11151 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 171 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, February 6, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 6, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 171 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 171 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 171 (Version officielle) 147 171 06 02 2015 2015/02/06 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 GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1005) [ English ] Parliamentary Precinct Security Hon.

John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC) moved: Motion Motion No. 14 That this House, following the terrorist attack of October 22, 2014, recognize the necessity of fully integrated security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, as recommended by the Auditor General in his 2012 report and as exists in other peer legislatures; and call on the Speaker, in coordination with his counterpart in the Senate, to invite, without delay, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to lead operational security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am a proud Canadian. I have always been a proud Canadian. My family are all proud Canadians, and everyone in the chamber and watching this debate is a proud Canadian. This is a good starting place. Canada is a true symbol of democracy in the world today. We live in the best country in the world, and one thing that is valued greatly is that we are a safe country. That is the first duty of the federal government to maintain and enhance. This government has become a global leader in upholding democratic values and protecting human rights.

Under the leadership of our Prime Minister , Canada has gained prominence for our moral clarity in the universal fight against terror. Through its spirited initiatives, Canada's influence on the international stage has grown and matured immensely. Parliament Hill is the most important symbol of Canadian democracy. We have an obligation to protect this symbolic institution and to ensure the safety of visitors, employees, and elected officials. It is imperative for security within Parliament Hill to be integrated and enhanced.

We particularly owe a standard of care to Canadian visitors and international visitors to Parliament Hill. Public access must be maintained within a protective framework. Canadians cannot but be influenced by international events, and we then witnessed the event of October 20, with the murder of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, followed by the events of October 22 at the National War Memorial, with the killing of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and the subsequent attack on Parliament.

More recently, the terrorist attack at Charlie Hebdo headquarters in Paris has strongly reaffirmed our concerns that terrorism knows no boundaries and that in order to maintain our freedoms we must secure ourselves in the optimum way. The Auditor General's report, in 2012, indicated the need for an integrated parliamentary security force. While we believe that the ongoing unification of the House of Commons and Senate security services is a good first step, a fully integrated security force is also required.

On October 22, there were four distinct police security services, each with its own jurisdiction between the Parliament buildings and the National War Memorial. These were the House of Commons Security Services, the Senate Protective Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Ottawa Police Service. It is overdue that Parliament has an integrated security force to ensure seamless response to threats.

Today's motion is an administrative starting point to create, under the operational command of the RCMP, a fully integrated parliamentary security force which will provide for one chain of command and one point of accountability. The RCMP has a national presence that has access to rapid response training, security assessments, and intelligence, which are all essential in meeting today's evolving threats. Today's motion calls upon the Speakers of the House and Senate to invite the RCMP to lead this operational security.

I have confidence that the Speakers will ensure that this unified force will not alter or negatively impact the existing immunities and essential parliamentary privileges of members of Parliament. This enhanced security model will provide protection for visitors and parliamentarians, balanced with the goal of ensuring reasonable access to our Parliament for all Canadians. The Auditor General identified that it is necessary to balance the desired level of access with sufficient security to ensure that risks are mitigated.

The security measures implemented by the new integrated security unit for the parliamentary precinct will have policy oversight from parliamentary authorities. It is the government's objective to advance the transition with all security stakeholders as soon as possible. A transition committee coordinated by the Speakers of both Houses will work with senior officials on a transition plan.

(1010) The House of Commons security force is a backbone of Parliament Hill. Their individual efforts and courage on October 22, 2014 are admired and respected to the highest degree, and we thank them. An hon. member: That is not a way to thank them, though. Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, this is a serious subject, and I do not appreciate being heckled. An hon. member: It is not heckling. Hon. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I call that heckling at a time like this.

The integration of House of Commons and Senate parliamentary security is a necessary element, which would build upon a strong tradition of ensuring that protection and security are carried out effectively and efficiently in the face of evolving threats. All decisions related to the integrated security force would ensure continuous employment for current parliamentary security staff and be consistent with the existing collective agreements. Security staff serve a variety of important functions, which we expect will continue under the integrated security force.

If there are any staff reductions that result, they would be done through natural attrition. While there is a proud tradition and a proud culture in this institution and in our protective services, recent events can only lead us to conclude that an integrated security force is essential in our buildings and on the grounds. Canadians have much to celebrate, including the upcoming 150th anniversary as a Confederation.

We know we are able to compete at the highest level in every field of human endeavour, so it is only right that we apply ourselves to implementing best practices to achieve a seamless and integrated security in this place. We owe it to the family who is visiting from France. We owe it to the mother and child who are visiting from Vancouver. We owe it to our respected diplomatic guests who graciously attend our official events. We owe it to our esteemed security staff members who require a solid framework so they can do what they do best. We owe it to our parliamentary staff members.

We also owe it to our elected officials who have taken an oath to protect the public interest. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the government whip provided any explanation or rationale for why the Conservatives want to make this change. We support integration, but not the way they want to do it. My colleague said that no positions will be cut and that people will keep their jobs, but in the same breath, he said that any staff reductions would be done through natural attrition. Why? Who will be replacing them? The RCMP?

Nobody is answering those questions, and that has me very worried. Before I give my presentation in a few minutes, I would like to ask a question. [ English ] Will they allow a free vote of all of their MPs? Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, this is a government-inspired initiative and an important measure that we wish to put into place. The transition plan will contain the details of how this would be achieved. The Speakers will be a very important part of that transition planning. They will lead that exercise. Obviously, I have fully answered the question that has been asked of me.

It is a government initiative and the government members will be supporting this initiative.

(1015) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like a clear answer to this because I am very concerned by this move. I wonder if the hon. member opposite would tell me if he is aware of the advice received from our former sergeant-at-arms, Kevin Vickers, on the subject of removing independent security with its allegiance to Parliament and not to government? This is both a constitutional question and a security question. I believe that Kevin Vickers would not stand for this. Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, there have been ongoing discussions. This motion did not derive out of thin air.

There have been a lot of discussions up until now to get to where we are. I addressed the constitutional question in my speech. The question of the immunity and privileges of members of Parliament will remain unaltered. This is a thoughtful exercise and one that follows a model that has already largely been adopted in Australia and the U.K., based on real threat assessments that they felt they needed to respond to. This is something that we cannot continue to believe will not be the situation here. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, it is very clear that the former sergeant-at-arms, Kevin Vickers, would never have stood for this. This does not come from the Speaker. According to The Globe and Mail , sources have said that this decision is being driven by the Prime Minister . This is a major override of the legislative principle of the separation of power that has existed since the beginning of Confederation. We have had a statement as well from the president of the association that represents our brave security guards.

The message stated that a possibility of this move by the government would be, “in the view of the association, an indefensible and dangerous interference of government into the independence of the legislative function, as well as a solid breach into one of the foundational pillars of our democratic system: the principle of separation of powers”. This came from our brave security guards themselves, who laid their lives on the line on October 22. The current government is giving them a slap in the face and is moving to demote them, after they showed such bravery and courage on October 22.

I would like the government whip to confirm that this comes from the Prime Minister's Office. Will he confirm it? Also, will he admit that this is a major interference in the separation of powers under which this Confederation has existed since 1867? Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, when people talk about separation of powers, they often reference the mother Parliament in the U.K. The U.K. has a unified security force, as do some other very important Commonwealth partners.

Australia has a unified security force, which was put in place in 24 hours when officials realized that there was a real and present significant threat, and they worried about the details later. I always have a difficult response when members of the opposition want to put words in the mouths of people who are not able to speak. Kevin Vickers was a non-partisan friend to all as the sergeant-at-arms in this place. We all respect him immensely. Many of us consider him a friend. I refuse to be baited by the opposition members, who wish to put words in his mouth that I know he would not say.

Finally, the politics being played here that have nothing to do with improving the security of this place are not contributing to this debate, and I hope the opposition members will back off their petty politics.

(1020) Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, all of us lived through the October incident. All of us watched the video afterward, because many of us were locked in rooms and felt that our lives were threatened and heard the gunfire that we thought was actually from multiple shooters coming after us. We found out that it was the brave people of both our own security force and the RCMP.

It is repugnant that the opposition members would imply that to try to enhance and make a force more effective by integrating it would in any way, shape, or form disparage those brave people who protected us on that day. I just want the chief government whip to confirm that as being exactly the case. Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for saying so eloquently what I should have said in response to the previous question. We thank our security forces. The House of Commons force was very dutiful and did all the right things on October 22. We are not saying that one is better than the other.

We are saying that what we need is seamless, integrated security. It is that simple. It has to be led by one entity. The entity best placed to do that is the entity with a national presence and with connections to rapid response training on a national level and to intelligence sources, and so on. That is why we are where we are. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I think what is being lost by the whip is something he actually said in his own speech, which is that we are the ones to be in charge of preserving the freedoms we have.

The problem is that this process is devoid of the very words he speaks. We should be looking at this with sober eyes and not just ramming through a motion. We should be looking at what happened on October 22 and how to integrate it and have all the evidence brought forward. Unfortunately, and I say this with deep sincerity, the government is doing the top-down thing: no free vote, and putting forward a motion and then ridiculing any kind of critique. I want to ask the whip how he can say, on the one hand, that he wants to preserve the freedoms of this place, and on the other hand say that there is no free vote.

I do not understand that. I would ask him to explain how, on the one hand, he wants us as members of Parliament to preserve the security of this place, on which we agree, but then on the other hand say that there will be no free vote, that the government will whip everyone into shape and tell them what to think. How does he square that? Hon. John Duncan : Mr. Speaker, it has been over three months since the events of October 22. There has been a lot of debate and discussion. We have a government initiative. We hoped for opposition support.

