11777 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 181 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, February 27, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 27, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 181 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 181 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 181 (Version officielle) 147 181 27 02 2015 2015/02/27 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers (1000) [ English ] Points of Order Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Points of Order Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I hope you will indulge me for a few minutes. I would like to raise a point of order and seek your guidance on the absolutely outrageous actions of the Conservative majority on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security yesterday evening.

I am raising that first thing this morning, because I believe it is a question that has to be put to you for keen deliberation over the course of the weekend and to provide the House with some guidance on the matter. Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, the bible on which our democratic practice and procedure that has evolved over a century and a half in the House comes from House of Commons Procedure and Practice . This is the bible, or the guide to the Speaker's deliberations, that guides all of our deliberations as members of the House of Commons.

In House of Commons Procedure and Practice , on page 1057, is a very important regulation that guides our deliberations and guides the deliberations of committee structures in the House. It is a comment on the framing of the motion for the previous question. I will read for a moment how it is framed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice . The motion that “The question be now put” is known as the previous question. In the House, the previous question is a debatable motion. When the debate ends, the motion for the previous question is put to a vote.

If the motion is carried, the initial motion under consideration is immediately put to the vote in the House. At committee, and this is on page 1057 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , it says very clearly: In committee, motions for the previous question are inadmissible. That is black and white. There is no way of getting around what is a very clear regulation and very clear guidance that is given to committees. Motions for the previous question are inadmissible.

I want to reference for a moment, as well, former Speaker Milliken's ruling on April 2, 2009, when he said: ...committees that overturn procedurally sound decisions by their chairs and choose to present procedurally unacceptable reports to the House will have them declared null and void. Former Speaker Milliken was very clear that the guidelines, the procedure and practice rules we are governed by that are contained within House of Commons Procedure and Practice , that clearly say that motions for the previous question in committee are inadmissible, are very clear direction to committees.

Committees that then overturn procedurally sound decisions by their chairs and choose to present procedurally unacceptable reports will have them declared null and void. Last night, at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, exactly what I have just referenced happened. The Conservative majority on the committee threw out the rule book, threw out a century and a half of traditions that exist in our country and in this Parliament, and took matters into their own hands.

The victims, of course, of this are all Canadians concerned about fundamental and sound principles of Canadian democracy and also the committee chair, who is the member for Prince Edward—Hastings . Last night the majority on the committee simply told the chair that his intention to stick to the rule book was simply not going to be followed by the Conservative majority on the committee. They ignored the rules. They ignored the practice. They ignored all the precedents.

They ignored the clear direction, and they overturned a procedurally sound ruling by the chair, showing profound disrespect to the member for Prince Edward—Hastings , even more profound disrespect to the rule book under which we are governed, and perhaps the greatest disrespect to Canadians as a whole. Conservatives threw out those democratic principles, and they threw out the rule book. By ignoring the rules and forcing their majority will on the committee, the Conservatives have produced what is a real-life incarnation of the tyranny of the majority. The implications are pretty profound for our democracy.

In the past, we have seen the government throw away the rule book. We have seen this with the Board of Internal Economy.

(1005) However, this was done in a public forum. I think it makes it even more outrageous that this took place in a public forum, in front of the public. I am going to take a few minutes to recount what happened yesterday evening at the time the member for Northumberland—Quinte West stepped forward and moved a motion that was procedurally unacceptable. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the rule book, it is very clear that motions for the previous question are inadmissible.

The member for Northumberland—Quinte West , perhaps because he was unaware of the rule book, perhaps because he had not read it, or perhaps because he does not think the rule book applied to him, moved that motion. The chair, the member for Prince Edward—Hastings , made the following ruling. He said, “ The chair cannot support this motion...due to the fact...that...we have other speakers on the list yet and our practice has been to continue the debate until the speakers are exhausted, and at the time then the motion would be brought forward”.

Very clearly, the member for Prince Edward—Hastings , as the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, was following the rule book, and he clearly ruled it out of order. The member for Northumberland—Quinte West then threw out the rule book and challenged the chair. Now, at that point, the member for St. John's East stepped up and said, “I don't think that the overruling of the chair makes a motion” which was clearly inadmissible, “in order”. You know that when one moves a motion that is inadmissible, one simply cannot just overrule the chair. They cannot throw out the rule book.

At that point, the chair, following interventions from the Conservative majority, pushed ahead just the same. [ Translation ] The member for Alfred-Pellan also intervened to request clarification. She asked the chair if there was no longer any right to debate the amendment to the amendment or the main motion between votes. The chair replied that that was indeed the case. [ English ] Mr.

Speaker, what happened yesterday was that a clearly inadmissible motion, one that is clearly prohibited by the rule book, was ruled out of order, quite properly, by the chair, and the Conservative majority said, “The rules do not apply to us. We are just going to use our majority on this committee, and we are going to simply bulldoze through something that is clearly inadmissible, something that violates the principles, the democratic principles, under which we are governed and the rules that all of us, all members of Parliament, are supposed to follow”.

It is not just that they ruled what is inadmissible admissible, throwing out the rule book. They also eliminated any debate, as the member for Alfred-Pellan stated very clearly, after the Conservative majority tried to push through on this. It also eliminated any debate whatsoever on the amendment and on the main motion. This is not some minor bill the Conservatives have brought forward. This is Bill C-51 . This is a bill that has growing concern across the country about what it would mean to our democracy, what it would mean to democratic rights and freedoms.

There have been questions raised in this House repeatedly. No answers have been forthcoming from the government. This is a bill that, in many people's minds, including former prime ministers and Supreme Court justices, would be a danger to Canadian fundamental precepts of Canadian democracy. To throw out the rule book on the debate on Bill C-51 and the extent to which, actually, Canadians would be consulted on the bill at the committee stage is no minor matter. This is a fundamental principle of Canadian democracy.

On this side of the House, as New Democrats, we believe that Canadians are entitled to add their voices on Bill C-51 and that the experts are entitled to come forward and provide their recommendations on Bill C-51 . We believe that this is a fundamental bill that could, in a very dangerous way, impact fundamental rights and freedoms in Canada, and we believe that Canadians have the right to be heard on the bill. That is what we believe on this side of the House.

(1010) This is an important study. The freedom of committees, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is circumscribed by our rule book, House of Commons Procedure and Practice , which is what all of us, as members of Parliament, are supposed to follow,. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 116 says very clearly, as well: In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Since committees are regarded as creatures of the House, Standing Order 116 provides that the rules of the House have force in committees, so far as they are applicable. A member may speak on issues before a committee, and that is very clearly delineated in Standing Order 116. However, it is also the precedents in the past. In the past, but perhaps not in events as outrageous as what we saw last night at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we have had issues with conduct in committees that have been brought to the House, and Speakers have made rulings on them.

As well, for the guidance you will be giving us in the coming days, Mr. Speaker, I want to restate some of the Speakers' rulings and some of the comments previous Speakers have made on committee actions.

First, Speaker Milliken, on March 29, 2007, said the following: At the present time, the chair occupants, like our counterparts in House committees, daily face the challenge of dealing with the pressures of a minority government, but neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations.

Hon. members are all aware of situations in committees of this Parliament where, because decisions of the chair are subject to appeal, decisions that were procedurally sound have been overturned by the majority on a committee .....All the more reason then for the Chair to exercise its awesome responsibility carefully and to ensure that the House does not, in the heat of the moment, veer dangerously off course.

Speaker Milliken also, on March 14, 2008, said: The Speaker must remain ever mindful of the first principles of our parliamentary tradition which Bourinot described thus: “To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner—” As well, Speaker Milliken, on April 2, 2009, as I mentioned earlier, said: As explained in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 857, decisions of committee chairs may be appealed to the committee.

However, as I noted in rulings on March 14, 2008 and May 15, 2008, committees that overturn procedurally sound decisions by their chairs and choose to present procedurally unacceptable reports to the House will have them declared null and void. Finally, Speaker Fraser, on November 28, 1990, had this to say: I have to say to hon. members and to the public that the workings of committees is very important to the working of the House of Commons. I do ask hon. colleagues to make every effort possible to come to whatever agreements and understandings among themselves which are necessary to make these committees work.

I do not want to state this too often, and I hope that I will not have to, but there is a general feeling across the country that somehow or other not only politicians, but maybe institutions, are letting down the country. This is why it is essential that everybody make an extra effort to try to make this system work. I am not happy with this situation, obviously. But, I am also bound by rules here and if I am to intervene in committees, it has to be in a very severe and outrageous situation indeed.

I would submit that this is an absolutely outrageous situation, that the rules under which we are governed were clearly violated yesterday, and that the chair made a procedurally sound decision, based on the fact that motions for the previous question are inadmissible.

(1015) Even more so, motions for the previous question eliminate all questions at once. With a sleight of hand, it simply eliminates any ability for opposition members of Parliament to speak on that issue at all. What could be next? If the tyranny of the majority means that at any time a procedurally sound decision made by a chair of a committee can be overturned by a Conservative majority, what is to stop Conservatives from saying that opposition members have no right to speak at all, or that opposition members have no right to appear at committee?

At what point are they going to stop this tyranny of the majority? There is absolutely no doubt that what happened last night was a travesty. It ripped up the rule book on a fundamental piece of law that Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about. I have no doubt that the government does not want debate on this bill. The more there is debate, the more Canadians are calling into question how this bill was put together and the vague language and loopholes that can lead to dangerous precedents in our country. There is no doubt about that. However, they do not have the right to completely shut down debate.

