebec lieutenant asleep at the switch?

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and Canadians are very concerned about the government's position on support for the aerospace industry, which is extremely important to our economy.When we recently asked the Minister of Transport why he had pushed through Bill C-10 under a gag order, he said that it was to make Air Canada more competitive.Will the minister finally admit that he is leaving the door wide open for Air Canada to sacrifice good-quality jobs here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, following what I am sure was a very productive week in our constituencies, getting in touch with all our constituents, we are back at it now this week. I wonder if the government House leader would update the House as to what the business will be tomorrow and for the rest of next week.

Mr. Speaker, any changes to northern shrimp allocation could affect jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Nunavut. However, we would not know it from the so-called independent advisory panel the minister has set up. Three of the four members are from Newfoundland and the other is from British Columbia. Five of the seven public consultations will be held in Newfoundland and Labrador. How can the minister expect to have an honest, independent review of the northern shrimp policy when he is excluding so many communities, or is the fix already in?

Mr. Speaker, the reason we have removed the P3 condition is to allow the local economy and local governments to make their own decisions on how they procure infrastructure. Furthermore, it also allows them to tap into federal resources at a larger amount, at 50% of the project costs. Under the previous government, they only qualified for 25% of the funding because of that particular condition. Our plan will deliver more for all Canadian communities.

Mr. Speaker, it is my job to promote Canada to the world. That is what I did in California, meeting with business leaders, cultural leaders, and the international media.The Conservatives oppose the positive message that I delivered on television about Syrian refugees, and to the LA Times about reducing income inequality. I was proud to do it, and I would do it again.The Conservatives' failure on these issues is why Canadians rejected their government last fall and why they are sitting on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' complete lack of transparency on spending taxpayer dollars now extends to their negotiations with Bombardier. While they negotiate to give $1 billion to a corporation, we have been given no details, no details on how that will be paid back, and no details on what taxpayers will receive in return. When will taxpayers get to see the bailout deal for Bombardier so that they can find out if it is actually worth their money?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are actually concerned by the attitude that the Minister of Finance has been demonstrating in the last number of days.This week alone, he is denying a surplus that he inherited from us. He is also mocking us openly, saying that we are stuck in this whole balanced budget thing. Then he introduced a bill that actually repeals legislation which would make balanced budgets a law.The minister said earlier this week that his kids and his grandchildren will be better off, but what part of sticking our kids and our grandchildren with debt and deficit is actually going to allow them to be better off?

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing in budget 2016. We are helping 250,000 lower-income Canadian students with grants that are going from $2,000 to $3,000, which is a 50% increase. We are helping another 100,000 middle-income Canadian students, going from $800 to $1,200, which is a 50% increase. We are making an enormous difference for the students of today. We know that is going to help us today, and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we understand exactly the problems faced by students today. That is why we included some measures in budget 2016 to help them.For example, we are going to increase grants by 50%, from $2,000 to $3,000, for 250,000 students. Grants for middle-income students will increase from $800 to $1,200. That is a big change for them and for the country.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect good-quality service from Canada Post. That is exactly what we are offering.That is why we committed to stop the implementation of community mailboxes, and why we committed to working with Canadians to ensure that they get the service they need and they want at an affordable price. That is exactly why we are putting the time in that the previous government did not to talk with Canadians, to look at the changing world of delivery of mail and services, and to ensure that they get the right quality.That is what we committed to throughout, regardless of the fabrications the member opposite might make about what I said or did not say.

Mr. Speaker, ever since the old Liberals slashed billions in funding for post-secondary education, the cost of tuition has skyrocketed. Now, according to the parliamentary budget officer, a majority of Canadian students are from higher-income families.The PBO also said that a majority of federal funding is benefiting these same wealthy families and the Liberals' recent budget will not significantly change the situation.The Liberals claim to help the middle class, but they are actually doing the opposite. Why do they not help all students to get a good, quality education?

