OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 017 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, November 8, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 8, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 017 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 017 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 017 (Version officielle) 147 017 08 11 2013 2013/11/08 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) [ Translation ] Respect for Communities Act The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2,

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment. Bill C-2. Second reading Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-2 , which was previously introduced as Bill C-65 at the end of the last parliamentary session. However, it was one of the bills that ended up in parliamentary limbo with the prorogation requested by the Conservative government. It has therefore come back as Bill C-2,

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act . Mr. Speaker, as is my custom as the justice critic for our party—and having been one yourself, I am sure you will understand—I am looking at this bill as a lawyer. I will not claim to be an excellent lawyer, as I have heard the member for Ottawa—Orléans do in the House, but nevertheless I will have nearly 30 years of experience as a lawyer next year. This very important bill has quite a striking title:

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I looked at what it was amending and what it would be changing, because I like to understand what we are trying to do in the House. The bill basically amends

section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which I will read. That really enlightened me about the problem we have and often go through in the House. Prior to the proposed Bill C-2,

section 56 provided the following: The Minister may, on such terms and conditions as the Minister deems necessary, exempt any person or class of persons or any controlled substance or precursor or any class thereof from the application of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations if, in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public interest. This short provision seemed relatively clear to me. Everyone in the House agrees that we want to regulate certain drugs and other substances, especially really hard drugs. I therefore wanted to know how the government was amending

section 56. I encourage hon. members to read this atrocity. It is truly a legal atrocity. The original provision was five lines long. Now I have lost track of how many pages it is. When I say that it is many pages long, I mean that I could probably spend the next 18 minutes of my speech in the House reading out the changes that this government is trying to make. In Canada v. PHS Community Services Society, the nine Supreme Court justices rendered a unanimous decision that was a major slap in the face to the government. The Supreme Court told the government that its actions were inappropriate.

This bill is the Conservative government's response to the Supreme Court of Canada. In its ruling, in very plain and clear language, the court said that InSite provides essential services and should remain open under the exemption set out in

section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The court ruled that users were entitled to access InSite's services under the charter and that the delivery of other similar services should also be granted an exemption under that section. The court therefore provided an unequivocal response to what was happening. There is no denying that this was seen as a victory in Vancouver. No one wants to provide easy access to drugs. No one wants to tell people to go ahead and shoot up and that we will have a big party and sing Kumbaya . That is not at all the issue. This technique was tested and implemented.

It has been shown that supervised injection sites have positive effects and result in fewer overdose-related deaths. These sites have even helped people to overcome their drug addictions. However, this ideological government decided to simply ignore the lesson given by the Supreme Court in Canada v. PHS Community Services Society—a decision that, I repeat, was rendered by 9 out of 9 judges on September 30, 2011. I encourage hon. members to read the new version of

section 56 that will exist if the House passes this bill. It is an atrocity. I will spare the House subsections 56(1) and 56(2). Instead, I will focus on subsection 56.1(3). I will not be talking about subsections 56.1(1) and 56.1(2), your honour. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker; I have court on my mind. Perhaps I am psychic, Mr. Speaker, and someday you will be a judge.

Subsection 56.1(3) reads as follows: 56.1(3) The Minister may consider an application for an exemption for a medical purpose under subsection (2) that would allow certain activities to take place at a supervised consumption site [we know what the government is trying to do here] only after the following have been submitted [members will be shocked]: (

a) scientific evidence demonstrating that there is a medical benefit to individual or public health associated with access to activities undertaken at supervised consumption sites [that will be easy enough to demonstrate]; (

b) a letter from the provincial minister who is responsible for health in the province in which the site would be located that; (

i) outlines his or her opinion on the proposed activities at the site, (ii) describes how those activities are integrated within the provincial health care system, and (iii) provides information about access to drug treatment services, if any, that are available in the province for persons who would use the site; (

c) a letter from the local government of the municipality in which the site would be located that outlines its opinion on the proposed activities at the site, including any concerns with respect to public health or safety; (

d) a description by the applicant of the measures that have been taken or will be taken to address any relevant concerns outlined in the letter referred to in paragraph ( c ); Paragraph (

e) is about the head of the police force. I am trying to read quickly because it would take all day to read out what applicants would have to prove in order to be granted an exemption. 56.1(3)(

f) a description by the applicant of the proposed measures, if any, to address any relevant concerns outlined in the letter referred to in paragraph ( e ); To understand these provisions, anyone seeking to provide a service that the Supreme Court has declared necessary to the health and safety of certain individuals would need legal and addictions experts. Good job. 56.1(3)(

i) a description of the potential impacts of the proposed activities at the site on public safety, including the following: (

i) information, if any, on crime and public nuisance in the vicinity of the site and information on crime and public nuisance in the municipalities in which supervised consumption sites are located, I will skip directly to paragraph ( m ). 56.1(3)(

m) relevant information, including trends, if any, on the number of deaths, if any, due to overdose—in relation to activities that would take place at the site—that have occurred in the vicinity of the site and in the municipality in which the site would be located; (

n) official reports, if any, relevant to the establishment of a supervised consumption site, including any coroner’s reports; I will not discuss paragraphs (

o) and ( p ). I will skip to paragraph ( q ). 56.1(3)(

q) a financing plan that demonstrates the feasibility and sustainability of operating the site; Now I will go on to paragraph ( t ). I am skipping some points because they are all more things that have to be proven to the minister. 56.1(3)(

t) information on any public health emergency in the vicinity of the site or in the municipality in which the site would be located... Previously,

section 56 read as follows: 56. The Minister may, on such terms and conditions as the Minister deems necessary, exempt any person or class of persons or any controlled substance or precursor or any class thereof from the application of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations if, in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public interest. I would like to go back to subsection 56.1(3). I will spare you the rest of the bill. I am at paragraph ( y ). 56.1(3)(

y) if any of the persons referred to in paragraph (

w) has ordinarily resided in a country other than Canada in the 10 years before the day on which the application is made, a document issued by a police force of that country stating whether in that period that person (

i) was convicted... Now I will go to paragraph 56.1(4)( a ): (1010) 56.1(4)(

a) evidence, if any, of any variation in crime rates in the vicinity of the site during the period beginning on the day on which the first exemption was granted under subsection (2) in relation to the site and ending on the day on which the application is submitted; and (

b) evidence, if any, of any impacts of the activities at the site on individual or public health during that period. This goes on for pages and pages. If the government just wanted to say that it does not want any supervised injection sites, it could have simply said so, instead of having us read all this legal gibberish that will not even pass the necessary legal tests, especially considering the Supreme Court's decision in Canada v. PHS Community Services Society. That decision, I repeat, was like a big slap in the face to the Conservative government: nine to zero.

The court told the government that what it was doing was wrong and that it was jeopardizing public safety, yet this government professes to champion public safety. It engages in all these little schemes that seem to please its militant supporters. It is sending all the wrong messages regarding the benefits this bill will have. Reading this bill sends the message that as soon as it passes and comes into effect, in some big cities like Vancouver, for instance, which already has a program that works very well, Canadians will be in danger, much more so than before this legislation. Big cities like Ottawa are taking

part in this debate. It is a divisive issue. This government really likes to pit people against one another and especially to run fundraising campaigns. That is what really turned me off about this bill, when I saw the government had used this bill to do some fundraising. Since I am an opposition member, I am sure people will say that I am pro-terrorist and pro-pedophile, and I will probably be pro-drugs in a few minutes. There will probably be a statement by some member who listened to my speech and who will say that I am encouraging people to inject hard drugs, which is absolutely not true.

I trust the specialists and the scientists who tell us that this approach is effective and that we must not let people use drugs in our neighbourhoods or in the woods where children can find dirty needles on the ground and prick themselves with them. That can cause all kinds of problems. This situation needs to be controlled in some way, so that we can deal with the serious problem of drug addiction and try to refer these people to services that can help them get out of the hell of drug addiction that no one wishes on anyone. This government is introducing this bill and it will be challenged again.

I guess a decision of nine to zero is not enough for this government. We are going to have to say again and again that what the government is doing will cause serious problems for our public safety. What the government is doing is not fair, and it is certainly not a smart move in terms of public health. No matter which way we look at it, it seems incredibly obvious to me that this is a bad decision. I repeat: the Conservatives need to read. We are always being told by our opponents across the way that we do not read. On the contrary, we read.

In fact, this may be the difference between us: we do not read only the notes prepared by the Prime Minister’s Office. We read our own documents and those that are put forward in the House. We read the bills as they are presented, and we cannot believe it. The Conservatives claim that these sites encourage people to take drugs and that this is something we must not do, but that is not the goal of supervised injection facilities. What they are meant to do is remove drug addicts or people with problems from public areas that might be frequented by children.

Yesterday, I went to speak to young university students about political life. I went along Sparks Street—I am sure everyone here is familiar with it—and there was a young man lying on the ground. Another person came along and I listened to their conversation.

(1015) It was a social worker who went to see this young man. Nobody was paying any attention to him and he was lying on the ground. The social worker went to see him and asked if he was all right. He began talking to him. In our society, there are people dealing with all kinds of problems. We cannot simply ignore them all and act as if they do not exist. They exist, and we must take care of them, and take care of them the right way. In its ruling on Canada v. PHS Community Services Society, handed down on September 30, 2011, the Supreme Court said that this was a safe approach to dealing with this issue.

I repeat that the decision was made by nine judges to zero. This means it was not a majority decision; it was a unanimous decision. No less than public safety and public health are at stake. Supreme Court rulings cannot be challenged. I appreciate that the government does not seem to be showing much respect when I see the mess that it made with the latest appointment to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, there is a limit to how much disrespect can be shown for another pillar of our democracy. The government is responding to the unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court in 2011 with Bill C-2 .

