OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 102 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, June 12, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 12, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 102 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 102 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 102 (Version officielle) 147 102 12 06 2014 2014/06/12 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Information Commissioner of Canada The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual reports on the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act from the Information Commissioner of Canada for the year 2013-14. [ Translation ] These documents are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Commissioner of Lobbying The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual reports on the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act from the Commissioner of Lobbying for the year 2013-14. [ English ] This document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursant to

section 11 of the Lobbying Act, I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Commissioner of Lobbying for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 447 petitions.

Committees of the House

Canadian Heritage Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, entitled “Review of the Canadian Music Industry”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[ Translation ] Finance Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Finance [ English ] The report is entitled “Youth Employment in Canada: Challenges and Potential Solutions”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. As it is the end of the session, I would like to thank very much all of our hard-working staff, our clerk, our analyst, and all the legislative staff for their excellent work on what will probably be our last report of this session.

National Defence Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, after two years' hearing from many witnesses, and hard work on behalf of all the clerks, staff, and members of the defence committee, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, entitled “Caring for Canada's Ill and Injured Military Personnel”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, as vice-chair, I would like to state the dissenting opinion of the official opposition to this report. We heard witnesses for two full years on this critical issue of ill and injured military personnel, injuries both physical and psychological. We do know, of course, that with regard to the physical injuries, Canada is doing a great job. We heard that evidence, and the report deals with that very well. However, in terms of psychological injuries, it is a different story.

Over time, even in the Afghanistan mission, despite early warnings, the military seemed to be constantly playing catch-up in terms of the treatment of soldiers suffering from psychological injuries. The projections that were made by Statistics Canada in 2002, adopted by the military in 2005, still have not been met. Many soldiers came back from Afghanistan and other missions, including Bosnia, Rwanda, et cetera, with their bodies intact but with underlying psychological trauma, with long-term consequences not always recognized, not well understood, and they received inadequate treatment and support.

We are moving forward, but complacency is not an option. Our report outlines some very important measures that need to be taken immediately.

[ Translation ] VIA Rail Canada Act Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) Bill C-614. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-614,

An Act respecting VIA Rail Canada and making consequential amendments to another Act . He said: Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour of introducing a bill about VIA Rail. We know that VIA Rail is in crisis. Service is threatened in many regions of Canada. Vancouver Island has lost its service. There is no more service on the Gaspé coast. Service in the Maritimes has been cut by 50%, and there is a real concern that all service in eastern Quebec could be completely eliminated. We know that even with the significant investments that have been made in the past 10 years, VIA Rail is still in a downward spiral.

There are fewer passengers and fewer resources, and the equipment is in terrible shape. We need a legislative framework that will promote VIA Rail service in Canada. We want a legislative framework that is modelled after the American one, which saved another service that was threatened, namely Amtrak. A similar framework here would put us on the right track. We could save VIA Rail. I am relying heavily on the bill that was introduced a few months ago by my former colleague, Olivia Chow, before she left the House.

I hope that members of the House will support this bill so that we can have appropriate VIA Rail service. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1010) [ English ] Criminal Code Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) Bill C-615. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-615,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals—electric shock collars) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce a private member's bill promoting animal welfare in Canada. This bill would ban the use of harmful electric shock collars on companion animals, better known as household pets. Using shock collars is widely recognized as causing needless pain and being cruel and inhumane, and use has been restricted in numerous other jurisdictions. I am particularly honoured to be putting this bill forward, because it is a truly constituent-driven initiative.

It is inspired by Gwendy and Alfie Williams, two committed advocates from my riding of Burnaby—Douglas, who have been mobilizing concerned citizens to protect animals for more than seven years. Without a doubt, never before has my office received so many petitions and letters on a single specific issue. However, really what swung me to action is a local elementary school. Students from this school joined the chorus of voices seeking a ban on the use of these harmful shock collars. I believe this is how our democracy should function.

MPs should come here to Ottawa and put forward ideas on behalf of their community that elects them. When this happens, we are doing our duty to serve Canadians. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code Mr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC) Bill C-616. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-616,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (failure to comply with a condition) . He said: Mr. Speaker, it pleases me today to rise to introduce my private member's bill,

an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The reality of our justice system is that a disproportionately small number of offenders is responsible for a disproportionately large number of offences. This act would create two important parole reforms that target these repeat and high-risk offenders. Its enactment would create a new offence for the breach of conditional release and require the reporting of those breaches to the appropriate authorities.

It is critically important that an accurate record be maintained with respect to an offender's breach of conditions while on early release, so that future justice decisions may take this conduct into account. These amendments are proposed in the belief that early release from a court sentence is a privilege to be earned and not a right to be demanded. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Interprovincial Waste Movement Act Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) Bill C-617. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-617,

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (interprovincial movement of waste) . She said: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley started a project called “Create your Canada”, whereby students could learn about the legislative process--learn about the role of media, for example — talk about some of the problems in their communities, and come up with legislative solutions. I took on that project in Halifax, and the grade 12 French immersion class taught by Rob Williams at Citadel High School took on the challenge.

The students came up with all kinds of great ideas, from the promotion of local foods to lowering the voting age to some really complicated changes to the tax code. The class actually decided to pick a bill whose concept was developed by Ben Smithers and Finlay Miller, and it was about changes to the Environmental Protection Act to ban the interprovincial transportation of waste.

Their thoughts were that we are producing too much waste, and if authorities in the provinces actually had to deal with the waste their provinces produce, then they would come up with innovative solutions to combat how much waste we are producing. I am proud to table this bill today. I am proud to represent these incredible students who know so much more about the legislative process now and who are so committed to the environment. I look forward to debate on this bill; it will be pretty exciting. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) Motion moved: That, in accordance with

section 81 of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-1, this House approve the reappointment of Mary Elizabeth Dawson as Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The Speaker : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Speaker: Call in the members.

(1050) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 204) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Ambler Anders Anderson Andrews Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Atamanenko Aubin Bateman Bélanger Benoit Benskin Bergen Bernier Bezan Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Blaney Block Boivin Boughen Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Braid Breitkreuz Brison Brosseau Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carrie Casey Chicoine Chisholm Chisu Chong Choquette Clarke Comartin Côté Crockatt Crowder Cullen Cuzner Daniel Davidson Day Dechert Del Mastro Devolin Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dreeshen Dubourg Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dykstra Easter Eyking Falk Fantino Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Fletcher Fortin Freeman Galipeau Gallant Garneau Garrison Genest-Jourdain Giguère Gill Goguen Goldring Goodale Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Groguhé Harris (St.

John's East) Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder Jacob James Julian Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret'

s) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lamoureux Larose Lauzon Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leitch Lemieux Leslie Leung Liu Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacAulay MacKenzie Maguire Mai Mathyssen Mayes McColeman McGuinty McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Michaud Miller Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Moore (Fundy Royal) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mourani Mulcair Murray Nantel Norlock Nunez-Melo Obhrai O'Connor O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Papillon Patry Payne Péclet Pilon Poilievre Preston Quach Rajotte Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Reid Rempel Richards Rousseau Saganash Saxton Scarpaleggia Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Smith Sopuck Sorenson St-Denis Stewart Storseth Strahl Sullivan Sweet Tilson Toet Toone Trost Trottier Truppe Turmel Uppal Valeriote Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 217 NAYS Members May -- 1 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans is rising on a point of order. Mr. Royal Galipeau : Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you and to the House. I did not vote on this motion because I was late from a medical appointment. If I had been voting, I would have voted in favour. Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, is it possible, with the unanimous consent of the House, for the member's vote to be counted in favour, in view of the circumstances? The Speaker : Does the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans wish his vote to be counted? Mr. Royal Galipeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to allow his vote to be counted as a yea? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will try one more time. If the House gives its consent, I move: Motion That the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House yesterday be concurred in. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Firearms Reclassification Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again today to present two more petitions from my constituents and constituents across Alberta who bring to the attention of the House of Commons that law-abiding citizens should be free to use firearms for recreational use. The current ability of the RCMP bureaucrats to make decisions on the spot regarding the classification of guns impedes the rights of law-abiding Canadians. They ask that this legislation be fixed so that unelected bureaucrats no longer have control over weapons.

National Sustainable Seafood Day Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions signed by thousands of Canadians across the country including those in my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam and Port Moody. The petitioners say Canadian consumers want to support sustainable seafood options and they call upon the Government of Canada to designate March 18 as national sustainable seafood day.

(1055) Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Canadians who want the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure the responsible conservation and management of sharks. They call on the government to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fins in Canada.

Eating Disorders Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition regarding eating disorders. Eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia are serious mental illnesses that can be fatal. More than 600,000 Canadians have been incapacitated by eating disorders. The sooner someone receives treatment he or she needs, the better the chance of a good recovery, but Canadians suffer long waiting lists for help and limited access to mental health services.

The petitioners call upon the government to work with the provinces, territories, and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive pan-Canadian strategy for eating disorders, including better prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and support.

Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition that represents thousands of people from British Columbia. The petition highlights that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was tragically killed by a drunk driver. Families for Justice is a group of people who have also lost loved ones to drunk drivers. They say that the current impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They call for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Conflict Minerals Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition regarding the war that has been raging in the Congo since 1998, where 5.4 million people have been killed and where rape is being used as a weapon of war. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to pass the conflict minerals act, Bill C-486 . The petitioners are from the Ottawa region, including Kanata. They want the government to pass Bill C-486 to stop the revenues that are going to these militias who are creating so much conflict in the region of the DRC.