Mr. Speaker, the crisis that the people of Fort McMurray are experiencing is absolutely devastating.The Government of Canada will be a partner not only in the immediate emergency situation, but also in the long term, through the work we will do together in the coming months to restore the ability to grow and in the coming years to rebuild this important community and guarantee a future for everyone who has been affected by this disaster.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was fishing for votes in our big cities, he solemnly promised to restore home mail delivery, no ifs, ands, or buts. Now he says that home mail delivery will not be restored.I have an honest question for the Prime Minister. If the previous government had done that, if—

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada promised Canadians that they would have a say in the service that Canada Post provided. Today, we are keeping that promise. Today I announced an independent review of Canada Post. The review will be a two-phase process, which will be completed by the end of this year.An independent task force will prepare a discussion paper that presents viable options for Canada Post, following which a parliamentary committee will consult with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We are encouraging all members of the public to take part in this very important review.

Mr. Speaker, 65% of federal funding to fight homelessness is allocated to the housing first approach. That leaves only 35% of the funding for the homelessness partnering strategy for other types of intervention, including prevention.Crisis centres are having to close beds for lack of funding. Quebec is pleading for a return to a general homelessness strategy. This week, I introduced two bills; the first is on recognizing the right to housing, and the second aims to establish a national housing strategy.Will the government support these bills so that people no longer end up in the street? Will the government respect Quebec's wishes?

Mr. Speaker, talking about putting words into action, during the election campaign and with Mayor Coderre at his side, the Prime Minister specifically promised to restore door-to-door delivery. Today, he has created a committee. Where are the Prime Minister's sunny ways now? What about his promise to do politics differently?Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that he misled Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, if shipping the maintenance jobs out of the country is going to make Air Canada more competitive, I have some serous concerns about how the Liberals are handling this file.While Quebec's economy minister has urged the government to take its time with its bill, the Minister of Transport seems to be in a real hurry to shut down debate for reasons that he himself cannot explain. There really is something fishy going on. Can the minister clarify his position and explain why he was in such a hurry to shut down debate?

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is simply not true. The NDP opposed the TPP before even reading it during the campaign. We were all there. We made a commitment to consult with Canadians, and that is what we are doing. Next week, I am delighted that the trade committee is actively consulting with Canadians. It will be in Montreal, Quebec City, Windsor, and Toronto. This is a very important national debate. It is important not to cut it short.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, following question period today because I think all Canadians would expect our Prime Minister to always conduct himself with the highest level of dignity and to demonstrate the utmost respect for an institution such as the House of Commons. That should happen whether the Prime Minister is on camera or off camera.On a number of occasions during this Parliament, I have witnessed—and I am sure others on this side of the House can confirm this—the Prime Minister behave in a manner that I would say is far below the dignity of the office he holds. In fact, I think one could even call it childish behaviour.I only stand today because I think it was particularly egregious today. I saw him, on a frequent number of occasions today, taunting and making faces at other members of Parliament as they were speaking. He certainly went too far when I saw him stick his tongue out following a question that had been put by the member for South Surrey—White Rock. That is, clearly, in my mind, far below the dignity of the office he holds.I certainly hope that the Prime Minister will stand in this place and apologize to this House, and to all Canadians, for such immature behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, balancing the budget on the backs of Canadians means cuts to Canadian families, hurting Canadian families today. It means not investing in the future and getting to a lower growth rate.Canadians were hopeful and optimistic. They made the choice to invest in Canadian families today with the Canada child benefit, and they made the choice to invest in Canadians tomorrow through investments. The future of Canada is going to be brighter because of the very hopeful optimistic choice they made.

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I am in no hurry. In fact, I will speak very slowly to explain to my colleague.We decided to change the legislation through Bill C-10, as I have been saying from the beginning, because the governments of Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuit against Air Canada. This gives us the opportunity to clarify the legislation and give Air Canada more flexibility in making decisions regarding the maintenance of its planes.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we are all convinced that our commitment to lift the visa for Mexico will indeed provide major economic benefits in tourism as well as a stronger partnership with our second North American partner. That being said, I am working with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, to ensure we mitigate any risks arising from irregular immigration that could arise from this policy change.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the crisis in northern Alberta seems to be worsening. Additional communities have now been evacuated, including emergency response centres, and the province has now declared a state of emergency. Residents are very worried about what the future will hold for them. Once this crisis passes and the reconstruction begins, will the Prime Minister assure the residents of Fort McMurray and region that infrastructure funding will be top priority for them?