This is absolutely appalling. It is disrespectful of our duties and obligations as legislators in the House. I will stand proudly and vote against this bill, and I will support my colleague’s amendment. I commend the member for Vancouver East on her remarkable work on this issue, along with all my colleagues from British Columbia. It is also an issue that is starting to make headlines in Ottawa. When Bill C-2 is passed, I will not be able to guarantee the people in my riding that they will be any safer in the streets. In conclusion, in addition to the fact that this bill amends

section 56, which was very clear, the most appalling thing about this bill is that it is going to be called the Respect for Communities Act. This is Conservative grandstanding at its best. Unbelievable. I read

section 56 and then I read the amendment that goes on forever. No one will be able to meet these criteria. Then I looked at the title and I could not believe my eyes. Then I listened to the speech by my colleague from Vancouver East , who said that they had raised funds on the backs of people with serious problems in our society. You cannot get any cheaper than that. (1020) [ English ] Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague listing the requirements the government has put in this legislation. I may have misunderstood.

I was getting the impression that she is opposed to all of the requirements. That may not be so. Which specific requirements the government has put in do you accept, and which do you specifically reject? Do you accept, perhaps, the requirement for— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. I draw to the member's attention that comments should be directed to the Chair, not to an individual member of the opposition. Mr. Brad Trost : My mistake, Mr. Speaker. Which specific criteria are acceptable, and which specific criteria does the hon. member find unacceptable in the legislation? [ Translation ] Ms.

Françoise Boivin : Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I do not have 20 or 30 more minutes to answer my colleague's question. I encourage him to read subsection 56.1(3) of the bill, on page 8. He should also read the Supreme Court decision, which clearly explains what should be produced in evidence. As I mentioned earlier, Conservatives seem to think that our one and only goal is to open injection sites to encourage drug users to have huge drug parties. That is not the case. This project is based on science.

People who use supervised injection sites must first show that they take this seriously. [ English ] They need to have credentials. There is no problem with that. [ Translation ] There is a list of everything an organization would need to submit. We also see at the very end, after paragraph 56.1(3)( z.1 ), that an organization may submit all the required evidence and still not be approved by the minister. This type of provision makes the bill less credible and creates a logistical problem. The government should not play people for fools. People are not fools. They are not stupid.

The Conservatives should just come out and say they will never approve another project and be clear about it. It would make their position clear. I would have more respect for such a clear-cut approach than for making people believe that the government is willing to approve projects that meet 28 conditions, a dozen sub-conditions and a list of requirements that goes on and on, much like this answer I am giving. (1025) [ English ] Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the member for Gatineau for her usual clear and precise dissection of Conservative laws, which are designed, really, to deceive the public and the House. In particular, I like the fact that she has pointed out that the current government, which supposedly is against red tape and bureaucracy, is now establishing red tape and bureaucracy specifically to frustrate the establishment of these services that are so needed in communities like mine and, I know, her own.

One of the changes from the last time the bill was before the House is that this time it is being sent to the public safety committee instead of to the health committee. Would the member agree with me that this is an attempt to both divert attention from the Supreme Court decision and to create false public fears about the impact of safe injection sites? Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr. Speaker, what a great question. [ Translation ] Yes, that is precisely the image the government wants to convey.

Even though it is supposed to be a public health bill, introduced by the Minister of Health , it is being sent to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to create that impression. As I have said, you need only read the title. The advice I often give my colleagues in the House—though there are not many MPs who need my advice—is to look at the

short title of Conservative legislation. It really says it all. This one is called the respect for communities act. What the Conservatives are saying here is that the previous law, as well as the Supreme Court decision, do not keep our communities safe. That is outrageous, not to mention outrageously crass. How awful is it to make people believe that the position of the opposition or of the Supreme Court of Canada compromises community safety. It is patently false, but it plays on people's innermost fears. I am not here to scare people.

I am here to attempt to make their lives as pleasant as possible and allow them to grow in a safe society, without telling them a bunch of horror stories that simply do not hold up, legally or scientifically speaking. So yes, the Conservatives are clearly playing a shell game to make people believe they are making our streets safer, even though they are actually doing the opposite. Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her brilliant speech. The attention to detail she brings to her work is an inspiration to all members.

We face a rather philosophical question. On the one hand, we see how easily the Conservatives show compassion and understanding towards powerful people who take drugs, act like deviant alcoholics and make death threats. We see them cry and get all worked up for these poor powerful people. On the other hand, when it comes to ordinary citizens in need, they show no compassion at all. I would like my colleague to expand on that. Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr. Speaker, that is a great point. I thank my colleague for his excellent question and comment. We need to keep in mind that philosophy often guides our actions.

Our friends opposite should take a little more time, on occasion, instead of using shortcuts that will not lead to the desired outcomes. They use a double standard, indeed. My own upbringing was modest. I know what it means to be part of the middle class because that is how I grew up, like most of us here. My family had opportunities that others did not, and my parents always taught me to be compassionate. Compassion seems to be lacking in our friends opposite at times, when it comes to ordinary people, people like us. My colleague talked about powerful people.

I do not wish to pass judgment on certain major Canadian cities or certain mayors, but I notice, sadly, that the Conservatives' conscience seems more accommodating towards some people than towards the person who is lying on Sparks street right now.

(1030) Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Gatineau for her speech. She and I worked together on a bill that claimed to crack down on elder abuse. I am certain she remembers it. The bill changed a handful of words in the Criminal Code so that people who abuse the elderly could be punished a bit more harshly. It is clear more resources are needed on the ground to prevent elder abuse, respond in cases of abuse and assist seniors who suffer abuse. I see a connection here: there is evidence that injection sites work and reduce crime.

Since InSite opened its doors in Vancouver, the crime rate, among other things, has dropped. The Conservatives claim to be tough on crime, but much of what it takes to fight crime seems to elude them. Since my colleague is very active in the area of justice, I was hoping she could explain how there are other, better ways to fight crime than tinkering with the Criminal Code. Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard . I enjoyed working with her on the issue of seniors on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

She and I noticed the same thing, which is that the bill, with its fancy title, claimed to put an end to elder abuse even though it only established an aggravating factor in sentencing. I am looking forward to seeing how that will work out in the field. The government over there does not understand the meaning of health promotion and protection. It only knows how to punish and seems oblivious to the fact that if we do not address the source of the problem, it may come back to haunt us in a much more brutal fashion. That is not what I would call sound public administration policy. [ English ] Mr.

Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Bill C-2,

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act . I am deeply saddened that the Conservative government has seen fit to introduce such a retrograde bill, and, as I will discuss, a bill that flies in the face of the unanimous 2011 Supreme Court decision on InSite. It seems obvious to many lawyers that this bill will also be struck down by the Supreme Court, costing Canadians hundreds of thousands of dollars. How many lives will be lost or wasted until that occurs? I would first like to salute the remarkable work done by my colleague from Vancouver East , the health critic for the official opposition.

Her compassionate leadership on this issue has been truly inspirational. It saddens me greatly that the Conservative government is only appearing to implement the Supreme Court of Canada judgment. In reality, this bill does nothing more than throw hurdle after hurdle in the way of those other communities across Canada that might wish to establish a safe consumption site to assist those who are suffering from the scourge of addiction. At the outset, let us be clear, the federal government lost in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court agreed unanimously that Vancouver's InSite clinic should be allowed to stay open and required the government to determine the conditions that would allow it and other facilities to do so. This bill is supposed to be the result of that Supreme Court judgment. Before turning to Bill C-2 , let me begin by describing the judgment of the Supreme Court. Then I want to examine the contents of the bill before turning to its importance to communities such as Victoria, which I have the honour to represent. The court's unanimous judgment is extremely eloquent.

I can do no better than to read certain portions of the judgment into the record today. It goes like this: In the early 1990s, injection drug use reached crisis levels in Vancouver’s downtown eastside [...]. Epidemics of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C soon followed, and a public health emergency was declared [...] in September 1997. Health authorities recognized that creative solutions would be required to address the needs of the population of the [downtown eastside], a marginalized population with complex mental, physical, and emotional health issues.

After years of research, planning, and intergovernmental cooperation, the authorities proposed a scheme of care for drug users that would assist them at all points in the treatment of their disease, not simply when they quit drugs for good. The proposed plan included supervised drug consumption facilities which, though controversial in North America, have been used with success to address health issues associated with injection drug use in Europe and Australia.

Operating a supervised injection site required an exemption from the prohibitions of possession and trafficking of controlled substances under s. 56 of the [Controlled Drugs and Substances Act], which provides for exemption at the discretion of the Minister of Health, for medical and scientific purposes. Insite received a conditional exemption in September 2003, and opened its doors days later. North America’s first government-sanctioned safe injection facility, it has operated constantly since then. It is a strictly regulated health facility, and its personnel are guided by strict policies and procedures.

It does not provide drugs to its clients, who must check in, sign a waiver, and are closely monitored during and after injection. Its clients are provided with health care information, counselling, and referrals to various service providers or an on-site, on demand detox centre. The experiment has proven successful. Insite has saved lives and improved health without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area. It is supported by the Vancouver police, the city and provincial governments.

(1035) In 2008, a formal application for a new exemption was made. Again, I say, the Supreme Court held in favour of InSite. The court stated: The Minister [of Health's] failure to grant a s. 56 exemption to Insite engaged the claimants’ s. 7 [charter] rights and contravened the principles of fundamental justice. The minister's decision not to grant an exemption is not in in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. It is arbitrary because it is undermines the very purpose of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the protection of health and public safety.

The court continued: It is also grossly disproportionate: during its eight years of operation, Insite has been proven to save lives with no discernable negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada. It further stated: The effect of denying the services of Insite to the population it serves and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users is grossly disproportionate to any benefit that Canada might derive from presenting a uniform stance on the possession of narcotics.

