OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 106 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, June 18, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 18, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 106 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 106 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 106 (Version officielle) 147 106 18 06 2014 2014/06/18 14:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 2 p.m. Prayers

Statements by Members (1405) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Halifax West. [Members sang the national anthem] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Canada's Young Entrepreneur Award Winner Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate Shep Ysselstein, owner of Gunn's Hill Artisan Cheese, who won the grand prize of $100,000 through the 2014 Business Development Bank of Canada's Young Entrepreneur Award.

Shep opened Gunn's Hill Artisan Cheese in August 2011 and never dreamed his business would take off so quickly. In 2013, one of his cheeses was named best firm cheese at the Canadian Cheese Grand Prix, and this recognition ignited interest all across Canada. Since then Shep has not been able to keep up with the demand from consumers and grocery chains. Winning the $100,000 will allow him to boost production by adding a new 2,000-square-foot, climate-controlled curing and aging space in the existing facility, doubling his workforce, and creating a new line of premium aged cheese.

Once again congratulations, Shep, on winning this award and making Oxford proud.

Female Parliamentary Staff Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express a heartfelt thanks to the women who work with us here in Parliament and in our constituencies. I know every member of the House joins me in saying thanks to the women who work to support us. It has not escaped my attention, as the critic for the status of women, that Parliament remains a male-dominated workplace and that the women who work with us, both in Ottawa and at home, often face a culture of sexism, just as female MPs continue to face it in the House.

Working for an MP is high stress and high stakes, often leaving women with many burdens at home and here. It also bears mention that MPs' staff are not protected under the anti-harassment policy enjoyed by other federal employees, and while NDP staff are backed by their union, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, and Green staff are not. In spite of everything, the women we work with work fiercely, brilliantly, and tirelessly to keep us running, and they do so out of a passion for social justice.

As well, I rise today to thank the women who work behind the scenes: the female cooks and servers; custodial, messenger, printing, mailing, translation, security, maintenance, and cafeteria staff; and the pages. They are the backbone of this institution. They are valued. They are appreciated. I wish them a great summer.

Criminal Organization Recruitment of Youth Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today with great pride to announce that my bill, Bill C-394 , which would protect our youth being targeted by gangs, has passed its final reading in the Senate and will receive royal assent tomorrow. This legislation would allow law enforcement officials to combat the rapid growth of street gangs across our country. The bill would also make it a criminal offence for the recruitment or solicitation of individuals into criminal organizations.

The bill would introduce jail time of up to five years and a mandatory minimum jail time of up to six months for those who recruit youth under the age of 18; youth, our most innocent and vulnerable citizens, who are being coerced and at times forced to embark on a life that no Canadian should ever experience. As a proud father of three children, I am overwhelmed by the passage of this legislation and knowing that the bill would protect our children and punish those who seek to harm our children by bringing them into a life of crime.

Literacy Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Dr. Linda Shohet and The Centre for Literacy, located in my riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie. Founded in 1989, the centre is Canada's pre-eminent literacy organization. [ Translation ] For 25 years, Ms. Shohet has been working to deepen our understanding of the role of literacy and essential skills in the labour market. Thanks to the organization's efforts, employers are able to offer training programs to the most vulnerable workers. The Centre for Literacy is internationally recognized.

Unfortunately, the government cut its funding, as it did for 22 other literacy organizations across Canada. [ English ] Evidence shows that The Centre for Literacy's programs and the analysis it performs point to where investments in workforce training need to be directed. We thank Dr. Shohet for championing literacy and for her commitment to vulnerable workers, particularly our youth, aboriginal Canadians, and immigrants.

Trinity Western University Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, while tolerance has supposedly become the greatest of all virtues in the western world, the practice of it is falling far behind its proclamation. More and more, it is being used as a club by special interests to destroy traditional values. Trinity Western University in Langley has applied to start a law school. It has a voluntary values covenant with students that they will refrain from sex outside of marriage while attending Trinity Western.

Although anyone can apply and this is a voluntary covenant, there are some who are insisting that this private university must not have a policy reflecting its specific values. Last week's vote of B.C. lawyers regarding approval for the law school is a reminder of how political manoeuvring, exaggeration, and intimidation can negatively impact rights that have been in place for decades and that have been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Trinity Western University has been consistent. It is inclusive. It is a voluntary private organization.

There is nothing noble about one group trying to destroy another group's values. That is the exact opposite of tolerance, no matter how we label it.

Air India Bombing Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, June 23 is a painfully sad day for thousands of Canadian families. Twenty-nine years ago, 329 people lost their lives in a tragedy known as the Air India bombing, the largest mass murder in Canadian history. Although a Canadian inquiry was launched and completed, many questions remain unanswered. Relatives still struggle to understand how it happened. Today, our hearts go out to each and every one of them. On the anniversary of this atrocity, I ask all to join in remembrance of the victims and their families.

Today, I urge the Conservative government to give the affected families, and all Canadians, solace by implementing the recommendations that came out of the Air India inquiry, recommendations that it has thus far ignored. Canadian, British, and Indian citizens perished on that night, but countries all over the world mourn them. Today, and always, we remember.

(1410) Tourism in Durham Region Mr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this week is tourism week in Canada, and I would like to invite Canadians to join the Durham Region in all we have to offer this summer. We have arts. The Visual Arts Centre of Clarington is celebrating our artists, and there is the META4 Gallery of contemporary craft in Port Perry. We have sports, from Wooden Sticks and Coppinwood, world class courses in the north, to Kedron Dells in the south. We have Treetop Eco-Adventure Park, allowing people to do obstacles on the well-known Oak Ridges Moraine.