Mining Industry Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a number of petitions. The first group of petitions is on behalf of a large number of Quebec residents, who are calling for the creation of a legal mechanism to establish an ombudsman for the extractive sectors. [ Translation ] The ombudsman would have the power to receive and investigate complaints, make findings public, recommend remedial actions, and recommend that penalties be imposed.

[ English ] Canada Post Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a petition on behalf of many Nova Scotians who are concerned about recent cuts announced by Canada Post. They call upon the government to place a moratorium on these cuts and conduct meaningful consultations with the public to determine the best way to modernize operations with the least impact on customers and employees. The Speaker : Order, please. I urge members to be as brief as possible so that we do not run out of time. I see many members rising to participate, so I will ask members to bear that in mind. The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

Democratic Reform Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. I have petitions on a number of different subjects, so I will just state what they are by topic. Some of these petitions were presented to me by my constituents and others by constituents of the Minister of State for Democratic Reform , who cannot introduce them, as he is a minister. Therefore, he has asked me to introduce those on his behalf. The first petition is calling for fair representation in the House of Commons. The petitioners would favour a bill on a proportional system of representation being passed.

Canada Post Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to the reduction of Canada Post services. The petitioners are concerned and ask the government to reverse its position on this subject.

Agriculture Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions opposing Bill C-18 .

Genetically Modified Alfalfa Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition opposing genetically modified alfalfa. The Speaker : Order, please. I do think we need to move on. I did point out that there are many members rising and I would hate for someone to get missed, so I will go to the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

Pensions Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I present a petition from Edmontonians asking the government to restore the old age security age of eligibility to 65 years.

(1100) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from Albertans, asking the government to stop the cuts to the CBC, an important national institution.

Food and Drugs Act Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition, calling upon the government to take greater care in the labelling of genetically modified foods so that Canadians can be informed on their food choices.

Impaired Driving Mr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to present petitions that contain about 3,600 signatures collected by Kim Thomas, who is from the town of Cochrane in my riding, and her many friends and family, in conjunction with the group Families for Justice, after her son Brandon Thomas was tragically killed by an impaired driver in 2012. In the interests of public safety, the petitioners call upon the government to implement tougher laws and new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.

The Environment Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition is from concerned citizens of Oshawa who are worried about the FarmTech Energy plan to build an ethanol-producing facility at the Oshawa harbourfront. The petitioners want the federal government to halt the construction of the plant, instruct that public hearings be held, and complete an environmental assessment on the site and surrounding areas.

Citizenship and Immigration Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with respect to Bill C-24 , the amendment to the Citizenship Act. These petitioners are concerned that it treats Canadian permanent residents who came to Canada as temporary workers and international students who have spent a considerable amount of time here and wish to have that time counted toward their citizenship unfairly. They are of great economic benefit, and the petitioners want the government to amend the Citizenship Act to recognize the contribution that these citizens make.

Firearms Reclassification Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of constituents. In the first, constituents have expressed concern about the classification of firearms changing without proper public consultation and notice. The petitioners call upon Parliament to watch over the reclassification in a transparent and fair manner that respects private property.

Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners note that an Environics poll showed that 92% of Canadians believe that sex-selective pregnancy termination should be illegal. The petitioners call upon members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls through sex-selection pregnancy termination.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from constituents of mine who are asking the government to cancel the Canada Post cuts. They very much want a service that is public and accessible.

[ English ] VIA Rail Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, second, I have a series of petitions on VIA Rail. I have a stack of them from northern New Brunswick and from my riding in Gaspésie, where the service has either been cut back by half or entirely eliminated, in fact. We want our VIA Rail service back.

Falun Gong Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions. The first is from petitioners requesting that the Canadian Parliament and government publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China and pass a resolution to establish measures to prevent organ trafficking.

Volunteerism Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from constituents who want the government to recognize volunteer service by Canadians in the regular and reserve military forces and the cadet corps with the issuance of a Governor General's volunteer service medal.

Dementia Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls for a national dementia strategy. The petitioners are asking the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to support Bill C-356 .

Science Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition today signed by hundreds of scientists and professors from universities and labs across Canada. The petition concerns Bill C-558 , which aims to establish a non-partisan parliamentary science officer. The petitioners note that since 2006, the Conservative government has undermined scientific integrity, recklessly ignored scientific evidence for political reasons, and muzzled public scientists in the civil service. The signatories are calling for the creation of an independent science watchdog in Canada, and I would urge the government to support this petition.

Sex Selection Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people mostly from the Vancouver area, who note that millions of girls have been lost through sex-selective abortion, creating a gender imbalance. Parliament needs to condemn this worst form of discrimination against females.

The Senate Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of Canadians, particularly from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. The petitioners wish to call upon the Government of Canada to abolish the unelected, unaccountable Senate of Canada once and for all. The petitioners say that appointed senators, especially those who abuse their privileges, do not represent the interests or values of Canadians.

(1105) Falun Gong Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition is identical to the one from the member for Kitchener Centre , which is with respect to the persecution of the Falun Gong and preventing organ harvesting.

Citizenship and Immigration Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition, which is similar to the petition from the member for London—Fanshawe , is from people who want us to consider recognizing the cultural ties, et cetera, of foreign workers and international students with respect to recognizing more of their time here being put toward citizenship.

Sambro Island Lighthouse Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition regarding the oldest standing and operating lighthouse in the Americas, which is the Sambro Island Lighthouse in my riding. The petitioners are asking for a strategy for the preservation of the Sambro Island Lighthouse and a commitment to preserve the site. They have lots of ideas on how to do that. The petitioners and I look forward to the minister's response.

Great Lakes Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from several hundred people in my riding. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to intervene to ensure the promised protection of the Great Lakes and the Lake Superior watershed to sustain its vision, which I will not read, in the interest of time.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today because thousands of people in Drummond are opposed to the Canada Post cuts. People in my riding are very angry about the cuts and are asking the Conservative government to reverse the decision that could result in the loss of 6,000 to 8,000 jobs at Canada Post.

[ English ] Criminal Code Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I present petitions from people across Canada who believe we need to have mandatory minimum sentences for the worst cases of sexual assault and rape. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to institute mandatory minimum sentences and particularly that members in this House stand with the victims of sexual assault and rape and give sexual predators the punishment they deserve.

Impaired Driving Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I also present a petition today about the current impaired driving laws. The petitioners believe that these laws are too lenient and ask that new mandatory minimum sentences be implemented for those convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Democratic Reform Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one is signed by hundreds of my constituents and other Nova Scotians who are appalled by Bill C-23 and the affront to democracy.

Canada Post Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the government to back off on the cuts to home delivery by Canada Post. Again, it is signed by hundreds of my constituents and other Nova Scotians.

International Trade Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first is from residents of Edmonton, Victoria, and Squamish, B.C. They are calling on the government to refuse to ratify the Canada-China investment treaty and to renegotiate its terms.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Pender Island. It is a very urgent plea for action to deal with the raw sewage discharged by recreational boaters all along the coast of B.C., but particularly in the Gulf Islands.

Falun Gong Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from dozens of Canadians calling on the Parliament of Canada to take action in regard to the systematic persecution of Falun Gong and organ harvesting from its members.

[ Translation ] Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from the riding represented by my colleague from Sherbrooke , where a group of citizens organized an evening forum to express support for the CBC. They have the same goal as the more than 2,000 people who signed the petition and the 30,000 people who signed the electronic petition in support of the CBC. Basically, the petition calls for stable, multi-year funding and protection, because people really care about the CBC.

[ English ] Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Question No. 484 will be answered today. [ Text ]

Question No. 484--

Hon. Ralph Goodale :

With regard to applications to the New Building Canada Fund since April 1, 2014: (

a) for what projects were applications received; and (

b) for each application, (

i) on what date (ii) from what organization, (iii) in what province, (iv) what is the type of the project, (

v) what component and/or subcomponent of the fund was funding sought under, (vi) what is the total value of the project, (vii) what is the total value of the requested federal contribution, (viii) when is the targeted completion date, (ix) how much funding is available during that period under that component or subcomponent of the fund?

Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the new Building Canada fund, the NBCF, was officially launched on March 28, 2014. The NBCF consists of the national infrastructure component and the provincial-territorial infrastructure component, which have different application processes. The $4-billion national infrastructure component, the NIC, provides funding for projects of national significance that have broad public benefits and that contribute to long-term economic growth and prosperity.

To apply for funding, proponents must submit a detailed business case to Infrastructure Canada that demonstrates how the project meets the program's objectives and that presents category-specific outcomes and criteria. The $10 billion provincial-territorial infrastructure component, the PTIC, provides funding to support infrastructure projects of national, regional, and local significance that contribute to objectives related to economic growth, a clean environment, and stronger communities.

To support a wide range of infrastructure needs, the PTIC is divided into two sub-components, national and regional projects and the small communities fund. National and regional projects, or PTIC–NRP, provides $9 billion for projects that are nationally and regionally significant and are predominantly medium- and large-scale in nature. Projects under the NRP component will be jointly identified between Canada and provincial or territorial partners. The small communities fund, or PTIC–SCF, provides $1 billion for projects in communities with fewer than 100,000 residents.