They do not have the right to move procedurally wrong motions, to overrule the chair when the chair is ruling, having followed the rule book in the interest of Canadian democracy, and they do not have the right to simply shut down debate. Mr. Speaker, I am asking for guidance from you in the coming days. The House has an objective referee, and so should committees. When committee chairs make procedurally sound rulings following the rule book, they should be respected. Rules are there for a reason.

The implications of allowing a wild west in committees in the final 11 weeks of Parliament are simply too serious to even contemplate at this point. I ask for the Speaker's guidance on what was an outrageous action by the Conservative majority last night at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and, as a member of the opposition, I also ask for his guidance as a Canadian. What happened last night was a travesty. It was outrageous, and it should not be permitted. We ask for the Speaker's wisdom and guidance so that these kinds of instances do not occur again. Mr.

Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the government House leader will respond to this issue right after question period.

(1020) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that there is a great deal of merit in much of what the NDP House leader has put on the record. It is a very serious issue. We anticipate that we will get some clarification from the Speaker, given the gravity of not only what took place last night, but also given the importance of the issue and the behaviour that was witnessed yesterday.

The leader of the Liberal Party stood in this place just last week and talked about how important it is from the Liberals' perspective that amendments be presented, such as parliamentary oversight, which has been a critical piece for the Liberal Party. As we present these amendments, we are going to be very cognizant of the behaviour of the majority Conservative membership on the committee. We have to be very cautious when we reflect on the behaviour of the Conservative majority that was witnessed yesterday.

That behaviour is questionable at best, and it is important that the government House leader reflect on that behaviour and understand that it was inappropriate. As we move through the committee process, specifically on Bill C-51 , we ask that the government be more sensitive to the reasons that the rules exist to allow for a proper functioning of the committee, and, hopefully, as members indicated during second reading, they will be sympathetic to the amendments that will be put forward.

I hope this is not something we are going to be witnessing throughout the committee stage, as there are some critically important amendments that have to be introduced. The Deputy Speaker : The Chair will obviously take this under advisement and wait until we have heard a response from the government side, recognizing that there is some urgency, but also recognizing that there is still sufficient time for a decision from the Chair. Again, we will wait to hear a response from the government.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Respect for Communities Act Bill C-2. Report Stage The House resumed from December 1, 2014 consideration of Bill C-2,

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. Mr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to support the proposed legislation, the respect for communities act, otherwise known as Bill C-2 . I do not think that anyone can deny the enormous public health harms associated with illicit drug use. In some way, we have all seen the damage that illicit drug use can cause, not only to the health of the user, but to families, friends, and communities.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the CDSA for short, is the federal legislation that controls substances that can alter mental processes and may produce harm to health and society when diverted or misused. The CDSA has the dual purpose of protecting public health and maintaining public safety. The substances covered by the CDSA have a risk of abuse and pose serious risks to individuals when they are misused or abused. Those risks are significant. They increase when the controlled substance is unregulated, untested, and obtained from illegal sources.

That is an important point that often gets lost in this debate. The drugs that would be used at any proposed supervised injection drug site are bought on the black market. We are not talking about drugs that are prescribed by a doctor and have the needed medical oversight. These drugs are purchased on the street and then used by people suffering with addictions. Our government takes safety very seriously, and we have a number of controls in place when it comes to prescribed drugs. In fact, this House recently passed Vanessa's law in order to strengthen the safety of prescription drugs.

Given this, I think it is only appropriate that we give all Canadians an opportunity to comment on the measures which could be needed to protect health when a site is proposed to allow the injection of illegal street drugs. Our government believes that exemptions from the CDSA for activities involving illegal substances at supervised consumption sites should only be granted once rigorous and relevant criteria have been addressed by the applicant. The criteria that are outlined in the bill stem directly from the five factors laid out in the 2011 Supreme Court of Canada decision on lnsite.

The court's decision requires the Minister of Health to consider the following five factors when assessing an exemption application for a supervised consumption site: evidence, if any, on the impact of such a site on crime rates; local conditions indicating a need for such a site; the regulatory structure in place to support the site; resources available to support its maintenance; and, expressions of community support or opposition. All of the criteria proposed in Bill C-2 relate to one of these factors that I just referred to.

Much like the dual purpose of the CDSA, which is to protect public health and maintain public safety, the criteria in this bill balance both the public health and public safety considerations of the operation of a supervised consumption site. The criteria included in this bill are relevant to matters of public health or public safety, and some of the criteria address both. Today I would like to focus on some of the public health criteria in the bill and discuss how each one relates to the factors set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

One criteria requires that an applicant provide a letter from the provincial minister responsible for health in the province in which the site would be located, which outlines his or her opinion on the proposed activities at the site and describes how those activities are integrated within the provincial health care system. I can guarantee that the health minister in my province of Alberta would want to be consulted on proposals for a site like this. It is only appropriate that provincial ministers be afforded an opportunity to have their views heard.

This relates to the Supreme Court factor that requires that community expressions of support or opposition be considered. These criteria allow the professional opinion of the respective provincial minister of health to be a part of what the federal minister would consider when assessing or assigning an application. Moreover, information about access to drug treatment services, if any, could help to understand how drug users would be supported within the provincial health care system.

Other public health-related criteria fulfill the court's directive to look at evidence, if any, on local conditions indicating a need for such a site. These criteria are asking for relevant information on things like the number of people who consume illicit substances or have infectious diseases in relation to illicit drug use in the area of the proposed site.

(1025) Another requirement for applicants which contributes to the minister's understanding of the local conditions is official reports, if any, that are relevant to the establishment of a supervised consumption site, including any coroners' reports. These reports, including those from a coroner, could be used to support evidence of illicit drug problems in the area, indicate important drug use patterns, and identify the demographic of the individuals who could benefit from the services provided by a supervised consumption site.

We all know that the best laid plans can sometimes run into local circumstances that present unexpected challenges to a plan, so it is critically important that the bill require that the facts on the ground be considered when any proposed site is being looked at. Additionally, following an initial exemption, if an applicant wishes to continue activities at a supervised consumption site, subsequent exemption applications would have to inform the Minister of Health of evidence, if any, of any impacts of the site's activities on public health during the period that the site had been operating.

This information provides the minister with an understanding of public health impacts that the site has had and would potentially continue to experience with a future exemption. This criterion builds on the Supreme Court factor requiring the minister to consider local conditions in the area where a site would be located. In its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the discretion of the Minister of Health to grant or deny exemption applications and to request information for this purpose.

This proposed legislation clearly identifies information to be addressed in an exemption application to assist the minister in considering the information relevant to the Supreme Court factors. Her decision must balance the protection of public health and maintenance of public safety in accordance with the charter. Moreover, the criteria serve to add clarity and transparency to the exemption application process. With this legislation, all persons wishing to open a supervised consumption site would know exactly what is expected as part of their application.

While the focus of my speech today has been related to public health, it is important to note that the proposed legislation balances both public health and public safety. Indeed, Bill C-2 would amend the CDSA to create a more robust legislative structure to balance protection of public health and maintenance of public safety with respect to supervised consumption sites. It is imperative that there be strong controls around activities with these dangerous drugs, and I urge all members to vote in favour of the bill.

(1030) Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech, and if he and his party are so concerned with public health, the HIV West Yellowhead is holding seminars into harm reduction in March. My first question would be whether he will attend these meetings and actually consult with HIV West Yellowhead to see what its members think about the bill. After that consultation, if an organization like HIV West Yellowhead has problems with the bill, will he bring forward amendments to the government bill? Mr. Jim Eglinski : Mr.

Speaker, I was not aware of this conference, but if I get an invitation, I will attend, and I will give my opinions based on what I learn from that. Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize that the hon. member has had a long career in law enforcement and working with communities to resolve safety issues.

I wonder if he could express his opinion, from his own life experience, on why local communities ought to have a say if someone is considering having what is called a safe injection site with illegal drugs, perhaps in a residential neighbourhood, and why law enforcement officials, municipal leaders, and others in the area might need to have a say on a site opening up in their neighbourhood. Mr. Jim Eglinski : Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question. As a former police officer, serving 35 years in the force, I know how important it is to get that information from within the community to the appropriate officials.

As a former police officer, I would want the Minister of Health to know exactly what my officers know on the street level. We would want to pass on information from our town council, which knows what is going on. We would want to pass that information from the community, from the people who run the businesses on the streets to the local residents. In particular, the residents of that community would have to pass this on. It is imperative that this information is part of the whole focus that the minister can look at to make a decision whether to grant or deny the site. Mr. Jamie Nicholls : Mr.

Speaker, this is a supplementary question to what was mentioned before. I just want to elaborate on the consultation that is happening. There are dates in March in Edson, Hinton and Whitecourt. The member could be proactive and not wait for an invitation to consult with people involved in harm reduction in West Yellowhead. He could register right now, today. Will the member register for this conference and find out what the community is dealing with in terms of addiction and harm reduction? You can do it right now. You can register right now, online.

(1035) The Deputy Speaker : I would draw to the attention of the member that his comments are to be directed to the Chair, not to individual members of Parliament. I assume that was not an invitation for the Chair to attend. The hon. member for Yellowhead . Mr. Jim Eglinski : Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I will not do that right now because I am in the House. I will do it after I leave the House. I will look into it and ensure that it does not conflict with my other responsibilities within my riding. However, I would really enjoy going to one of those meetings.

I will endeavour to attend in one of my communities, because it is being observed in several of them, as I understand from my hon. friend. I will endeavour to be there. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again to debate Bill C-2,

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , which was introduced by the Conservative government. So much has been said about this bill on supervised injection sites. As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I was quite surprised to see that the government chose to send this bill to that committee even though the better part of the bill is directly related to health. It should have gone directly to the Standing Committee on Health. It is sad. I suspect that this is for partisan and political reasons, so I felt I needed to speak up about it.