We have history, with Scugog Shores Historical Museum, Bowmanville Museum, and Lucy Maud Montgomery House, where she penned 11 of her novels. Kids will love Durham for the animals: Bowmanville Zoo, the Oshawa Zoo, and Exotic Cat World, some of the best places in Canada for seeing animals. We have wine from the Ocala Orchard Farm Winery and Archibald's winery, and one can match this with some of our world-class produce from the White Feather Farms, Pingle's Farm Market, Watson Farms, and Knox Pumpkin Farm.

I invite Canadians to come to Durham this summer, enjoy all we have to offer, and have a safe and happy summer.

Oshawa's Fiesta Week Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, [ Member spoke in foreign languages ]. In my home riding of Oshawa, residents are celebrating the 40th annual Fiesta Week, one of our most popular summer events. This past Sunday, I was proud to be part of the Fiesta Week kickoff and attended the parade and concert. This week-long celebration is a wonderful opportunity to experience the cultural diversity of Oshawa. During this week, residents of Oshawa and Durham Region are able to experience European, Asian, and Caribbean cultures and cuisines, all without having to leave our community.

With the tragic events in Ukraine over the past several months, Oshawa residents stand in solidarity with our Ukrainian community taking

part in the celebration. Fiesta Week continues to be an inspiring celebration of the cultural diversity of Oshawa. I encourage everyone to participate in the festivities. I would like to thank all the volunteers and the Oshawa Folk Arts Council who make this event possible. [ Member spoke in foreign languages ]

Activities for Visitors to Northern Ontario Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, hard battles were fought to save the Chi-Cheemaun ferry and the ACR passenger service, which bring visitors to Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing in beautiful northern Ontario. From the rugged shorelines of Huron and Superior to Canadian Shield forests speckled with lakes, visitors to the region will marvel at breathtaking scenery and rich cultural history as they travel in the footsteps of the Group of Seven. Visitors can explore thousands of lakes and rivers teeming with fish.

Canoeists and kayakers can paddle Great Lakes tributaries. There are trails to walk or ride and countless ways to enjoy this culturally vibrant part of Ontario. Everywhere people go, there is something to do. Pow-wows, festivals, and special events fill the summer. There is Winnie's Hometown Festival in White River, the Lumberjack Heritage Festival in Kapuskasing, music festivals in Blind River and Manitoulin Island, drag races in Elliot Lake and Wawa, Smooth Truck Fest in Smooth Rock Falls, and the Strongman Challenge Dubreuilville. All provide great entertainment that will not break the bank.

Museums, golf courses, outfitters, hotels, lodges, campgrounds, and fantastic restaurants are all waiting to serve visitors. [ Translation ] Come visit northern Ontario.

Mouvement des caisses Desjardins Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to shine a light on a home-grown success, the Mouvement des caisses Desjardins. Founded in 1900 by Alphonse Desjardins in Lévis, where its headquarters are established, the credit union has distinguished itself this year as the second-strongest lender out of the 97 financial institutions on the list. This year, short-term profits were maximized, which helped give the lender an advantage over the other banks. Joining a caisse populaire makes you an owner.

Alphonse Desjardins' idea was to pool individual resources to create a community. That way of thinking is completely in line with that of the Conservative government. We are working hard for all Quebeckers and Canadians so that Canada remains a prosperous country and a great place to live.

(1415) [ English ] Parental Benefits Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, too many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and too many Canadians are thinking of starting a family but are worried about the financial costs. Too many people have to choose between a career and a baby. Our support for young families is not where it should be. I held a public forum in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl last week. The overwhelming message is that, at 55%, parental benefits under the employment insurance system are inadequate. Parental benefits should also fall outside the EI system.

New parents are not unemployed and are not searching for work. New parents deserve fair pay for the hardest job. We speak in this House about citizenship and immigration and the temporary foreign worker program as ways to address the labour shortage, but why not make our central focus the family? We must nurture our most precious resource.

Sporting Events Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, summer is officially set to begin this weekend, and Canadian athletes and communities cannot wait. This summer we will be looking forward to the great job Canadians will be doing hosting major national and international sporting events. I for one look forward to seeing the pride and excitement on the faces of our special Olympians who will be competing in Vancouver this August.

I am sure the increase in funding from Special Olympics Canada announced in this year's budget will go a long way to help the 36,000 athletes and the 16,000 volunteers have the time of their lives. The world's eyes are already focused on the World Cup. It will be Canada's turn this August as Toronto, Edmonton, Moncton, and Montreal host the under 20 Women's World Cup as a precursor to the Women's World Cup to be held across six Canadian cities in 2015. Speaking of 2015, members should not forget to celebrate the one-year countdown for the Pan Am and Parapan Am Games across the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe.

For more information on how to volunteer, make sure to check out our website at Toronto2015.org.

Northern Gateway Pipeline Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, much to the dismay of millions of British Columbians, indigenous and non-indigenous alike, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, the government approved the northern gateway pipeline and tanker project. This decision is extremely disconcerting, as the project poses an unprecedented risk to B.C.'s economy and environment.

The hundreds and thousands of people whose jobs and livelihoods depend on the Pacific Ocean do not trust that a catastrophic spill can be prevented, a spill that would foul the sensitive ecosystems of our north coast and harm the fishing and tourism industries for decades. Despite this, the Prime Minister spent the last several years arrogantly trying to ram this pipeline through, disrespecting communities, weakening Canada's environmental protection, and politicizing our environmental review system. Canada needs to move energy resources to market.