This will ensure that small communities have access to significant funding to support economic prosperity. Provinces and territories will be responsible for identifying and proposing projects for consideration. In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Information received in respect of provincial, territorial, or municipal projects that have not been funded cannot be provided, on the grounds that such information was obtained in confidence from the government of a province, territory, or municipality.

Likewise, information received from the private sector, including non-governmental organizations, in respect of projects that have not been funded cannot be provided, since such information was obtained in confidence from a third party.

As a result, Infrastructure Canada is not in a position to release information received from potential proponents in respect of projects that are in the process of being considered and have not yet had funding committed.

Members may note that on May 26, 2014, following a successful review of the City of Edmonton’s application, the Government of Canada, partnering with the Government of Alberta and the City of Edmonton, announced that it had set aside up to $150 million for the Valley Line stage 1 light rail transit expansion project in Edmonton under the new Building Canada fund through the provincial-territorial infrastructure component. This marks the first funding announcement since the launch of the new Building Canada fund and brings the total federal contribution to the project to up to $400 million.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 499 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 499--

Mr. Robert Chisholm :

With regard to applications made under the Employment Insurance Program: (

a) what was the volume of applications for Employment Insurance, Special Benefits, that have been received by Service Canada in 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) province/region; (

b) how many of the cases in (

a) waited longer than 28 days for a response, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) province/region; (

c) what was the volume of applications for Employment Insurance, Regular Benefits, that have been received by Service Canada in 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) province/region; and (

d) how many of the cases in (

b) have waited longer than 28 days for a response, broken down by (

i) year, (ii) province/region?

(Return tabled)

[ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed

Request for Emergency Debate Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act S. O. 52 Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last night I gave you notice under Standing Order 52 (2) that I would be seeking leave today to propose an emergency debate on the implementation in Canada of FATCA, the U.S. foreign account tax compliance act. As you know, the Canada-U.S. enhanced tax information exchange agreement implementation act is contained in Bill C-31 and is currently before the House.

We read in The Globe and Mail this week that the United States Internal Revenue Service has announced that it is working on creating an amnesty program aimed specifically at U.S. residents who have resided abroad for many years. The new commissioner, John Koskinen, has stated: “We are well aware that there are many U.S. citizens who have resided abroad for many years, perhaps even the vast majority of their lives”, and promised more details of the amnesty program “the very near future”.

The IRS is now working on creating a path specifically for otherwise honest people who want to comply with their U.S. tax obligations without using the hammer of steep penalties designed primarily to punish U.S. residents trying to duck their taxes. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the latest omnibus budget implementation bill is presently at third reading stage and will soon be submitted to a final vote. There will be no opportunity to debate this issue as an opposition day motion later this month. Mr. Speaker, I am urging you to give this your urgent attention.

(1110) Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I thank the hon. member for raising this issue, but as the member himself pointed out, it has been part of a bill that has been debated before the House yesterday and for a few more minutes this morning. Therefore, I do not think it would reach the conditions set out in the standing orders for the Speaker to grant an emergency debate at this time, and I will decline it.

Points of Order Time Allocation for Vanessa's Law—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 30, 2014, by the House leader of the official opposition regarding the validity of a notice of time allocation with respect to Bill C-17,

an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. [ Translation ] I would like to thank the House leader of the official opposition for having raised the question, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Oxford for their contributions. [ English ] The House leader of the official opposition argued that the consultation required pursuant to Standing Order 78(3) had never taken place and therefore the Chair should rescind the notice for time allocation for Bill C-17.

Furthermore, it was his contention that there was no need for the government to resort to time allocation at all since the bill had been on the order paper for six months, yet had received virtually no debate to date. [ Translation ] The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons confirmed that although the contents of confidential House leaders’ meetings could not be revealed, agreements had been proposed to the House leader of the official opposition and his staff.

Notice of time allocation was then given only once it was evident that no agreement could be reached. [ English ] Through this point of order, the Chair is being asked to stand in judgment of two things, the first being whether or not there were consultations such that the conditions of Standing Order 78(3) were satisfied.

The second is whether the time that the House had debated Bill C-17 was sufficient enough to warrant the use of time allocation. [ Translation ] House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, on pages 669 to 670, states that: The Speaker has stated that the wording of the rule does not define the nature of the consultations which are to be held by the Minister and representatives of the other parties, and has further ruled that the Chair has no authority to determine whether or not consultation took place nor what constitutes consultation among the representatives of the parties.

[ English ] As recently as March 6, 2014, the Deputy Speaker addressed this very issue when, on page 3598 of Debates , he reminded the House that: The nature of the consultation, the quality of the consultation, and the quantity of the consultation is not something that the Chair will involve himself in. That has been the tradition of this House for many years. What the Chair would have to do, in effect, is conduct an extensive investigative inquiry into the nature of the consultation. That is not our role, nor do the rules require it.

Therefore, it remains a steadfast practice that it is not the role of the Speaker to determine whether consultations have taken place or not. With respect to the amount of debate a bill must receive before notice of a time allocation motion can be given, the Chair is being asked to render a decision on a matter over which there are no explicit procedural rules or practices, and thus, over which it has no authority. Rather, it is the House that retains that authority and therefore must continue to make that determination as to when and if a bill has received adequate consideration.

Accordingly, notice of time allocation for Bill C-17 was valid when it was given. I thank all members for their attention.

(1115) [ Translation ] Use of Standing Order 56.1—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 16, 2014, by the House Leader of the Official Opposition regarding the use of Standing Order 56.1. I would like to thank the House leader of the official opposition for having raised the question, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his comments.

In raising his point of order, the House leader of the official opposition argued that the motion adopted by the House pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 on March 27, 2014, should have been deemed inadmissible as it directed the affairs of a standing committee. In particular, he suggested that Standing Order 56.1 is not intended to be used as a way for the House to instruct committees to conduct certain studies or to hear particular witnesses, but, rather, as a way to expedite routine business or to grant powers to committees that they do not already possess.

In his view, instructing a committee to undertake a study cannot be construed as simply establishing a committee power, nor can it be considered simply a routine matter. Noting the potential difficulties of the current requirements of the Standing Order for smaller parties, as well as its use for matters with regard to which it was never intended, the House leader of the official opposition asked the Chair for clarification on the limits of Standing Order 56.1 in general and, in particular, whether the motion in question was admissible.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons agreed that Standing Order 56.1 was not meant to be used to reach into the conduct of committees to direct them but, instead, was meant to provide committees, in a routine manner, with powers that they do not already have. In addition, he explained that, although committees generally have the power to send for persons, they are not empowered to compel the attendance of members of Parliament.

Thus, he argued that the motion in question sought only to empower the committee, or at least remove any doubts about their power to study that matter and to compel the attendance of the Leader of the Opposition . Furthermore, since the motion was not related to the passage of a bill, he claimed that it did not violate the restriction against using Standing Order 56.1 on substantive matters, as enunciated by Speaker Milliken's ruling of September 18, 2001.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons disagreed with the House leader of the official opposition asking the Speaker to provide direction for the future, viewing this as an inappropriate practice and role for the Speaker. He also questioned the timing of the point of order, stating that it should have been raised early enough to allow for the Speaker’s decision to be of some consequence.

Before I continue, I would like to read, for the benefit of the House, the motion at issue in this case: That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to consider the matter of accusations of the Official Opposition's improper use of House of Commons resources for partisan purposes; and that the Leader of the Opposition be ordered to appear as a witness at a televised meeting of the Committee to be held no later than May 16, 2014. [ English ] Since its adoption by the House in April, 1991, Standing Order 56.1 has been used as a legitimate procedure to allow the House to deal with what the Standing Orders call “routine motions”.

According to Standing Order 56.1(b), a routine motion: —shall be understood to mean any motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment. At issue then is whether the motion in question was an admissible motion, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1.

While the wording of the Standing Order has not changed over time, at times its

interpretation and use have. Consequently, its attempted use for various ends has, in turn, resulted in some procedural challenges. As a result, a body of practice and rulings has emerged, leading to a better understanding of the appropriate use of this Standing Order. As an example, it is now accepted that Standing Order 56.1 can be used to authorize committee travel. At the same time, however, the understanding of what constitutes a routine motion has been allowed to expand over the years, a development that has caused concern to successive Speakers.

Speaker Milliken characterized it as a “disturbing trend” as early as 2001. House of Commons Procedure and Practice makes reference to this trend when, on page 671, it provides a list of examples of motions which had been allowed to proceed, but states that, “[Not] all of these uses were consistent with the wording or the spirit of the rule...”.

The motion in question in this case deals specifically with committees and, in that respect, while the Standing Order does allow motions for the “establishment of the powers of its committees”, the question before me is whether the motion adopted falls squarely within those parameters or whether it strayed beyond them to direct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(1120) Deputy Speaker Blaikie stated on June 5, 2007, at page 10124 of Debates : A key element...is the fundamental precept that standing committees are masters of their own procedure. Indeed, so entrenched is that precept that only in a select few Standing Orders does the House make provision for intervening directly into the conduct of standing committee affairs. A careful reading of the motion is telling: the committee was “instructed” to consider a matter and the leader of the official opposition was “ordered” to appear.