We did study the bill, but not in quite as much detail as we would have liked. I will say more about that in my speech. After the speedy study that the Conservative majority forced the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to do, we have no choice but to oppose Bill C-2 as written. That being said, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Vancouver East for her excellent work on Bill C-2 and supervised injection sites in general.

She represents the riding that is home to Insite, the supervised injection site that people often refer to in connection with this bill and that has the support of the majority of the community. I will say more about that later. For the people watching at home right now, I will explain what Bill C-2 is all about. The bill, in fact, is a thinly veiled attempt by the Conservative majority to stop safe injection sites from operating, simply for partisan, political reasons. It runs directly counter to a ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding these sites.

We know that the Conservatives do not necessarily worry too much about abiding by Supreme Court decisions, but I consider the court an essential body when it comes to these decisions. We should not go against decisions made by the highest court in the land. Bill C-2 sets out a lengthy and arduous list of criteria that supervised injection sites would need to meet before the minister would grant them an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The exemption already exists, but the bill makes the list of criteria extremely complicated.

In addition, the bill puts discretionary powers directly into the hands of the minister. This is unacceptable when it comes to an issue as important as supervised injection sites and drug addiction in general. The minister could therefore prevent a supervised injection site from opening its doors, even if all the criteria are met. This is just another arbitrary, partisan decision. We must not take this matter lightly and turn it into a partisan issue. That is what the Conservatives are doing with Bill C-2 .

Under the new criteria, it will be even more difficult for organizations to open supervised injection sites in Canada. City officials and the public have been increasingly calling for these kinds of supervised injection sites. I am saying that the Conservative Party is making this a partisan issue because it had a major fundraising campaign called "keep heroin out of our backyards”.This bill will make it virtually impossible to open supervised injection sites.

Furthermore, several addiction and legal experts told the committee that this bill would have the complete opposite effect and that it could make drugs even more accessible in neighbourhoods.

(1040) Instead of basing policies on an ideology that has nothing to do with the real facts associated with this problem, the NDP believes that policies must be based on evidence rather than ideology. Furthermore, we believe that harm reduction programs, including in this case supervised injection sites, must be exempt based on proof of their ability to improve the health of a community and to save human lives, and not on ideology. The Conservatives have been trying to close supervised injection sites for years. They do not hide this and everyone knows it.

They have spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on court proceedings that have come to the same conclusion. InSite and similar supervised injection sites must be allowed to provide services in Canada. As I mentioned, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of supervised injection sites like InSite, but the Conservatives have decided that they will not listen to reason and will continue to defend their personal ideology in a bid to raise more money for their next campaign. That is utterly disappointing in this type of debate. We examined this bill in committee.

I was a member of the committee, along with my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca . We were also fortunate enough to have our wonderful colleague from Vancouver East help us examine this bill. Five committee meetings were held to study this massive bill. I want to point that out because over the past few days at meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we have been having a lot of discussions about the importance of bringing in a large number of witnesses to talk about various bills.

We had two four-hour meetings to hear from witnesses and discuss Bill C-2 , which addresses such an important issue. Only two meetings were scheduled to hear from witnesses. That is not very many since a much larger number of meetings have been held to hear from witnesses on other bills. In this case, the Conservatives told us that they thought two meetings were enough to examine Bill C-2 , even though we were against the idea of hearing from so few witnesses. I can give my colleagues opposite an example. When they were not in government, a study was conducted of the same-sex marriage bill.

A total of 32 meetings were held. Hearings on this important bill were held across the country. According to the Conservatives at the time, 32 meetings were not enough, so I hope they will not tell me that they really think that two meetings to hear from witnesses were enough to examine such an important bill. It is often difficult to explain exactly how committees work. It can seem relatively complex if a person does not attend committee meetings regularly. I completely understand that. The fact is that the Conservatives limited debate on every part of the study of this bill in committee.

For example, we were given a maximum amount of time to examine the bill clause by clause, propose amendments and discuss them. Once again, the Conservatives were trying to limit debate as much as possible in committee. Sixty-two amendments were proposed by all the opposition parties. The official opposition, the NDP, and the Liberals proposed more than 20 each, while the Green Party proposed a dozen or so amendments. The Conservatives not only ignored the expert testimony, they also rejected the 62 amendments. That is sad. I will close my remarks on that. I would have liked to go into more detail.

I hope my colleagues will ask questions about this. Montreal is currently trying to open supervised injection sites. The city consulted the public, police services, communities and addiction experts in order to develop something like what Vancouver has right now. Everyone said that it was extremely important for Montreal to have a supervised injection site like InSite, to have our own, similar model to address the addiction problem. Unfortunately, Bill C-2 will delay the efforts of the Montreal community to achieve such a result.

I find the Conservative approach with Bill C-2 regrettable, and that is why the official opposition will vote against the bill.

(1045) [ English ] Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a couple of things that I took note of. One point that I would like to bring to light is that there is not one point of heroin that is ever purchased legally anywhere in Canada, yet that illegal purchase of heroin is taken to a site where the person can inject it without prosecution. Insite provides services that can be obtained in other parts of the Lower Mainland as well. The fact of the matter is that Insite provides a safe place for someone to inject an illegal drug.

When we talk about fighting addictions, the fact of the matter with Insite is that it is an enabler, because we are not trying to get the users off the drug. We are actually allowing them to come in with the illegal drug and inject it. That is extremely problematic. Insite allows for an illegal drug to be administered, basically legally, within its confines without prosecution. Is the NDP looking for a place where people can purchase an illegal drug and then administer it without prosecution? [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : Mr.

Speaker, I find it sad that members on the other side of the House do not truly understand what a complex issue drug addiction is. We do not support anyone engaging in illegal activities. However, I do not think that the best solution is to put on blinders, believe that the problem does not exist and shut down supervised injection sites, which help drug addicts recover. All this does is hide the problem and undermine the existing solutions that have proven their worth. I would like to share some facts about Insite with my colleague on the other side of the House.

A 2006 study conducted by Tyndall et al. revealed that over the course of a year, 2,171 Insite users had been referred to drug addiction counselling services or other support services. Here is how Insite works: the supervised injection site is located on the first floor, while on the second floor, a whole range of people work to help these drug addicts overcome their addiction. Furthermore, in committee we heard some clear examples of people who managed to overcome their addiction with the help of those working at the Insite supervised injection site.

If the member reads the “blues” from the committee, he will even see that most of his Conservative colleagues were quite moved by this testimony and agreed with what the witnesses had to say on this topic. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Insite location received a great deal of debate during second reading.

When the bill mentions community consultation, let us recognize that the federal government at the time, the provincial and municipal governments, as well as many different stakeholders and even communities, all participated in one way or another in what has been deemed as a very successful program. This is something we should be giving credit to. The bill seems to say that when we have a site of this nature, there needs to be more consultation.

Would the member not agree that there was a great deal of consultation regarding Insite and that it is wrong for the government to try to give the impression that there was no community consultation done and that, in fact, the whole issue surrounding Insite has been nothing but a resounding success? (1050) [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat everything my colleague from Winnipeg North said, but I fully agree with what he just mentioned. When it comes to supervised injection sites, it is extremely important to hold consultations and there were plenty in the case of Insite.

A lot of follow-up goes on to check in with the community to see if it agrees with what is happening. A number of studies were done in this case. Among other things, I can say that roughly 80% of the people asked, living or working in downtown Vancouver, support the Insite supervised injection site. This brings me to the many consultations that were held in Montreal with a number of health groups, law enforcement representatives, community members, citizens and elected officials. Everyone agreed that Montreal should have a supervised injection site like the one in Vancouver. Consultations were held.

Let us not create obstacles and let us certainly not give a minister discretionary power over this type of supervised injection site. [ English ] Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be a part of the debate today about such an important bill, Bill C-2, the respect for communities act . I suspect that we all agree that illegal drugs have a terrible impact on our communities. There may be different opinions on how the challenges they pose should be addressed, but we all know that the worst drugs such as heroin have a terrible impact on our communities and destroy lives.

These drugs also cause serious harm to public health and public safety. Bill C-2 forms an important piece of our government's effort to protect public health from the serious and negative effects of drug abuse and to maintain public safety from the impacts associated with drug use and addictions. It is always good to have the facts when we are debating important topics like this, so I would like to briefly mention a report from Justice Canada entitled, “The Cost of Crime in Canada”. The report estimated that the direct health care costs associated with illicit drug use in Canada totalled $1.3 billion in 2008.

It is estimated that over $2 billion is spent annually on justice-related costs, such as law enforcement, courts, and correctional services as a result of illicit drug use. These are enormous expenditures and costs to society. Even worse when we consider the terrible impact on individuals, communities, and Canadian society, where the costs are enormous. These are the direct costs to the health and justice systems only. The impact on the individuals who suffer and the negative consequences for their families is immeasurable.

No parent should have to suffer as their child gets involved with drug abuse and end up worrying about the broken dreams and perilous, uncertain future that addiction brings. This government is committed to preventing drug abuse and breaking the cycle of drug addiction so that our communities can be healthy and safe and that no family has to watch a loved one suffer from addiction. Part of our plan to address addiction is the national anti-drug strategy that was launched in 2007 as the federal government's comprehensive response to combat illicit drug use in Canada.

With its three key action plans, the strategy focuses on preventing illicit drug use, treating drug dependency, and combatting the production and trafficking of illicit drugs. Today I would like to elaborate on our government's commitment to preventing illicit drug use through the strategy's prevention action plan. The prevention action plan contributes to reducing illicit drug use and prescription drug abuse in key target groups such as youth.