The court went on to order the minister to grant that exemption to InSite, and here is the key point. It said this: On future applications, the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. In accordance with the Charter, the Minister must consider whether denying an exemption would cause deprivations of life and security of the person that are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption. What does Bill C-2 do in the face of that judgment? It sets out a daunting list of criteria that supervised injection sites would have to meet before the minister would grant them an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Experts agree; these criteria would make it much harder for organizations to open safe injection sites in Canada. Do not take my word for it.

Let us hear what the experts have said. Pivot Legal Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition issued this statement on Bill C-2 when it was first introduced as Bill C-65. They stated the following: The bill is an irresponsible initiative that ignores both the extensive evidence that such health services are needed and effective, and the human rights of Canadians with addictions. It is unethical, unconstitutional and damaging to both public health and the public purse to block access to supervised consumption [sites]....

The Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association have also criticized the bill. This is what the CMA stated: Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion. The Canadian Nurses Association stated: Evidence demonstrates that supervised injection sites and other harm reduction programs bring critical health and social services to vulnerable populations.... The NDP's position is clear.

New Democrats believe that decisions about programs that may benefit public health must be based on facts and evidence, not ideology or appeals to the base of a particular political party. InSite users were found to have charter rights to access services and that similar services should also be allowed to operate with the appropriate exemption. Over 30 peer-reviewed studies published in famous journals, like the New England Journal of Medicine , The Lancet and the British Medical Journal , have all described the beneficial nature of InSite in Vancouver. There has been study after study.

There were 70 safe injection sites studied in Europe and Australia. They have all shown the same thing; it is a public health achievement. Canadians should be proud of what was forged in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver.

(1040) Other communities that are seeking to address the scourge of addiction want similar tools to do so, and then the government passes Bill C-2 . It is shocking. It is shocking that the Conservative Party's “Keep heroine out of our backyards” fundraising drive started mere hours after it introduced this bill. However, here is the irony. Bill C-2, after setting these virtually unattainable hurdles in the face of safe injection sites, is going to put heroine back in our neighbourhoods. Shame on the government.

We believe in harm reduction programs, including safe injection sites, and we believe that these exemptions should be based on the evidence, not ideology. The bill puts far too much emphasis on communities having to prove the benefits of these sites. No one, for a moment, has suggested that there should not be ample consultation with communities. Of course, there should. However, the number of hurdles in the bill are absolutely daunting. That brings us back to what the Supreme Court said. It said there cannot be arbitrary decisions by the minister.

The NDP believes that any legislation brought forward should respect that ruling imbalance between public health and safety. Bill C-2 does not do that. Therefore, we think the bill is retrograde. We think people in various communities will throw their hands up and not even bother applying, given the hurdles that I will describe.

If that is the intent of the bill, which many believe it to be, then the government will have succeeded, at the cost of millions of people around the world who have had similar processes addressed through safe consumption sites, and at the loss of people struggling with addictions in various neighbourhoods in Canada. If the bill is passed, new applicants in various communities are going to have to include unprecedented amounts of information, such as supporting letters and, ironically, scientific evidence as well. We think that the process will be slowed down.

For example, there are no parameters for how long Health Canada is going to have to take to process an application. How long the minister would take to make a decision is wide open and unaddressed. It could be months; it could be years. In addition, the bill outlines certain principles that the minister must adhere to before approving an application. They are outlined in

section 5 of the bill. These principles include a number of things, some of which are entirely appropriate, but when added cumulatively show the government's real objective, which is to thwart the ability to ever have such a facility opened. Therefore, the bill may well achieve its objective, not giving communities the opportunity for a supervised safe injection facility. What is going on at the ground level? InSite remains the only operational supervised injection facility in our country. Since it opened, what has happened in Vancouver? There has been a 35% decrease in overdose deaths.

Furthermore, InSite has been shown to decrease crime, communicable disease infection rates and relapse rates for drug users. It was part of a public health plan. This statistic is absolutely shocking. Between 1987 and 1993, there was a 12-fold increase in overdose deaths in Vancouver. As the Supreme Court said, there was a public health crisis. That is why the community came together with the police, provinces, health authority and community groups to create this remarkable achievement. Now, of course, it seems like it is going to be for naught.

After the Supreme Court made its decision other public health officials, in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, started to consider opening supervised injection sites. So far, there has not been one such a request made to open a site. I am indebted to my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca , for his research on the implications of Bill C-2 in our community, the lower Vancouver Island. In his earlier speech, he described the crisis in overdose deaths in Victoria and surrounding area.

(1045) The B.C. coroner reported last year that there were 44 deaths from illicit drug use on Vancouver Island in 2011, and 16 of those deaths occurred in greater Victoria. He noted that Vancouver Island is the region with the highest rate of deaths related to illicit drug use in British Columbia. The Centre for Addictions Research at the University of Victoria concluded that Victoria's per capita death rate is almost 30% higher than in the Lower Mainland.

That is right, so just a few kilometres away, a ferry ride away from our community, in the Vancouver community where InSite exists, 30% fewer people die from overdoses per capita than on Vancouver Island, where we do not have a safe injection site. All that Bill C-2 would do is make it virtually impossible for us to realize the public health benefits that have been achieved on the mainland.

The Health Officers Council of British Columbia has resolved that “supervised injection services have been studied enough as research projects, and that it is time to move them into the mainstream of health service provision.” The College of Registered Nurses and the Canadian Nurses Association have interpreted their professional standards for nurses and nurse practitioners to encompass and support the supervision of drug consumption by clients. In September 2010, the City of Victoria presented a resolution to the Union of B.C.

Municipalities to lobby the province to “legislate that base levels of harm reduction services, including needle exchange and access to safe substance use equipment”, and detox and treatment beds, “be made available in every [local government]”. In April 2008, University of Victoria addictions researcher, Dr. Benedikt Fischer, and B.C.'s provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, called on relevant authorities to implement a supervised consumption site trial for high-risk street drug users in Victoria.

Their argument would be the basis for an editorial published in the BC Medical Journal on April 1, 2008, which said: Victoria provides a perfect platform to implement a distinct and scientifically evaluated supervised consumption site program that is uniquely tailored to reflect the local characteristics of street drug use and associated public health needs.... I could go on, but I would like to talk about the recent response to the bill by Katrina Jensen, AIDS Vancouver Island executive director, who said there is a need for such a site in Victoria.

In June she said: “We have had eight overdose deaths in the last six months and those are deaths that could have been prevented if we had a supervised consumption site,” she said. “I think there’s overwhelming evidence that a site in Victoria would save lives and be beneficial to the community.” Debra McPherson, head of the BC Nurses' Union, asks: “How does this respect the Supreme Court of Canada decision that recognized these facilities save lives?”...

She said the legislation is a smokescreen for the government’s real agenda of “pandering to prejudice and misplaced morality over health care, evidence and a coherent strategy on addictions and mental health.” The bill does not achieve the goals that the Supreme Court of Canada set out. The Supreme Court of Canada suggested a road map for granting exemptions by the Minister of Health to allow supervised safe injection sites, consumption sites, to be established in communities.

The bill would set up all the red tape imaginable in communities that want to do something about this scourge, this public health and safety issue. These communities are only going to be frustrated by the bill. That is essentially why I oppose the bill. I think it is wrong-headed and contrary to public health and safety.

(1050) Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, before I was elected as a member of Parliament for Scarborough Centre, I was a real estate representative serving the GTA and one of the things that I am concerned about with respect to these sites is the value of people's real property. As a real estate representative, I know too well that it is not just the current condition of a house or the property that it sits on, but it is also factors that are across the street, around the corner or down the road.

For example, a gas station is always something to be concerned about. A big factory or even rental properties can decrease the value of real property. With respect that, when we talk about community safety and the concerns of the community, we are also taking into account the safety of investments. I am wondering if the member would agree with me that an injection site across the street, down the road or around the corner from a family home would actually decrease the value of real property, or does he actually believe that it would increase the value of that property? Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the question from the parliamentary secretary about the concerns she has about real property. I have concerns about real people's lives. I live in a community where people are dying every day on the streets. I am concerned about that. Residents of Victoria are concerned about that. On this side of the House, that weighs more heavily on us than the impact on property prices and investments, as she put it. I point out that in Vancouver, 80% of people surveyed living or working in the Downtown Eastside support InSite. That is the community, too.

People live there and 80% of them are in favour because they know the impact it has had on their community. I live in a place where people often do not know that there is the possibility of treatment. We need to create, in partnership with local governments, what they did in Vancouver with InSite, which the Supreme Court celebrated in its decision. It is a coming together of the community. The police are in favour, I remind the House, as well as the community, the City of Vancouver and all of the partners. They figured out that they could find a way to put this in an appropriate location.

We are not talking about putting it in places where the community does not want it. We accept and respect the need for ample consultation with the community. That is what happened in Vancouver and that is what would happen here.

(1055) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthy to note that strong social programming in our communities, such as what we have seen in Vancouver with this particular facility, has a very strong benefit overall for all of the community. In fact, in response to the question that was just posed, the value of the community as a whole actually does improve. I would ask the member to reaffirm what I believe to be the case, that when we bring in strong social programming, quite often what happens is that we will alleviate the concerns that many of the residents have.

By centralizing or providing a service, for example, we can prevent individuals in this situation from using these illegal drugs in our schoolyards or back lanes, spread out throughout the community. The benefits far outweigh any sort of negatives that might be there by allowing facilities of this nature to exist. As elected officials, what we should be doing is looking at creative ways in which we can start dealing with the social issues that are destroying many of our communities or that are extremely negative.