In fact, it leads the Chair to the conclusion that the motion was an attempt to direct the internal affairs of the committee, thus stepping beyond what the House has come to accept as being within the confines of Standing Order 56.1. The government House leader argued that the motion granted the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs a power it did not have, namely the power to order a member to appear before the committee, but the motion went beyond simply granting the committee that power; it made the order for the committee.

In the Chair's view this would have been more appropriately done by way of a substantive motion. The House does have the power to give instructions to committees but it is how this is achieved that is important. The Chair does not believe the House ever intended that this be done by way of Standing Order 56.1. This was noted by Speaker Milliken, who stated, on September 18, 2001, at page 5258 of Debates : The standing order has never been used as a substitute for decisions which the House ought itself to make on substantive matters.

The government House leader may have been correct in noting that substantive motions were used in the passage of legislation but one cannot draw the conclusion from that, that, therefore, motions not related to legislation are routine. There are in fact other types of substantive motions that are not bound to legislation. At page 530 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states: Substantive motions are independent proposals which are complete in themselves, and are neither incidental to nor dependent upon any proceeding already before the House.

As self-contained items of business for consideration and decision, each is used to elicit an opinion or action of the House. They are amendable and must be phrased in such a way as to enable the House to express agreement or disagreement with what is proposed. Such motions normally require written notice before they can be moved in the House. They include, for example, private Members' motions, opposition motions on supply days and government motions.

The government House leader also attempted to draw a comparison with the November 8, 2012, precedent when the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was “mandated...under Standing Order 56.1, to conduct the study required by

section 533.1 of the Criminal Code”. However, it was not so much that the committee was instructed to conduct a study but, rather, that due to a mandatory statutory review of

an act, the committee needed an order of reference from the House to proceed. As the opposition House leader suggested, it was a routine motion. Thus, for the reasons stated, I would have been inclined to rule the motion out of order had this matter been raised within a reasonable delay. To be clear, the Chair did not readily deem the motion to be procedurally admissible, as the opposition House leader suggested. Instead, in the absence of any objection at the time that the motion was moved, the matter went forward and the motion was adopted.

The operation of Standing Order 56.1 has long been difficult for successive Speakers. This is in part because of the legitimate expectation that a motion moved pursuant to that Standing Order will be put to the House for decision without undue delay. This obligation is further complicated in instances where the Chair has had no advance notice that such motion is to be moved, as was the case in this particular instance, so I am sure all members will understand the quandary in which the Chair is left.

As the history of the use of motions under Standing Order 56.1 demonstrates, past speakers have all struggled with this dilemma and have almost invariably allowed even motions about which they had reservations to go forward, having had no time to properly assess their content and formulation. This is done in the expectation that alert members of the opposition will, if they deem it appropriate, rise to object. In this case, no one raised objections, the motion was put to the House and it was adopted.

The fact that the House leader of the official opposition waited so long to raise this point of order resulted in the terms of the motion having already been carried out. This is reminiscent of the situation faced by Speaker Milliken in 2001 when the government resorted to Standing Order 56.1 in a bid to dispose of numerous items of business—in this case some bills and certain supply proceedings—over the course of two sitting days. In that case, Speaker Milliken explained that he allowed the motion to proceed “because there were no objections raised at the time it was moved”.

As he stated on September 18, 2001, at page 5258 of Debates : However, to speak frankly, had the objection been raised in good time, I would have been inclined to rule the motion out of order. This situation serves again to remind members of the importance of raising matters of a procedural nature in a timely fashion.

The continuing trend away from the original intent of the Standing Order toward the moving of motions that are less readily identifiable or defined as routine is a concern that I share with my predecessors and one which continues to underscore the need for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to review and define the spirit and limitations of Standing Order 56.1.

There is no doubt that this would be helpful to the Chair. (1125) [ Translation ] Finally, the House leader of the official opposition raised the issue of the fairness for smaller parties of a Standing Order that requires a minimum of 25 members to stand in order for it to be withdrawn. It is not for the Speaker to judge whether it is appropriate or not. As is the case with other rules adopted by the House, such as the threshold of five members to request a recorded vote, the Speaker’s role is to enforce it, not question it.

As Speaker, I can only suggest that the member raise the matter with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is designated to review the rules of the House. [ English ] I thank hon. members for their attention.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 Bill C-31. Third reading The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures , be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment. The Speaker : The hon. member for York Centre has eight minutes left to conclude his remarks. Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I was saying last night, while the opposition parties may claim to be standing up for consumers, it is our government that has consistently acted on behalf of consumers since we first assumed office in 2006.

For example, we moved to ensure fairness at the pump, implement anti-spam legislation, and require stronger drug-labelling regulations. I would like to focus my remarks today on what we have done to increase competition in the telecommunications market, improve access to broadband, and ensure consumer protection for the people of Canada, all while creating new job opportunities in the wireless sector. I am confident that upon hearing my comments, all members of the House will agree that provisions such as this make this budget one of the strongest pieces of legislation in our government's tenure.

Through the 2014 economic action plan and other measures, the Government of Canada has put consumer protection at the forefront of our legislative agenda. Every Canadian family could tell us that cellphone, television, and Internet bills add up quickly and that every dollar counts when it comes to the household budget. We understand that Canadian families are tired of seeing inflated wireless bills, and that is why our government has taken action on this issue in economic action plan 2014. We have a proven track record of delivering results for Canadians.

In fact, since 2008 wireless rates have fallen by nearly 20%, and jobs within the wireless industry have increased by 25%. Prior to 2008, Canada's largest wireless companies held 99% of the market share. We have brought that number down by 10%. For Canadians living in rural areas, our government is investing $305 million to extend and enhance broadband service to an additional 208,000 households. Furthermore, in January 2014 Canada held the 700 megahertz spectrum auction, which resulted in unprecedented success. The 700 megahertz spectrum is the highest-quality wireless frequency option in Canada.

It allows wireless signals to travel longer distances and penetrate thicker walls, and it requires fewer cellphone towers. The auction generated $5.27 billion in revenue and paved the way for Canadians to benefit from a fourth wireless competitor in every region of the country. Key smaller players such as SaskTel, MTS, Videotron, and Eastlink secured their opportunity to maintain and expand their regional footprints. This means that Canadians will now have access to more choice, lower prices, and better service in our wireless industry.

The telecommunications provisions in economic action plan 2014 are consistent with our government's commitment to protecting Canadian consumers and increasing competition in the wireless market. Our government's wireless policies are aimed at lowering prices through competition, and the provisions in this budget are the next step in a long line of concrete actions our government has taken to put consumers first. Policies such as these are not created overnight; they are a result of careful consultation and deliberation with the industry, consumer groups, and Canadians at large.

Our government believes that nobody is better suited to tell hard-working Canadians how to spend their money than Canadians themselves. Our government is committed to empowering individual Canadians, which is why we have proposed amendments to the Telecommunications Act and the Radiocommunication Act to provide the CRTC and Industry Canada with the authority to penalize companies who violate the rules of the Wireless Code. This increased oversight would ensure that companies employ fair business practices.

The 2013 Speech from the Throne reminded us that healthy market competition is essential to keep prices low and keep businesses from becoming complacent. In economic action plan 2014, our government has proposed amendments to the Telecommunications Act that would cap wholesale domestic wireless roaming charges to keep wireless bills low for Canadians and to prevent wireless providers from charging other companies more than they charge their own customers.

This would lead to a greater number of new entrants into the telecom industry, which would in turn create more jobs and stimulate market competition and growth in the wireless sector. As Canadians are thoroughly aware, a lower price means greater competition, and greater competition means further lowering of prices. This change to the Telecommunications Act would be good for business, good for consumers, and good for Canada.

(1130) I hope my comments today will shed some light on this key feature of the 2014 economic action plan. I am sure every member in this House will agree that our government's economic action plan 2014 is one of the finest budgets ever to be introduced into this place. Despite ongoing economic challenges, Canadians know that they can count on this government to protect their interests.

By maintaining fiscally responsible policies to continue on our path to a balanced budget, as well as increasing investment in Canadian families, seniors, and the environment, our government is delivering on our promise to keep more money in the pockets of Canadians and put Canada on a sure economic footing, leading to jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very astute remarks about this budget and also for his hard work around the Hill. I have observed him at committees and I have a high respect for his talents.

At the public accounts committee, where I currently serve, we recently learned that the national debt of Canada has been flatlined as a percentage to GDP, even during the worst economic recession in 60 or 80 years. Also, taxes have remained at an historic low. At the same time, we are returning to balanced budgets. I know we have heard the leader of the third party say that budgets balance themselves. I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on how it is that the government has been able to balance the budget at the same time as flatlining debt as a percentage of GDP and keeping taxes down.

(1135) Mr. Mark Adler : Mr. Speaker, I also admire my hon. colleague's work in this place and on committee. I would like to say that when our government took power in 2006, the first thing we did under the leadership of the late minister of finance, Jim Flaherty , was pay down $35 billion in debt. This gave us the flexibility, when the recession hit in 2008-09, to be able to respond quickly. We did respond quickly with an economic action plan. We had a plan to stimulate the economy for that period of time to create jobs, growth, and prosperity.