It may be an overreach on our part to assume that this would happen, but we certainly have caucus solidarity on this issue. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : That is not true. Mr. Peter Julian : It is imposed. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : I know a couple of your members who do not agree. Hon. John Duncan : Opposition members would like to suggest that there is not caucus solidarity on the government side, Mr. Speaker. They are incorrect. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that this is really a sad day for democracy, for government in general and for the decisions we make here. I also want to make the official opposition's position on enhancing the safety of the thousands of Canadians who spend time here every day perfectly clear. It is very clear to us that this is a priority. We need better integration, better training, better equipment and more resources dedicated to our safety. That is very clear. The motion before us will not achieve that.

This motion is nothing more than the government's attempt to take away the historic responsibility that the Speaker's office has under the Constitution to protect parliamentarians from the unilateral intrusion of government authority. I will not bore the House with the history of this practice, which dates back to the English civil war in the 17th century and which is the outcome of the evolution of our Constitution since 1867 even though that history can help us understand why our current system is the way it is.

My arguments will focus on two points: first, how this motion will definitely make the thousands of Canadians who visit this place every day less safe; and second, why it is unconstitutional and unacceptable in this institution to proceed in this manner within our constitutional democracy. The fact that the government is using the power of its whip to try to take constitutional rights away from the Speaker and permanently hand control of security in this place over to its own security service is a direct attack on our traditions, our practices and our Constitution.

This is an unprecedented attempt to control security in the only place where the government cannot control it: this Parliament. This once again demonstrates that this government, led by the Prime Minister , is obsessed with controlling everything. I would like to quote a reference regarding the traditions and procedures of this House. In the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by O'Brien and Bosc, the Speaker's role with regard to security is described on page 324. (1025) [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order. Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, there was a moment when there were only two Conservative members in the House, and I wondered if we had quorum, but perhaps we do. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : There appears to be quorum in the chamber. The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel : Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will start over to ensure that the Conservatives hear what I have to say.

I will cite the reference on the traditions and procedures of the House, the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by O'Brien and Bosc. The Speaker's role in matters of security is described on page 324: The right of each House of Parliament to regulate its own internal affairs also extends to the management of the premises “within the precinct and beyond the debating Chamber …”. As guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, the Speaker ensures that they are respected within and outside the House. Within the precinct, the Speaker oversees matters of security and policing.

Security within the buildings occupied by Members and staff of the House is the responsibility of the Sergeant-at-Arms, who acts under the Speaker’s authority (The Senate maintains its own security force in buildings occupied by Senators and Senate staff.). For this purpose, the House maintains its own security service. Arrangements are in place whereby the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is charged with security of the grounds outside the buildings. There are occasions when the House security staff request and receive assistance from outside police forces, whether the RCMP or the local police.

It is also well established that outside police forces wishing to enter the parliamentary buildings must first obtain permission from the Speaker to do so, and that the authority to grant or withhold such permission rests with the Speaker, who exercises sole discretion in this regard. My first question regarding the motion is this: why does the government believe that the House of Commons security services and the role of the Speaker should suddenly be under the control of the RCMP and that the Speaker's authority to grant or refuse permission for the RCMP to enter this place should disappear?

The wording of the motion suggests that the terrible attack perpetrated by a disturbed individual on October 22, 2014, that resulted in the death of a Canadian corporal who was standing guard at at the National War Memorial justifies these changes. The motion alludes to the attack as a terrorist attack. However, this government and the RCMP have never been able to produce any evidence to prove that the October 22 attack was organized by a terrorist group or that the criminal responsible was associated with any terrorist group.

All we have is the slogan that the Prime Minister likes to repeat over and over again, even though it cannot be justified. In fact, the only evidence that the RCMP claimed was proof that the attack was motivated by terrorism—a video made by the gunman—was never made public. This does nothing to increase the public's confidence in how the RCMP is conducting this investigation. Nonetheless, some facts about the events that occurred on that terrible day are now clear. On October 22, 2014, the RCMP had a number of officers on duty within the perimeter.

For a variety of reasons, they were unable to keep the killer, who was openly carrying a gun, from crossing a busy street in downtown Ottawa, crossing the grounds of Parliament Hill and hijacking a car that he drove to the doors of the Centre Block. Those facts are clear. There are a number of videos available to the public that show these events. Many Canadians have seen them. What is also clear is the heroic role that was played by the unarmed constables with the House of Commons security services throughout that terrible day.

Constable Samearn Son, from our security service, was wounded by the killer when he intercepted him as he entered the building, and he alerted the other guards in the Hall of Honour. What is clear is that the men and women in the Parliament buildings that day, most of whom are members of the House of Commons security service, are the ones who stopped and eventually took down this armed man.

(1030) Kevin Vickers, the head of security, was given a lot of credit. He was completely deserving of that credit, not only because of his individual efforts but because of the performance of his devoted staff. Our security service is known for its excellent training and professionalism. If find our government's response to this attack absolutely shocking. The government is going to give the RCMP, which failed in its duty that day, jurisdiction over the security force that managed to stop the attack, our House of Commons security service.

The fact that the motion uses the October 22 attack as an excuse to give the RCMP more power is shameful. It is an insult to the brave men and women who protected us so well that day. As I mentioned earlier, there is no doubt that security on the Hill needs to be better integrated and coordinated. Better communication, better equipment and better training are also needed. Our people need more resources, and I know that my colleagues on both sides of the House have already supported the idea of giving them more.

The official opposition will also support the full integration of the House of Commons and Senate security services. This motion would have us believe that the idea of having the RCMP take over the Parliament Hill security services was somehow suggested by the Auditor General in his 2012 report on the administration of the House of Commons. I have read this report, and on the contrary, it clearly states that integrating the security services would significantly improve security on Parliament Hill. The Auditor General never said that the RCMP had to take control here.

In my opinion, any reference to the Auditor General in this motion is incorrect and inappropriate. In fact, this motion is not designed to improve security on Parliament Hill. Rather, it is designed to remove control from our Speaker and our security services over security in this precinct and to give that power to the RCMP, which is controlled by the government. However, there is no indication that the Hill will be more secure if the RCMP takes control of all security services on Parliament Hill.

We all know that the RCMP is an excellent police force made up of brave women and men who do not hesitate to risk their lives every day to protect Canadians. We can never thank them enough for their service. Our heart breaks over the tragic number of RCMP officers who have lost their lives serving Canadians, whether it is in Mayerthorpe, Alberta, or in Moncton. However, the fact that they do a good job across Canada does not make them the better choice to protect Parliament Hill.

I believe that if we allow our independent security services to manage security on the Hill with more resources, the thousands of individuals who use this place—members of Parliament, senators, journalists, employees and visitors—will be safer. The members of our security services understand how this place works. They respect the needs and traditions of our parliamentary institutions. They know our faces and our jobs. They always do their job with diligence and pride.

They know how to keep us safe as we carry out our daily duties, all the while ensuring that this magnificent place remains a place where Canadians can meet, celebrate, mourn or express their opinions. The RCMP is a huge organization known for frequently relocating and transferring its members and, admittedly, for the difficulties that it has had to face following allegations of sexual harassment. It is accountable to a government that, in turn, is increasingly known for doing everything in its power to stifle dissent and punish its political enemies.

I see here an excellent institutional reason for this House to reject the possibility of having the RCMP oversee Parliament's security services. We are the legislature. We have a certain number of constitutional roles. One of them is to let the Governor General decide who has the confidence of the House.

(1035) In this system, there is a convention that determines which party leader will be called on to form the government. It is for that reason that there is a separation between the executive branch of government, the legislative branch of Parliament and the judicial branch. This motion seeks to extend executive authority over Parliament by ensuring that the security agency that controls everything on Parliament Hill is the government's security agency—the RCMP. It is not the role of the legislature to serve the government. This House serves Canadians, not the government.

The intent of this motion is to place security for this place under the control and direct authority of the government police service—the RCMP. The role of the Speaker is to serve and protect all elected officials and the thousands of Canadians who come here, and not just to protect the Prime Minister and the government. I have no reason to believe that making the House of Commons security service a sub-section of the RCMP would improve security.

I find it shocking that the Chief Government Whip is trying to adopt this measure now, when the process to integrate the House and the Senate security services is still under way. I also find it shocking that the government whip is telling his MPs how to vote when, by voting that way, they will be giving up their own rights. If the government really wanted to talk about this in terms of legality and security, it would authorize a free vote. Based on the answer I got this morning, it seems that will be impossible.

That is why I am moving, seconded by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster , an amendment to the motion that I believe would address my concerns: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “That the House” and substituting the following: “recognize the necessity of fully integrated security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, as recommended by the Auditor General in his 2012 report and as exists in other peer legislatures; call on the Speaker, in coordination with his counterpart in the Senate, to prepare and execute, without delay, plans to fully integrate the work of all partners providing operational security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill , while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, including the ultimate authorities of the Speakers of the Senate and House of Commons over access and security of Parliament, and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff, whose exemplary work on October 22, 2014, very quickly ended a threat to the security of Parliament.” Amendment (1040) [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : The amendment is in order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hull—Aylmer for a very eloquent speech. What she has brought forward is an amendment that the government actually should have brought forward in the first place, if it were not trying, as many observers who understand the security situation on Parliament Hill have noted, to interfere and wreck that division of powers that have existed in Confederation since 1867.