It does this by funding the development and implementation of community-based interventions and initiatives to prevent illicit drug use and abuse of prescription drugs, especially among youth; discouraging illicit drug use and prescription drug abuse by providing information directly to youth, parents, and concerned adults; and supporting the development of awareness materials and the provision of awareness sessions to school-aged youth, parents, professionals, and other community members. The government also supports prevention activities through the drug safety community initiatives fund.

This funding program supports Canadian communities and their collective efforts at health promotion and prevention of illicit and prescription drug abuse. The projects supported through the fund focus on informing and educating Canadians on illicit drugs and prescription drug abuse and their adverse health and social effects; offering tools to foster resiliency and coping skills among youth to deal with peer pressure regarding illicit drug use; and promoting healthy behaviours and supportive environments that discourage drug use among young people.

Projects take place on the national, provincial, territorial, and local community levels and can include a wide range of activities, such as school-based and peer support programs and outreach. Project activities can also include the development and distribution of resource materials as well as the sharing of best practices. Since 2007, Health Canada has provided $75 million to fund some 140 projects to discourage and prevent illicit drug use among youth.

As part of our ongoing commitment to curbing drug abuse in Canada, the government is supporting projects across the country to address a wide range of illicit and prescription drug abuse issues, especially among vulnerable youth, who have a higher risk of substance abuse and dependence.

(1055) Many of the projects serve to equip young people with the knowledge and skills required to recognize and avoid situations where there may be peer pressure to use drugs. Others are designed to provide parents and those who work with youth with drug education and prevention strategies that will help families and communities deal with the growing problem of substance abuse. In addition to providing financial support for prevention work, our government also completed a successful five-year, $30 million mass media campaign known as “DrugsNot4Me”, which was aimed at youth and their parents.

A key part of the DrugsNot4Me campaign was developing awareness by providing prevention materials for use in elementary and secondary schools. We also provided facts and background information for parents to help prepare them to engage in conversations with their children about substance abuse and staying off drugs. The campaign made a difference. There were over one million visits to the DrugsNot4Me website, and one in four parents reached out to the campaign and took action by engaging in discussions with their children about drugs.

Even more importantly, there was an increase in the proportion of youth who said they knew about the potential effects of illicit drug use on relationships with family and friends, and they sought information on how to avoid drugs or to deal with drug-use issues. However, despite these prevention efforts, the challenges are far from over. Illicit drug use in Canada is changing, with prescription drug abuse becoming a concern. In 2012-13, more than 80,000 Canadian kids admitted to using prescription drugs to get high. This is a very serious and alarming situation.

The misuse and abuse of prescription drugs carries the same health and public safety concerns as illicit drugs do. To combat the concern about prescription drug abuse, our government has committed an additional $44.9 million in funding over five years to expand the national anti-drug strategy to target prescription drug abuse. The health committee has recently been studying these issues and heard from a large number of expert witnesses. In fact, the committee recently completed studies both on prescription drug abuse and the health risks of marijuana.

I know that my time is coming to an end and perhaps this is a good place for me to stop. I imagine I will have a little time left when the debate resumes after question period. The Deputy Speaker : Yes, the hon. member will have roughly two minutes and 30 seconds, plus five minutes of questions and comments.

Statements by Members Statements by Members [ English ] Trinity Western University Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are shocked that law societies across the country voted to discriminate against Trinity Western University law graduates. Compounding the alarm is the revelation that it is big banks and big money interests, led by the Bank of Montreal, that influenced the law societies. BMO and other large banks and corporations have been requiring legal and financial service contractors to reveal the diversity metrics of their associates, partners and management teams.

The initiative branded “Legal Leaders for Diversity” is apparently opposed to religious diversity. Asking a prospective employee about their sexual preferences would be against the law. Denying economic opportunity to any individual or any law firm based upon religious belief is just as surely a charter violation. The Supreme Court of Canada, and now the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, ruled against such religious discrimination. Canadians expect our banks and our leading corporations to respect the charter rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

We call upon the BMO and its recruits from corporate Canada to reverse this misguided initiative.

(1100) [ Translation ] Forestry Industry Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, forestry is tremendously important to Canada and the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, but it is vulnerable. We have no choice but to innovate. Unfortunately, the Conservative government's lack of interest in forestry innovation is compromising the future of our forestry communities. For example, the government has not yet renewed a high-level research initiative by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, NSERC, in forestry sector research and development.

If that federal funding dries up in 32 days, strong research programs and groups will be dismantled. We cannot afford to lose the people who are building the forestry industry of the future. I would also like to talk about the $90 million over four years that was set aside in the last budget for the investments in forest industry transformation program. That amount is already gone. Demand is so high that the money ran out in a year. This is not complicated: the forestry industry needs $500 million over six years. The federal government has to do more.

The forest was central to the lives of my ancestors, and to this day it is vital for forestry communities, including mine, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. The government must take action now to renew and improve these two programs.

[ English ] 2015 Canada Winter Games Mrs. Pat Perkins (Whitby—Oshawa, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, from February 13 to March 1, athletes from all of our provinces and territories are participating in the 2015 Canada Winter Games in Prince George, British Columbia. It is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to send my best wishes to the coaches, volunteers and the nearly 2,400 athletes who are participating in the 2015 Canada Games. In particular, I would like to extend my warmest wishes and congratulations to the 10 athletes from Whitby—Oshawa .

Our community is very proud of Rhyen McGill, Jessica Klimkait, Bradley Langlois, Ethan Vandersanden, Tyler Ronald, Lindsey Barbosam, Tyler Ronald Jackson, Innzbruk Richards, Gibson Himbeault, Melanie Donelle and Hisham Mohammad for their participation in the Winter Games. I congratulate all of them.

Terry Kelly Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House of the passing of Terry Kelly, from Oshawa, last month. I first met Terry when he offered me a job as an articling student. As many members will know, articling is only slightly removed from indentured servitude. Not with Terry. He was generous with his time, wise in his advice and reasonable in his expectations. Terry was Durham's super lawyer. In the morning, he would dominate the criminal docket and in the afternoon, the civil one. Terry was also known as “superfan”.

His idea of a good time was to go to seven different cities, on seven different nights and watch seven different sporting events. His idea of a quiz was to name the All England starting lineup for the 1966 World Cup. If we got that, then he would ask us to name the substitutes. Not only was Terry a super lawyer and a super fan, he was also a super citizen. His support for various civic projects are too numerous to list. Oshawa and Durham lost their biggest civic booster when Terry died. His generosity of time and spirit touched us all.

Please join me in recognizing a life well lived; a super fan, a super lawyer and a super citizen, wise and generous to the end.

Trinity Western University Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our right to freedom of religion was recently questioned by law societies and national banks across the country. Once again, law students at Trinity Western University were under threat of being barred from practising in Canada simply because of their religion. Let me be clear. Because they believe in God, they were being told that they had no right to be lawyers in our country. Clearly, neither law societies nor the Bank of Montreal have any right to deny Canadians the right to practise law because of their religious views.

Thank God, Trinity Western has defeated this most recent discriminatory attack. It is unacceptable that organizations such as the Bank of Montreal and members of the law societies have attempted to undermine this most fundamental of rights. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms confirms and protects our religious freedoms in our country, and that includes the religious freedoms of Christians.

(1105) Mining Industry Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be attending, along with the Leader of the Opposition and other New Democratic MPs, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada annual conference in Toronto this weekend. As members know, mining is a very important part of northern and northwestern Ontario's economy, and new investment in the sector is needed more than ever. Why? Because nearly every other sector in our economy is in crisis or on the verge.

The forestry sector has lost more than 38,000 jobs in northern Ontario alone since the Conservative government came to power. In Thunder Bay—Rainy River, we have seen hundreds of jobs lost in forestry and other sectors. With the closure of Resolute's pulp and paper mill in Fort Frances, 240 jobs were lost. Another 46 jobs were cut at Wasaya Airways on the Fort William First Nation. Another 160 jobs were announced last week at Teleperformance in Thunder Bay. Another 200 jobs will be lost at our Target store in Thunder Bay.

We urgently need new investment in our fledgling mining projects, especially the $50 billion Ring of Fire project. As we head to the PDAC meetings this weekend, it is clearer than ever that the families of northern and northwestern Ontario want and need an active and engaged federal government that finally puts their interests first.

Public Safety Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has made it a priority to continue to take concrete actions to strengthen the confidence of Canadians in our criminal justice system. This is why I am pleased that earlier this month, our Prime Minister announced that we were moving forward with new legislation to better protect Canadians from serious criminals who would be released into our communities across the country after serving only two thirds of their sentence under this current system of statutory release.

We have all heard of criminals who go on to reoffend, sometimes violently. There are too many criminals who commit serious offences while on statutory release, and Canadians refuse to accept this. This legislation would ensure that repeat violent criminals would no longer be automatically granted statutory release after serving two thirds of their sentence. This upcoming legislation would see the most serious criminals kept off our streets for as long as possible. I am proud of our government's strong action to keep our streets and communities safe, and placing the rights of victims ahead of those of criminals.

Geraldine Seely Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to Geraldine Seely, a close personal friend who recently lost her battle with cancer. Gerri was a fighter. She fought and beat cancer once before. She overcame a kidney transplant. Even with the challenges she faced, she never lost her faith or love of life. Gerri married Dennis in 1969, and to see them together was truly special. They were a great team who, until the end, were inseparable. As much as we mourn her loss, we can also be inspired by her example.

Gerri never stopped giving back to the community and despite the challenges she faced, always found time for others. Although only 67, she volunteered for over 45 years at our community's Markham Fair. She was a member of the church choir, a junior choir leader, hosted Bible studies at her home and facilitated others at her church. A full day would not be enough to explain the many ways in which she touched the lives of the people around her. To her entire family, I give thanks for sharing Gerri with us. She will not soon be forgotten.