However, these projects must first earn the trust of local communities. The Liberal Party rejects the northern gateway pipeline. We call on all members of the House to join us in standing up for the economy, the environment, and our communities.

Second World War Soldiers Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour four compassionate Canadian soldiers: Lloyd “Red” Oliver, Paul Hagen, Mert Massey, and Doug Walker. During the Second World War Operation Husky, in Torrice, Italy, these soldiers went above the call of duty to save Gino Farnetti-Bragaglia, a young and starving orphan. They adopted Gino as their own, providing him with food, care, and kindness.

As they departed Italy in 1945 to join the rest of the Canadian army in northwest Europe, young Gino had recovered from his injuries and was safe from danger. He was left with an Italian family who eventually adopted him. After great efforts, in 2012 Gino Farnetti-Bragaglia was given back his true identity and is now in Canada to tell his story. The selfless actions of these Canadian heroes must never be forgotten. Lest we forget.

Northern Gateway Pipeline Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, now more than ever New Democrats stand with the people of B.C. against the northern gateway pipeline and against this narrow-minded government. This decision is wrong for B.C. and wrong for Canada. Yesterday's decision sets a dangerous precedent for natural resource development in this country. The Conservatives are telling Canadians that they will not be heard. Bringing supertankers into the Douglas Channel is wrong-headed, short-sighted, and entirely wrong.

Not one of the 21 Conservative MPs from B.C. has stood up against this project. Not one has let the voice of their province be heard. The Conservatives work for the PMO, not their constituents. In 2015, an NDP government will finally listen to British Columbians and set aside this decision, because Canadians deserve better and they will get better from the NDP in 2015.

(1420) Memorial to Victims of Communism Mr. Bob Dechert (Mississauga—Erindale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government promised in the throne speech to remember the millions who suffered, and continue to suffer, under the tyranny of Communism by building a national memorial remembering its victims right here in our nation's capital. Earlier today, on behalf of the eight million Canadians who are descendants of countries that lived through Communist terror, our government took the next step in fulfilling this promise and financing the six finalists.

These world-class teams will spend the coming weeks developing their concepts, which will be presented to a jury this August. I join my Conservative colleagues in encouraging all Canadians to support this important initiative and applaud Tribute to Liberty for their hard work and dedication.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Natural Resources Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, for three years the Prime Minister and his cabinet have been out there shilling for the northern gateway pipeline, saying that it was of “vital interest”. Now not a single Conservative minister is available to explain the decision to Canadians. If no B.C. Conservatives will defend this decision, will the Prime Minister please explain to us why approving this pipeline is worth putting 45,000 British Columbia coastal jobs at risk? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, once again, we are well aware of the NDP's opposition to all resource development and its view that all resource development is a disease on the economy. The fact of the matter is that the government is acting on the advice of an independent scientific panel that thoroughly reviewed these matters. The government has applied the conditions demanded by that panel. It is now up to the proponent to assure the regulator going forward that it will indeed comply with those conditions. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, in that case, can the Prime Minister please explain, if this reckless pipeline through British Columbia's most pristine wilderness is actually in the interest of all British Columbians, why every single one of his 21 British Columbia MPs has entered the witness protection program? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is interesting, coming from a leader who has apparently entered the witness protection program when it comes to the mailing and running of his own offices.

I hope that he is just as ready to explain his actions when he is called upon, as, of course, all members of the government are. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister removed all of the barriers to this pipeline, going so far as to scuttle all of the legislative requirements with respect to environmental assessments. He even went so far as to use one of his notorious omnibus bills to say that pipelines, and only pipelines, are no longer subject to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

If that is the case, how can the Prime Minister possibly deny that he stacked the deck in favour of the pipeline? It was a done deal. Why does he not just admit it? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we need a reality check here. An independent panel of experts held public hearings and reviewed hundreds of pages of evidence. [ English ] Let me just speak to the fact that the inquiry panel held 180 days of hearings. It heard from 1,500 participants, received more than 9,000 written submissions, and reviewed almost 200,000 pages of evidence.

It asked for some 200 conditions to be imposed on the project. That is what the government has done, and it is now up to the company to assure the regulator going forward that it will, in fact, implement those conditions. (1425) [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we all know that a spill on the British Columbia coast would put thousands of fishing and tourism jobs in jeopardy. However, the Conservatives' plan for cleaning up spills involves using chemicals that are banned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Simply put, the Conservatives are proposing to create one environmental disaster to fix another. We were not the ones who called Enbridge a bunch of clowns. It was the American government that called them “Keystone Kops” because of how they bungled the Kalamazoo spill. Is that who the Prime Minister wants Canadians to trust? He wants them to trust Enbridge, with their pitiful record? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, a panel of independent scientific experts reviewed this project, and the government acted on its recommendations. [ English ] In terms of the various effects that the hon. leader of the NDP laid out, those were not the findings of the panel. It was quite the contrary. The government has to base its findings on the facts and on the hearings as they transpired. The government is not as free as the NDP to simply ignore the facts and ignore the rules, as it does with its own parliamentary budget. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, here are the facts: the highest level of the U.S. administration, after Enbridge was responsible for the worst spill in U.S., called Enbridge “the Keystone Kops”. It called them a bunch of clowns, not us. Yesterday's announcement said that Enbridge: —clearly has more work to do in order to fulfill the public commitment it has made to engage with Aboriginal groups and local communities along the route. Does the Prime Minister not understand that it engages the honour of the crown to deal with first nations? That is the government; that is his responsibility.