The government should have brought forward a motion that would read: “...call on the Speaker, in coordination with his counterpart in the Senate, to prepare and execute, without delay, plans to fully integrate the work of all partners providing operational security throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, including the ultimate authorities of the speakers of the Senate and House of Commons over access and security of Parliament and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected parliamentary security staff.” That would have been the motion brought forward if the government really intended to work with the opposition, rather than trying to interfere or attempting to lessen the very clear divisions of power that have existed since the beginning.

Canadians will have some time to bring some pressure on Conservative MPs, who are being whipped right now not to vote for the NDP amendment. Does the member feel that Canadians believe that we need to have this separation of powers and that the brave work of our men and women on the parliamentary security precinct should be applauded, not treated the way the government is treating it today? (1045) [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Indeed, Canadians believe it is very important for the House and the government, in this place and on Parliament Hill, to be respected as a whole and not treated as completely separate entities, which is what the government is currently trying to do. That is very unfortunate. I would also like to address a point that was discussed. Once again, this failure to have a real discussion and use a collaborative approach for the good of the House and the good of Canadians everywhere, at home and abroad, shows a lack of respect towards all political parties.

Canadians should feel safe and should feel that the House is working for them and with them, and that it is not being controlled by another entity. That is what is deplorable about this entire approach. [ English ] Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, obviously, what happened here on October 22 involved real bullets, live fire, and the safety of many lives in the House.

I was pleased to hear that at least the member would agree that there is a need for an integrated force, that anyone trying to break through is not concerned whether he is in the House, out of the House, or coming up to the House. Therefore, would she agree with me that the action that needs to be taken is urgent and immediate? We had the Auditor General's report in 2012. Here we are in 2015 and no action has been taken. We had an incident occur some three or so months ago and no action has been taken.

Would she agree that the need is urgent and immediate, and would she agree that the RCMP has the capacity and the ability to provide that kind of integrated force? Ms. Nycole Turmel : Mr. Speaker, yes, we fully agree with integration of the Senate and the House of Commons security, as well as making sure we have the RCMP protecting us outside the building, outside the House. We all agree with that. We agree as well on the urgency of the situation.

There was discussion, and if this motion or a similar motion had been presented at the committee it would have ensured that we were all working together toward this objective. It would have been a lot easier. The trick in all of this is that the motion came to us with a part that had never been discussed. It was never part of the solution. That is what we cannot support. At the same time, when you ask if the RCMP has the capacity, the RCMP has a mission and role that is completely different from what we are looking at today. The security people are informed and prepared for that part.

We need to keep the independence of the Speaker here in this room. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Before I go to questions, I remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, there has certainly been a great deal of good information put forward this morning. I want to make it really clear where the Green Party stands. We, like the official opposition, agree that we need a unified security force and that security must be beefed up.

We have learned a lot of lessons. I agree with the official opposition and applaud members for again pointing out that it was not a terrorist attack, but an attack by tragically mentally ill, drunk, addicted individual. Thank goodness it was not a terrorist attack. It is something that has given us an opportunity to see where the holes in security are and where we can fix them. However, the constitutional issue here is not a small one.

Is my hon. colleague aware of the current position taken by Senator Campbell, a former RCMP officer himself, who has taken the view that this is in fact unconstitutional and would not survive a constitutional challenge? (1050) [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel : Mr. Speaker, I will try to direct my comments to you when I speak. I know that you have reminded me to do so several times. [ English ] At this point, I know that the Senate is in agreement with integration, but regarding the RCMP, I am not sure. We will make sure that we are all aware of that part of the issue.

It is good news for us and the staff if they are saying exactly what we are saying. It shows that this is led by a person who wants something different from everyone else, who would like to see this discussed and presented in a way that responds to the role and mission of this government as a whole. Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am absolutely confident in the capacity of the RCMP but that I also have confidence in the parliamentary police force. I state this for a particular reason.

Each of us who comes here swears an oath to the Queen and, in essence, to the Governor General at the same time. Our responsibility is to protect this place and the authorities of this place. That separation from the executive branch of government is what we maintain. A government member stated a few moments ago that this has been neglected for a long time. I have been here nine years, as has this government, and it is the government that has neglected it. We do agree that there has to be an integrated service. We do agree with much that is here, but we have to keep it in the hands of the Speaker.

That is a responsibility of each and every one of us. I want to remind hon. members that this is not a political question or party question. It is about the legitimacy of this very House. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel : Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague summed up the situation quite well. The message we are trying to get across is quite clear. It is a question of separating the responsibilities of each party and recognizing the House and Parliament accordingly, as well as the authority they have been given over the years. We must keep it that way through any integration.

As we have said many times, let us respect the role of the RCMP, let us respect the internal security part of its role, and let us respect the authority the House has been given to manage and direct this Parliament. [ English ] Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians look to us as parliamentarians to help ensure their health and security in their daily lives. It is our responsibility to put in place measures that protect Canadians. Since the Centre Block of Parliament in which I stand today was constructed in 1916, there have been security incidents in and around Parliament.

Thankfully, the consequences were always much less severe than they could have been. Throughout the decades, Parliament has taken responsibility to adapt its security measures for the safety of everyone who has the pleasure of entering these walls. The tragic events of October 22 serve as stark reminder that some people still seek to cause harm for harm's sake. Luckily for the staff, visitors, and parliamentarians who were in the building that day, our loyal and brave security teams were able to successfully neutralize the threat.

We can never be grateful enough for those who put themselves in the line of fire to help protect all of us. I am proud of the openness of our Parliament. I am proud that more than 1.5 million people choose to visit the seat of Canada's democracy every year. I am proud that each year 300 demonstrations take place just outside these walls. Our ability to disagree with government decisions, to be allowed to publicly express this disagreement, and to be able to do so safely is fundamental to our right of free expression.

Our House of Commons committees had the pleasure of hearing from more than 3,700 witnesses in 2014. Our colleagues from the other place got to hear important testimony from more than 1,700 people in 2013. Add to this the 4,000 staff who work at all levels of our Parliament, and one realizes the magnitude of the responsibility that we all share to ensure their safety. That is why we support this motion.

Whether a young Canadian is visiting Parliament for the first time, learning about the history of our country, or a minister of the crown is hosting a meeting, we must ensure that everyone is protected at all times and at all places under our control. We are all grateful to the parliamentary security team who have protected Parliament. I think it is very important to make it clear to the people who have given years of service to the protection of all Canadians who come to Parliament that we wish nothing more than that they continue their admirable work they have always done.

All of us encounter members of our security teams on a daily basis in Parliament. I know that close links and friendships have developed between many of my colleagues and the security staff. I believe it is important that this motion specifically mentions that we would be “ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff.” It is equally important that this motion asserts the respect of the privileges, immunities, and powers of both Houses of Parliament. I was happy to see the motion recognize both these issues.

If we return to the events of October 22, let us not forget the brave and rapid actions of all our security forces members who were in this very building, like Constable Son, who confronted a dangerous man and was injured while fulfilling his duty to protect others, and like all the security forces members who bravely charged down the Hall of Honour to put an end to the threat we all faced. As times change, Parliament must adapt to offer the best protection possible to the people who enter its grounds.

It is our responsibility to ensure that we do so efficiently, all the while respecting the people who will continue to protect this place for many years to come.

(1055) As members know, the Auditor General prepared a report that recommended an integrated security team back in 2012. It is the provisions of this report that are being respected to through the motion before us and through our position on it. Concerns have been raised with respect to the separation, and these are extremely valid concerns that are specifically addressed in the motion. What has to be paramount here is the safety and security of all people who enter this place.

That safety and security is best served by an integrated force, which was recommended by the Office of the Auditor General in its 2012 report, and that is what the motion recommends It is important to bear in mind that the motion is an invitation for the RCMP to take charge of this integrated force. All of the details will be worked out in the fullness of time, but the basic principles are set out that the assurance of continued employment for the valued members of the House of Commons security team will remain, and that is important. The distinction with privileges and immunities will also be maintained.

It is very important that politics not allow us to get ahead of ourselves in this discussion. This is a starting point, with general principles being set out, and that is the manner in which we should move forward The Liberals will support the motion, and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on it.

(1100) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The Chair must interrupt the member for Charlottetown at this time. The time for government orders has expired, but the member will have 13 minutes remaining when this matter returns following question period.

Statements by Members Statements by Members [ English ] Canadian International AutoShow Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to highlight an event taking place this coming week in Toronto, the Canadian International AutoShow. This show is the largest in Canada, with an attendance of some 300,000 people. For 10 days, individuals from across Canada and other countries will come to explore the latest trends and products from over 30 automotive brands.

The show is always the kick-start of the retail sales year, and I am thrilled to report that both 2013 and 2014 were record breaking years in Canada for Canadian auto sales, with over 1.8 million vehicles sold in Canada this year alone. I wish our automotive manufacturers and their dealers the very best with this year's auto show. I also invite all members and all interested Canadians to come and attend the show at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, from February 13-22, to view the latest in car designs, models and technology. There is something for everybody at this year's Canadian International AutoShow.

Surrey North Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise proudly today to acknowledge some of the amazing activities that are taking place in my community of Surrey North. On February 21, I will be walking in the Coldest Night of the Year, hosted by the Surrey Urban Mission, to raise money for the hungry and homeless, and to raise awareness about the issue of poverty, low-income housing, homelessness and mental health.