What we did after the recession was over in mid-2009 was create 1.1 million net new jobs. These are people who have jobs and who pay taxes. We have lowered the corporate tax rate down to 15%. This has created an environment whereby companies from around the world now want to invest in Canada, in a very low-tax environment that is conducive to business and business-friendly. Bloomberg has said that we are the second-best country in the world to be doing business in right now. All the major economic institutions around the world have said Canada has the soundest economy.

The OECD and the IMF have said that we have the strongest fundamentals in place for the next 50 years to be leading the world in terms of economic performance. The member could not have been more right. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is now 32% and going down to 25%, the lowest in the G7, and it is because have a plan of low taxes and job creation. That is going to lead to long-term prosperity in this country of ours. The Deputy Speaker : That ends the time we have for debate on this bill. Pursuant to an order made on June 5, the question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy peaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. And five or more members having risen: [ Translation ] Pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the recorded division stands deferred until later this day, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions. Division on motion deferred

[ English ] Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act Bill C-36—Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) Motion moved: That, in relation to Bill C-36,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v.

Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. (1140) [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, what a surprise. This is, what, the 72nd time? It is tempting to repeat the arguments we have been making since the first time the government moved a time allocation motion. This time, the motion is on Bill C-36 , which was meant to be a response to the Supreme Court's ruling on certain sections of the Criminal Code. However, I do not get the impression that this motion is meant to silence the opposition. It seems as though it is meant to hide the debate from the Conservatives' own base. That is what I would like to ask the minister.

Yesterday I read a rather interesting report after the Conservative caucus meeting. It appeared to be saying that the government's strategy was not clear. The Conservatives themselves are divided. Some support decriminalization, some support outright prohibition, and some are not happy with the government's decision because what it is doing is not clear. The government seems to want to hide things and speed up the debate, keep it under the radar and get the committee work done in the summer, when everyone is gone. This is my question for the minister.

Was this time allocation motion moved not to prevent the opposition from speaking, but to prevent his own colleagues from speaking to this bill? [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting idea for a sitcom, sort of like Fantasy Island .

I was actually at that caucus meeting and I can assure members that the government's intention is to bring forward a bill that is principled, thoughtful, and intended to respond to a situation that was created by the Supreme Court of Canada when it struck down certain provisions of the Criminal Code in Bedford. To enlighten my friend and anyone who may want to know what the bill is about, it proposes criminalizing those who are fueling the demand for a dangerous activity, mainly prostitution or the purchase of sexual services.

It also continues to criminalize those who have received and would receive financial benefits from the prostitution of others and who procure others for the purposes of prostitution. Further, it would criminalize those who advertise the sale of sexual services of others in print or online.

It is all about protecting the victims of prostitution, and this is where quite a significant shift would occur in Canadian law, where we would treat the prostitutes themselves as victims, which predominantly they are; so it is about the protecting of prostitutes from criminal liability or for any part they may be playing in the purchasing, material benefit of procuring or advertising of offences, and ensuring at the same time that victims of prostitution are further protected so that persons who legitimately receive material benefit from prostitution of others would not be criminalized.

This includes their spouses, roommates, children, or those who offer goods and services that the general public could also receive, such as accountants or taxi drivers. The bill is quite clear. We have also added additional resources to help prostitutes exit the profession.

(1145) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader, and it is 100% in regard to the use of time allocation. It is important to recognize that the government, since it has acquired a majority, has used time allocation as a normal process. We need to recognize that the majority government has limited members of Parliament. By doing that, Conservatives are being disrespectful to all Canadians by not allowing for a natural flow of debate on legislation.

Whether it is this or other pieces of legislation that come before the House, the government continues to use time allocation to prevent members of Parliament from representing their constituents on important issues. One of the issues for me personally was in regard to the Wheat Board. There are so many bills, such as budget bills, for which time allocation is used. Why does the government choose to use time allocation time and time again, and why does it only use this since it acquired a majority government? It is the majority government that has been driving time allocation by the government. Hon.

Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, as a member of the majority government, I am going to suggest to my hon. friend that the use of time allocation is not some sort of new and innovative approach that has been taken by this government. I have been around here for some time, 17 years, much like the Chair, and I have seen this is very often used to keep the House moving and to keep legislation moving through the normal process.

In the case of the bill before the House, Bill C-36 , the subject of this debate, the Supreme Court of Canada has specified a one-year period in which this legislation must respond to the gap in the Criminal Code that was created by the Bedford decision. Therefore, there are expedited reasons to move this legislation forward, to get it through the second reading stage of the process and into committee so that we may have the ability, the somewhat unusual ability, for the justice committee to examine this legislation in greater detail and to hear from witnesses.

We are looking at doing a similar process, a simultaneous process with the Senate, so that we can meet the deadline.

When we return in the fall, that good work will be done by members of the justice committee, members of the House from all sides, to provide rigorous examination of the legislation, to provide feedback, to improve upon the bill, to bring it back to Parliament for debate in the fall, and to see that it then finishes the regular process of proceeding through this chamber and through the Senate and passes into law well in advance of that December deadline set by the Supreme Court of Canada. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, just a few moments ago, I heard the minister say that the use of time allocation in debates is not something new, that it is a parliamentary tradition and part of the process. However, what is new is that it has been used 72 times in a very short period of time. This even breaks the Liberals' record. It seems to me that the government wants to be in the Guinness World Records . However, this is a record to be ashamed of, not proud of. Let me read the title of the bill we are dealing with here. It is Bill C-36,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . I think the title alone shows the legal and technical complexity of the issue. This legislation can have life-or-death consequences for some people. Why are we being muzzled again when we are debating this bill? Why does the government not want to give us the time to do a good job? When will the government stop muzzling Parliament itself? (1150) [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the question and some of the commentary with respect to the importance of the bill and the fact that it does have within its title the descriptive word “protecting”. In fact, that is very much what the subject of the bill is about. It is about protecting vulnerable Canadians, communities that sometimes are at risk, and in particular, a specific group of Canadians to whom we do have a fiduciary duty to protect, and that is mainly our children.

I would suggest that throughout the bill we find ample evidence of the intent and the purpose of the bill to protect that group of individuals, to protect those who, in the vast majority of cases, find themselves involved with prostitution because of coercion, because of violence, because of experience early in life, in many cases when they were children.

The empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence we have looked at indicates quite clearly that the vast majority of prostitutes today, men and women, were exploited, were victimized, often through violence and addiction, and brought into the life of prostitution, arguably through no fault of their own, at a vulnerable early age, at an early stage in their lives when those who were victimizing them should have been counted on to protect them. Many of them were victimized by people in positions of trust—coaches, religious leaders—those who truly should have been there to protect them.

Having prosecuted some of those cases, we find it is tragic in every sense of the word. However, with respect to the necessity to bring the legislation forward, I would suggest that we have a very set period of time. There will be, I am told, some five hours to debate this legislation at this stage, which is only the second reading stage.

It then would go to a committee where there will be opportunity not only to hear from members of Parliament and senators, if that process is duplicated over the summer, but perhaps most important, to hear from more Canadians in addition to the 31,000 who participated in the online consultation and the face-to-face round table consultations I took

part in. This is a broad, inclusive dialogue on a very important issue, one that we have to get right, one that is also informed by the Supreme Court's decision itself. It is certainly something that has to occur in an expedited fashion because of those timelines in place from the Supreme Court. Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the matter immediately before the House is the use of time allocation, which I point out is routinely used by Liberal majority governments in this country, but also, as I understand it, is used writ large in the mother Parliament back in the U.K. As the minister has rightly pointed out earlier, this is an efficiency tool in terms of ensuring that the House, in a timely fashion, not only considers issues but makes decisions on them, and it also ensures that these matters get to committee in a timely fashion, so that the detailed study can occur.

Not only is debate in the House important, but the discussion and input of Canadians in the broader civil society is important as we deal with an issue that has a lot of diverse opinions among the Canadian public. I wonder if the minister could comment on the participation of Canadians in terms of consultation before the drafting of this particular bill. I wonder if he could comment further on what he was hearing in terms of specifics from Canadians and stakeholders and how that was incorporated into this particular bill, Bill C-36 , that is before the House. Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr.

Speaker, I heard extensively from individuals within my own community. I also heard from individuals during the cross-country consultation regarding the victims bill of rights, which I did in advance of the Bedford decision. The most instructive part of those consultations was the view that those involved in prostitution are victims, that they have, as I said previously, in large part been brought into the life of prostitution through a number of complex social factors, whether they be homelessness, poverty, addiction, violence, or mental health issues.

They are arguably some of the most vulnerable people in the country. We are attempting to do this not only through legislative measures but through programming in partnership with provinces and territories and compassionate groups that exist within all of our communities, those who run homeless shelters, those who work specifically with anti-violence initiatives, those who spend time speaking with school children. One of the target areas of education I would suggest is teenage boys.