This is just one of those tools, if I can put it that way, that can make a positive overall difference. Could the member provide comment on that? Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague's fundamental point that these strong social programs, as he puts it, do help alleviate community concerns. Let me give the House some examples of that. In a study by Wood et al in 2004 about the Vancouver situation, there was a significant drop in the number of discarded syringes, injection related litter and people injecting on the streets one year after the InSite location had opened.

That means, as the member points out, that people are not shooting up in alleys and dropping syringes by schools, they are going to a supervised site. Secondly, I would point out that at those sites, there are trained nurses. If people are ready, willing and able to seek treatment and detox and get off drugs, that is what they are there for and they will help the addicted person to achieve that. There are also all of the benefits that come from that, economically and otherwise.

First of all, wasted lives, getting people off of drugs and getting into productive lives is certainly something that we really cannot put a price on. Secondly, the cost of less law enforcement, less hospitalization and so on are some of the benefits that, as the member said, clearly outweigh the costs. [ Translation ] Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Victoria for his excellent speech. The parliamentary secretary mentioned a potential decrease in the value of real property. Such a decrease could happen anywhere.

The parliamentary secretary's use of the term says a lot about her living standards. Cities like Toronto, Montreal, Charlesbourg and Limoilou all have back alleys. I used to own an apartment building. People would go to the alley behind the building to shoot up, and we would regularly find used syringes. Would you agree it would be safer for the general public if people who are addicted to drugs and shoot up in back alleys were instead directed to supervised injection sites? (1100) [ English ] Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr.

Speaker, I should point out, ironically, if there is any issue of real estate, I am from the west coast. We do not need to be told about real estate values. They have gone up in Vancouver. They have gone up in the Downtown Eastside. I think it is a rather specious argument. I want to repeat that we would be working in partnership, if there were a bill that truly implemented the spirit and the letter of the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment. We would find a community partnership to address some of the concerns there.

Of course there are always benefits and costs in any public policy decision, but I am so persuaded, and all people on this side of the House in the New Democratic Party are persuaded, the benefits will clearly outweigh the cost. We need to move on the basis of public safety and health. The Deputy Speaker : That brings to an end the debate on the bill for the time being. On resumption of debate we will have about two and a half minutes for questions and comments.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ Translation ] Clémence Le May Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, almost 8,000 people were voted into office in Quebec municipal elections. The Bloc Québécois would like to congratulate them. We would also like to salute those who decided to pass the torch. Clémence Le May decided to retire from politics after serving the people of Saint-Christophe-d'Arthabaska for 39 years, 21 of them as mayor. A nurse by training, Ms. Lemay has taken care of people in so many different ways.

In addition to the people of Saint-Christophe-d'Arthabaska, the clients and employees of Carrefour d'entraide bénévole des Bois-Francs have also been fortunate to have known her and benefited from her talents and generosity. Clémence Le May is a woman of character and has never hesitated to defend the integrity of her town, fight for safe drinking water, and protect her townspeople affected by two floods. A woman of conviction, she has publicly stated that she would like to see Quebec become sovereign. Thank you, Clémence, for all your years of public service.

As you said so well, you can retire with a sense of accomplishment. Congratulations.

[ English ] African Institute for Mathematical Sciences Mr. Peter Braid (Kitchener—Waterloo, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute today to the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences, which is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year. AIMS was founded by Dr. Neil Turok, a director of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo. His revolutionary approach nurtures Africa's brightest students, empowering them to take leadership roles in solving the complex challenges that face their continent.

There can be no more effective investment in Africa's future than in education, and I am proud that the Government of Canada invested $20 million in this initiative. I had the rewarding experience of visiting the AIMS centre in South Africa last May. It was inspirational to meet the students and to witness the tangible results of this investment. Congratulations to AIMS on this milestone anniversary and for demonstrating the power of knowledge to effect positive change.

Dorothy Mary Chambers Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as we enter Remembrance Week, I would like to remember a recipient of the Queen's Jubilee Medal, Dorothy Mary Chambers. Dorothy was born in Fort William and was a wonderful person, but beyond that, she was also an extremely proud veteran of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Dorothy's family offered the following about her remarkable life: “Our mom lived life to the fullest and was given the gift of a full circle of life. She was a dignified veteran, a proud Canadian and we're all extremely proud of her”. I could not say it better.

We are all proud. I will gather with many others tomorrow at St. Paul's Anglican Church at 11 a.m. to remember and celebrate Dorothy's remarkable life. On behalf of her friends and the people of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, we are sincerely thankful for her service to Canada and all she did for veterans and for her community. In closing, I would also like to offer a sincere thanks to all of Canada's veterans, our active personnel, and their families for their service and sacrifices on behalf of all Canadians. Lest we forget.

RCAF Veteran Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour a well-known long-time resident of Estevan, Ken Raine, a kind and trusted elder who has contributed much to his church and community throughout his lifetime. I rise also to recognize and thank him for his participation in the Second World War. Ken joined the Royal Canadian Air Force and was posted to 434 Squadron, No. 6 Bomber Command, as leading aircraftman. He was then posted to the Northern Ireland Coastal Command. To Ken, his family, and all veterans on this Remembrance Day, I say thanks for doing your

part in the service of our country and in the service of mankind. On the 11th day of the 11th month, we will once again offer our gratitude and our commitment to never forget your service. Thank you, Ken.

(1105) [ Translation ] The Environment Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this week, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a report on the state of conservation of our natural heritage. The report showed that the government’s track record is a pattern of unfulfilled commitments and responsibilities. [ English ] Staffing for conservation work in national parks has decreased 23% compared to the average of the previous seven years.

Many national parks lack baseline data on the state of the park, so there is nothing against which to measure whether progress is being made. Environment Canada itself has shown that the ecological integrity of over 70% of fauna reserves and over half of migratory bird refuges are considered inadequate. [ Translation ] We are a country defined by our natural beauty and heritage. Not only is conservation good in and of itself, it is key to preventing disruption associated with economic development. [ English ] The government must get its act together on environmental policy.

It has had seven years to show some good faith on this file and some concrete actions and results. What is it waiting for?

True Patriot Love Foundation Mr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last night I attended the fifth annual True Patriot Love gala in Toronto. I joined almost 2,000 other Canadians in showing support for Canadian Forces members and their families. Two million dollars was raised for the important programs True Patriot Love runs for veterans, Canadian Forces members, and their families. I would like to thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs , the Leader of the Opposition , and many members of this House for joining me at that gala.

I also had the distinct honour to join Laureen Harper in presenting a Diamond Jubilee medal to Michelle Hickey. Michelle is a 21-year Canadian Forces veteran, a proud mom, and a member of the March to the Top expedition team. A hearty “Bravo Zulu” to True Patriot Love and its sponsors. Congratulations to Michelle. Our thanks go to Canadians for last night and for the next week of supporting our veterans and our Canadian Forces.

[ Translation ] Veterans' Week Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is Veterans' Week, and it is very important for Canadians to recognize the work done by all those who serve our country during armed conflict throughout the entire year. This year we are thinking in particular about the veterans who participated in the Korean War, which ended 60 years ago.

Korean War veterans are Canadians who became heroes by defending the values our country believes in: peace, liberty, and justice. [ English ] As the member of Parliament for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, I am proud to represent three Korean War veterans: Gerry Boudreau, Calvin Atkin, and Neil MacDonald. On behalf of Canadians everywhere, I thank them for their service and for their courage. We also owe our thanks to those who served in uniform and made the ultimate sacrifice. [ Translation ] In conclusion, I urge our government to acknowledge the sacred obligation we have towards our veterans. Lest we forget.

N'oublions jamais.

[ English ] Remembrance Day Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I stand and recognize New Ross Legion Branch 79 in my hometown. Branch 79, or as we say in New Ross, “the legion”, was built following World War II. My grandfather, my father, and my brother have all been presidents, and I am proud to be a 36-year member. This year, the 60th anniversary of the Korean War, our community, like communities across Canada, will gather at the cenotaph to recognize and honour our veterans and the sacrifices they have made.

It should be noted that the cenotaph in New Ross is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, World War I cenotaph in the country. It was erected in 1914-1915 to recognize the volunteers for World War I. On November 11, we will recognize them again, along with all of our veterans, but especially our Korean War veterans in this, the 60th anniversary of that war.

(1110) Ringside for Heroes Event Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to attend a tremendous event organized by the Canadian Emergency Services Boxing Association in partnership with the Royal Regiment of Canada. The event was held at the historic Fort York Armoury and featured sanctioned amateur boxing with Canadian police and Canadian Forces versus the Boston police. Proceeds from the event benefited Canada Company, which provides post-secondary scholarships to children of fallen Canadian Forces members.

Canada Company also supports the military employment transition program to help our veterans obtain meaningful work after serving Canada. I would like to congratulate the Royal Regiment of Canada and Inspector Barry Dolan of the Peel Regional Police, who is the founder and president of the Canadian Emergency Services Boxing Association. They put together an excellent event that builds camaraderie between emergency services, Canadian Forces, and veterans, while benefiting veterans and the children of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for Canada. Lest we forget.

[ Translation ] Federal Public Service Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, since the current government came into office, a disturbing trend has emerged in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean: jobs in the federal public service have become increasingly threatened.

I would like to give a few examples: the closure of the post offices in Port-Alfred and Jonquière, the attempt to close the Chicoutimi-Nord post office, the relocation of the Service Canada and Passport Canada offices in Jonquière, the closure of the Canada Revenue Agency counter in Chicoutimi, the contracting out of the Jonquière tax centre archives to private companies outside the region, the outsourcing of file processing for Canada Summer Jobs; the massive restructuring of jobs at National Defence, and the threat to reduce funding for the Aluminum Technology Centre.