The Surrey Urban Mission, under the leadership of Jonquil Hallgate and with the help of volunteers, works tirelessly to provide for one of the most vulnerable populations in our community. I applaud their commitment to these important issues. I also want to congratulate Spice Radio 1200AM and Shushma Datt for their Raise Your Hands Against Racism campaign. This initiative coincides with the Holi festival, or the festival of colours, on March 7. City halls around the Lower Mainland will invite everyone to place a colourful handprint and sign their anti-racism tableau.

I will proudly be adding my handprint to the tableau in Surrey, and I hope all residents will join me in doing the same.

Chancellor of the University of the Fraser Valley Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour a constituent of mine, Dr. Gwen Point. On February 4, Dr. Gwen Point was installed as Chancellor of the University of the Fraser Valley at a ceremony in Chilliwack. Dr. Point's connection to the University of the Fraser Valley stretches back decades to when she and her husband, former lieutenant governor of British Columbia, Steven Point, enrolled in the school. Since that time, Dr. Point has served as a teacher, scholar, administrator and board member.

She has held a number of offices in government, including that of Chatelaine of British Columbia. As a member of the Skowkale first nation, Dr. Point is a respected Stó:lo leader, mentor and cultural adviser. She has contributed her cultural knowledge and experience to numerous books, conferences, workshops and committees. Her accomplishments in the field of education, child and family services, and first nations organizations are too numerous to mention in the limited time I have. I want to congratulate Dr.

Point on her new role as chancellor, and wish her all the best as she helps lead the University of the Fraser Valley into the future.

Wedding Anniversary Congratulations Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, last week was a special one for Bedford's Philip Riteman. Mr. Riteman and his wife, Dorothy, happily celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary on Thursday. Mr. Riteman also marked another milestone last week, the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Mr. Riteman spent a year and a half there, but for this Auschwitz survivor, his story is one of man's love and forgiveness triumphing over evil.

He regularly speaks to students about his experience in a death camp, despite finding it very difficult and emotional to do so. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Philip and Dorothy, and to thank Mr. Riteman for helping ensure that we never forget.

Public Safety Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last week, the Liberal member for York West demonstrated her party's ignorance on terrorism when she said that if ISIL attacked Canada, it was because the Prime Minister put us in that position. Reports from last weekend state that while speaking at a Liberal training session in Toronto, the member for Trinity—Spadina said, “...we're dropping bombs on people instead of building civil society. That has to change”. He also called Canada a “war maker”.

On this side of the House, we do not believe defending against ISIL terror makes Canada a war maker. We also know we cannot build a society with terrorists. They are not civil. In closing, the MP for Trinity—Spadina also noted that Canada needed to respond to world events in a mature and precise way. It is too bad the Liberal leader will not take his advice.

(1105) [ Translation ] The Economy Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canada's economy is going through some turmoil, entrepreneurs and other citizens have a right to know what direction the government plans to take. Businesses and workers are wondering what taxation and government programs will look like. The minister is not even capable of bringing down a budget. The Conservatives are lacking brain power.

Next fall, when the Leader of the Opposition is Prime Minister, he will have an embarrassment of riches to choose from when forming his cabinet, unlike the current Prime Minister , whose choices are simply embarrassing. As for the Liberals, they have been embarrassed enough by their leader.

[ English ] Canadian School Counselling Week Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight a vital part of our education system. The Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association has recognized Canadian School Counselling Week, a week dedicated to increasing public awareness of the scope of programs and services that characterize the important role played by the school counselling profession all across Canada.

In addition to helping students with their mental health and overall well-being, school counsellors also make significant contributions to the personal, social, academic and career development of our young people. I would also like to recognize the fact that the Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association is celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2015. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the thousands of mental health professionals who make up the association and to thank them for contributing to the well-being of Canadians for half a century.

Violence Against Women Mr. John Barlow (Macleod, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as a father of two daughters, violence against women and girls is a profound concern. I am proud to say that under the leadership of our Prime Minister , this government is working hard with community stakeholders to address this issue. Our commitment is clear: funding the global maternal, newborn and child health initiative; a national action plan to address violence against aboriginal women and girls; and enacting laws against cyberbullying.

Also, the status of women committee, of which I am a proud member, is in the midst of a comprehensive study on best practices to stop violence against women. The statistics on this issue are concerning. One in three women across the planet will be beaten or raped in their lifetime; that is one billion women and girls. On February 14, I will be participating in One Billion Rising with the Rowan House and Pincher Creek emergency shelters in my riding. I encourage all of my colleagues in the House to lend their voice to this fight, especially the men. We have to change the narrative.

This is not just violence against women; this is also about men perpetrating violence against women.

Have a Heart Day Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let me draw the attention of all members and all Canadians to an event this Valentine's Day called “Have A Heart Day”, sponsored by the First Nation's Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. This is our opportunity to stand with the children of first nations for the chance to grow up safely at home, to get a good education, to be healthy and to be proud of their cultures, in short, to know first nations children have the same services and opportunities as all other Canadian children.

Canadians can explore the Have A Heart website for more information and send an e-valentine to the Prime Minister or to their member of Parliament. Let us remember Jordan's principle and help put an end to government red tape, depriving children of first nations of government services available to all others. Let us support Shannon's dream for safe schools and equitable education for the children of first nations. This Valentine's Day, Canadians should show their heart. They should plan their own celebrations or join one of the many nation-wide Have A Heart events.

We should help all children of first nations to be proud and successful, because their dreams matter too.

Taxation Mr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, thanks to our government, Canadian families can be assured that their hard-earned money is making its way back to their bank accounts. Our plan is simple and we stand by it. We trust parents to invest in their children and spend their money as they see fit. Soon families in my riding of Huron—Bruce will receive just under $2,000 annually per child under the age of 6, and $720 per year for youth aged 6 to 17. The NDP and Liberals on the other hand want to take this money away and spend it on big government bureaucracy instead.

Despite the opposition and third party Liberals who have positioned themselves against middle-class families, I am proud that our government is giving money back to each and every family with children in Canada.

(1110) Canadian Flag Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on February 15, 1965, for the last time, the Canadian Red Ensign bearing the Union Jack and the shield of the Royal Arms of Canada was lowered. Then, on the stroke of noon, our maple leaf was raised for the first time.

Words spoken then still ring true today, “The flag is the symbol of the nation's unity, for it, beyond any doubt, represents all the citizens of Canada without distinction of race, language, belief or opinion”. [ Translation ] It flutters above government buildings, businesses, schools, homes, diplomatic missions and our Parliament. It is worn on the uniforms of our proud armed forces, who defend our Canadian values and our future. [ English ] Symbolizing peace and acceptance, our flag is respected the world over. Let it forever be a beacon of hope and a symbol to us, as Canadians, to strive for greatness.

On February 15, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Canadian flag. May it continue to fly over our great nation strong and free.

The Environment Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday in Convent Glen I was pleased to join Michael Rosen, President of Tree Canada, at the Ecology Ottawa event called “Everyone Loves Trees!”. [ Translation ] This event coincided with Tu B'Sheavat , the Jewish New Year of Trees. With the counter-culture movement of the 1960s, this holiday has morphed into a Jewish ecology day and promotes ecological awareness. [ English ] As members know, I have been a tree champion since my Scouting days.

In 2011, this House approved my private member's motion to declare the Wednesday of the last full week of September National Tree Day. At last Tuesday's event, Ecology Ottawa urged each of us to adopt a tree. The typical Canadian produces enough carbon dioxide during his or her lifespan to feed 15 trees, so once again I urge the people of Orléans to get on with it and plant trees to compensate. Whether they want to adopt one tree or 15 trees or would like more information on caring for trees, I encourage them to go to treeottawa.org and adopt a tree today.

Health Partners International Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Health Partners International of Canada, an NGO headquartered in the West Island of Montreal, on 25 years of delivering essential medicines and medical supplies to vulnerable communities, particularly those in the developing world. Since 1990, it has remarkably delivered over 20 million treatments to such communities.

Health Partners collects medicines and supplies that are donated by medical suppliers, including both research-based and generic pharmaceutical companies, and creates physician travel packs, including mother-child health kits, which are then given to physicians and other volunteers travelling to areas of need abroad. [ Translation ] In Canada and other developed countries, we are fortunate to be able to readily access medicines, including painkillers, which we might need one day.

Thanks to its extraordinary vision and its ability to form partnerships, HPIC helps alleviate the pain of a great many people in our global village.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, despite the opinions of the Liberals and the NDP, a job-killing carbon tax is not what our country needs at this time, especially in the case of northern Canadians, who already have a higher cost of living. Our government will continue to deliver on our low-tax plan, which will create jobs for all Canadians. We will not weigh them down with unnecessary tax hikes.

It is simply a reckless policy, and our Conservative government will make sure that as we lower taxes not only for Canadian families but also for Canadian businesses, such as when we reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, we are taking care of Canadian families, their needs, and their businesses to give them the greatest opportunities. We will reject any opportunity the Liberals try to create to raise taxes on Canadian families. We expect that the NDP and the Liberals who support this plan will be soundly rejected by Canadians, who know that the Conservative government and its low-tax plan are best for Canadian families.

[ Translation ] Ethics Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Prime Minister 's current chief of staff will be forced to testify in a criminal case involving a payment made by Nigel Wright. (1115) [ English ] Conservative Ray Novak will be called to testify, and we may even see the Prime Minister called to the stand.