That is the demographic that we really need to speak to when we are talking about how we can end violence in its many forms, including domestic violence, which is so associated with this issue. The bill, as complex as it may appear, is a well-informed bill that attempts to go to some of the root causation, that attempts to put the emphasis, the criminal liability, on the perpetrators, the johns, the pimps, and those who drive the demand for the purchasing and the commoditization of sexual services. The bill attempts to answer some of those very complex issues that have been around almost since time immemorial.

We need to get on with the business of the nation. This is an issue that affects many communities. This bill is a comprehensive, compassionate Canadian response. It needs to proceed because of the timelines and the pressure we are under, placed on us by the Supreme Court. The House has already done much of the good work in preparation for the bill. We have known of the subject matter for over six months. We want to get on with that. That is in part why we brought forward this time allocation motion, to see that the good work continues.

(1155) Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the minister use the words “root causation”. I have heard him use those words in a different context when talking about others who talked about root causes in the past. This is over 70 times that the government has used time allocation. Seeing as it is speeding up the process, I am wondering if the government is gathering together the necessary information in preparation for the committee to have a proper discussion on this issue based on all the facts before it.

People are worried that this particular piece of legislation would not meet the Supreme Court requirements, and it is debatable whether it would or not. Is the government preparing to provide the committee with the legal advice that the government obtained when it was in the drafting stages of this particular legislation—and who provided that legal advice? Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, we will always support the good work of committees. We will provide the committee with the relevant information it needs. The Department of Justice will be releasing further polling data.

I have indicated quite clearly that is the case. It is interesting to hear any sort of criticism of the use of closure coming from a member of the Liberal Party, the proverbial “wind sock” party of Canada, that simply turns and twists and adopts any particular position that would put it in a favourable light. The Liberal record of managing the finances of the country has been laid bare for all to see, going back to the sponsorship scandal, of which the member knows far more than I, as a member of the previous government.

We will continue to bring forward thoughtful legislation that responds to the need, and in this particular case, the task that was left to us by the Supreme Court when it struck down three provisions of the Criminal Code. This legislation would more than answer that particular task because it does have accompanying resources to help prostitutes find an off ramp into a better, healthier life that will help them deal with the causation that has led them to enter prostitution. We are anxious to hear the position of members' opposite, their thoughtful suggestions as to how the bill could be improved.

What we do get is just simply criticism and process. They want this sent back to the Supreme Court to let it do the good work. (1200) [ Translation ] Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government should perhaps do what any law-abiding Canadian citizen would do. When we must comply with a court ruling, we only have to do what we have been ordered to do. Every time the government is faced with this situation, that is, every time it introduces a bill, it twists itself into a pretzel to push its original idea through and try a second time to get around the court's orders.

People are beginning to understand this strategy. If it is truly urgent, I wonder why the bill is being introduced at the last minute, when we are about to adjourn for the summer. It may be because the government wants the debate to be held in the media only, in an emotional and somewhat irrational manner, so that it becomes impossible to have a debate, as is the case with the gun registry and abortion. There are many subjects that have become impossible to debate in our society.

The government is in large part responsible because it has allowed the debate to deteriorate and aired it in the media, instead of calmly discussing the issue in the House. It is becoming a sort of hysterical delusion that will last all summer. The government will certainly have time to think about it and perhaps will shred the bill during the summer. I hope it will be wise enough to do so. [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, I do not even know where to begin with that convoluted rambling and disjointed remark, other than to say that we are responding in a very comprehensive way.

I would suggest that it is a compassionate way, with a particularly Canadian response to this age old issue of prostitution. Now the dilemma faced by having three major sections of the Criminal Code struck down in Bedford creates further vulnerability for prostitutes and communities. Rather than the suggestion from the hon. member that this was somehow created by the government, this is directly responding to the Supreme Court's decision in Bedford. It is responding in a way that we believe would provide greater opportunities for prostitutes to leave that life. It is a life of inherently dangerous practice.

They would be able to choose a better path for themselves and, potentially, their children. There is programming and specific resources to partner with the provinces and territories to help emphasize that there are, in fact, other opportunities. We would be putting criminal liability squarely on the johns, the pimps, and those who benefit directly from those vulnerable individuals, who are predominantly victims and who, given the opportunity and the choice, would leave prostitution. This is not to suggest that this would make prostitution disappear from the landscape of Canada or anywhere.

It is what we believe to be a comprehensive response to a very difficult and complex social issue. It responds thoughtfully after great consultation with Canadians already, and will continue to do so following opportunity here in the House and later in committee. It will come back to the House in the fall. It is a bit perplexing to hear from members opposite that they want more debate, but at the same time, they suggest that we are rushing it through. It is a bit like saying, “wash me, but do not make me wet”. Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his work on this important file. As he highlighted, the Bedford decision required Parliament to deal with this issue. I would like to ask him what level of consultation there has been over the last number of months in preparing for today and for Parliament to now deal with it. I wonder if he could elaborate on the collaboration. I wonder if he could also elaborate on why he thinks the opposition wants to delay this. We know that this is the theme song of the Liberals.

Their motto is, “why did we not get it done?” Maybe he could elaborate on why the NDP would be so opposed to dealing with this important social issue. This responsibility has been passed on to Parliament by the Supreme Court, so why would the NDP want to dither and delay the passage of this bill?

(1205) Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Langley , not only for his interest, but for his good work in supporting those who certainly are vulnerable in his community. I know he has a long-standing interest in the issue of human trafficking and helping vulnerable constituents and Canadians. With respect to how this matter proceeds and the consultation that we have undertaken, some 31,000 Canadians and organizations took

part in the online consultation, which was one of the largest consultations ever undertaken by the Department of Justice. We also had round tables and extensive discussions in communities across the country during the victims bill of rights. Prostitution issues were very often intertwined in those discussions around victimization. I am quite confident that this bill was undertaken with a lot of goodwill and effort to include the perspectives, interests, and input from many Canadians from across a wide spectrum of views on the subject matter.

As to why any member of Parliament would want to delay on this issue is really beyond me. I believe, quite frankly, that it is in the non-partisan interest of Canadians. We should move forward with a thoughtful response, a legislative and resourced response, to this issue in advance of December, which is the timeframe the Supreme Court has given us to respond. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I have been hearing for the past few minutes. What we have here is an absolutely unbelievable democratic deficit.

Notwithstanding the fact that we are talking about the 72nd time allocation motion, the members on the government benches seem to think that discussing and debating something is a stalling tactic. I have always understood—and that will be my question to my colleague, the Minister of Justice —that the process of passing a bill begins with its introduction at first reading. Let us not forget that there are 308 MPs in the House. Over the course of five hours of debate, roughly 10 people can rise in the House to speak.

Most of them will be Conservative members, some will be NDP and a few will be from the Liberals, the third party in the House. Members of the different parties have a chance to speak. Once that study is complete, we more or less form an opinion. Personally, I think it is extremely important to listen to the opinions of my colleagues of all political stripes. For example, my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul , who has devoted her life to this subject, might say something in her speech that will affect us in a certain way if we keep an open mind, if we do not remain closed to the opinions of others all the time.

That is why I think debate at second reading is so important. It gives people from across Canada the opportunity to express themselves about the topic at hand. Then, study in committee calls on experts and people in the field to add to the debate. Once clause-by-clause review is done, the bill is sent back to the House. Here it is all backward. The government stifles debate at second reading and often at third reading as well. In committee, the government does not really care about the amendments or opinions of others.

Does the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada not think that there is a huge democratic deficit here? Speaking to a subject that is just as important to us as it is to the government members is not a stalling tactic, it is a question of democracy. [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for her commentary. I do not agree with it. I do not believe that there is any way a democratic deficit in bringing legislation before the House to be debated. One of the principles of democracy, and I think my friend would agree, is that democracy requires people to show up.

That seems to have been a problem in some cases, where legislation was brought forward and there were not enough members here to discuss it. It is a bit of sucking and blowing to say that they want more debate but they do not have enough members here to actually take

part in that debate. That is one end of the extreme. The other is we have seen the use of debate to delay legislation. I know when I was minister of defence we had a very simple, straightforward bill, and the NDP debated it around the clock through three Parliaments. It finally passed the House, to the great benefit of the members of the armed forces. My suggestion to the member is there is necessity and urgency that this bill proceed and that it get to committee. There will be five hours of debate here, as the member knows.

Once it is in the committee stage, there will be more opportunities for all members of Parliament from all sides of the House to give direct input while hearing from various witnesses with expertise in the area. Then the bill comes back again. The bill will come back before the House again. There is an opportunity at that time to voice views.

Rather than complain about the process, what I think would be helpful for Canadians would be for the NDP and the Liberals to actually take a position, to actually state, emphatically, how they feel about this legislation, what they would do to improve it, and how they might do things differently. That would be a useful participatory process, rather than just chirping from the cheap seats about sending it to the Supreme Court for another reference or trying to divide bills. Let us talk about what their actual substantive, constructive criticisms and participation in the debate might actually be.

(1210) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The half hour has expired. Is the House ready for the question? The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Call in the members.

(1250) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 205) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lauzon Lebel Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 147 NAYS Members Andrews Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Bélanger Benskin Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Caron Casey Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Côté Crowder Cullen Cuzner Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Easter Eyking Fortin Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Groguhé Harris (St.