What these examples have in common is that federal public service jobs in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean are being threatened. To make the government aware of this problem, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister and seven other ministers, calling on them to stop making cuts to the local services that people rely on. I urge my colleagues to follow suit and seek firm commitments from the federal government on public service jobs.

[ English ] Immigration Success Mr. Kyle Seeback (Brampton West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I am going to speak about an exceptional Canadian, Luigi “Loui” Marcon. We will not read about him in a textbook, but we should. He is the epitome of the Canadian immigration success story. Loui was born on October 31, 1939, a special Halloween treat for his parents. His dream was to come to Canada. His dream came true. He immigrated in 1958 and started working almost the same day. He was a highly skilled bricklayer, respected by his employers and his colleagues.

Loui worked all across Ontario on many landmark projects in the Niagara region, including Ridley College, the Pen Centre, and Niagara Square. He worked until the day he retired, never requiring government assistance. Loui has always been grateful for the life he made for himself and his family here in Canada and has always been a very proud Canadian. If there is one thing we can hold against him, it is that he is a Boston Bruins fan. I am proud to call Loui my father-in-law and feel privileged to have been welcomed into his family.

[ Translation ] Veterans' Contributions Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in this time of remembrance, I would like to pay tribute to all of Canada's veterans and acknowledge the work of Canadian Forces personnel who are constantly striving to maintain peace in the world. Thanks to my colleague, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier , I recently had the opportunity to meet with veterans from my riding. I met Lucia Isabelle-Morand and Jean-Claude Morand during the annual poppy campaign in Charlesbourg.

I deeply admire and respect these Canadians, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the sacrifices made by our veterans to make Canada the peaceful country we enjoy today. Let us humbly remember that it is everyone's responsibility to be respectful, open, and resilient so that we can preserve the fragile peace that our ancestors, families, and loved ones fought so hard to win.

[ English ] Financial Literacy Month Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, when it comes to economic management, our Conservative government is leading the world. We have overseen the creation of over one million net new jobs, signed the Wayne Gretzky of trade deals, and are staying on track to balance our budget. We also cut the GST and created tax-free savings accounts that are now benefiting more than eight million Canadians. Consumers now have more money in their wallets. We are committed to protecting them.

We banned unsolicited credit card cheques, ensured that prepaid cards never expire, and made certain that credit card companies provide timely advance notice of rates and fee changes. However, we have not stopped there. November is Financial Literacy Month. All month long, we are holding events to help consumers learn the skills they need. We are ensuring that Canadians get clear and direct information on financial products so they can make the best financial decisions for their families. I encourage all Canadians to join in and attend an event in their area.

(1115) [ Translation ] Veterans' Contributions Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, let us fulfill the duty we have to remember at this time of year: remembering those who sacrificed their lives for our country, most of them barely in their prime. They contributed so much; we must not forget them. My grandfather fought in the First World War. He was wounded twice, first at Lenz and again at Passchendaele. Then he helped build this nation.

My father fought in the Second World War and spent his career with the Royal 22nd Regiment. [ English ] Our veterans deserve our greatest respect, because they have gone into the face of danger. Some have not returned. Some have seen their friends perish. Some have seen the horror of mutilated bodies or the deaths of innocent civilians. Few have not been profoundly changed by their experience. Many have returned wounded in body or in spirit, or in both. We owe them so much.

Liberal and New Democratic Parties of Canada Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is putting job creation and economic growth first, while the Liberals have now decided to join the NDP in its carbon tax plan. Their new alliance opposes energy infrastructure before it has undergone independent scientific review. The Liberal leader has lent his support to the radical NDP centrepiece of irresponsible economic management, whose $20-billion carbon tax would raise the price on absolutely everything.

However, our government rejects that idea to impose a job-killing carbon tax that would increase the price on everything, including gas, electricity, and groceries--a tax on all Canadians. On this side of the House, we know that higher taxes hurt job creation. We know that it is the opposite of what Canadians expect of their government, so on this side of the House, we will not bow down to the NDP and Liberal coalition on a carbon tax.

[ Translation ] Prime Minister of Canada Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would have us believe that his chief of staff, several employees, high-ranking members of his party, and some of his closest allies cooked up the whole Senate scheme under his nose without his knowledge. Either he takes Canadians for fools, or he has shown a serious lack of judgment when it comes to choosing his advisers. Fortunately for him, the party flushed ministerial responsibility down the toilet a long time ago.

In any private enterprise, a manager who allows his closest employees to break the law, whether he knows about it or not, is quickly shown the door. The Liberal leader may continue to prefer sexist social events over grilling the Prime Minister. However, the NDP will not give up until we learn the full truth about this Conservative scandal. We will not drop it. Canadians deserve better. They deserve the truth.

[ English ] Religious Freedom Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada was built on a foundation of freedom, one that includes freedom of religion. It is one that is cherished by all Canadians, a value that is constitutionally protected. Yesterday the minority separatist Parti Québécois government introduced some legislation, and let me be clear that our government's position is very clear: nobody should be denied a job on the basis of criteria unrelated to the performance of that job. Nobody should have to choose between their job and their religion.

A Canadian is no less a Canadian because they wear a cross, a kippa , a Star of David, or a turban. Thankfully a majority of Quebec's National Assembly oppose this bill in its current form. However, let us be very clear: if this bill passes, our Conservative government will act in order to protect the constitutional right to which all Canadians are entitled.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions (1120) [ Translation ] Ethics Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to see that the Conservatives have so far refused to answer a very simple question. Let us try again. Who in the Prime Minister 's Office has been questioned by the RCMP? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, many Canadian families received good news this morning, because there are a lot of new jobs. That is good news for all Canadians.

We know that there is still a lot of work to be done, which is why we will continue to move forward with our economic action plan. [ English ] With respect to the member's question, Nigel Wright has identified in an affidavit the persons he brought into his confidence on this matter, but the issue, of course, is that Senator Duffy and these senators accepted payments to which they were not entitled, and those payments need to be repaid. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, either they respond now, or they wait for the RCMP to show up before they start answering. It is up to them.

What documents from the Prime Minister 's Office regarding the Wright-Duffy affair have been requested by the RCMP? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. The Prime Minister 's Office is not under investigation, but of course we are assisting with the RCMP in this matter. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, a criminal investigation on the actions of staff in the Prime Minister 's Office should be treated more seriously by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister . When did the Prime Minister find out that the Conservative Party initially agreed to pay Mike Duffy's illegal expenses when it believed he owed only $32,000? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me outline the timeline.

On February 13, when Senator Duffy came to the Prime Minister to try to justify his inappropriate expenses, the Prime Minister told him he had to repay those inappropriate expenses. Mr. Duffy then went on TV, suggesting he had done that with a loan from RBC. We later learned that was not true. On May 15, we, along with Canadians, learned that it was actually Nigel Wright who paid those expenses. That was inappropriate. Nigel Wright has accepted responsibility for doing that and is prepared to accept the consequences. At the same time, we would hope that Senator Duffy would actually pay back Canadians.

At this point he is the only one who has yet to pay back a dime. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons that the payment of $13,000 to Mike Duffy's lawyers was for “valid legal fees”. Could the government explain the details of this payment so that we know how the Prime Minister is able to claim in the House that they were valid? If the Conservatives cannot, will they explain why the Prime Minister is making unsupported statements about a potential crime in the House of Commons? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions in the House, our party, like all parties in this House, does offer assistance to its members who are in good standing if they require some legal assistance. The Leader of the Opposition accepted the same type of assistance from his party, with one exception: he had the judgment paid for. Thousands of dollars in legal fees were paid for, and the judgment.

That is not something we do on this side of the House, but as is the case with every other party, if a member in good standing requires assistance, we are there to help. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I suppose that is why the RCMP is investigating. Let us try another simple one for the parliamentary secretary. On February 13, the Prime Minister stood in this House and said he had personally reviewed Pamela Wallin's expenses and that they were “comparable to any parliamentarian”.

Later that same day the Prime Minister 's Office was warned by one of Pamela Wallin's former staffers not to be seen defending her expenses, because they were “really problematic”. Given the Prime Minister 's recent attacks on Ms. Wallin, can the Conservatives explain why it took the Prime Minister over three months to distance himself from her spending? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, just to advise the member, there was an audit completed in the Senate that outlined some of the very troubling expenses that Senator Wallin, Senator Duffy, and Senator Brazeau undertook. We have been very clear that inappropriate expenses need to be repaid. At the same time, Canadians have been very clear that they want accountability. That is why a motion was passed in the Senate to strip these three senators of their pay. We are the only party in this House that seems to want to stand up for Canadian taxpayers.

I am glad that at least the Conservatives in the Senate took this motion very seriously and stripped these three senators of their pay. (1125) [ Translation ] Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Law Society of Upper Canada code of conduct states that “A lawyer shall not...knowingly assist in or encourage any dishonesty, fraud, crime, or illegal conduct”. We know that Benjamin Perrin, the Prime Minister 's lawyer, was involved in the scheme to give a $90,000 cheque to Mike Duffy. We also know that Conservative Party lawyer Arthur Hamilton was involved.

Has the Minister of Justice reported the conduct of Benjamin Perrin and Arthur Hamilton to the Prime Minister's Office and to the Law Society of Upper Canada? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright was very clear on the people he brought into his confidence with respect to this matter. We are continuing to assist officials in their investigation. At the same time, we know that the Liberals stood very firmly behind the status quo in the Senate. It is a shame that they did that.