Maybe we will finally hear from the Prime Minister about what he meant when he told Nigel Wright that the Mike Duffy payments were “good to go”, why he claimed that no one in his office except Nigel Wright knew about the payments when emails clearly show that many more were involved, or why he said he did not know about illegal payments when records show that he did. Last summer at the PMO it was “difficult to imagine” the Prime Minister testifying. I would say it does not take much imagination now to see the Prime Minister take the stand.

Hopefully Canadians will then finally get truthful answers from the Conservatives about the PMO-orchestrated cover-up of the Senate scandal.

Taxation Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since coming to office, our government has made it a duty to ensure that Canadian families have the support they need to grow and thrive. That is why our Prime Minister announced we would be putting hard-earned money back into the pockets of Canadian moms and dads with the family tax cut plan and the enhanced child care benefit. Soon families in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore will receive just under $2,000 annually per child under six.

When it is added up, a family with three children will receive nearly $36,000 by the time the children turn six years old. However, notwithstanding his lack of experience, the Liberal leader has shown that same old Liberal Party arrogance by pledging to reverse our tax breaks. Liberals will take this money away from Canadian families. Unlike the members on that side of the House, we will continue to stand up for Canadian families.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Infrastructure Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canada's mayors have come together to send a clear message: our cities need real long-term federal investments in infrastructure, affordable housing, and public transit. Decades of neglect by Liberals and Conservatives have left our cities falling behind. Why do the Conservatives refuse to invest in making cities more livable? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced the largest infrastructure plan in Canadian history.

It amounts to $75 billion over the next decade. This includes a $53 billion new Building Canada plan to provide significant support for municipalities, provinces, and territories. In less than a year, numerous projects have already been approved. An estimated $5 billion worth of projects have already been identified for funding. The projects include a new public transit system in Edmonton and highway systems in many other provinces. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Conservative government is listening to municipal mayors.

Eighteen mayors of Canada's major cities are calling on the Conservative government to invest in public transit, infrastructure and housing in order to create jobs. The mayors had not even left Ottawa before the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs turned them down flat. Why do the Conservatives insist on giving tax cuts to the wealthy instead of investing in job creation for the middle class? [ English ] Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, in actual fact, municipalities and provinces own 95% of the public infrastructure in Canada. Notwithstanding this fact, the federal government is still there as a major partner. We are also taking a leadership role with respect to federally owned infrastructure. Last fall, the Prime Minister announced $6 billion for federally owned infrastructure. These important investments will be made at national historic sites, Canadian Armed Forces facilities, research centres, and Coast Guard facilities, just to name a few. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the mayors of Canada's major cities represent two-thirds of the Canadian population. They are calling for public transit for their residents, who are stuck in traffic jams every day. They are calling for social housing for people who have inadequate housing, and safer and more efficient infrastructure. Why are the Conservatives refusing to work with the municipalities and the provinces? [ English ] Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I have clearly explained, we are making record investments in public infrastructure across the country, and this includes record investments in public transit. Since we formed government in 2006, we have invested close to $8 billion in public transit alone. This includes important investments in the new LRT system in my own home community of Waterloo region.

(1120) [ Translation ] Public Safety Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the minister a simple question about the new anti-terrorism bill. Once again, we did not get an answer. Bill C-51 would extend CSIS' powers beyond intelligence activities, to enable the agency to disrupt terrorist acts, or interfere somehow, before they happen. Could the minister clearly explain the types of activities that will be authorized? [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

This is a very important question. In fact, there has been some erroneous and inaccurate reporting around this subject. CSIS' mandate to disrupt threats will be based on the definition of “threats to the security of Canada”. It is found in

section 2 of the CSIS Act. It has been based on CSIS' primary investigative mandate since 1984. The definition includes espionage, sabotage, foreign-influenced activities, terrorism, and subversion, and it explicitly excludes lawful advocacy, protest, or dissent. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it seems the more questions we ask on this, the fewer answers we are actually getting. Canadians deserve better. They actually deserve concrete and complete answers to the questions we are asking.

Allowing CSIS to go beyond the collection of intelligence and into the business of enforcement and the disruption of threats is a major shift. It is the duty of the government to clearly explain what is meant by this change and why it is necessary. What kinds of activities would Bill C-51 allow CSIS to undertake? Who will determine when charter rights—Canadians' rights and freedoms—are threatened and judicial oversight is required? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : The short answer, Mr. Speaker, would be, of course, a judge.

I will point out that the powers being granted to CSIS will be subject to strict limits. CSIS will be forbidden from taking any measures that cause, intentionally or by negligence, death or bodily harm; that violate the sexual integrity of an individual; or that wilfully obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice. CSIS will not become a law enforcement agency. CSIS employees would not be given the powers of peace officers, such as the ability to arrest or imprison individuals. CSIS has always been and will continue to be required to seek a warrant.

[ Translation ] The Economy Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the budget for the building Canada fund for infrastructure dropped from $2 billion to $210 million this year. It has been cut by 90%. Retail stores are dropping like flies and the manufacturing sector has shed 400,000 jobs. These sectors need the infrastructure to be competitive and to create good jobs. In addition to delaying the budget, the Prime Minister told us, on Tuesday in the House, that we are going through an economic crisis.

Is it true that we are in an economic crisis or did the Prime Minister make a mistake? [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since the depths of the global recession, almost 1.2 million net new jobs have been created, over 80% full time, over 80% in the private sector, and over 60% in high-wage industries. However, Canada is not immune to the economic challenges beyond our borders. That is why our Conservative government is working hard to help create jobs and economic prosperity.

While we are focused on creating jobs, the Liberal leader has the same old high-tax, high-debt agenda that would threaten jobs and set working families back.

Infrastructure Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, when Canada's premiers call for increased infrastructure investment, the finance minister calls them oblivious to economics. Yet economic experts like David Dodge, the IMF, and the Bank of Canada agree that there has never been a better time to make infrastructure investments here in Canada. The Conservatives are not listening. In fact, they slashed the building Canada fund by 90% to create a notional surplus on the eve of an election.

Will the government heed the premiers and the economic experts, reverse these harmful cuts, fix Canada's infrastructure, and create jobs and growth for Canadians? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, that is incorrect. Furthermore, I would add that we will take no lessons from the Liberals, either on investing in infrastructure or on balancing the budget. When they were in government, they did so little on infrastructure. How did they balance the budget?

They did it by slashing transfers to health care and education and by starving municipalities. Our government has been repairing the damage ever since.

(1125) Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, adding $160 billion to the national debt does not sound like the Conservatives are doing a very good job repairing damage. The Conservatives are fudging the numbers on the building Canada fund. They are inflating them by spanning them over a decade, when in fact 70% of the funds will not even flow until after 2019. They could get even more creative with their accounting. They could span the fund over 100 years and create a really, really big number.

Meanwhile, in reality, they have actually cut the fund by 90% for the next two years to create this notional surplus on the eve of an election. When will they stop misleading Canadians with creative accounting and actually fix Canada's infrastructure? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : We are making record investments, Mr. Speaker. The new building Canada plan has been open for business since last March. In less than a year, projects representing an estimated $5 billion have already been identified for funding.

We are there as a major partner with municipalities and provinces. We are renewing infrastructure. We are creating jobs and prosperity and enhancing the quality of life for all Canadians.

Foreign Affairs Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the world is currently coordinating its response to ISIS-inspired terrorism and extremism. Canada should be at the table and not on the sidelines. A major security conference in Munich is happening this week to discuss terrorism. Twenty world leaders are attending, along with some 60 foreign and defence ministers. I have a very simple question for the government. Will Canada be represented at this important international summit, yes or no? Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite has gotten up and asked questions about our response to ISIS, and we have responded in the areas he has been concerned about. We have responded in the areas of sexual violence, protecting minorities, dealing with war criminals, and dealing with refugees, and we are proud of the effort our country has put into dealing with this issue and dealing with the crisis in Iraq and Syria, and we will continue to work on the issue.

Public Safety Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are concerned that Bill C-51 would go too far by lumping together legal dissent with terrorist activity. When it comes to critical anti-terrorism outreach at home, the Conservatives are still missing in action. The only counter-radicalization program the minister can point to has been on the drawing board since 2013, but it still has not been rolled out, and when it is, it is not going to get any new funding. Is this the minister's only plan to work with communities to counter radicalization? Hon.

Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there are numerous ways in which we are countering radicalization, including the ability, now, to remove material that is seen to incite or provoke terrorism. Beyond that, we have cultural round tables. We have outreach. The security forces themselves are very actively engaged in that. However, I want to point out that the hon. member quotes selectively from the SIRC report. The report goes on to state that: The Committee is confident that it has the expertise and ability to effectively take on new challenges.

It goes on to state: ...the Committee has confidence in its ability to adapt [to measures and]...remains relevant and effective in providing proper accountability of Canada's security intelligence activities. They should quote the entire-- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan . [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, if we want to fight radicalization, the federal government absolutely has to work with the communities that are on the ground.

Instead, the Conservatives are using the terrorist threat to advance their political agenda. Experts fear that this is counterproductive. We all agree that terrorism is a threat. Does the minister recognize that this is too important to be made into a campaign issue? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Government agencies and departments have many opportunities to consult the community on efforts to combat radicalization. [ English ] However, let us be clear. This is not an issue of playing politics.

This is an issue of imminent threats. This is an issue we are adapting to in an evolving threat environment. That is why the legislation is brought forward, that is why these efforts are ongoing, and that is why the members opposite should-- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard .

Employment Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians have lost their jobs to foreign workers. Migrant workers, like Chris and Jona Pineda, have had their wages stolen by their employers. Yet the minister is so confident that the employers are co-operating with the rules of the program that he believes that there is no need to conduct any onsite inspections. After the big announcement, nothing changes. When is the minister finally going to crack down on employer abuse with real inspections?

(1130) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, obviously, this is the government that brought in the reviews and the inspections, but when we brought this in, the NDP was concerned. Its members said “They're going to be sending in quasi-police officers”. They were against warrantless access. Now in the House, they are rising to say that they are upset that we have not had to use it. The reason we have not had to use it is that the employers are co-operating.

We continue to make inspections to make sure that the rules are being followed, and in instances where they are not being followed, we are taking action [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, how can we trust their version of the facts when we see that something different is happening on the ground? The Minister of Employment must be very trusting since we have learned that he is content with merely asking employers whether they are abusing the temporary foreign worker program.

If the employer says that everything is fine and that he is following all the rules, what does the minister do? He closes the file. Quite frankly, we have seen better inspectors. We understand the anger of Sandy Nelson and Shaunna Jennison-Yung, who lost their jobs to temporary foreign workers. They deserve a real investigation. When will the government take the abuse of this program seriously? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Again, Mr.

Speaker, as the minister said, thousands of investigations have taken place and continue to take place. There is a dedicated team at ESDC to conduct these investigations. Employers have been co-operating, but obviously, in instances where employers do not co-operate, we do have the tools in place to make sure that the rules are being followed. As we have said, if the rules are not being followed, we will ensure that employers suffer severe consequences. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the employment numbers are nothing to celebrate.

In January, the number of full-time jobs dropped by 11,800, and most of the new jobs that were created are part-time jobs. Things are even worse for young people, who are simply giving up on trying to find work. Meanwhile, the United States is experiencing strong economic growth. Is the Conservatives' strategy just to wait until Canada feels the effects of the American economic recovery? [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, although monthly job numbers are volatile, we are encouraged by the growth in employment in January.

Since the depths of the global recession, almost 1.2 million net new jobs have been created. Over 80% are full-time, and an overwhelming majority of these are in the private sector in high-wage industries. However, as long as Canadians are looking for work, our Conservative government will continue to focus on creating jobs and long-term economic prosperity. In contrast, the NDP would push risky, high-tax, and high-debt schemes that would kill Canadian jobs and hurt Canada's economy. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, all the jobs that came were part-time, precarious jobs.

The economy actually lost 12,000 jobs in January, and the Conservatives call the economy spectacular. This is after 2014, when the Canadian economy grew at half the pace of the Canadian population. Four hundred thousand lost manufacturing jobs, and Conservatives say everything is just spectacular. They continue to stick their heads in the sand. We put forward real, concrete solutions to help the manufacturing sector and the small-business sector.

When are Conservatives actually going to get to work, bring foward a budget and a plan, and help Canadians, the 1.3 million Canadians who are out of work, find their own jobs back again? [ Translation ] Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague's question. Quite simply, we see that the NDP's plan will not work. Their plan requires more spending and will put Canadians further into debt. The Government of Canada's debt will be paid by these people, by workers.

We know that workers need more money in their pockets to stimulate the economy. That being said, our plan is working very well because it is creating jobs. A total of 1.2 million net new jobs have been created since the recession. We will continue in that direction in order to create jobs and lower taxes for all Canadians.

[ English ] Poverty Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, he did not answer the question, because 12,000 full-time jobs disappearing and 47,000 new part-time jobs does not do anything to end poverty in Canada. There are 4.8 million Canadians who struggle to make ends meet. That is one in seven Canadians. This week, the Dignity For All campaign released its plan to end poverty in Canada. It believes that if Canada commits to a plan and takes reasonable steps, the eradication of poverty is within reach. Why is the Conservative government refusing to develop a comprehensive plan to end poverty in Canada?

(1135) Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has provided record support for low-income Canadians. For example, we have removed over one million low-income Canadians, 380,000 of which are seniors, from the tax rolls entirely. We have increased the amount Canadians can earn without paying taxes. We have created the landmark working income tax benefit to support low-income Canadians who do work and have increased the guaranteed income supplement for the most vulnerable Canadian seniors.

The Liberals and the NDP voted against these measures and against helping low-income Canadians each and every time. [ Translation ] Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the plan proposed by Dignity for All is ambitious and seeks to reduce and eliminate poverty in Canada once and for all. In a country as rich as ours, it is inconceivable that 4.8 million Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. The plan proposes six areas for action: employment, food security, health, income security, housing and early childhood education. It is all mapped out.

All that is needed is the political will to act. Why are the Conservatives not making the fight against poverty a priority? [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, poverty reduction is a priority under our government. Under our government, the share of Canadians living in low-income families is at its lowest level in three decades. Low-income families have seen a 14% increase in their real after-tax income since 2006. Canada's progressive tax system also ensures that people with low incomes pay little to no tax.

In fact, over 40% of all taxpayers pay no net tax. It is no wonder the federal tax burden is at its lowest level in over 50 years.

Infrastructure Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep trying to deny it, but they actually cut the building Canada fund by 90% and now are trying to mislead Canadians with empty promises of money years in the future. Yesterday the big city mayors called on the federal government to immediately invest in transit, housing, and other critical infrastructure. It is time for the Conservatives to do their part to make livable, humane, affordable cities.

Will the government flow the increased infrastructure money this year to improve quality of life, create jobs, and spur economic growth? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that member is misleading the House. Our government's investments in infrastructure are three times greater than the previous Liberal government. These investments are building roads, highways, and bridges. They are expanding public transit. What would the opposition do? It would hike taxes, run deficits, and leave a burden of debt to our kids and grandkids. Mr.

Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we know that the Conservatives cut the building Canada fund by 90%, and that was before the drop in oil prices revealed the government's blatant lack of economic vision. Now that the government faces the revenue shortfall that comes from putting all of its eggs in one basket, should cities and towns in Quebec, where the winter freeze is playing havoc yet again this year with old water infrastructure, be bracing for even further cuts to the investments they so urgently need to support their communities? Mr.

Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, one of the key pillars of the new building Canada plan is the gas tax fund. Here is what our government has done with respect to the gas tax fund: We have doubled it. We have made it permanent. We are indexing it moving forward. The municipalities receive over $2 billion a year just through gas tax transfer funding. That funding is making a difference today, in every municipality across this great country. Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, communities across Atlantic Canada have urgent infrastructure needs: water and sewer, transit and housing, roads and bridges. They are looking for the federal government to be a partner. The Conservatives' response is to cut funding, from $2 billion last year, to $210 million this year and next. We need investment now, not in 2020. Why do the Conservatives refuse to partner with municipalities to generate economic growth and help middle-class families? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I know that the Liberals have been out of government for some period of time. I would be pleased to sit down with any member of the Liberal caucus to brief them on the new building Canada plan and to refresh them on how government accounting and the estimates process works. This Conservative government is making record investments in infrastructure: $2 billion in gas tax funding flowing to municipalities today. As we speak, under the new building Canada plan, already projects estimated at $5 billion have been identified.

(1140) [ Translation ] Veterans Affairs Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Master Corporal Paul Franklin lost both of his legs in an explosion in Afghanistan. Every year, he is required to produce a medical certificate to prove to the department that he has lost his legs. Twice, his wheelchair has been taken away. That is surreal. Master Corporal Franklin is still fighting, not in Afghanistan, but here, for proper treatment of his case and those of other veterans. When will the minister finally intervene? [ English ] Mr.

Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, when the minister was first appointed, he worked very closely with the department, and he directed them to reduce forms and processes and obstacles to our veterans who would be applying for benefits. He wants less red tape for our veterans. I also want to point out to the House that the minister reached out personally to the person who was identified in this question. Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, veterans are still waiting, and they should not be forced every year to prove the obvious, that they are still missing limbs. It should not take national attention for the government to realize that this burden of proof is wrong. Whether it is spending $700,000 to fight veterans in court or denying that they have a sacred obligation to veterans, the Conservatives still do not get it. Will the government stop its policy of requiring veterans to perennially prove that they have lost their limbs? Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I just responded to that question Let me just point out a few other things. By reducing red tape and backroom bureaucratic expenses at Veterans Affairs Canada, veterans are benefiting. I would point out, for example, that 90% of the budget at Veterans Affairs Canada actually goes to delivering services to veterans and their families, as opposed to paying for all of these backroom administrative costs. I would also point out that it is our government that is opening nine new offices to deliver new mental health services to veterans across the country.

Child Care Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, for a single working mum, child care means being able to work. For struggling middle-class families, child care costs are breaking their budget. Conservatives were elected on a promise to create 125,000 child care spaces, but they broke that promise to Canadian parents. Conservatives created zero spaces. Families who cannot access affordable child care do not have a choice. Why are the Conservatives turning their backs on affordable child care? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member will recall, when we took office we started to reverse the legacy of transfer payment cuts left behind by the Liberals, some $50 billion in cuts. We started to reverse that, and the money that was sent to our provincial partners created in excess of 260,000 child care spaces. We are going even further by introducing the universal child care benefit, providing families with $100.

That is now increasing to $160 for children under the age of six, but going even a step further, $60 for those kids who are between 6 and 17. We have increased the deduction for child care expenses by $1,000. [ Translation ] Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in addition to having created zero day care spaces, the Conservatives have cut existing spaces located in workplaces. Some day cares within the federal public service, including those in Ottawa, are being forced to close because the Conservatives have stopped subsidizing rent and cleaning costs.