Roller Derby Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, the Moncton Lumbersmacks take on the Rock Coast Rollers from Maine. This is a really big deal. Not only is roller derby the fastest growing women's sport in the world and not only are the Lumbersmacks the number one derby team in the Atlantic provinces, but this bout will make history as the first ever WFTDA sanctioned bout in Atlantic Canada. Roller derby is about competition, strength and athletics, but it is also about community.

I am a proud member of the Anchor City Rollers in Halifax, and ACR is thrilled to cheer on the success of our Lumbersmacks sisters. In the true spirit of community, the Smacks have players from New Brunswick, P.E.I., and Nova Scotia, including Anchor City's own star jammer and blocker, Smashy and Box Blocker. As usual in derby, this is a community effort, bringing together multiple leagues, their tireless volunteers and their amazing fans. With big derby love from Halifax, from Anchor City and from the House of Commons, Lumbersmacks, vous l'avez. “You got this”.

(1110) FIFA Women's World Cup Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in less than 100 days, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal and Moncton will welcome the world when the FIFA Women's World Cup begins. This competition is the largest in women's sports, featuring 24 nations from around the globe. We look forward to welcoming them and the approximately 1.5 million spectators who will take

part in the festivities. Having the best of the best in women's soccer competing here on Canadian soil will inspire women and girls to realize the benefits of physical activity and sport. This is a big year for sports in Canada, and our government remains committed to helping Canadians get fit and active. That is why we first introduced the children's fitness tax credit then doubled it last year, allowing more families to get their kids involved in organized sports. To our Canadian women's soccer team, we are proud. We wish it all the best in its quest for gold this summer. Know that all of Canada is behind them.

[ Translation ] International Women's Day Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, International Women's Day is just a few days away, and it will kick off with the 2015 World March of Women. This year's theme is “Liberate our bodies, our earth and our territories”. Like every year, this will be an opportunity to realize how far women still are from achieving full equality around the world, and even right here in Canada. This is the perfect time to remind certain Conservative members who are stuck in the stone age that it is our bodies, our choice.

This is also an opportunity to add our voices to those of women who are currently mobilizing to protect Canada's failing social safety net, which we worked so hard to build in Canada. Women are too often the victims when it unravels. Yes, women have made some progress in recent years, but there is no denying that our bodies, our careers and our lives are not yet entirely our own. Until all women are entirely free, we will march. I am proud of each and every one of us. Happy International Women's Day.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Robert Goguen (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, New Brunswickers are deeply concerned about an apparent Liberal plan that would permit the New Brunswick provincial Liberals to increase taxes and put tolls on roads without consulting New Brunswickers with a referendum. That is what Liberals consistently do: raise taxes and take monies from hard-working Canadians.

At the federal level, in addition to the Liberal carbon tax that would raise the cost of gas, groceries and literally everything, it has been exposed that the Liberal federal leader is even looking at reversing the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit. Perhaps only someone with a trust fund would think middle-class families can afford these higher taxes and costs on everything. We reject the high-tax Liberal plan. We have introduced the GST reduction. We have introduced pension splitting. We have tax-free savings accounts.

We have implemented the family tax cut, which will provide 100% of Canadian families with more monies in their pockets. That is where the money belongs, in the hands of hard-working Canadians. We stand up for lower tax as do they.

Community Service Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions and dedication of Father Paul Abbass. Father Abbass is a good friend of mine. I have known him for 35 years back when he was first ordained to the priesthood. He was my local parish priest and works in many communities across Cape Breton. He is well known for helping men suffering from addiction and his commitment to helping our youth. Father Abbass has been instrumental with the Talbot House in Frenchvale. Talbot House is a place for hope and healing for men struggling with addiction.

The men receive the help they need to get a fresh start. I had the honour of being on the board of directors with him. Father Abbass is retiring from Talbot House and he is leaving it in great shape. He is a man that never stops. Even as he retires from the Talbot House, he plans to continue to give spiritual guidance to many in our community. He is currently overseeing seven parishes. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Father Abbass for his many years of tireless service to those who are most vulnerable in our communities.

Taxation Mr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that our Conservative government is the only one that stands up for middle-class Canadian families. Through our intensive low-tax plan, our government has managed to help 100% of families receive the benefits they need so they can put their hard-earned money toward their own priorities. We have doubled the children's fitness tax credit, enhanced the universal child care benefit, and now we have implemented the family tax cut. All parents, including single parents, will benefit from our family tax cut.

That is over four million families and over seven million parents. Meanwhile, the idea of the Liberals and the New Democrats for Canadians is high taxes and high debt. They would take away our benefits and implement a job-killing carbon tax that would raise the price of everything. The facts are crystal clear. Only our Conservative government can be trusted to keep money in the pockets of Canadian families.

(1115) [ Translation ] Official Languages Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians learned a long time ago to judge politicians according to their actions and not their fine words. The Liberals are all talk and no action. When he learned that the new Minister of Foreign Affairs was a unilingual anglophone, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie said that it was not the end of the world. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville is outraged that ministers do not tweet in both official languages, even though only 22% of the questions asked by his own party last year were in French.

Over the past four years, no Liberal member has introduced a bill on official languages. However, thanks to the NDP, progress is being made. Officers of Parliament must now be bilingual; the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre, the only bilingual sub-centre in Canada, was saved; and we are the only ones to have made a firm commitment to restore the CBC's funding. People of real conviction have learned the importance of being able to walk the talk. They can trust the NDP to fix the damage done by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

[ English ] Ernest Côté Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians learned of the passing of the World War II veteran, retired Colonel Ernest Côté. Mr. Côté served as platoon commander in the Royal 22nd Regiment and later in the headquarters of the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division, and was ultimately promoted to colonel. He was a senior planner for the invasion of Normandy and landed on Juno Beach on D-Day. He then deployed to Nijmegen during the liberation of the Netherlands. After his time in uniform, Mr.

Côté continued to serve Canada as the deputy minister of Veterans Affairs. The courage and dedication of Canadians like Mr. Côté, who have fought valiantly over the years to defend our freedom and rights, have made it possible for us to live in a peaceful, democratic country where we enjoy the best quality of life in the world. As a veteran myself and as the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I ask all Canadians to join me in thanking Ernest Côté and his family for his exemplary service to and sacrifice for Canada.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, delegates representing the families of the 1,200 missing and murdered aboriginal women are meeting in Ottawa to try once again to make the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Status of Women understand the need to launch a national public inquiry to put an end to this violence. Will the government finally listen to aboriginal communities, rather than blaming them for its own inaction? [ English ] Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as members are aware, the Minister of Status of Women and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs are at the round table. However, I would like to make it very clear that we do not support a national inquiry. There have been more than 40 studies on the plight of missing and murdered aboriginal women. Now is not the time for more study; now is the time for action. We need to make sure that the police catch those who are responsible and ensure that they are punished.

Our government is taking strong action to address the broader problems facing aboriginal women, including the introduction of matrimonial property rights for aboriginals on reserve. Both opposition parties voted against that. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to blame this crisis solely on indigenous men. That is shameful. Many of these women and girls met their fate in major cities. Some of the worst perpetrators were not aboriginal, including Robert Pickton.

From mayors, premiers, indigenous leaders, and concerned Canadians around the country from coast to coast to coast, we have heard the call for an inquiry into this heartbreaking tragedy. Instead of blaming indigenous communities, will the government finally commit to a national public inquiry? Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we will not commit to a national inquiry. There have been more than 40 studies. As I said, if we had a national inquiry it would be one more study sitting on a shelf.

The action plan the minister tabled in September is a good action plan and addresses issues that will combat violence against aboriginal women and girls. They opposition should support us.

(1120) Public Safety Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a month ago when the Prime Minister launched Bill C-51 at a splashy event, he was asked about the lack of oversight in the bill. His response was that the legislative process is the “first and foremost critical aspect of parliamentary oversight” of these new powers. That is funny because the Conservatives have spent the past month trying to get around just that. Why did the Prime Minister tell Canadians that he wanted a thorough review when the Conservative plan, all along, was to shut down debate? Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, after a 10-hour NDP filibuster yesterday, the committee was finally able to agree on a

schedule for the study of the anti-terrorism act, 2015. On this side, we look forward to hearing from over 50 expert witnesses, including both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice . We are ensuring that this legislation will be passed, despite the opposition by the NDP. Canadians would expect no less. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec is concerned about certain aspects of Bill C-51 . The Quebec justice minister is wondering whether Bill C-51 respects the rights and freedoms set out in our charter.

That remark should remind the Conservative government that it cannot strike out on its own on this issue and that Bill C-51 must be examined from every angle. Will the Conservatives listen to the plea of the Government of Quebec for once? [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, we were able to get through committee yesterday after an NDP filibuster, the aim of which was to stop this legislation from even coming to committee. We will be pleased to hear from over 50 expert witnesses in this area.

This bill is very clear. There are protections in this bill with respect to the very issue the NDP member is talking about. I look forward to hearing from each and every one of those witnesses. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we have grown accustomed to this Conservative government ignoring Quebec's concerns on this type of issue. Everyone here will remember Bill C-10 , the omnibus crime bill. The Conservatives insisted on going ahead with it until they finally realized that they needed Quebec and the provinces to enforce their laws.

Rather than rushing to pass Bill C-51 , will the Conservatives learn from the past and make sure to consult all of the stakeholders affected by this bill? [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in committee we were more than accommodating to the NDP request. We are pleased to announce to all members of the House that we will hear from a slate of over 50 expert witnesses. However, it does not surprise me for a moment that New Democrats would try to obstruct this very important legislation coming before the House.