Mr. Speaker, first the Liberals removed the requirement for the P3 screen, then they transferred responsibility from the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Infrastructure, and now they introduced Bill C-15, which gives the infrastructure minister the power to sell off shares and assets of PPP Canada.Something here does not add up. Are the Liberals intending to shut down PPP Canada and sell off its assets in order to pay for their out of control spending?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives renewed the PPP Canada funding by providing $1.25 billion over five years as part of the new building Canada plan. Infrastructure projects worth over $100 million were required to go through a P3 screen to maximize the value of taxpayer dollars. But late last year, the Minister of Infrastructure announced that this screening requirement would be removed. Why are the Liberals getting rid of all the taxpayer safeguards?

Mr. Speaker, we saw the trans-Pacific partnership at the same time that the Liberals did, and that was after the campaign, after the election, after it was kept in secret by the Conservatives.The fact is, the minister refuses to release an impact study and refuses to launch the public consultations that the Liberals promised.The committee's work is not her own. However, we are hearing very troubling testimony. Today, RIM founder Jim Balsillie warned, “There will never be [another] large Canadian tech company under the TPP”. He has also said that Canada would be a colossal loser.Why is the minister proceeding with a deal that will so badly damage Canada's tech sector?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the previous Conservative government withdrew from Iran because we disliked the regime. However, let us be clear. Not only do we dislike this regime; we abhor this regime. Iran wants to destroy Israel. Iran imprisons and tortures its own people. It sponsors terrorism around the world, and is determined to become a nuclear power. Forgive my confusion, but could the minister please tell us what he likes about Iran?

Mr. Speaker, the House leader is once again being thrown under the bus by his friends on the front bench. He has turned himself into a human pretzel trying to defend the justice minister's questionable fundraising, and he is now assuming the position for the trade minister and her Hollywood agreements.Will the trade minister finally table those agreements, or is she prepared to pay for the ongoing House leader's chiropractic treatments with her own money?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said, “We are in discussions with the other parties” to set up a committee on electoral reform. He explained that the reason why it has not yet been struck is entirely the fault of the Conservatives and the NDP, since both parties will not give consent without unreasonable preconditions. This whole process is imaginary. I have met with the relevant minister exactly twice in six months, once in December at my request, and once at a breakfast, where she sat at my table for less than 10 minutes. My NDP homologue says it is the same thing with him.Why did the Prime Minister just invent this patently false story about opposition delay?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a moment on what the members on the other side of the House might be doing right now.They want to balance the budget on the backs of Canadians. What exactly would that mean? That would mean that right now we would be making cuts to services, cuts to Canadian families that would make their lives more difficult.

Mr. Speaker, the guaranteed income supplement can make all the difference for some seniors. During the last election campaign, many seniors from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles talked to me about this.In March, the government finished making retroactive payments of the guaranteed income supplement to vulnerable people who did not receive it. What does the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development plan to do to compensate these people in need?

Mr. Speaker, since the visa requirement was introduced four years ago, the asylum rate for Mexican nationals has remained below 1%. In 2008, prior to imposing a visa, the asylum rate was above 25%. The Liberals have not conducted a visa exemption review and yet they have promised to lift the restriction. What are the Liberals doing to ensure the asylum rate does not increase when they lift the visa requirement for Mexico?

No, Mr. Speaker, I thought I would try to table the “Fiscal Monitor” from February—

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour gives vague answers every time someone asks her about this. For nearly 20 years now, the upper north shore has been asking for employment insurance reform that takes its high unemployment rate and its seasonal industry into account. What the minister is denying Manicouagan, she will soon be offering to 16 economic regions in Canada. Of the 40 Quebec members opposite me, some of whom represent people struggling with the same problems as residents of the north shore, such as the people in the Gaspé, who will join me in persuading the minister that Quebec deserves the same treatment as Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question because we know that there is a loophole that allows some to use the tax rate to get out of paying the personal income taxes the rest of us pay all year. But we do understand small business and I understand small business and we know they need a robust economy and they need strong consumers. With our middle-class income tax cuts, the child benefits, the investments in infrastructure, in broadband, in incubators and accelerators, in tourism marketing, the list goes on, absolutely all of it helps small and medium-sized businesses.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect our government to invest in growth and in jobs, and to help the middle class and those working hard to join the middle class.That is why investments in Bombardier will be determined by the negotiations that are underway with that firm's representatives. To ensure that the business case is solid, investments will be made in the short, medium, and long term in order to support job creation in Canada and the future of Canada's aerospace industry.That is what Canadians expect, and that is what we are doing, in a responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, let me share some information with the House. Despite allocating almost $2 billion for Quebec in 2014, the previous government delivered zero dollars. We are committed to delivering that money to Quebec along with new money under public transit, under green infrastructure, and social infrastructure. We are here to support communities. We are here to support—