He cannot subcontract the honour of the crown to Enbridge. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course that is not the case. Aboriginal consultation is part and parcel of the review process. I would just point out that there were 72 days of hearings from aboriginal groups to share their views, including on traditional knowledge, and 41 first nations were, indeed, financed to enhance their participation in the project. There are a range of views among those groups. Those are the facts.

Speaking of the American government, we know about the lobbying of the NDP in Washington to actually block Canadian projects from going forward. That is how fanatical the NDP is in its opposition to development, something that Canadians do not support. Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia government says that the northern gateway pipeline has not met the crucial condition of being in B.C.'s economic interest. B.C. first nations and communities have been clear that this project threatens the thousands of jobs that rely on a healthy Pacific north coast.

If the province, its citizens and first nations firmly oppose this pipeline, why did the Prime Minister say yes? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is obliged by law to respond to the findings of an expert scientific independent panel. It spent many months examining this project and consulting the public and other affected interests. As a consequence, the government has imposed some 200 conditions on the project and the regulator is now tasked with ensuring that the company, the proponent fulfills those conditions moving forward. Mr.

Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the government's approval of the northern gateway pipeline places the Great Bear Rainforest at extreme risk, quite a difference from 2007 when the Conservatives said that this was an ancient forest whose integrity had to be preserved for the generations to come. After promising to co-operate with the B.C. government, first nations and environmental groups to protect the Great Bear and its economy, why did the Harper government approve a pipeline over all their objections? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker : I know the member for Papineau knows, or should know, by now that we do not use proper names. We use ridings or titles.

(1430) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, we are all familiar with the long history of the deep hostility of the former Trudeau government to everything in the western energy industry. The reality is that this government has acted to promote the Great Bear Rainforest, something not supported by the Liberal Party at the time. That is what this government did. The scientific finding does not confirm any such threat as the member indicated.

However, there are some 200 conditions that will have to be fulfilled for the regulator to approve any work going forward. [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, going against the tide, the Prime Minister approved the northern gateway pipeline project. Environmental considerations and the opinion of aboriginal communities were not taken into account. Not only that, but the risk to British Columbia's coastal economy is tremendous. It is not a good location for a pipeline. Will this Prime Minister finally listen to the public and reverse his decision to approve this project?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the government is following the recommendations of countless independent scientists and experts who reviewed this project for months. The government approved this project with more than 200 conditions. [ English ] Once again, as I said, we are obviously following expert scientific advice here. This is something the Liberal Party preaches but never actually practices, and that is evidence-based decision making. [ Translation ] Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the northern gateway pipeline will move more than half a million barrels of bitumen a day through two mountain passes and 800 waterways. In Kitimat, supertankers will have to ship this bitumen along the coast of British Columbia, which is very difficult to navigate. What is more, the Conservatives' contingency plan in the event of a spill is not environmentally sound. Why take all these risks instead of just saying no to northern gateway? Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we made our decision based on the findings of an independent scientific review panel. We imposed 209 conditions to ensure that this project meets high safety standards. The panel listened to almost 1,500 participants from 21 communities and reviewed close to 175,000 pages of evidence. The developer will have more work to do, but will not have to hold consultations with communities. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance called those who are opposed to northern gateway “radicals”.

The Conservatives attacked all the opponents and muzzled the communities directly affected by this dangerous project. What they do not realize is that the majority of Canadians are opposed to this project. British Columbia roundly rejected this project. Cities that held a plebiscite also said no. Why are the Conservatives not respecting the people of British Columbia? [ English ] Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our decision is based on the conclusions of an independent science and fact-based review panel. We have imposed 209 stringent conditions to ensure this project meets the highest safety standards. The panel heard from nearly 1,500 participants in 21 communities and reviewed more than 175,000 pages of evidence. The proponent clearly has said that there is more work to do with communities along this route. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the northern gateway pipeline proposal is just wrong, wrong for British Columbia and wrong for Canada.

The Conservatives want to force British Columbians to accept a pipeline that will put our communities, our environment and our economy at risk. The fact is that an oil spill on the pristine coast of British Columbia is almost a certainty. One study puts the likelihood at 90%. How can the government put tens of thousands of jobs and the multi-billion dollar tourism and fisheries industries at risk? Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we have been clear that projects will only move forward if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. After carefully reviewing the independent regulator's science and fact-based report, the government accepts the recommendation to impose 209 stringent conditions on the project. It will be up to the proponent to show the regulator and to show Canadians that these conditions have been met.

(1435) Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government is running roughshod over the rights of first nations and ramming through a pipeline that B.C. does not want. One hundred and thirty first nations have come out in opposition to northern gateway. Even the Prime Minister 's own appointee, Douglas Eyford, says that the Conservative government has failed to properly consult with first nations. The minister says that it is now up to Enbridge. Does he understand his government's constitutional duty to consult cannot be privatized? Hon.

Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the proponent has more work to do to re-engage with communities along this route. Our government is working to build a stronger relationship with Canada's first nations. Our response to the Eyford report is a first step to building stronger relationships with first nations on these opportunities. The natural resources sector is the largest private employer of first nations in Canada.

First nations have, and will continue, to contribute and benefit as full partners in the development of our natural resources, in environmental stewardship and its economic benefits. Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives refuse to listen. It is not only first nations that have said no to northern gateway; it is all of B.C. Over 60% of British Columbians have said that they do not want northern gateway threatening their coast and communities. The UBCM and virtually every municipality along the pipeline route has said no. Therefore, why are B.C.