John's East) Jacob Julian Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Mathyssen May McGuinty Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mourani Mulcair Murray Nantel Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Pilon Quach Rankin Ravignat Raynault Rousseau Saganash Scarpaleggia Sellah Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Toone Turmel Valeriote -- 90 PAIRED Nil The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

Second Reading Bill C-36. Second reading The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-36,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , be read the second time and referred to a committee. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : When this matter was last before the House, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster had completed his remarks, but had not yet had questions and comments. Seeing none, resuming debate, the hon. member for Charlottetown. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I am honoured to speak today to Bill C-36 . Today, we debate a Conservative bill that purports to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in the Bedford case. Allow me to briefly go over the circumstances that led us here today, debating the bill. First, we are here today because a group of courageous sex workers challenged in court, and at great expense, the laws that govern prostitution, commonly known as the “Bedford case”. They did so because they wanted to ensure their work could be done in such a way that protected their security.

They fought for safety and security not only for themselves, but for all people involved in the sex industry in Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with these women. By way of background, and many Canadians may be unaware of this, prostitution is currently legal in Canada and has been so since the Criminal Code came into force in 1892. It is the many activities surrounding prostitution which the Criminal Code prohibits, including keeping, using, or transporting a person to a bawdy house, living on the avails of prostitution or communicating in public for the purposes of engaging in prostitution.

That was the state of the law prior to the Bedford case. In December 2013, the Supreme Court struck down those sections related to bawdy house, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purposes of prostitution. The court ruled that these provisions violated

section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The court also indicated that the provisions made it almost impossible to engage in prostitution in a safe environment, as a person selling could not legally operate indoors or hire security personnel. It was a historic ruling. The court also provided government with one year to legislate and to do so with the interests of providing a legal framework that protected the safety of sex workers. This is this the government's response. Here, in part, is what the

summary of Bill C-36 states: This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, (

a) create an offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose; (

b) create an offence that prohibits receiving a material benefit that derived from the commission of an offence referred to in paragraph (a); (

c) create an offence that prohibits the advertisement of sexual services offered for sale and to authorize the courts to order the seizure of materials containing such advertisements and their removal from the Internet; (

d) modernize the offence that prohibits the procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution; (

e) create an offence that prohibits communicating — for the purpose of selling sexual services — in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present; As the justice minister said last week in his press conference and yesterday in his speech, the proposed measures criminalize prostitution for the first time since 1892.

It criminalizes advertisement of sexual services and criminalizes communicating in public, which is one of the very components of the existing law that the court had already struck down in Bedford. It is hardly surprising then that a great many of us in the House, and outside of the House, are concerned about the approach the government is taking. By criminalizing almost all aspects of prostitution, the government claims to have struck a made-in-Canada solution to the so-called Nordic model. Sadly, Bill C-36 has as much, or more, in common with the prohibitionist approach in force in Albania, Croatia and Russia.

In Russia, brothels are illegal. Under Bill C-36, they would also be illegal in Canada. In Russia, living on the avails of prostitution is illegal. Under Bill C-36 , this would also be illegal in Canada. In Russia, buying sex is illegal. Under Bill C-36, this would also be illegal in Canada.

(1255) In Russia, selling sex is illegal. Under Bill C-36 , except for a few narrow exceptions, it will also be illegal in Canada. Selling sex will be illegal in public, it will be illegal near places where children may be, and it will be illegal with underage prostitutes. The differences between the Russian approach and this so-called made-in-Canada approach are relatively minor. I wonder if those present find it somewhat troubling that a country with Russia's human rights record has a regime governing this social issue that is so close to the legislation before the House today.

The purpose of the Bedford case in the Supreme Court decision was not to pass moral judgment on this activity but rather to provide a legal framework that would make the environment safe for the women and men involved in the sex industry. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Conservatives to introduce a law that provides a legal framework that would make sex work safer. Instead, we have a law that would do the opposite. Bill C-36 should be about public safety, and I have concerns that the bill falls short of that goal.

I am not at all convinced that this bill would protect the women and men who are engaged in sex work. I would also suggest that Bill C-36, in all likelihood, violates the charter with respect to

section 7, on life, liberty, and security of the person; with respect to the provisions regarding cruel and unusual punishment; and in respect of the ban on advertising, the charter protection of free speech. One wonders whether the Conservatives and the justice minister know this. Perhaps they know that this bill is unconstitutional, and perhaps they know that the bill is not consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in the Bedford case. Again, the Conservatives have a duty to comply with the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling in Bedford.

I am not convinced that this is the case, and I doubt that the bill meets the letter or the spirit of the Bedford ruling. The one element of the court ruling they seem to have complied with was the one year provided by the Supreme Court to legislate in this matter. The last couple of times they faced problems with legislation that clearly intersected with the Constitution, the Conservatives did a couple of things. The two most recent examples are the Senate reference and the Nadon appointment.

With respect to the Senate reference, the Conservatives realized that there was a potential conflict with the Constitution and referred the matter to the Supreme Court. With the Nadon appointment, again they realized that there was a potential conflict with existing legislation. They took a couple of steps. First, they sought outside opinions with respect to compliance with the Supreme Court Act, and second, they also made a stated case to the Supreme Court. In addition, there are provisions within the Department of Justice Act,

section 4.1, that come into play with respect to the constitutionality of the legislation. Undoubtedly the government has an opinion pursuant to

section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act. There is no doubt that this bill is also headed, eventually, to the Supreme Court for adjudication on whether it complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the minister to date has refused to refer the bill to the Supreme Court to ensure its constitutional validity, resorting instead, as we saw yesterday, to personal insults. Nor have the Conservatives given any indication that they will disclose any time soon key evidence to support the bill. Perhaps this bill is a political stopgap measure to meet the one-year deadline imposed by the Supreme Court.

Perhaps the bill is a politically driven document with an overarching purpose, which is to punt this sensitive and important issue beyond the next election. Refusing a referral to the Supreme Court of Canada is consistent with this view.

(1300) As I have indicated on many occasions, the Conservatives have a track record of introducing legislation for political and partisan reasons. I hope that is not the case in this instance. I hope it is not the intent of the Conservatives to tee up the fundraising machine on an issue related to the safety of sex workers in Canada, in the context of the bill and the court ruling. I hope that the Conservatives will avoid what they have done so often in the past and will avoid the temptation to place their own political interests first. I am also concerned about the lack of transparency as it relates to evidence.

Why will the Minister of Justice not produce the evidence to support his assertion that the bill is constitutional? Why will he not waive his privilege and release the Department of Justice documents that prove that Bill C-36 passes the charter test, as is required under

section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act? Why will the minister not release any evidence, if he has any, that would support his contention that the bill is charter compliant? We know that he will not release any charter compliance documents, but the minister is also refusing to release any time soon the $175,000 study his department conducted on this topic.

Canadians want to know why the minister is refusing to release the study, a study paid for with public funds and one that would have material relevance to the five-hour debate before this House and material relevance to the committee hearings that are undoubtedly on the horizon. Might we speculate as to why the minister would refuse to release that study? Could it be that the study might contain facts or evidence inconvenient to the Conservatives' position or political interests?

As criminal defence lawyer Michael Spratt said in a recent blog about research and the recent cuts made at the justice department: It is sometimes said that justice is blind—but justice policy should not be.... This is not about politics—quite the opposite—this is about evidence-based policy. It is only when legislation is based on legitimate evidence that there can be any confidence that the law will accomplish its goals. Perhaps the Conservatives are not really concerned with achieving their criminal justice goals, (i.e., keeping the public safe).

They have ignored evidence on drug policy, minimum sentences, and child protection—to name a few (resulting in multiple laws being struck down as unconstitutional). In the lead-up to introducing this bill, the minister was claiming to have all the evidence he needed. What might that evidence be? The minister seems to be basing his bill in part on an online survey he conducted. A voluntary, non-scientific, online survey cannot be the basis for constructing a bill of such importance, let alone one mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada.

We really should be concerned that the government seems to be using a Kijiji approach to public policy. Also notably absent from this bill is any measurement mechanism. It is often said that we cannot manage it if we do not measure it. There are absolutely no provisions in this bill to collect data on the effectiveness of the measures contained in it. Data collection would help inform future amendments and fiscal measures to help the most vulnerable. The concern over this is magnified when we look at the millions of dollars cut out of the Department of Justice budget with respect to research.

The reason given is that all too often the research did not align with government priorities. Against that backdrop, we have the absence of any data collection measures in this bill. It is indeed troubling. An email was recently sent to the leader of the Liberal Party by a woman named Rachel. She wanted the opportunity to share her story about the impact this legislation will have on her. She wanted someone to listen to her and to the many others who feel similarly. Here is what she wrote:

(1305) Bill C-36 horrifies me—it will have a catastrophic effect on my safety and livelihood. I have been an indoor sex worker for 5 years. I screen clients to ensure my safety. This involves asking for a reference from another sex worker, and then contacting that worker to ensure the potential client was respectful. If it's the client's first time seeing a sex worker, I require their full legal name, employment information, and cell phone number. I have a conversation via phone or email to discuss what services they are seeking, and what I am comfortable providing....