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to be in favour of special treatment for the wealthy and well-connected.Today at committee, CRA officials testified that the sweetheart deal for KPMG clients did not include immunity from criminal prosecution.My question is simple. If the Prime Minister is serious about tackling tax havens, and remembering that actions speak louder than words, will he ensure that those multi-millionaire tax cheats and those at KPMG who aided and abetted them face criminal charges?

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Minister of Transport was at committee discussing his Air Canada bill. When asked by one of his own members how carrier maintenance obligations affect its competitiveness, he had no answer. Shockingly, he responded by saying, “It's a big, serious question and I don't have the answer at my fingertips..”.If the entire purpose of this legislation is to make Air Canada more competitive, could the minister at least have done his homework before introducing this bill?

Mr. Speaker, with that answer, it is clear that the Minister of Transport still has not done his homework. I also asked if he could tell the committee what Air Canada's maintenance costs are, to which he responded: “No, I can't tell you what the costs are..”.Let me try again. The minister obviously cannot explain the bill. Can he at least provide a shred of evidence to support it?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the minister's marketing is working so well that the trade numbers of the U.S. are down by 6.3% in March alone.The question is simple. Did the trade minister mislead the House leader? That is just not cool.Will the House leader stand in his place and apologize for not being the House leader but for being the House “mis-leader”?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister repeated this three times, so I hope we will get three apologies from him.He said, “there are ongoing discussions with the other parties...”, which is false. He said there are ongoing discussions on “the mandate” engaged with that committee, which is also false. And, he said, “We are in discussion with the other parties about how to set up that committee..”.This is where I tell the PM that even in the world of quantum computing, the non-binary repetition of an untrue statement does not make it true. So why—

Mr. Speaker, continuing on the theme of broken promises, it has been six months of disappointment from the Liberals, fiscally, as well.Since they have come to office, they have broken three key election promises: number one, that the tax plan would be revenue-neutral; number two, that the deficits would be no more than $10 billion; and number three, they said that they were going to balance the budget by the end of the mandate.After six disappointing months, can the Minister of Finance, despite the Prime Minister's gloating in the House today that “we keep our promises”, tell Canadians which one of these broken promises he is most proud of?

Speaking of dodging, Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Prime Minister is dodging the question. I will repeat my very simple question. The Prime Minister talks about going after those who cheat on their taxes and hide their money illegally in tax havens. Today, the Canada Revenue Agency said that there is no immunity from criminal charges.The question is quite simple: Will the Liberals do everything possible under the law, including the Criminal Code, to go after KPMG and these multimillionaires who have defrauded the system?

Mr. Speaker, according to B.C.'s auditor general, the devastating Mount Polley mine disaster is the result of negligence by the B.C. Liberal government. This resulted in one of the biggest mining disasters in the province's history. Fish habitat was destroyed and mine tailings spilled into surrounding lakes and rivers. The federal government must not turn a blind eye to this clear violation of the Fisheries Act. What action will the fisheries minister take against the B.C. Liberal government?

Mr. Speaker, for two days, the parliamentary secretary has accused small business owners of being tax cheats.She is not alone. The Prime Minister has said small businesses are just a way to avoid taxes. Just today, a Liberal member said in the House that the small business tax rate does not matter. When will the Liberals reverse their broken promise and bring the tax rate to 9%?

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the crisis in northern Alberta is getting worse by the hour. Additional communities have been evacuated. The province has now declared a state of emergency.Can the Prime Minister give us his assurance that, once the crisis is over, Fort McMurray and the surrounding area will be a priority for infrastructure funding in order to assist in the rebuilding?