They want to stop it from committee. This is the party that voted against the Combating Terrorism Act,

an act that makes it illegal for people to travel overseas to engage in terrorism. New Democrats are fundamentally opposed to revoking passports, and they do not believe that someone should have their citizenship stripped if they commit terrorism in this country.

Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the status quo on the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls simply cannot continue. Indigenous leaders, premiers, and the families of victims are in Ottawa today to discuss a coordinated action plan to end this epidemic of violence. They are looking for a federal partner. They are calling for new federal funding and for a national public inquiry. Will the government finally listen? Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am very proud of our action plan that the minister tabled in September. We will continue to work with communities to develop safety plans to raise awareness and take measures to empower aboriginal women and girls. We are developing more community safety plans on and off reserve, including regions identified specifically by the RCMP. This action plan will also raise awareness to break intergenerational cycles of violence, engage men and boys, and will address underlying causes of violence, and it will restructure training initiatives.

(1125) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this is a national crisis that is getting worse, and the same old talking points are an insult to the victims and their families. What the government claims to be action is a series of general justice measures not targeted specifically at indigenous women and girls. They are limited existing programs that have failed to stop the violence and inadequate funding commitments recycled from 2010. Will the government stop defending its failed approach and work toward a coordinated effort to put an end to the violence? Mrs.

Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this action plan brings together many measures to combat violence against aboriginal women and girls. In addition to the $25 million over five years, it includes support for shelters and preventive activities and a DNA database for missing persons, which represents an additional investment. This action plan clearly demonstrates our government's commitment to combatting all forms of violence against Canada's aboriginal women and girls. It would be nice if the opposition would support that. [ Translation ] Hon.

Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in 1984, 8% of Canadian women who were murdered were aboriginal. Today, it is 23%, or nearly one-quarter. That is an alarming deterioration. The government is engaging in unfounded speculation on the causes of this tragedy. It refuses to open a public inquiry, which has been called for by the families of victims, aboriginal communities, the provincial premiers, experts and just about everyone. Why is the government turning its back on history? Will the Prime Minister at least attend the round table today? I am asking my colleague.

Will the Prime Minister attend the round table today, yes or no? [ English ] Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Status of Women are attending the round table today. There have been more than 40 studies on the plight of murdered and missing aboriginal women, and now is not the time for studies; it is the time for action. The minister tabled an action plan in September. Our government has taken strong action to address the broader problems facing aboriginal women.

We will continue to listen to those families and deliver programs that help the most. Again, it would be nice if the member opposite would support those initiatives that help women and girls.

[ Translation ] Public Safety Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives would like us to fast-track Bill C-51 without asking any questions or following the rules of democracy. However, when the Prime Minister introduced Bill C-51 in front of a crowd of party supporters, he said that this legislative process is the most critical aspect of parliamentary oversight. Why does the Prime Minister refuse to let us truly study Bill C-51 ? What does he have to hide with this bill? [ English ] Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that question is absolutely false. It was the opposition party, the NDP, whose filibuster yesterday delayed the committee coming to an agreement on the number of meetings. We were more than accommodating. We finally agreed on having more than 50 witnesses come to speak on this particular legislation. It is extremely critical.

On this side of the House, we are looking forward to hearing from that expert testimony, including both the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Justice . Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, over a hundred of Canada's leading law professors wrote to the government today saying it has to amend it, or kill the bill. How many of those law professors are going to be cut out because the government does not respect principles of law and justice and it does not want a study on Bill C-51 ?

The fact is, Conservatives are fighting hard to avoid scrutiny on the bill, and that is a disservice to Canadians. This open letter from Canada's leading law professors raises even greater concerns about this dangerous piece of legislation. What are the Conservatives hiding? Why are they so afraid to subject this overreaching new law to proper scrutiny? Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not expect parliamentarians to waste days debating schedules of when to hear from witnesses.

We spent more than 10 hours in committee trying to come to some sort of an agreement. We were more accommodating. We are looking forward to more than 50 expert witnesses coming to committee to hear this. Let me talk about one of the good measures of the bill. This is hard to believe for Canadians because they would expect that when one branch of government hears information that is pertinent to national security that it could communicate that to our national security agencies. That is not the case today. Canadians would be shocked. The bill would correct that.

The NDP member needs to stop filibustering and let us get— (1130) [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in January, six young people left Quebec for Syria. The police believe that they joined jihadist groups. Their parents tried to stop them, but to no avail, and now they feel as though they are being left to fend for themselves. Why are the Conservatives doing nothing to help parents who are concerned about the radicalization of their children? [ English ] Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. During this week, during committee filibuster by the NDP debating how many witnesses we should hear from, we heard stories just like this of many Canadians who have gone overseas to engage or join ISIL. There are measures in the bill that would give our national security agencies the ability to intervene and to disrupt terrorist travel.

We also have measures in the bill that would change the passenger protect program and allow no-board orders to be issued in the very instances that the member is talking about.

[ Translation ] International Development Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we know that education helps in preventing radicalization. Nevertheless, it has been several months since last June's replenishment conference and the Conservatives still have not committed to supporting the Global Partnership for Education. This partnership has a proven track record. Why is the government dragging its feet on this? Would it happen to be waiting for an opportunity for self-promotion instead of just helping children and young people now? [ English ] Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, recently we have seen attacks in Copenhagen, in Paris, in Australia, and in Canada, right here in this Parliament on October 22 of last year. That is why our government is standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies fighting a global fight against terrorism and why we are conducting air strikes in Iraq. ISIL is a terrorist scourge. We are degrading what it is trying to do in that region. It has also put Canada on a list of countries to carry out jihadist attacks against.

That is why we brought forward Bill C-51 . I am looking forward to hearing from each of those 50 witnesses. Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my question is about the GPE. The Minister for International Development has said that Canada's job is to ensure that children are able to keep learning and that no child should be left behind as a result of the ongoing crisis in Iraq. However, the pledging conference for the Global Partnership for Education took place over eight months ago and Canada has yet to make a pledge.

Are the Conservatives waiting for an opportunity for a self-serving big press conference rather than helping these kids now? Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada has been deeply committed to ensuring that children get education. We continue to work with our partners globally on these issues to look for ways that we can help. We have been one of the largest contributors to helping in Iraq to make sure that the children there are being taken care of, and in Syria as well.

We look at the great success we have had in Afghanistan with getting the girls into schools, millions of girls in school today who were never there before. We are watching with our allies. We will continue to do that, and we will put our money where it gets the best effect.

Veterans Affairs Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we heard the sad news yesterday that Ernest Côté, a Second World War D-Day veteran, passed away at age 101. Now we need to be there to better help our veterans today, like the story of Master Corporal Paul Franklin who lost both of his legs in Afghanistan. Unbelievably, Veterans Affairs has required him yearly to prove that he has no legs. Yesterday we learned that he is once again being asked to prove that he is disabled. Can the minister explain this callous incompetence? Mr.

Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs is engaged and committed to improving the services for veterans. In fact, when this issue first came to light, he made a personal phone call to this veteran to determine the nature of the problem. As a result of veterans' feedback several weeks ago, the minister asked for this process to be reviewed. On behalf of the Minister of Veterans Affairs , I am pleased to inform this House that the VIP renewal will move to a three-year cycle instead of a one-year cycle.

Veterans will also have six months to complete this renewal, which is significantly longer than they have today. The form and the letter will also be updated for simplicity and to promote wellness.

(1135) Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, under these Conservatives, veterans have endured failure after failure. Enough is enough. Veterans are still struggling to access the services they need and deserve. Nothing could be more emblematic of the Conservative government's indifference than the struggles of Corporal Paul Franklin who is trying to access his disability benefits. When will Conservatives finally take action so that retired Master Corporal Franklin does not have to prove yet again that he has lost his legs? Mr.

Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we thank Corporal Franklin for his service to Canada, and we are here to help him and veterans like him across Canada. The NDP has voted against every single initiative that we have brought forward to actually help our veterans in concrete ways. To give members an example, our Conservative government is delivering on new front-line mental health treatment facilities. We are delivering enhanced financial benefits to veterans, and we are supporting them in retraining and rehabilitation.

Through eight budgets, our government has earmarked over $5 billion in new funding to improve the benefits and services that we provide to veterans and their families.

Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, families of the 1,200 missing and murdered aboriginal women are joining the national round table today in good faith, but instead they will have to face the Minister of Status of Women simplistically blaming the communities and indigenous men. This will not excuse her own government's inaction on this file. With all the evidence we have, how can the Conservative government still think this is not a sociological crisis and refuse the call for a national public inquiry? Mrs.

Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, we do not need a national inquiry. We need the action plan that the minister tabled in September. We need the police to catch those who are responsible and ensure that they are punished. Since coming to office, this government has taken action. We have passed more than 30 criminal justice and public safety initiatives, including tougher sentences for murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, and mandatory prison sentences for the most serious crimes.

It is a shame that the opposition votes against them every single time that we try to do something for women and girls in this country. [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Legal Strategy Coalition on Violence Against Indigenous Women reviewed the 40 studies the Conservatives like to cite when it comes to this issue, confirming that almost none of the 700 recommendations made over the past two decades have really been implemented, including the recommendation to hold a national public inquiry. Why is the government refusing to take action? [ English ] Mrs.

Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has already taken significant action in this area. It is important to remember that many of these recommendations are outside of federal jurisdiction. Since coming to office, we have passed more than 30 criminal justice and public safety initiatives, as I just mentioned, including tougher sentences for murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, and mandatory prison sentences for the most serious crimes. Again, the opposition votes against them.