I check the client's information against a bad date list—a compilation of bad clients which is shared among sex workers. I always meet new clients in a public place prior to the session, for example: a coffee shop or the lobby of their hotel. Because I am able to screen my clients, I have NEVER experienced violence during my 5 years in sex work. If you criminalize my clients, they will be unwilling to provide the screening information I require to ensure my safety. I will not have any client information to add to a bad date list should something go wrong.

If they've seen a sex worker in the past, they will not want to provide that reference because it will mean they are admitting to committing a crime. I will be forced to accept clients that block their phone number, hide their identity, and have no references. This is a gift to sexual predators posing as clients. Like 90% of sex workers in Canada, I work from an indoor space, known as an “incall”. If I am assaulted in my workspace, due to my inability to screen my clients, I will be unable to contact the police, as this would reveal the address of my incall location.

This means police can easily arrest my good clients as they come to see me at my safe indoor location. I also risk being evicted by my landlord. Bill C-36 will have an even worse impact on street based sex workers, who also rely on screening their clients to ensure safety. Street based workers need time to refer to bad date lists, to negotiate safer sex practices (such as condom use), and to assess the client. Bad date lists may include the time and date of an incident, a description of the vehicle, a licence plate number, a description of the person, etc.

If clients are criminalized and fearful of arrest, they will try to speed up the process limiting the time a sex worker has to vet their client, and refer to a bad date list. Sex workers will be forced to jump into a vehicle with a client without taking these vital safety measures. They will be forced to work in isolated areas away from police, so their fearful clients will continue to see them. Bill C-36 is a gift to predators posing as clients. This bill will not stop sex workers from working, it will just impede their ability to work safely.

The letter closes with: Bill C-36 will kill sex workers if it is passed. History will look poorly on this government for many reasons: the deliberate division, the attack on people who disagree, the politicizing of criminal law, the abuse of power, election fraud, and the list goes on, but I believe that what the government is doing here today with this bill is particularly concerning. The government's history of politicizing every issue causes us great concern about what it has done with the bill before the House. Never should the interests of a political party trump the safety of Canadians.

Many people believe that Bill C-36 will hurt people, and it will potentially force sex workers into the back alleys without the protection they need. Parliament has a duty to protect Canadians, whether or not we personally morally agree with their profession. The Conservatives have a duty to obey the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling in the Bedford case. On all these counts, the Conservatives have failed and are doing so for political reasons, and for that they will have to live with the consequences should Bill C-36 be enacted by Parliament.

(1310) Mr. Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of concerns about the opposition to the bill. A lot of the opposition is based on the assumption that the current status quo is full legalization. In the sex worker's letter he quoted, the lady was describing activities that are already illegal. Advertising, soliciting sexual services, and doing it both online and in public are already illegal activities. If these people are already willing to give their information during this illegal activity, I am not sure why they would not under this new legislation.

This legislation actually does meet the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling. It was clear in its ruling that it was not only open to it but was requesting that Parliament seek legislation around prostitution. To just decriminalize it or legalize it all we would have to do is let the year go by. It was clear that it wanted to do something more than just get rid of all legislation. I would like the member to comment on this and explain how this does not meet the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling. Mr. Sean Casey : Mr.

Speaker, when the member says that many of the complaints raised by Rachel in her letter to our leader are already illegal, perhaps he should be reminded that if we take that statement as true, there is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that says the laws that make whatever conduct he says is illegal are unconstitutional. If we take what he says as true, that these parties are engaging in illegal activity, the highest court in our land has said that the laws that make it an illegal activity do not withstand the scrutiny of the charter.

The second part of the member's question was exactly how does this offend Bedford. In the Bedford decision, Parliament was directed to focus on the safety and the security of the most vulnerable in our population. Instead of focusing on their safety and security, in many places and in many aspects, the legislation makes them criminal. Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very thoughtful and analytical discussion.

The government cut funding to the Status of Women, closed 12 of 16 regional offices, defunded the National Association for Women and the Law, CRIAW, undermined pay equity, changed EI, and jeopardized women in low-income and part-time work, provided no national child care program, no housing, said no to an inquiry into the murder of 1,200 aboriginal women. It now purports to care about women? Conservatives have made it very clear over the last eight years that they have no regard and they are not interested at all in the welfare of women. How can we possibly trust them to look after the most vulnerable of women?

Mr. Sean Casey : Mr. Speaker, I frankly could not agree more. What we have seen with the government is a single-minded obsession with balancing the budget and everything else is way down the list. Veterans are way down the list. Charter rights are way down the list. Certainly in this case, sex workers who have had the benefit of a Supreme Court decision are well down the list. It is a sad indicator on where we are in Parliament today that the single-minded obsession with matters of finance have put the rights of individuals and the charter and the interests of the regions as far down the list as it has.

Unfortunately, such is the world in which we presently live.

(1315) Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from Charlottetown , the Canadian Federation of University Women is a group that has been staunchly supporting the so-called Nordic approach based on women's equality and based on reducing violence and exploitation of women and children. It has responded to the Conservative government's bill by issuing a press release strongly criticizing the bill for criminalizing vulnerable women in the sex trade. Could my colleague please explain why criminalizing prostitution further endangers these victims of exploitation? Mr. Sean Casey : Mr.

Speaker, I believe much of the answer is found in the letter to our leader from Rachel. There is no more striking example than the provisions within the bill with respect to those who are underage. I could think of no one in the context of the Bedford decision who is more vulnerable than an underage prostitute working the streets. The bill criminalizes anyone who is under age 18 for communicating for the purpose of prostitution. It singles out the most vulnerable and puts a criminal sanction on their work. The result of this would be to push everything into the shadows.

As Rachel so eloquently said, this is a gift to sexual predators posing as clients. Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last week the member's colleague, the member for Malpeque and the Liberal critic for public safety, agreed with the NDP critic for justice and myself that the majority of the women who find themselves in this ugly trade are in fact exploited. By the way, we did not say that it is 51% who are exploited. The studies we have seen show that it is more like 90% of the women are exploited, and some would say it is higher than that.

Do we not have an obligation as parliamentarians to protect those people? Earlier today, Katarina MacLeod, a former sex worker, appeared at a press conference and told her story. She detailed a harrowing story of abuse, rape, and exploitation starting at the age of five when she was molested, and it lasted through her 15 years as a sex worker. She went on to say that if Bill C-36 , the government's proposed prostitution legislation, had been around when she was a sex worker, there would have been no demand and no supply, and that maybe she would be less scarred today.

She said, “I can tell you there is no safe location for prostitution“. Not inside, not out on the streets. I wonder if the member could comment on that as well as on protecting our communities. Mr. Sean Casey : Mr. Speaker, we absolutely do have an obligation to protect those most vulnerable. That is what the Supreme Court of Canada has directed Parliament to do. However, Bill C-36 would fail in that regard. The bill would drive prostitution into the dark corners. It would make it less safe. It would not, in any way, protect the most vulnerable. It fact, it would have the opposite effect.

The decision to double down on criminal sanctions in the face of a complex social problem is absolutely consistent with what we have seen with the Conservative government. When the only thing one has in one's tool kit is a sledgehammer, everything looks like a rock. If there is a complex social problem, the Conservatives have a mandatory minimum for that. The very problem with the overarching approach of the current government is that when faced with complex social problems, the Conservatives seem to always have a one-size-fits-all solution.

Criminalizing the very people who need protection is the wrong way to go, but, sadly, that is the approach that has been chosen.

(1320) Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-36 , the protection of communities and exploited persons act. As my hon. colleagues know, this bill is the first of its kind in Canada. It is historic. For the first time in Canada's history the buying of sexual services would be illegal. For the first time, women trafficked into prostitution would not be treated as nuisances, but with dignity. For the first time, the Government of Canada would provide robust funding to help women and youth escape prostitution and their traffickers.

I want to begin by addressing one of the key myths that is being spread by the pro-legalization lobby. What Canadians have been told over the past week in the newspapers and other media is that prostitution is a legitimate occupation for women and that it is entirely separate from sex trafficking and exploitation. This is a lie. Prostitution exploits women, youth, and vulnerable populations. It escalates gender inequalities by turning women's bodies into a commodity to be bought, sold, rented, and exploited by men. In short, prostitution provides an avenue for abuse and violence.

Research of prostitution in Canada and abroad reveals that women in prostitution, whether by coercion or by choice, experience alarming levels of violence and abuse. One of the clearest links between prostitution and human trafficking is found in a recent empirical analysis of human trafficking trends in over 150 countries. Researchers at the University of Goettingen's Department of Economics found that, on average, legalizing prostitution increases human trafficking inflows. The inseparable link between prostitution and sex trafficking has been recognized and adopted across political lines in Canada.

In 2007, the report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, of which I was the vice-chair, adopted this position. “Turning Outrage into Action” said: Like the majority of witnesses appearing before us, we came to the conclusion that prostitution is closely linked to trafficking in persons. That is our own parliamentary report. It goes on to say: We believe that prostitution is a form of violence and a violation of human rights. The Committee feels that the prostitute’s consent is irrelevant, because you can never consent to sexual exploitation.

This position was supported by the Conservative, Liberal, and NDP members who sat on the committee. The members for London—Fanshawe , York West , and Ahuntsic all sat on the committee with me and will remember the compelling evidence that we heard from survivors. Let me be clear. Prostitution is the avenue or means for pim