Conservative MPs ignoring their constituents? Let us start with the senior federal minister for B.C. What does the Minister of Industry have to say, or is he ducking under his desk? Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our decision is based upon the conclusions of an independent, science and fact-based review panel. After carefully reviewing the report, the government is accepting the recommendation to impose 200 stringent conditions upon the project. Our government has always been clear.

The projects will only be approved if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : However, Mr. Speaker, apparently it is not safe for any Conservative MP to stand and actually defend this project. There is something fundamental Conservatives do not seem to understand about this bad pipeline. The people of British Columbia just do not want it. A hundred and thirty first nations have said no. The province, the municipalities and two-thirds of all British Columbians have told the current government clearly, time and time again, “no”.

Exactly what part of “no” does the Conservative government not understand? Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have been clear. The projects will only move forward if they are safe for the environment and safe for Canadians. After carefully reviewing the independent regulator's science and fact-based report, the government accepts the recommendation from the panel to impose 209 conditions upon the project.

It will be up to the proponent to show the regulator, to show Canadians that these conditions have been met. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, suddenly the members of The Flat Earth Society believe in science in making decisions. I remember the days when Conservatives used to say that we should never impose energy projects in western Canada without the agreement of western Canadians. Then along came the Enbridge northern gateway and a Conservative government stacking the deck, gutting environmental laws and trying to bully first nations.

The time has come for these guys to stand up for western Canada. Is any Conservative B.C. MP willing to stand on his or her feet to defend this bad project? Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada's environmental standards are stronger than ever. We appreciate the hard work of these independent, science and fact-based panels to do their important work.

We have improved pipeline, marine and offshore safety and are ensuring that companies, not taxpayers, are held responsible in the remote case of an incident. The provinces and territories agree. Important progress is being made to reform our regulatory system and strengthen environmental protection. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Conservatives obviously underestimate the power and the commitment of the people of my province. They underestimate the strength of first nations people.

They underestimate the fact that they are more united now, that first nations and non-first nations are standing shoulder to shoulder against the government and its plans for our provinces. When are Conservative MPs going to find even an ounce of courage to stand up to the Prime Minister , stand up to the oil lobby and stand up for British Columbians?

(1440) Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the proponent has more work to do to re-engage all communities along the route. Our government is working to build a stronger relationship with Canada's first nations. A response to the Eyford report is a first important step to building a relationship with first nation communities. The natural resource sector is the largest private employer of first nations people in Canada.

First nations have, and will continue, to benefit and contribute to the environmental stewardship and economic benefits of responsible resource development. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, how about one last chance for one of these Conservative MPs, shall we? How about the member for Port Moody, the senior Conservative MP from B.C.? He can stand and tell the people of his riding why he is abandoning them in favour of serving the Prime Minister .

The people of British Columbia understand that Enbridge northern gateway is a bad project for them, a terrible idea for first nations and a disaster waiting to happen for our environment. B.C. Conservatives are going to get the message now, or they are going to get it at the ballot box in 2015. How about standing now and showing a little courage in their convictions? Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our decision is based on the conclusions of an independent science and fact-based review panel.

We have proposed 209 stringent conditions to ensure this project meets the highest standards. The panel heard from nearly 1,500 participants, 21 communities and reviewed more than 175,000 pages of evidence. There is no question that the proponent has more work to do with communities along the route.

Infrastructure Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are out of touch with the reality that people cannot raise a full-time family on part-time work. Since last year Canada has lost 27,000 full-time jobs. Wages are stagnant, and families are falling behind. However, we can fix this. Smart investments in infrastructure can create good full-time jobs, but the Conservatives have actually cut infrastructure spending by 90% for next year. Will the Conservatives listen to experts like David Dodge? Will they reverse these cuts?

Will they invest in infrastructure and create good full-time jobs for Canadians right across the country? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again the member is incorrect. He is misleading the House. Here is the approach of our Conservative government with respect to infrastructure: We are making record investments. We have doubled the gas tax fund. Municipalities and provinces identified their own infrastructure priorities. We are spending within our means, and we are balancing the budget within the next year.

On this side of the House, we will take that approach to the bank any day. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the reality of the government's decision to cut funding in the Building Canada fund by 90% until 2019 is having a devastating impact on jobs and the economy. Joe Murphy, executive director of the P.E.I. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association, said that jobs are being lost every day because the work cannot be done without the federal infrastructure dollars. One island construction company has reduced the number of employees from 40 in 2012 to 16 today. That is a cut of 60%.

First the Conservatives cut, and now they will not deliver. Why will the government not sign on with the provinces? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, here is the update on the new Building Canada plan. The gas tax fund has been doubled. It has been made permanent, and will be indexed moving forward. The new Building Canada fund is open for business. Applications are being received. One project has already been approved by the federal government, an important public transit project in Edmonton.

The hon. member may not be aware, but project applications have already been received by his home province of Prince Edward Island.

[ Translation ] Justice Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, after a second disputed judicial appointment, the minister and the Prime Minister are raising suspicions about the possibility that Justice Mainville will be appointed to the Supreme Court. Not only could that appointment contravene the court's decision in the Nadon case, but it would prolong the under-representation of women on the highest court.

Therefore, with so many high-calibre Quebec judges, what is the minister doing to ensure that the process to replace Justice Lebel will be open, transparent, responsible and participatory? (1445) [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, as I believe he was here, the Prime Minister said clearly yesterday that the appointment of Mr. Justice Mainville to the Appeal Court of Quebec has nothing to do with the opening at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court opening of course is not available until November of this year, and in fact there has been no process undertaken to date with respect to the replacement of Mr. LeBel. I ask that the hon. member look forward to the future with optimism. We have a full complement of judges representing the province of Quebec. We are very aware of the need to keep that complement, and that is exactly what we will do.