Infrastructure Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, gridlock in the 905 is not only a drag on the economy, it keeps families separated for longer every day. Instead of supporting our commuters, the Conservatives have cut the building Canada fund by nearly 90% for the next two years. What is their real priority, ads costing more than $100,000 a pop during the Oscars last weekend? Why is the government turning its back on York region and the 905 to fund its own self-promotion? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, in actual fact, since our Conservative government took office in 2006, Canada has consistently ranked at the very top of the list of all G7 countries with respect to investments in infrastructure as a percentage of GDP. Contrast that to the Liberal years, when Canada was at the bottom of the list. Clearly we had a decade of darkness, not only for defence but for infrastructure as well under the Liberals.

(1140) The Environment Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister scored a rare double-double last week. He managed to damage both the economy and the environment. By betting on Congress rather than listening to the most powerful man on earth, he lost Keystone XL. Simultaneously, he made a 44% cut to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. He also cut Sustainable Development Technology Canada. He also cut species at risk and meteorological services. Should double-doubles not be best served at Tim Hortons? Mr.

Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the main estimates are exactly that, estimates, and they do not represent departments' total budgets for the year. Our government will remain committed to a strong environmental assessment process. In fact, we have increased funding and opportunities for aboriginal consultations and public participation throughout the environmental assessment process. Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, just when Alberta and Canada could use an economic boost, the Prime Minister cancels a meeting with the president because he knows that the president will ask him about our ever-increasing GHG emissions. He should know that the president is also a serious basketball player. The PM lined up with a dysfunctional team of climate change deniers in Congress and the president dunked them both. Is that what the Conservative Party means by an economic action plan? Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we will take no lessons from the Liberal Party as far as greenhouse gases. Under its watch, greenhouse gas emissions increased over 30%, 130 megatonnes. Our government's record is clear. We have taken decisive action on the environment while protecting our economy. Under our watch since 2005, we have seen that greenhouse gases have decreased 5.1% while the economy has grown 10.6%.

On that side of the House, that member and his party are supporting the NDP climate change bill that would decrease greenhouse gas emissions 80%, which means it would shut down the oil and gas sector, the transportation sector, the— The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member for Beaches—East York.

Canada Post Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative plan for ending door-to-door mail delivery has been a disaster. Residents are plagued by thefts and snow-covered and frozen community mailboxes. Cities are stuck with the costs. Hundreds of cities right across this country, big and small, including my own City of Toronto, have called upon the government to abandon this plan, and now postal workers have launched a court challenge. Montreal says it will join that lawsuit. When will the Conservatives abandon this plan and restore door-to-door mail delivery? Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the plan is Canada Post's five-point plan. It is an independent crown corporation. It is dealing with a situation where it delivered 1.2 billion fewer pieces of mail in 2013 than it did just in 2006. The member also well knows that two-thirds of Canadians currently do not receive door-to-door delivery. We expect Canada Post to operate on a financially self-sustaining basis, as is the law. We expect nothing less than that. [ Translation ] Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Union des municipalités du Québec, which represents 300 municipalities, is considering going to court to contest the end of door-to-door mail delivery and the installation of community mailboxes. Mayors are sick and tired of the government cavalierly taking action without consulting them. Will the government listen to reason and restore door-to-door mail delivery? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada Post delivered 1.2 billion fewer pieces of mail in 2013 than it did in 2006. Two-thirds of Canadians do not receive their mail at home.

Canada Post has to balance its budget without burdening taxpayers. We expect nothing less than that. Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the end of door-to-door mail delivery and the installation of community mailboxes is a real nightmare for municipalities. The mayor of Montreal is even getting ready to challenge Canada Post's plans in court. He is condemning the crown corporation's cavalier and ludicrous attitude and is demanding that the Conservative government impose a moratorium immediately.

Will the government finally listen to citizens and local elected representatives and restore door-to-door mail delivery?

(1145) Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada Post, an independent crown corporation, is responsible for its own operations, which include its commercial and financial decisions. Canadians are choosing means other than letters to communicate with each other. Because of the drop in demand, the volume of mail has plunged by nearly 25% since 2008, and the trend is steady. The Conference Board of Canada expects Canada Post to lose about $1 billion per year between now and 2020. Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, if the Conservatives had taken the time to consult people and municipalities beforehand, we would not be where we are today. Deployment of community mailboxes is really being messed up, and Canada Post is not keeping its promises. Nobody is clearing snow off the boxes, they are being covered in graffiti, and papers are lying around all over the place. People are not happy, businesses are not happy, and municipalities are not happy. What will it take for the government to put an end to Canada Post's nonsense? [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, Canada Post has a responsibility, obviously, in the conversion of community mailboxes, to be doing its consultations with communities as well as to be taking the important measures to ensure that the areas in front of community mailboxes are kept clear. We expect it to hold to its responsibilities.

Public Safety Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, following the tragic attacks here in Ottawa last year as well as in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, we are reminded of the magnitude of the threat that terrorism poses to us and all Canadians. Today the international Financial Action Task Force that combats terrorist financing has announced that it will be pressuring governments that are failing to combat the flow of cash to the ISIL death cult.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please update the House on the steps the government has taken to combat terrorist financing in Canada? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since elected, our government has taken numerous steps to combat terrorist financing. This includes strengthening FINTRAC's ability to disclose threats to Canadian law enforcement agencies. We are pleased that the international Financial Action Task Force has endorsed our government's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime.

Canadians should remain vigilant and always report any suspicious activities to police immediately. The NDP and the Liberals have voted against our efforts to combat terrorist financing. We call on them to start supporting our efforts to protect Canadians.

[ Translation ] Regional Economic Development Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, since 2002, Mauricie's manufacturing sector has lost 50% of its workforce. That means 12,000 fewer jobs in Mauricie. In 2014, Trois-Rivières was Canada's only metropolitan area whose GDP dropped. Mauricie needs investments and economic diversification, but instead, this government cut EDC's budget for the Quebec economic development program by 27%. Why is this government abandoning the people in my riding? Mr.

Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is working with economic players from Quebec and every region to diversity the economy in all regions of Quebec. We are there. The agency receives applications from many regions and they are all examined based on merit. We invite the Mauricie region to send its own applications to the regional office. Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, over the past nine years, 400,000 well-paying jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector. That is the reality. The Conservatives have abandoned middle-class families and instead are helping the richest 15% in Canada. The Quebec economic development program has been cut by $13 million. That is the number: $13 million less to invest in developing our communities. Will the minister do something besides pose for photo ops and really work on diversifying Quebec's economy? Mr.

Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since 2006, the Economic Development Agency of Canada has invested more than $1 billion in all regions of Quebec. We are present throughout Quebec, with 14 regional offices, and we will continue working on developing Quebec's economy as a whole. Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, enough with the completely lame answers. That makes no sense.

Not only has the Quebec economic development program lost 27% of its funding, but the business development program of the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario has lost 15% of its funding. The government must understand that it has a very poor economic track record. Last year the Lower St. Lawrence lost 14,000 jobs in the retail sector alone. It seems that the government wants to make things worse with these cuts. Does the minister realize that our regions need help and that these cuts will result in job losses for families and the middle class?

(1150) Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Economic Development Agency of Canada has a presence in every Quebec region. I invite the opposition member to work on the economic development of his own region. That would perhaps improve his region's situation.

Official Languages Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage was delighted with the progress made on official languages. The reality is that French television programming outside Quebec is steadily disappearing. Even the Montreal Canadiens hockey games are no longer available to francophones across Canada. That is a source of concern for the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. Will the minister support our request that a committee study Canada's television programming and respect the rights of francophone minorities?

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Standing Committee on Official Languages received a request from the NDP to study this situation, and we will study the request in order to determine whether we will proceed.

[ English ] Transportation Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we know that Marine Atlantic's 2015 corporate plan has not yet been approved by cabinet, but until then, the crown corporation's operating budget is very uncertain. The company has said that there is absolutely no doubt that cabinet will approve its five-year plan before the delivery of the Minister of Finance 's budget, and full details of their funding will be available this spring.

Will the finance minister confirm that the five-year corporate plan will indeed be approved in this time frame, that more money will be in the budget for Marine Atlantic, and that this funding will be no less than last year's allocation? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, obviously, budgets wait until budgets are actually revealed, but what I can tell the member is that this government has made substantial investments in Marine Atlantic.

It has done so on a major capital program, which is just winding up, and we continue to ensure that it has the operational funding it needs to deliver its quality service to Atlantic Canadians.

[ Translation ] Natural Resources Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, why is the government treating the regions in Quebec however it pleases instead of according to fair criteria? It is funding a natural gas network in Thetford Mines, which is good, but it is refusing to do the same in Lévis-Bellechasse. The Coalition gaz naturel Bellechasse did a good job bringing together the municipalities, chambers of commerce, local development centres and RCMs around an exciting project. Why are the Conservatives taking such an arbitrary approach to our regions? [ English ] Mrs.

Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, liquefied natural gas has the potential to diversify our markets, an energy product offering in energy markets, creating jobs and economic growth for Canadians. Our responsible resource development plan includes a world-class independent regulatory process that makes decisions based on science and facts, provides for clearer timelines, and reduces duplication to strengthen investor confidence in energy projects.

That said, decisions respecting the development of liquefied natural gas rest primarily with the province, and we respect its jurisdiction.

Canadian Heritage Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' plans for a monument to victims of communism has drawn criticism from Canada's Chief Justice, the mayor of Ottawa, Canada's leading architecture and design experts, local MPs, and local elected representatives. All parties support a memorial to remember those silenced by tyranny and to honour those who fought for change. However, Ottawa residents and their representatives were not consulted on the location, the size, and the design of the memorial.