Why are the Conservatives bound and determined to complicate the lives of public servants who are parents and are trying to balance work and family life? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our public service is like all of our Canadian families, and under our plan 100% of Canadian families would benefit from the announcements we have made. In fact, on average, Canadians would have an additional $1,200 in their pockets because of the changes we have introduced.

I note, of course, that the NDP and the Liberals would take away that benefit. They would take the $160 a month that families are already getting per child under six. They would take away the $60 a month. They would probably reverse the $1,000 increase in child deductions that we have put in place. Canadians families understand that when it comes to protecting them and their families, they can count on—

(1145) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

Citizenship and Immigration Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we understand that our immigration system must be fast, flexible, and adaptable to Canada's labour market needs. On January 1, our government introduced express entry, Canada's next-generation approach to managing and processing applications for our most popular economic immigration programs. Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please explain how this new apparatus will benefit the best and brightest would-be newcomers? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the very hard-working member for Kootenay—Columbia , both for the question and for the amazing work he does for his constituents every day on immigration matters and all of the other issues of concern to them. Yes, express entry is the new system for delivering Canada's economic immigration programs, which remain the best in the world. Instead of just taking the next person who turns up, we will now be selecting and recruiting those with the in-demand skills that Canada's economy needs. That is excellent news for employers.

It is great news for temporary workers transitioning to permanent status— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Health Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as National Eating Disorders Awareness Week wraps up, Canadians are coming together to call the government to action and shed light on the seriousness of eating disorders that affect more than a million women and men across Canada. On this side of the house, we are listening, and with our new berealcanada.ca campaign, we are taking action. For families struggling with eating disorders, it remains a battle to obtain care. For many, help comes too little too late.

Will the government join us and support our call for a national eating disorder strategy? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, and while I have the floor I would also like to thank the member for Oakville who brought forward a recommendation that the status of women committee investigate this. I know that the committee has been working very hard and has introduced a report that we will obviously take a look at. This is a very serious issue.

That is why, when we first came to office, we started to reverse the billions of dollars in health care cuts that were a hallmark of the Liberal government. By putting those reinvestments in place, our provincial partners have the resources they need to invest, not only in this, but in so many other areas of health care that have suffered under the previous Liberal government. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, maybe the government should tell that to the families that have to wait a year for treatment.

Only 4% of women are satisfied with their appearance, and over half of all women whose weight is normal want to be thinner. Even though eating disorders affect primarily women, about 20% of the victims are men. I will therefore repeat my question. Will the government listen to the people working on the front lines and implement a strategy to fight eating disorders? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is listening, and we started listening from the day we were elected.

That is why we reversed the previous health care cuts that were a hallmark of the previous Liberal government. Again, I would like to commend the member for Oakville for his work on this, and the status of women committee. They have been doing a great job on this. We will continue to listen to our health care partners because it is very important. I note, of course, that we have transferred 6% additionally, each and every year that we have been in office. However, for example, Ontario has only reinvested 3% of that 6%.

We will continue to invest what we need to invest to improve health care benefits for all Canadians, and we will do that by working with the professionals in the industry.

[ Translation ] Telecommunications Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, they have no reason to be proud, since they have cut billions of dollars in health transfers. Mr. Royal Galipeau: Oh, my God. Go back to school. Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach: On another subject, Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians living in remote and rural areas, like the ones in Beauharnois—Salaberry, still do not have Internet access. Either the connection is too slow, unreliable or ineffective, or else the price is exorbitant. In the United States, the minimum connection speed was increased to 25 megabytes.

Here in Canada, we are still at five megabytes. Our slow network is bad for investments and is hindering the economic development of our regions. Will the minister finally fix the situation? Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague has been following the debates in the House or has read the bills we introduced recently. In fact, we have a program that has existed for a few years now to help bring Internet access to northern communities and other communities in Canada that do not have it.

It is important that Canadians have Internet access, and under our government, we put this program in place to ensure that they do. I invite my colleague to look into the Industry Canada program. She will see that high-speed Internet access is available to all Canadians.

(1150) Housing Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Trois-Rivières, the Coalition d'aide aux victimes de la pyrrhotite launched a national solidarity campaign, in response to the government's inaction and its failure to help thousands of families break free from their nightmare. In the meantime, the government is collecting millions of dollars in taxes from the repair work being done on the homes. When will the minister show some courage and finally work with the different levels of government to find a definitive solution to help the pyrrhotite victims? Hon.

Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed in the question from my colleague since she should know that this matter falls under provincial jurisdiction. This government respects the jurisdictions. The provinces are capable of working in their own jurisdictions. What is more, in 2011, the Government of Quebec launched a program to address this issue. I would tell the people affected by this problem to contact the Société d'habitation du Québec.

Foreign Affairs Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the imprisonment and torture of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi is a clear violation of international law and the human conscience. Will the Canadian government call on Saudi authorities to put an end to this torture and for the immediate and unconditional release of Raif and his lawyer, so that Raif Badawi may be reunited with his family here in Quebec? [ English ] Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada considers the punishment that is faced by Mr.

Badawi to be a violation of his human dignity. We continue to call for clemency in his case. The promotion and the protection of human rights around the world is an integral part of Canada's foreign policy, and we will continue to pursue that. Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I hope the next response will be more specific. We are on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the crackdown on peaceful protests in Venezuela, which left 43 dead, 3,000 arrested, and scores of political prisoners, including Leopoldo López, the leader of the democratic opposition.

Will the Canadian government join the U.S., the UN, the European Parliament, the papacy, and other world leaders, in calling for the immediate release of Leopoldo López and other political prisoners, an end to domestic repression, and the safeguarding of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Venezuela? Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, we continue to call for those principles around the world and will continue to stand strongly for them and speak up on these issues.

[ Translation ] Public Safety Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a Quebec City resident received a hefty fine from border services for having brought in a food powder containing 2.1% meat. This powder exceeded the limit by 0.1%, and she was fined $800. Eight hundred dollars for Bovril powdered bouillon is a bit much. This story proves that the Conservatives' security priorities are misguided. This woman wrote a letter to the Minister of Public Safety . When will the minister respond? [ English ] Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity, first of all, to thank the Canada Border Services Agency for the good work it does in helping to keep our borders safe. On this particular issue we are taking action regarding our relations with the United States as well. The result of all the good work we do as a Conservative government is greater security, continued economic growth, and more jobs for Canadians in the years to come.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, for the second time in two years, Canada Post has announced that the post office in Chicoutimi-Nord will be closing. This post office provides an essential service, and is the second most profitable post office in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. However, the words “essential” and “profitable” do not mean much to the Conservatives. From 2001 to 2006, the Liberals shut down 50 post offices, while the Conservatives shut down 100 from 2012 to 2013.

Can we put an end to this race to the bottom, and can we save our post office in Chicoutimi-Nord? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in 2013, Canada Post delivered 1.2 billion fewer letters than in 2006. Two-thirds of Canadians do not receive home delivery. Canada Post must balance its finances without imposing a burden on Canadian taxpayers, and we would expect nothing less.

(1155) [ English ] Taxation Mr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the communities in my riding are filled with hard-working Canadian families who need tax breaks to help with the costs of raising their families—not the opposition's massive spending schemes and carbon taxes that would kill their jobs. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister please update the House on the action that our government is taking to help Canadian families? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, let me thank the member for Wild Rose for sticking up for Canadian families each and every day in the House. We know that the NDP has long advocated a job-killing carbon tax, but recently we also learned that the Liberal leader not only supports a job-killing carbon tax, but is actually encouraging his provincial comrades to bring in the exact same scheme. Our government is going to continue to focus on families. The changes that we have made and the investments we are making will give Canadian families an extra $1,200 in their pockets. Those are real benefits, that is real change.

Canadians know that they can continue to count on us to provide more money in their pockets so they can invest in their priorities.

Fisheries and Oceans Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in the government's response to a report by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans concerning small craft harbours, a suggestion—no, a promise—was made to the House and to the thousands of volunteer members of our country's harbour authorities that the government would not cut the very lifelines needed to manage these harbours for the mutual benefit of both DFO and the communities. Yet, in Newfoundland and Labrador, that is exactly what is happening: cuts to staff, cuts to training, and cuts to DFO offices.

Why the double-cross of our harbour authorities and the volunteers? Why was Parliament deceived? Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that our government values our small craft harbour authorities and our volunteers. Our communities and the industry benefit greatly from their work and they are to be commended for it. However, let me be clear on behalf of the minister that we will not endorse any change that would result in the reduction of frontline services to harbour authorities.

In fact, after considering the input received from volunteers, the minister can confirm that the third area manager position will be maintained. Discussions are ongoing with our harbour authorities and volunteers to ensure that their needs are met.

Employment Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, thanks to the leadership of our Prime Minister , Canada has had the best job creation record in the G7 since 2006 when we were elected. While our focus is on creating jobs, the Liberal Party has the same old high tax, big government, high debt agenda that will threaten jobs and set working families back. Given our government's unprecedented focus on the economy, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please update us on the job numbers for Canada today? Mr.

Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the House today that employment increased in January by over 35,000 jobs. In addition, Canada has created over 1.2 million net new jobs since the economic downturn in 2009. Over 87% of these jobs are full-time, and the overwhelming majority are high-paying jobs in the private sector. Unlike the opposition's plan to increase taxes, we will continue to move forward with lowering taxes and providing benefits directly to families for them to reinvest in the Canadian economy.