[ Translation ] Privacy Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice claims that a recent unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in Spencer is in keeping with the spirit of his cyberbullying bill. Fortunately, making a fool of oneself is not harmful to one's health. Some provisions of Bill C-13 run completely contrary to this ruling. The bill allows businesses to turn over their clients' personal information without a warrant from a judge. The minister does not have to sacrifice privacy in order to fight cyberbullying. Why is he doing that? [ English ] Hon.

Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to do it. In fact, it is very important, as the member has pointed out, that we respect privacy but at the same time allow the police to do their important work. I remind the member and this House that the decision in Spencer was a child pornography case in which the Supreme Court in fact upheld the conviction on the possession and sent the distribution charge back for retrial. With respect to that charge, we will wait to see what happens. Regarding Bill C-13 , the elements of this bill remain before Parliament.

We will respect the Supreme Court's decision. We also believe that there are very compelling reasons to proceed forward and to ensure that we are putting the most protection in the hands of the police as far as their ability to enforce the law is concerned. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, Liberal senators failed to stand up for the privacy rights of Canadians in their review of the snooping provisions in Bill S-4 , and the Minister of Justice stands in the House and tries to tell Canadians that the Spencer decision last Friday was somehow a validation of the government's attack on privacy. The Supreme Court was clear. Obtaining private IP information on Canadians without a warrant is illegal.

Why is the Attorney General, the man entrusted with upholding the Constitution, standing in Parliament and misrepresenting the conditions decided by the Supreme Court in order to support the Conservatives' attack on the privacy rights of Canadians? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let us look at the actual Supreme Court decision, paragraph 73. It is a declaratory provision that confirms the existing common law powers of police officers to make enquiries as indicated by the fact that the

section begins with the phrase “for a greater certainty”. That is exactly what we have been saying. It is the same provision of Bill C-13 . Here is another interesting quote: —our ability, with these amendments, to give additional tools to our police and prosecutors around what are cyber crimes. Some of that is cyber bullying...but it also expands our ability to deal with child pornography over the Internet. It would give some additional tools to the police for that purpose.... Who said that? The member for Windsor—Tecumseh . Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the minister loves to do creative reading. The minister sees his laws being struck down and then claims somehow that he is winning. He is not fooling anyone, least of all the Supreme Court. The way the government is trying to roll back Canadians' privacy rights is not constitutional. Does the minister intend to allow bills like Bill C-4 , Bill C-13 , and Bill C-31 to pass into law just so they can also be struck down later, or will he respect the court's rulings and redraft these bills as even his own people are recommending? Hon.

Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I do not know where quoting exactly from the Supreme Court becomes creative reading, but let me note that upon the conviction of Mr. Spencer for possession of child pornography, the Supreme Court confirmed that neither PIPEDA nor the Criminal Code voluntary disclosure provision, re-enacted in Bill C-13 , gives police the legal authority to access subscriber information related to the Internet protocol address. This is exactly what we have been saying.

This is why we are not only bringing in provisions to protect people from bullying online, but we are also giving the police the ability to police the Internet and ensure that the law is being respected, and balancing that with privacy rights.

(1450) Justice Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court also says that you need a warrant to obtain people's information. [ Translation ] Canadians do not agree with the war that the Conservatives are waging against the Supreme Court. They do not accept that the Conservatives are trying to circumvent the rulings of the highest court in the land. They do not accept that the Conservatives are politicizing the process for appointing judges.

They really do not appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister is dragging the chief justice through the mud and that the Minister of Justice is freely interpreting the Supreme Court rulings to suit his partisan interests, as we just heard. When will the Conservatives put an end to their war on the Supreme Court? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there is no war. The Prime Minister clearly said that he intends to respect the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling. [ English ] Let us be very clear. Mr.

Justice Mainville is an eminently qualified Quebec jurist, with 33 years as a member of the Quebec bar. I think that is more than the member opposite. Under

section 3 of the Judges Act, he is eminently qualified and eligible to join the Quebec Court of Appeal. I do not know what the member opposite has against judges serving on the supreme court of her province.

Housing Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, to reduce the plight of the chronically homeless, our Conservative government champions an evidence-based model called Housing First, saying the most effective way the government could support the homeless is to find them a place to live. Housing First recognizes that without a home, it is extremely difficult for anyone to move forward to overcome other challenges, then to aspire to total independence. Would the Minister of State for Social Development please explain what the evidence shows about Housing First? Hon.

Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and the great work he has done on behalf of the homeless throughout his career. Housing First works. The evidence is in. The Mental Health Commission of Canada just released its results from the At Home/Chez Soi project which occurred across the country. It shows that not only does Housing First help in addressing homelessness, but it is a smart investment. In fact, for every $10 invested, there is a $21 return. That makes good sense in terms of policy, and good sense in helping the homeless.

Employment Insurance Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives created the new Social Security Tribunal, they said it was because the old system was “slow and ineffective”. Now we learn that wait times have quadrupled. Unemployed Canadians are waiting on average eight months just to get a decision. This is simply ridiculous. EI premiums pay for the tribunal, but when Canadians need it, the system is not there for them. Why did the Conservatives break the appeal system and what are they going to do to fix it? Hon.

Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member needs to check her facts because, in fact, there is no wait time for EI appeals. If she had done some research, she would have seen, in fact, that the Social Security Tribunal is right up to date with EI claims. There is a backlog on CPP claims. They are dealing with that and getting through it, just like they are with the EI claims. [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives created the Social Security Tribunal.