When building a monument to victims of communism, why is the current government ignoring democratic consultation? Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is actually not true. Consultation has taken place on this monument, and the fact that it was brought forward by the organizations involved should be respected by the member across. The memorial will honour more than 100 million lives lost under communist regimes and will pay tribute to the Canadian ideas of liberty, freedom, democracy, and human rights.

Our government committed to honouring the victims of communism in our Speech from the Throne in 2010. We look forward to fulfilling that commitment.

(1155) Public Safety Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa Police Service is asking the government for funds to recover costs from the Parliament Hill shooting and for a renewal of the $2 million they received in 2009, in recognition of their crucial role in keeping the federal government safe. Ottawa's Police Service faces a unique challenge. Protecting the national capital is a huge cost to our city. This should not compromise the safety of the wider Ottawa community. Will the federal government give the city of Ottawa the support it needs to keep our community safe? Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, when we think back to October 22, I think most of us in this room today can recall the events that took place here in Parliament and just out front on the streets, as well. We are very thankful for the work that was done by all the various levels of policing agencies, whether it was the Ottawa police or the RCMP or, of course, our security right here inside Parliament. I will take that question under advisement to the minister.

Foreign Affairs Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the terrorist group, ISIL, is already responsible for countless heinous and barbaric war crimes. Now it appears that it is intent on erasing the record of an entire civilization from the history books. A new video has shown ISIL thugs destroying ancient and priceless Mesopotamian statues and other Assyrian Christian artifacts in northern Iraq. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs please provide Canada's reaction to the destruction of these priceless artifacts? Mr.

Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this part of the world is called the cradle of civilization. These priceless artifacts belong to all of humanity. They tell us something about who we are and where we come from. For these barbarians to so wantonly destroy a part of human history in an attempt to wipe out an entire people is offensive to the core. Canada strongly condemns this barbarism. This is why the Canadian Armed Forces is there.

We will not sit on the sidelines while an entire civilization is extinguished not just from the Earth but from history itself.

Infrastructure Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, municipalities across this country continue to find a financial black hole where federal infrastructure should be. The current government is all talk when it comes to infrastructure spending. In the Cape Breton regional municipality alone, $400-million worth of waste water system upgrades are required. Will the current government finally live up to its responsibility and bring the money to the table so we can get the job done, keep our water safe, and get our people back to work? Mr.

Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, as the Conservative government, our investments in infrastructure are three times higher than the previous Liberal government's. In addition to being at the top of the list of all G7 countries with respect to investments in infrastructure, I am also very pleased to report to the House that under our Conservative government, the average age of public infrastructure in Canada is now at its lowest level since 1980.

With the new Building Canada plan, this progress will continue, creating jobs and prosperity for all Canadians.

Agriculture Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18 , the Agricultural Growth Act, is a bill designed to modernize and strengthen federal agricultural legislation, support innovation in the Canadian agriculture industry, and enhance global market opportunities. Unfortunately, the NDP must oppose all of these positive items, because it voted against the bill. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture please provide an update on this important piece of legislation? Mr.

Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette for that important question. I am pleased to report to the House that Bill C-18 , the Agricultural Growth Act, received royal assent this week. The bill will strengthen intellectual property rights for plant varieties, reduce red tape, improve how government carries out its business with the Canadian agriculture industry, enhance trade, and grow Canada's economy.

Importantly, the bill also includes farmer's privilege, which explicitly permits farmers to use seeds from the crops they grow. It is absolutely shocking that the official opposition voted against the bill.

(1200) Health Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay's acute care hospital has been in gridlock for years. On January 26, the hospital designed for 375 acute care beds had 469 patients stacked up in public hallways. Tommy Douglas worked with the Liberals to create a world-leading system funded 50% by the feds. The feds' share now is less than half of that. Do the Conservatives have a plan to restore and renew our health care system? Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, that is an absolutely absurd statement. We have the highest recorded health care transfer dollars right now in history. Since forming government, transfers to the provinces have gone up by 70% and will reach $40 billion annually. We have committed to increasing transfers year after year. I am very proud of our government's record on transfers, unlike the Liberals who, for many years, balanced their budget on the backs of the provinces.

[ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Mrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, first there was the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, and now Amnesty International in its annual report is condemning Canada for how it treats aboriginal people. The report criticizes the government's refusal to hold a public inquiry into the many murdered and missing aboriginal women and condemns the deplorable living conditions of first nations. Will the government finally hold a public inquiry to shed light on these murders and disappearances?

Will it finally do something tangible to improve the living conditions of first nations, or will it continue to turn a deaf ear? [ English ] Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, no, we will not support a national inquiry. We have an action plan that was tabled in September, which we support on this side of the House because it helps aboriginal women and girls. This action plan provides the tools and resources needed for preventing violence and supporting community level solutions.

It supports aboriginal victims with appropriate services, and protects aboriginal women and girls by investing in shelters and continuing to improve Canada's law enforcement and justice systems. On this side of the House, we stand up to protect the rights of aboriginal women and girls. Every time we move to safeguard these rights, the opposition members vote against them.

Health Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, not just in Thunder Bay, but all across Canada, we have seniors stacked up like cordwood in cots in hallways, without comfort or dignity. This is a problem all across Canada for three reasons: inadequate federal funding, aging parents waiting hopelessly for long-term care and home care, and the fact we are the only G20 country with no national health care strategy. When will the Conservatives commit to investing long-term and preventative health care? Mrs.

Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have talked already about the increase in transfers to the provinces that will continue to take place year after year. However, it is also important to look to a commitment to innovation in the health care system, because the reality is that more money is not going to be the only thing that we need to fix inefficiencies. I want to quote Brad Wall, who says: This can no longer just be about money.

We've got to find ways to ensure that health care is here for the future generations—that it's sustainable—without sacrificing patient care. We are a partner with the provinces. We have to move forward.

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings [ Translation ] International Trade Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the World Wine Trade Group’s Agreement on Requirements for Wine Labelling, which was signed in Canberra on January 23, 2007. There is an explanatory note with the agreement.

[ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.

(1205) Petitions Agriculture Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a number of constituents who have signed a lengthy petition that Canada adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their role in the struggle against hunger and poverty; to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers; and to ensure that the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use, and freely exchange seeds are protected. [ Translation ] Ms.

Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by hundreds of people who are concerned about the threat against the ancestral rights of small family farmers all around the world to preserve, use and exchange their seeds, as a result of some aspects of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to adopt international assistance policies that support small family farmers, and particularly women, to recognize their vital role in the fight against hunger and poverty.

They also want the government to ensure that polices and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers and that these policies protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use and freely exchange seeds. [ English ] Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present this petition on behalf of the National Farmers Union and residents of Quebec calling upon the government to recognize the rights of farmers to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.

Anaphylaxis Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of Londoners who want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that on May 22, 2013, this Parliament voted unanimously in support of anaphylaxis Motion No. 230. As we all know, there are many victims of anaphylaxis, including children, who are vulnerable, particularly when travelling. The petitioners request that Parliament enact a policy to reduce the risks to anaphylactic passengers when travelling anywhere in this country, whether by plane, train, or forms of public transit so that they will be safe.

Insect Pollinators Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I was invited by Ms. Dietz's grade 4 class at Crescent Town Elementary School to come to speak to the kids about bees. There I met a classroom full of bee experts and pollinator advocates. They gave me letters to give to the ministers of the government. They also gave me this petition to present before the House, which is about the protection of insect pollinators.

It calls upon the House of Commons specifically to take concrete steps to solve the problem of high mortality rates among bees and other insect pollinators; to develop a strategy to address the multiple factors related to bee colony deaths, such as the destruction and disturbance of habitat and pesticide use; and to encourage seed companies to produce and facilitate the purchase of seed that is not treated with neonics.

Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. In the first petition, the petitioners call on Parliament to condemn the discrimination against girls that occurs through gender selection abortion.

Impaired Driving Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call upon Parliament to bring in tougher laws on impaired driving. One of the things they call for is to change the charge of impaired driving causing death to the offence of vehicular manslaughter.

The Environment Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, not too long ago my colleague from Beaches—East York introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-619, the climate change accountability act . Here I am holding in my hand a petition that many people have signed saying that they want to see this bill turned into law, that we need a climate change accountability act. They also point out the fact that the government has done things like cancelled the eco-energy home retrofit program and that it continues to give subsidies to the oil and gas industry. The petitioners are asking that we take action and pass this bill into law so we can start reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

(1210) Falun Gong Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians from Thunder Bay—Superior North and across Canada are repeatedly sending me petitions about the Communist Chinese persecuting Falun Gong only because the latter have a spiritual belief in truth, compassion, and forbearance. David Kilgour, a former member, has compiled tremendous amounts of evidence about murders and organ harvesting, and so my petitioners request that we condemn the Communist Chinese government for murdering people for their organs, and to end the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 935, 937 and 943. [ Text ] Question No. 935-- Ms. Megan Leslie : With regard to the operations of the Halifax Port Authority (HPA): (

a) for each of the last five years, what amount of money was paid by the HPA in rebates to shipping lines or their agents, (

i) in total, (ii) by shipping line or their agents, (iii) in each case, where these expenditures authorized by the HPA Board of directors; (

b) for each of the last five years, (

i) what amount of money was paid or received by the HPA in rebates to or from contractors or those holding leases with the HPA, (ii) in each case, were these expenditures authorized by the HPA Board of directors; (

c) for each of the last ten years, what amount of money was paid by the HPA for legal services, (

i) in total, (ii) by law firm; (

d) during each of the last five years, has the chairman's law firm represented companies or individuals holding leases with the HPA or otherwise doing business with the HPA and, if so, which companies or individuals; (

e) concerning the trip to the Far East by