On this side of the House, we are going to stand up for Canadian taxpayers. That is why we fought so hard to have the Senate pass this motion. I am proud of the fact that at least Conservatives in the Senate took Canadian taxpayers' desires very seriously and stripped these three senators of their pay. Again Liberals have proven that they are entitled to their entitlements and that nothing will stand in the way of that. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the Law Society of Upper Canada code of conduct states that a lawyer “shall not knowingly assist in or encourage any dishonesty, fraud, crime, or illegal conduct”. We know that Benjamin Perrin, the Prime Minister's lawyer, was involved in the scheme to give $90,000 to Senator Duffy. We also know that Conservative lawyer Arthur Hamilton was involved. Has the Minister of Justice reported the conduct of Benjamin Perrin and Arthur Hamilton to cabinet and to the Law Society of Upper Canada? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, of course there are a number of lawyers in that caucus who have illegal campaign bills that they refuse to pay. I hope the member will be referring that matter to the Minister of Justice . We have been very clear. We will continue to assist authorities in this matter. It is very interesting today. I was criticized for saying that the Liberal leader has been muzzled by his own party, but now I learn why he is muzzled by his own party. Last night, when he was asked what other kind of administration he admires, he stood up for a dictatorship. Why?

It is because they can force things through, and if they need to go green, they can go green faster. That is the— The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member for Westmount—Ville Marie. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, RCMP court filings show that Nigel Wright told the police that the Prime Minister 's personal lawyer, Benjamin Perrin, was involved in the $90,000 payment to Mike Duffy. Mike Duffy has said that he has emails that show that another PMO lawyer was involved in this scheme. Duffy has now provided these emails to the RCMP.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House who the other PMO lawyer is, or will he wait for the RCMP to lay charges before Canadians can find out? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered that, but let me just quote the Liberal leader last night at his fundraiser.

Not only did he insult millions of women across the country, but when asked what type of administration he admires, he talked about admiring a dictatorship because “...their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say 'we need to go green fastest' ”. Let me get this straight. He has talked about policy. He supports the status quo in the Senate. He supports dictatorship. He wants a carbon tax and he wants to legalize marijuana. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I believe the parliamentary secretary has never heard the saying “a fault confessed is half redressed.” This is going to be a long process. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm that Nigel Wright told Mike Duffy in December 2012 that his expenses were in keeping with all the rules? Did the Prime Minister agree with his chief of staff at the time? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me review the timeline again for the hon. member.

On February 13, Senator Duffy approached the Prime Minister to justify his inappropriate expenses. The Prime Minister told Senator Duffy that he had to repay those expenses. He also told the rest of our caucus, including the senators, that if we had inappropriate expenses, we had better pay them back, because that is not something we would support in our caucus. After Mr. Duffy went on TV and said he had repaid expenses by taking out a Royal Bank loan, we then learned, as all Canadians did, that what Mr. Duffy had said was not true. We also know that Nigel Wright repaid those expenses by using his own resources.

He has accepted full responsibility for doing that and is prepared to accept the consequences.

(1130) Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, now I have that banking commercial, “You're richer than you think”, come to mind. [ Translation ] Once again, the government is not giving us an answer. The Prime Minister confirmed that employees in his office gave advice to senators about talking to the media. I would therefore like to know which employee or former employee of the PMO told Mike Duffy to say that he took out a bank loan to repay the $90,000. What is that employee's name? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, I, like many other Canadians, saw Mike Duffy go on TV and say that he took out a loan to repay those inappropriate expenses. We obviously learnt that was not true on May 15 when it was reported in the media. At the same time, the Prime Minister said he expected more from his staff. Nigel Wright has accepted sole and full responsibility for this. He is prepared to accept the consequences of that decision. I hope that Mike Duffy will do the same.

He is the only one who has not paid a dime back of any expenses, and he should do that. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, no answer. What a surprise. We will try again. With regard to the emails mentioned by Mike Duffy, the RCMP said: “The existence of such documentation may potentially be evidence of criminal wrongdoing by others.” This documentation pertains to the behaviour of staff in this Prime Minister 's Office. What documents has the Prime Minister's Office given to the RCMP? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course, as I have mentioned on a number of occasions, we are assisting the authorities on this matter. At the same time, I was glad to hear that, finally, Senator Duffy is co-operating with the RCMP. He might also take the opportunity to cut a cheque to the Canadian taxpayer for the thousands of dollars in expenses that he owes the Canadian people.

At the same time, I hope that the Liberals will reflect on this and try to put Canadians first, and when it comes to protecting the status quo in the Senate, maybe think twice and get on board with some of the reforms that our minister of democratic reform has brought forward with respect to the Senate. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my question was not: were documents given to the RCMP? My question was: which documents were given to the RCMP by the Prime Minister's Office? Perhaps the parliamentary secretary did not understand my question.

Perhaps he does not know the answer. Perhaps he cannot give the answer, all these answers, any of these answers. To help the parlimentary secretary , I will try to ask a very short and very simple question. On exactly which date did Nigel Wright visit the Langevin Block for the last time? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that this member take her acting classes, not from the member for Papineau , but from the member for Jeanne-Le Ber , because he is a much better actor than she is.

At the same time, she asked about what documents the RCMP have. They have whatever they have asked for. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a schoolyard quarrel here. We are talking about a criminal investigation. One would think that the parliamentary secretary would take this a little more seriously. What was the exact date of the most recent conversation between the Prime Minister and his former chief of staff, Nigel Wright? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is a member who gets up and acts out a question every day and then talks about being serious in the house. Come on, give me a break. I will tell the House what we are serious about. We are serious about democratic reform on this side of the House.

That is why we have a number of reforms that we have put in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, so that we can actually get a road map to changing the Senate, so that we do not get mixed up in big, long constitutional battles with our provincial partners. We are serious about growing the economy. That is why I am happy that the economy has grown by 2% annually. That is why I am glad that new jobs were created. That is why I am glad that we have an economic— Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, that member gets up and gives laughable answers time and time again, and he expects people not to laugh at him. The RCMP is now knocking at the door of the Prime Minister's Office. Conservatives should really take answering questions a little more seriously because Canadians deserve the truth. When was the last time anyone in the Prime Minister's Office spoke with Nigel Wright?

(1135) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the questions from the opposition get more laughable by the minute. Let me get this straight. We have in front of us an economy that is doing better but still has a lot of challenges in front of it. We have the biggest trade deal in Canadian history. We have natural resources that need to get to market. We have pipelines that need to be built in order to do that, and he wants to know who talked to who last. My daughter sometimes asks me about that.

She asks “When was the last time I talked to Natasha, Daddy? I had better giver her a call”, but she is in grade one. She is not sitting in the House of Commons. Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, she might be in grade one, but I bet she would give more truthful answers than that member. This is no fishing trip. These are serious questions about people being named in connection with a potential criminal cover-up orchestrated out of the Prime Minister 's Office. Outside of the House, Conservatives are speaking with Nigel Wright and saying that he has quite the story to tell.

Even some ministers are now defending Mr. Wright. Can the Minister of Employment and Social Development tell us the last time he spoke with Nigel Wright? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, he is a real tough guy when he is covered by immunity in the House of Commons. He is probably not so tough in front of the TV cameras outside of this place. This is about what the NDP or Liberals want to make it about, making victims of these senators.

This is about the fact that these senators accepted payments that they did not incur and they need to repay those expenses. We have accountability in the Senate because our senators passed a motion that would see these senators suspended. We will continue to fight for the taxpayer; they can continue to fight for the status quo in the Senate and for these three senators who are rightfully out of the Senate. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as one father to another, I will ask my hon. colleague not to use his children to defend corruption. Maybe I will give him a break.

Surely somebody over on that side has been paying attention to the culture of corruption that has gone in the Prime Minister 's Office. We know the Minister of Justice has been out in the media defending Nigel Wright. Maybe the Minister of Justice , now that he is supporting Nigel Wright, would tell us when was the last time he spoke with him. Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. A lot of people are upset at the fact that I talk about my family. They are upset at the fact that I talk about my parents.

On the other side, they laugh about those stories. Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. It was my parents who gave me the confidence to be here, and unlike maybe some other members, it is for my kids that I am here every single day, trying to build a bigger, better, stronger, safer Canada. That is what my parents did for me, and that is what I want to do for them. I am not embarrassed or ashamed to talk about how proud I am of my kids or my family, or to get up in the House and fight for them every single day. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, here is something we will ask if he is proud of.

Section 121 of the Criminal Code, “Frauds on the government”, reads:

(1) Every one...who (

a) directly or indirectly... ...demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person... a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or

an act or omission in connection with... ...any matter of business relating to the government... ...is guilty of an indictable offence... Will the member tell us who over on that side has broken the law? Who is guilty of this offence? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it might surprise the hon. member to learn that I am not actually a police officer. That is why there is an investigation and that is why we are assisting the authorities. I will let them make that decision. Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, Chris Woodcock was the Prime Minister 's director of issues management, the top official, the go-to guy for handling dangerous political files. He crafted the strategy to cover up the Wright-Duffy deal; he wrote the false media lines which instructed Mr. Duffy to hide the real source of the $90,000 cheque. Mr. Duffy has provided the RCMP with all his emails and records related to Mr. Woodcock. Has the government turned over to the RCMP all of Mr. Woodcock's records relating to Mr. Duffy? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Again, as I have said on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, we are assisting all authorities on this matter and providing anything that is asked of us.

(1140) Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we know that the PMO was forced to provide emails and other records to the RCMP. For months, countless ministers stood up in the House and asserted there was no written agreement between Wright and Duffy. Over and over again, it was outright denial. Can the government confirm that one of the documents it turned over to the RCMP is the February 20 email which summarizes the Wright-Duffy legal agreement, and can it confirm that Mr. Woodcock has had this email in his possession since last spring?

Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Again, Mr. Speaker, we are assisting authorities and providing any information that is required. At the same time, it is nice to be in a Parliament where these things can be discussed day in and day out, unlike the administrations that the hon. leader of the third party seems to support, dictatorships, so that Liberals can ram down a carbon tax on people.

I wonder, in those dictatorships that the hon. leader of the third party supports, if they would be getting this type of accountability in their legislation. I somehow doubt it. While we will let the leader of the Liberal Party stand up for the status quo and we will let him stand up for dictatorships, we will stand up for democracy and taxpayers. [ Translation ] Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, despite access to information requests and questions asked in the House, the government said for months that it had no information.

Now we know about the hundreds of emails, but Canadians might have to wait for a criminal trial before they can see those emails for themselves. It is unbelievable that Mr. Woodcock is now the chief of staff to the Minister of Natural Resources . Can the government confirm whether Mr. Woodcock has had any contact whatsoever with the RCMP? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this member should know that it was actually the Liberals who exempted the Prime Minister's Office from access to information.

I believe it was Prime Minister Trudeau who did that. Unlike the Liberals, when it comes to openness and accountability, we are the party that Canadians can count on. That is why we opened up 70 new institutions to access to information. That is why the President of the Treasury Board has undertaken an open government policy. We are very proud of what we are doing to make our government open and accountable to the Canadian taxpayers.

That is why the first act that we brought forward was the Accountability Act, so that Canadians could understand what was happening to take out the influence of big money and unions in government.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on Remembrance Day, Canadians will be taking time to reflect and to honour the service veterans have provided to all Canadians. Unfortunately, Conservative policies mean that some who serve are being cut off from the benefits they have earned. Wounded soldiers are being forced out before they are eligible for their pensions. This is unacceptable. Instead, when will the minister do the right thing and provide these women and men the respect and support they deserve? Mr.

James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all our military who have served us so proudly over the years. As we have said before, we have been working with the Chief of the Defence Staff and the chief of military personnel to ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are not released until they are prepared. I will again remind the member opposite that every possible accommodation is made to ensure that soldiers are kept in the forces and provided with the best possible support before being considered for release.

I want to thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs for tabling Bill C-11 , priority hiring for injured veterans act, which will help medically released personnel transition into meaningful public service careers. [ Translation ] Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, despite what the Minister of National Defence claimed all week and what the parliamentary secretary just said, there are unfortunately some members of the Canadian Forces who returned to civilian life before getting their pensions. These men and women fought for Canada. To treat them this way is absolutely shameful.

Why will the government not simply admit that it made a mistake, say that it will correct the situation and help those who have been the victims of this injustice? [ English ] Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the chief of military personnel to ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are not released until they are prepared. Every possible accommodation is made to ensure that soldiers are kept in the forces. Before being released, members of the Canadian Armed Forces work with the military on a transition plan.

Ill and injured Canadian Forces members are provided with physical, mental and occupational therapy services for their eventual transition to civilian life. (1145) [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, not only are the Conservatives refusing to ensure that no more military personnel are forced out before qualifying for their pension, but they are also creating obstacles for veterans who are trying to access services. How ironic, given how these brave men and women have served our country.

Closing offices to save a few extra dollars shows a complete lack of respect for our veterans. Will the minister reverse his decision to close the offices? [ English ] Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has made substantial investment to support Canada's veterans, including almost $5 billion in new additional funding since taking office. The funding has been put toward improved financial benefits, world-class rehabilitation, and tuition costs to help veterans transition to civilian life.

While our government is making improvements to veterans' benefits, it is the Liberals and the NDP who have voted against new funding for mental health treatment, financial support and home care services. Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, veterans across the country are speaking out against the Conservative government's closure of veterans' offices, like the one in Thunder Bay. Cuts and closures to these offices will mean the end of one-to-one contact for many aging veterans.

They will be forced to travel outside of their communities, forced to endure unnecessary stress, and will lose yet another good friend. These men and women fought for our country. Why will the minister not respect that? Stop the cuts. Keep these offices open. Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there are now 600 new additional points of service across the country available to Canada's veterans. A critically injured veteran no longer has to drive to a district office.

Our government now sends a registered nurse or case manager to visit them in the comfort of their home. I would also like to remind the hon. member and all opposition members that it is them and their party who have voted against every single initiative we have introduced as a government to support our veterans.

Intergovernmental Affairs Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the separatist Parti Québécois government introduced legislation that would violate the inherent rights of Canadians. It is one that would force people to choose between their faith and jobs. I am proud to be part of a government that has not remained quiet on this issue. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. While the bill is currently opposed by the majority in the national assembly, what is the federal government's position if the bill becomes law? Hon.

Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my parents were welcomed when they immigrated to Canada, and now I have three beautiful Canada-born children. We are a proud Canadian family. A Canadian is no less a Canadian because they wear a cross, a kippa , a Star of David, or a turban. The Prime Minister has been clear that nobody should be denied a job on the basis of criteria that are unrelated to the performance of that job. The Government of Canada will not hesitate to protect the constitutional rights that are given to all Canadians if the bill were to pass in its current form.

[ Translation ] Pensions Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians approaching retirement age are increasingly concerned about their financial security. Enhancing the Canada pension plan and the QPP is the best way to improve retirement security for all Canadians. The provinces are ready to take action. The only one stalling is the Conservative minister. Why is the minister waiting for a full-blown crisis before improving the system? [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we will continue to work with the provinces and territories to improve the Canada pension plan. However, we do not believe that this is the time to add further burden onto Canadian employers and employees with higher premiums during this fragile economic recovery. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member opposite got the latest talking points from the minister. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that boosting the Canada pension plan is “good in the long run for Canadians”, but still he is refusing to act.

Increasing the CPP is the right thing to do to ensure that all Canadians can afford to retire with dignity. Why is the minister choosing to antagonize the provinces instead of working with them to fix Canadians' retirement security?

(1150) Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we do continue to look at Canada pension plan reform. We can assure the House that the NDP's plan to double the Canada pension plan premiums while the economy is still fragile is not a moderate proposal. Despite the NDP's risky schemes, we continue to stand up for seniors and for retirement during this global recovery.

Intergovernmental Affairs Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance does not seem to understand that working with the provinces is a key part of his job. Internal government studies praised the effectiveness of provincial training programs, yet Conservatives ignored the evidence, failed to work with the provinces and mismanaged skills training. Will they now agree to work with the provinces so we can help get Canadians the skills training programs they deserve? Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we believe that the best people who know what kinds of skills are required are employers. That is why we introduced the Canada job grant. It brings employers into the whole equation as to what skills are required. We are focused on jobs, the economy and growth. One of the ways we can continue to do that is to fix the mismatch of people without jobs and jobs without people. That is what the Canada job grant will do. Bureaucrats are not the experts on this, the employers are. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, they created this program without consulting the provinces. The Conservatives still have not learned their lesson. They continue to turn a deaf ear and refuse to listen to the provinces. Training programs are a crucial part of ensuring that everyone can find work. We need a government that offers solutions, not a government that is looking to pick fights with the provinces. Is the minister ready to turn the page and engage in a meaningful discussion with the provinces about training for workers so that we can avoid the kinds of mistakes that were made with employment insurance reform? [ English ] Hon.

Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the opposition is opposed to a program that would train Canadians for jobs that are available. That is what the Canada job grant program will do. Let us talk about who is supporting this. We have been consulting over the summer and indeed currently the minister is meeting with the provinces in good faith. We have been listening to the provinces and to organizations so that we have flexibility within the Canada job grant.

Employers include the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the federation of progressive contractors, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, the National Association of Career Colleges, the Canadian Institute of Plumbing & Heating, and I could go on. They are employers who want to see this program implemented because it trains Canadians for jobs that are— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Natural Resources Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader goes to Calgary and claims that he supports the development of the oil sands. However, in Toronto Centre the New Democrats are actively campaigning against the oil sands. The NDP candidate wants a moratorium. Meanwhile, the Conservatives' total failure to advance stronger environmental policy has prevented Canada from getting oil to market responsibly. When will the Conservative government get its act together on the environment to ensure that Canada can move its resources to market sustainably? Mrs.

Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the government is concentrating on what matters to Canadians: jobs and economic growth. The fact is that the oil sands are responsible for over 275,000 jobs across this country. That number is expected to grow to 630,000 jobs. Government revenues from upstream oil and gas average $22 billion over the past five years. That is how many jobs the opposition members say no to when they oppose this important industry.

That is revenue for important social programs, which the opposition members say no to when they bash Canada abroad.

Tourism Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the government will step down from the Bureau International des Expositions, and in doing so, will kill any success of Toronto's potential bid to host World Expo 2025, an event that could attract up to 40 million visitors. This defection was made without consideration of Toronto City Council's upcoming feasibility report. Why is the government wasting this exceptional opportunity to boost Toronto's economy, job market, and tourism and to promote Canada's accomplishments to the world? (1155) [ Translation ] Hon.

Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague that we are promoting Canada, both within the country and abroad. I recently went to China with the Canadian Tourism Commission to ensure that our Chinese friends can travel to Canada. As everyone knows, we signed a co-operation agreement with the Chinese government. There will be even more Chinese tourists, and that is good for the Canadian economy.

[ English ] Foreign Affairs Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, government officials confirmed yesterday that Bill C-6 would still allow Canadian personnel to authorize the use of cluster munitions. People are concerned this could undermine the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Seventeen NATO countries have already ratified the treaty without this kind of exception. Will the government work with us to close the loopholes in the bill? Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for this thoughtful and important question.