[ Translation ] The Economy Mr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, FD) : Mr. Speaker, the IMF has recommended that G20 governments fund a major global infrastructure initiative through loans, not austerity measures. Contrary to the government's rhetoric, the IMF and many other public finance experts have told us that we are entering a long period of economic stagnation, high unemployment and growing inequality between rich and poor. It is time for the Minister of Finance to wake up. Does he not agree with the experts? [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, middle-class Canadians are better off because of our Conservative government. The median net worth of Canadian families has increased by 45% since we took office. For the first time, middle-income Canadians are better off than Americans. The average Canadian family pays nearly $3,400 less in taxes, and now every family with children in Canada will stand to benefit from our latest tax breaks, including the increase and the expansion of the universal child care benefit and the new family tax cut. Shamefully, the opposition would take these benefits away. (1200) [ Translation ] Mr.

Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, FD) : Mr. Speaker, a simple yes or no would have sufficed. The government is balancing its books at the expense of the regions, Canadians, the environment and our infrastructure. There will be a large debt to pay. The regions are dealing with economic decline and the exodus of their youth. The unemployment rate is rising. Why does the government not take advantage of historically low interest rates to boost the power and financial capacity of all our regions, not just urban areas? Mr.

Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec provides economic development services for all Quebec regions. We are waiting for projects and we will examine all of them on their merits.

Suicide Prenvention Mrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, since last fall, many people in my riding have shared with me their concern about the alarming number of youth suicides. Since this is suicide prevention week in Quebec, I would like to remind members of some facts. According to Statistics Canada, suicide was the cause of death for approximately 270 young people aged 10 to 19. What is more, although it is difficult to know how many suicide attempts were made, it is thought that for every death by suicide, there are 200 suicide attempts.

It is possible to prevent these deaths, particularly by ensuring that people with mental health disorders have access to all the resources they need. I would therefore like to know whether this government intends to respond favourably to the request of Partners for Mental Health to create a national youth suicide prevention fund. [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we understand how important these issues are, and that is why we have made significant investments with our provincial partners in mental health issues.

At the same time, one of the most important things we have done since taking office in 2006 is to reverse the decade of health care cuts that was a hallmark of the Liberal government. We have increased transfers to our provincial partners by about 6% a year. We are going to continue to do that in the future because we understand how important health care is to Canadians.

Justice Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister of Justice could answer two specific questions relating to Bill C-51 , the act that would create a new secret police. One is whether the— Some hon. members: Oh. oh! The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order. Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I could continue. There was too much noise. My two questions for the Minister of Justice are simple. Will he amend the act to ensure that non-violent civil disobedience is precluded from the ambit of the act? Second, could he please explain to the House the purpose of

part 4, clause 42, that in taking measures to reduce the threat to the security of Canada, CSIS shall not “violate the sexual integrity of an individual”. Why was that— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. Minister of Justice. Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first part of the member's question, I think that over-the-top rhetoric is quite insulting to our security forces. To the second part of her question regarding the protections against lawful protest, this is covered by the act.

This would not pose a threat to individuals who engage in lawful assembly. I spoke to the earlier part of her question with regard to the mandate of CSIS not extending beyond its lawful authority and, of course, being subject to judicial oversight.

[ Translation ] Points of Order Oral Questions Points of Order Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, during question period, the member for Ottawa—Orléans shouted disparaging and inappropriate remarks regarding the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry . That member has been in the House for a long time. He knows what is appropriate and what is not. I therefore ask that he apologize to the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry and withdraw his remarks. [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The Chair also heard the comment.

I would first like to remind all hon. members that when one of their colleagues has the floor, hon. members ought to be listening rather than speaking, so in that context any comment is inappropriate. However, I will allow the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans to address the matter if he wishes. Failing that, the Chair will return to the House if necessary. Mr. James Bezan : Mr. Speaker, on a different point of order, I want to assure the House that the Minister of National Defence is representing Canada at the Munich Security Conference on Iraq, as it was alluded that he was not by the member for Ottawa Centre .

(1205) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : That was more a point of clarification. Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, during one of the responses from our side of the House, the member for Scarborough Southwest clearly yelled something that I found very offensive and unparliamentary. I would request that he apologize to the House. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : In this case, the Chair did not hear that comment. I do not know if the hon. member would like to respond.

The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest. Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, certainly if anyone was offended by anything I might have shouted out in the House, I sincerely apologize. It is very difficult to keep a cool head when the Conservatives continuously boast about a million more Canadians being— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. I trust that will conclude the matter.

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings [ English ] Interparliamentary Delegations Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) it is my pleasure to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. [ Translation ] This report follows its participation at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, held in Helsinki, Finland, from November 19 to 21, 2014.

Petitions Social Housing Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to present a petition signed by several hundred people from the riding of Beauport—Limoilou regarding the hundreds of thousands of social housing units that are supported by agreements with the federal government. Those agreements are about to expire, and this is causing a great deal of concern among people who live in those housing units and people who work to support social housing. I am presenting this petition to convey those concerns and so the government can address them.

[ English ] Prostitution Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, citizens of Canada draw Parliament's attention to the fact that a high percentage of prostitutes are forced into the sex trade and traffic. Because of the attendant violence and inhumane abuse, the petitioners request the House of Commons to legislate such that it would be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man or child and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams and others to profit from the proceeds of the sex trade.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first was signed by a good many of my constituents who are against the Canada Post Corporation's decision to eliminate home mail delivery. The petitioners believe, among other things, that cutting this service could lead to the privatization of Canada Post, even though it is an essential public service.

[ English ] Palliative Care Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to the inclusion of palliative care in the United Nations sustainable development goals. The petitioners state that in cases of severe pain, failure to provide palliative care and pain relief has been reported as constituting cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. They would like the Government of Canada to call for the inclusion of hospice and palliative care in the United Nations sustainable development goals.

[ Translation ] CBC/Radio-Canada Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first, which was signed by several hundred people, is about the future of the CBC. The petitioners want the Conservatives to reverse the cuts and decisions to eliminate important positions at the CBC because these actions are jeopardizing the future of our public broadcaster. The NDP also wants guaranteed, stable, multi-year funding to ensure that the CBC can fulfill its mandate for everyone in all regions of the country.

(1210) Pensions Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is about improving the Canada Pension Plan. The petitioners want seniors to enjoy retirement security, they want the Conservatives to reverse cuts to old age security, and they want the retirement age of 67 lowered back down to 65.

[ English ] Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. In the first petition, the petitioners call on Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls, which occurs through gender-selection abortion. They note that an Environics poll showed that 92% of Canadians want gender-selection abortion to be made illegal.

Agriculture Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call on Parliament to do what it can to protect small family farms in the southern hemisphere of the globe by preserving the free use and exchange of seed.

Impaired Driving Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in the third petition, the petitioners call for tougher treatment of those who cause death while driving impaired. Specifically, they want the implementation of new mandatory sentences for those found guilty of impaired driving causing death. They also want the charge to be changed from impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter.

[ Translation ] Agriculture Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last month, I had the opportunity to meet the members of Development and Peace, who told me about their concerns over the erosion of ancestral rights in developing countries, specifically with regard to using, storing and trading seed. I am presenting the petition they gave to me.

This petition calls on the House of Commons to commit to adopting international aid policies that support small farmers, and especially women, in order to acknowledge their indispensable role in fighting hunger and poverty, and ensure that Canada's policies and programs are developed in consultation with small farmers and that those policies protect the rights of small farmers in southern countries to store, use and freely trade their seed.

[ English ] The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first petition is from many residents within my riding and in nearby ridings on Vancouver Island calling on the House to establish a permanent legislated ban on tanker traffic on the coastline of British Columbia.

Assisted Suicide Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is very timely given the Supreme Court of Canada decision this morning. It is from many residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands calling on the House to do exactly what the Supreme Court has now put to us, which is to amend the Criminal Code to create clear guidelines for physicians, so they can assist patients who meet the very strict criteria of being able to end their lives with dignity.

Impaired Driving Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition signed by British Columbians. The petitioners believe that Canada's current impaired driving laws are too lenient and should be strengthened by new mandatory minimum sentencing for persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Canada Post Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition concerns the reduction in services by Canada Post, whereby 6,000 to 8,000 workers will lose their jobs. These cuts will hurt seniors and disabled Canadians. Canada Post has not had any real consultations with those people affected and is denying it offers a public service that is needed and must be protected. Therefore, the petitioners ask the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts to services announced by Canada Post and to look instead for ways to innovate in areas such as postal banking.

(1215) Anaphylaxis Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is basically with respect to children at risk, anaphylactic sufferers. On May 22, 2013, the members of the House voted unanimously in support of Motion No. 230 with respect to anaphylaxis. The petitioners ask that this initiative be pursued and that Parliament enact a policy to reduce the risk to anaphylactic passengers when travelling on public transport, whether it be by plane, bus or train.

Canada Post Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I too am presenting a petition from hundreds of British Columbians in Conservative ridings such as Kamloops, Prince George, Kelowna, Chilliwack, Abbotsford and Surrey. Almost all of them are constituents of Conservative MPs. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts to Canada Post. They claim that this will hurt seniors, disabled Canadians, small businesses and will dramatically increase mail theft because superboxes are easy to break into. These constituents of Conservative MPs call upon the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts to our postal system.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ Translation ] Parliamentary Precinct Security Notice of Closure Motion Standing Orders 57 Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 14, at the next sitting, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.

Consideration of the Motion Resumed Government Orders [ English ] Motion The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House and speak to this motion. I would like to start my remarks by thanking and congratulating all of the wonderful security staff we have here on Parliament Hill, particularly in light of the event