Obviously, these weapons cause devastating effects on civilian populations. Some 30 years after the war in Vietnam, Laos still has more than 80 million unexploded ordinances, and this is killing people each and every week, maiming them, taking their limbs. We want to implement this convention as effectively as possible. We are always very pleased to work with the opposition. I can guarantee that the Canadian Forces would never use these types of munitions and we are prepared to eliminate the stockpiles that we have. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, Canada ratified the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention without including exceptions for interoperability. This has not affected in the least our joint missions with the U.S. and our other allies. The bill to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions does provide for exceptions in the name of this interoperability. Civilians represent 98% of the victims of cluster munitions. Is the government ready to work with us in order to fix this bill? [ English ] Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have visited the victims of these cluster munitions.

More than 30 years after wars have ended, these weapons continue to take limbs and lives. We want to do everything we can to rid the world of the scourge of these weapons. Not all countries have adopted the position that Canada has. There are a small number, which could be counted on one hand, per year. The Obama administration has not signed on, and we wish it had, but we are prepared to work with the opposition to create as strong a bill as possible, at the same time supporting the training of our military leadership when they have interoperability measures with the United States.

Status of Women Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this week we learned that the leader of the Liberal Party insulted women across this country and across all party lines with an invitation to a women-only event in Toronto. Sadly, the invitation implies that women are only concerned with pressing issues, such as their favourite virtues. Well, how demeaning. Personally, as the father of three daughters, I can say that all members on this side of the House believe every issue and all issues are women's issues.

Could the Minister of Status of Women update the House on our government's actions to create jobs for not only women but all Canadians? Hon. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on what matters to Canadians, including women: jobs and long-term prosperity. In Canada in 2013, women are accountants, electricians, engineers, and even pediatric orthopedic surgeons. The invitation to the fundraising event was both demeaning and unacceptable. It suggested that women are shallow and incapable of discussing serious issues.

Important issues face Canada right now. Unlike the Liberal leader who thinks that women are incapable of participating and contributing to Canada's economy, our government applauds women and all their capabilities. Maybe the reason he refuses to discuss economic issues with women is that he is actually incapable of doing so. I think he is in a little over his head.

[ Translation ] Official Languages Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the last report from the Commissioner of Official Languages points to a disturbing situation regarding of the use of French in the federal public service. The report makes a link between the inadequate delivery of services in French and budget cuts in the public service. Has the government examined the negative effects of these cuts, and has it consequently planned measures to address this reduction of services in French?

(1200) 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, I would like to thank my colleague for her question and congratulate her for currently sitting in the parliamentary committee where I have the pleasure of working with her. I would like thank the Commissioner for his annual report. I am proud of our government's unprecedented commitment to both of our official languages. We will continue giving Canadians the opportunity to learn our two national languages to enhance the vitality of our official-language minority communities.

Regional Economic Development Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, mourning will take time, but the very courageous people of Lac-Mégantic are ready to rebuild. Business people will be part of the solution, but many of them are struggling right now because the town's commercial core was decimated by the tragedy.

Will the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec listen to the chamber of commerce and business people in the Mégantic region and set up a special funding program to help businesses get back on their feet, in addition to the decontamination and reconstruction budget that has already been announced? 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's mandate focuses on economic development. We are always concerned about regions that are struggling, and we will help them.

[ English ] Government Priorities Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians were told yesterday, in a shocking admission, that the leader of the Liberal Party believes that dictatorships--countries without freedom, human rights, or basic rule of law--are nations to uphold and celebrate. These inflammatory comments further demonstrate that the leader of the Liberal Party lacks the judgment to lead. Would the Minister of State for Multiculturalism please update the House on the values our Conservative government upholds at home and abroad? Hon.

Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the leader of the Liberal Party are an insult to the many Canadians who have fought for the basic values and freedoms we enjoy today. His answer demonstrates again the long-standing position of our party that he is in over his head. Having met so many Canadians who have faced persecution abroad, I assure them that we will always stand up to promote and defend the values Canadians cherish, including democracy and freedom, not dictatorships.

Yet again, the Liberal leader's comments demonstrate that he is not fit to lead the greatest democracy in the world.

[ Translation ] Passport Canada Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, the federal government has slated the Jonquière passport office for elimination even though the office runs well, is familiar to people, and is ideally located in the centre of the region. People are taking action. They are asking Ottawa to keep the service near them. They have every reason to fear that the closure will have a negative impact. Why does the government want to take the passport office away from the people of Jonquière? Will it instead commit to keeping these offices open? [ English ] Hon.

Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Canadians continue to benefit from the high quality of service they have always received from the passport program, now at Service Canada offices. There will be no staff reductions as a result of this change. Some of the changes that have occurred mean that there are Service Canada passport offices very close by. In fact, we have increased the number of offices in Canada where passport services are available so that more communities have passport services than ever before.

Natural Resources Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, two years ago, Mark Carney and I called for Alberta oil to flow to eastern Canada, but this is a good idea only if we require that the pipeline fuel Canadian jobs and energy security. We export discounted crude while eastern Canada depends on expensive oil from Arabia and Venezuela. Buy high, sell low, export jobs: a brilliant business plan. When will our Prime Minister stop shilling for U.S. oil interests?

(1205) Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government welcomes the prospect of transporting Canadian crude oil from western Canada to consumers and refineries in eastern Canada, and ultimately, to new markets abroad. We are encouraged by the Deloitte Touche study that predicts a high potential for construction and operating jobs and economic growth, particularly in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. We will only allow energy projects to proceed if they are proven safe for Canadians after an independent, science-based environmental and regulatory review has taken place.

Democratic Reform Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, Cons. Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, this week, the Saskatchewan legislature voted unanimously in support of abolishing the Senate. In his remarks, Premier Wall stated that reforming the Senate is no longer viewed as a viable option. I want to be clear. I stand with the member for Beauce , as a matter of fact, in support of Saskatchewan's conclusion and feel it is time to give Canadians a say on the future of the Senate through a clear referendum question.

While I understand the Constitution does not allow for abolition through referendum, it would provide support and inform the Supreme Court, provincial legislatures, and indeed, this Parliament if we did, in fact, proceed to a referendum. Would the Minister of State for Democratic Reform indicate to the House whether he is considering such a move? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate both Premier Wall and that member for raising a very important issue. Canadians have waited almost a century and a half for the Senate to change.

Unfortunately, it has been frozen in time since Confederation. We continue to believe that the preferable option is democratic bicameralism, an elected Senate accountable to Canadians, representing the regions from coast to coast. We hope to make some incremental progress toward that goal in the coming weeks, but our position has also been that if the Senate does not change, is not reformed, then, like its provincial counterparts, it should vanish.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Official Languages The Deputy Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual reports on the Access to Information and the Privacy Acts of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the year 2012-13. [ Translation ] This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[ English ] Drug-Free Prisons Act Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, CPC) Bill C-12. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-12,

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Committees of the House Library of Parliament Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, entitled “Quorum and Mandate of the Committee”.

[ English ] Foreign Affairs and International Development Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development concerning the situation of Jewish refugees from Middle Eastern nations. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

(1210) Petitions Electronic Monitoring Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a certified petition calling on the Government of Canada to provide stronger control in the form of GPS tracking technology to trace the whereabouts of violent criminals who have been released into the general public. A failure of policy allowed Andre Denny to be out, unsupervised, from the East Coast Forensic Hospital, which resulted in the tragic death of my constituent's brother, Mr. Raymond Taavel. May he rest in peace.

[ Translation ] Restrictions on Navigation Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House six petitions signed by people in my riding and elsewhere in Canada. The petitioners are calling on the House to adopt my motion, Motion No. 441, which will be debated today. It aims to simplify the process for obtaining restrictions on navigation on lakes and waterways.

[ English ] Cluster Munitions Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to table a petition. The petition is signed by local residents who are urging the government to prohibit any Canadian from being involved with the use of cluster munitions anywhere in the world. I am pleased to table this petition. I look forward to the government's response.

National Strategy for Dementia Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents calling on the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to support

an act respecting a national strategy for dementia.

[ Translation ] Human Trafficking Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition to the House in support of Bill C-452 to combat human trafficking and sexual exploitation. Some people may be surprised to learn that the proceeds of crime related to human trafficking are estimated at $32 billion a year. That is significant, which is why I would like to present this petition.

Volunteer Firefighters Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by people from across Canada, from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island, including Quebec, in support of my bill, Bill C-504, the support for volunteer firefighters act . These people believe that my bill could help small communities get firefighters. It is very important that their voices be heard and that we help firefighters by passing my bill. That is why I am presenting this petition here today.

Animal Transportation Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today. The first was signed by people from across Quebec, from Montreal's north shore to neighbourhoods in Laval, including Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, Duvernay, Saint-François, Auteuil and Vimont. The petitioners are asking the government to strengthen Canada's animal transportation regulations.

Alvarez Rivera Family Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today was signed by hundreds of Quebeckers who want the Minister of Public Safety to review the decision to deport members of the Alvarez Rivera family to their home country. People are taking action on this. I would like to highlight the excellent work of students at Mont-de-La Salle school in Laval who created this petition, got people to sign it, and got thousands of Quebeckers to do something about the plight of the Alvarez Rivera family.

[ English ] Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I bring forward today a petition regarding Lake Winnipeg that has been signed by residents of Winnipeg North and many other Manitobans. It deals with the issue of Lake Winnipeg being one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world. It was named “Threatened Lake of the Year” in 2013 by the Global Nature Fund. The petition calls upon members of Parliament, in particular the Prime Minister , to take necessary action to ensure that Lake Winnipeg receives adequate, if not better, stewardship.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1215) [ Translation ] Respect for Communities Act The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2,

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment. Bill C-2. Second reading Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord . First, I would like to go back to the legal aspects of this legislation. Bill C-2 creates so many legal complications that it is now virtually impossible for a safe injection site to meet all these obligations. Even if it did, the minister could still approve or reject the application.

I want to show that this really does not make sense. In fact, this is disguised legislation to convey the message that the government does not want such sites. However, instead of just