They cannot claim that they are not responsible for the ever-increasing number of delays. The old EI appeal system guaranteed a hearing within 30 days. Unemployed workers must now wait eight months without benefits before a decision is rendered. Once again, Canadians are paying the price for the Conservatives' mismanagement. What practical solutions are they going to take to fix this disaster and ensure that workers are treated fairly? [ English ] Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, just like the NDP like to free-wheel with taxpayers' dollars, they like to free-wheel with the facts. Here are the facts on EI claims: In April of this year, 282 incoming cases were brought to the Social Security Tribunal. It got through 426 cases. If the NDP members want to talk about CPP, we realize there is a backlog, but on EI, there is no backlog.

[ Translation ] Human Rights Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canada Border Services employees have a duty to treat transgender people who are coming to Canada fairly and respectfully. However, that was not the case for Avery Edison, who was treated unfairly when she came to Canada earlier this year. With the WorldPride Human Rights Conference starting next week in Toronto, will the minister ensure that all of the delegates will be treated with dignity and properly welcomed when they arrive in Canada?

(1455) Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Millions of passengers cross our borders every year. Border Services officers have a duty to welcome them with the utmost respect. I can obviously assure my colleague that our Border Services Agency will treat people with great dignity. If an incident arises, there are mechanisms in place to deal with it. [ English ] Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, two years ago I raised the problem of airport screening requirements that can result in transgender and gender variant individuals being banned from flying. The Conservatives ignored and even scoffed at these concerns about requiring a traveller's appearance to match the gender listed on their ID, something that has nothing to do with security. Again, given the imminent opening of WorldPride in Toronto, what measures has the Minister of Transport taken to make sure this discriminatory policy does not interfere with the ability of those attending WorldPride to travel to, from, or within Canada? Hon.

Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, all of us on this side of the House, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness , the Minister of Transport and myself are committed to making this conference a success. We have made progress on the issuance of visas. We are working closely with the organizers to make sure those attending the conference enter Canada smoothly. We trust it will be a great success for Toronto, for Ontario, and for Canada as a whole.

Transportation Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, protests are taking place in Port aux Basques today against Marine Atlantic's decision not only to increase fares but also to cut the number of crossings between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. This is not only crippling the tourism business but hurting the entire economy in Newfoundland, because goods that are exported and imported are being delayed and jobs are being lost. I ask the Minister of Transport , what has she done to make Marine Atlantic reverse this harmful decision since I last raised this issue with her? Hon.

Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, indeed Marine Atlantic is an arm's-length crown corporation. It has the responsibility to ensure that investments by Canadian taxpayers are best used and to continue to operate in the best interests of serving the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador and its citizens.

[ Translation ] Canadian Heritage Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister commissioned a survey paid for by taxpayers to find out what Canadians already know: on the 150th anniversary of Confederation, they want to celebrate the charter of rights, health insurance, peacekeeping missions, multiculturalism, bilingualism, Tommy Douglas, Terry Fox, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and so on. Can she tell us how far preparations for the celebration have progressed, or is she desperately waiting for someone somewhere to add her boss's name to the list of people worth celebrating? Hon.

Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada's history is one of risk, sacrifice, and determination. Canadians have triumphed over all manner of adversity to build a strong, proud, and free country. The 150th anniversary of Confederation will be a celebration of the whole country. We are proud to have carried out consultations. I would like to know why the member and his party missed the opportunity to consult Canadians in their ridings. For our part, we will proudly continue to prepare for this celebration.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, about 60 Olympic athletes, coaches and stakeholders in the amateur sports world have spoken out against the cuts to the CBC, an essential tool for supporting amateur sport. The visibility that CBC gives our athletes makes it easier for them to find sponsors and encourages young people to participate in sports. If we relied solely on private broadcasters, we would only be able to watch amateur sports every two years, during the Olympics.

Does the government realize that our athletes and young sports enthusiasts are the ones who will be paying the price of the cuts it is making to the CBC? Perhaps if the government realized that, it would be showing more enthusiasm than it is right now. Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as we have said on a number of occasions, we recognize the importance of the CBC and we are very proud of our athletes. The decisions that were made and announced by the public broadcaster have nothing to do with this government.

It is up to the CBC to decide how it manages its operations. The CBC receives a significant amount of funding from taxpayers. Once again, the CBC is the one that should be being asked these questions.

(1500) Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are continuing to turn a blind eye to the consequences of their actions. When we welcomed our Olympic athletes on the floor of the House of Commons, the Conservatives literally could not run fast enough to have their picture taken with the athletes. However, when it comes time to provide real support for amateur sport and raise the profile of our athletes, the Conservatives are running for the door instead. The CBC is the main broadcaster for supporting amateur sport and promoting healthy lifestyle habits.

By cutting the CBC's funding, the Conservatives are washing their hands of their responsibilities. Does the Minister of State for Sport realize that by cutting the CBC's funding, the Conservatives are undermining a key pillar of amateur sport in Canada? Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I already said, it was the CBC that announced and made those decisions. That has nothing to do with government decisions. I repeat: we are proud of our athletes.

The CBC has indicated that it will continue to properly represent our athletes and our entire nation at the Olympics.

[ English ] Canadian Heritage Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today our Conservative government announced the next step in the creation of a national victims of Communism monument. In conjunction with Tribute to Liberty, a charitable organization devoted to remembering the more than 100 million lives lost under Communist oppression, the second phase of the national design competition is ready to launch. Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage please tell the House what our government is doing to ensure that Canadians can forever pay tribute to the victims of this poisonous ideology? Hon.

Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Red Deer for his dedication to all victims. I am honoured to launch the next step today in the creation of the national victims of Communism monument. Our government, along with Tributes to Liberty, has announced that six world-class teams have been chosen to develop their concepts for this long-awaited memorial. These teams will spend the coming weeks perfecting their designs, which will then be presented to a jury in August.

Today, we come even closer to fulfilling the promise that we made in our throne speech to pay tribute to the precious lives lost under Communist regimes around the world.

Aboriginal Affairs Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in 2011 the government's own assessment showed that first nations' water systems were in crisis. All parties voted for a Liberal motion calling for urgent action. So far, the government's response has been legislation without consultation, downloading responsibility and liability, and no new resources. Alberta's first nations are now in court, demanding the safe water that most Canadians take for granted. How can the minister justify leaving first nations children in third world conditions? Hon.

Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that statement by the hon. member is totally false. She knows that this government passed the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, which aims to provide first nation communities with drinking water and wastewater standards comparable to provincial and territorial standards off reserve. On the issue of funding, I recall that economic action plan 2014 proposes to continue implementing our action plan with $323 million for the next two years.

[ Translation ] Housing Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé asked the government about recent developments in the pyrrhotite file, and once again, the Conservatives' answer was full of bunk. The judge never said that the industry was responsible for the rules. He said that the rules were not strict enough and that the government had the ability and the duty to make them stricter.

Will the Conservatives remedy the situation and implement stricter rules on pyrrhotite so that nobody else has to suffer from this, or are they determined to win the world cup of incompetence? [ English ] Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there are two issues that I would like to clarify for the member. First of all, the pyrrhotite issue falls directly under provincial jurisdiction. Building codes fall under provincial jurisdiction. Secondly, the recent court ruling did rule that industry was entirely responsible. In fact, it was 100% responsible.

About 70% of it was SNC-Lavalin. The member needs to become familiar with the case and with what is under provincial jurisdiction.

(1505) Foreign Affairs Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, reports coming out of the P5 +1 negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are deeply concerning. Today we learned that Iran is refusing to cut its number of centrifuges and to halt nuclear fuel production. This development should come as no surprise. Iran has a history of deception and stonewalling international efforts over its nuclear program. Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs please comment on these latest rounds of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program? Hon.

John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are immensely concerned about Iran's nuclear program. We remain concerned about its abysmal and deteriorating human rights record and its material support for terror. Before these P5 +1 talks started, we were very clear, most recently this week, that Iran must give up 20,000 operating centrifuges. There is no reason for it to have them. If it seeks nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, it is essential that Iran heed international calls, do the right thing and get rid of these 20,000 centrifuges.

The Environment Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, once again the people of Hamilton are left in limbo regarding the future of the Randle Reef cleanup. It has been six months to the day since the government announced that funding was there and that the project was a go. Now we learn from Environment Canada that the project will be put on hold yet again. Hamiltonians are tired of delays and false starts. Will the government commit today to take all steps necessary to ensure that the Randle Reef cleanup starts this year? Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has played a leadership role when it comes to protecting our environment. In budget 2012, we committed to spending a significant amount of money to help clean up the contaminated sediments at Randle Reef in Hamilton Harbour. In the main estimates this year, we are committing even more. We will continue to work with Ontario municipalities and industry on this project, and we will keep the community informed as the project moves forward.

[ Translation ] Forestry Industry Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, forestry workers in my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, are concerned about the spread of the spruce budworm. This caterpillar is going to have a devastating effect on the region. A Quebec biologist has raised the alarm and is concerned that this could be catastrophic for the region's forests. It is clear that Ottawa is not doing enough to stop this insect.

When will the minister, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean , demand that his government do more to protect forestry workers in his region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean? [ English ] Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking a question on an important economic driver for rural communities across Canada. This government understands how important forestry is for job creation and economic growth and the protection of those forests.

I am proud that economic action plan 2014 builds on the government's success by focusing on innovation, protecting forests from the threat of pests, and on diversifying markets for our forest products. We have increased softwood lumber exports to China tenfold. These are successes that we should be applauding.

Presence in Gallery The Speaker : I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of the Hon. Dale Graham, Speaker of the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly. I would also like to draw members' attention to the presence in the Ladies Gallery of the Hon. Kevin Murphy, Speaker of the Nova Scotia Legislative Assembly. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Points of Order Oral Questions Points of Order Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be seeking unanimous consent to present a motion. During question period, in response to the MP for Halifax reminding the Conservatives of their offensive remarks calling first nations and British Columbians opposed to Enbridge northern gateway “radicals”, I clearly heard the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's yell out, “They are radicals.” This is beneath any government. This is deeply offensive to the people of British Columbia, and first nations in particular.

I therefore request the unanimous consent of the House to move that in the opinion of this House, two-thirds of British Columbians and the 130 first nations of British Columbia opposed to northern gateway are not radicals.

(1510) The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is incorrect. That is not what I said.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business [ English ] Dairy Producers The House resumed from June 17 consideration of the motion. Motion The Speaker : Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on Motion No. 496. [ Translation ] Call in the members.

(1535) [ English ] (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 217) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Welland) Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Angus Armstrong Ashfield Ashton Aspin Atamanenko Aubin Baird Bateman Bennett Benoit Benskin Bergen Bernier Bevington Bezan Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Blaney Block Boivin Borg Boughen Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Braid Breitkreuz Brison Brosseau Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Byrne Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Caron Carrie Casey Cash Chicoine Chisu Chong Choquette Christopherson Clarke Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crockatt Crowder Cullen Cuzner Daniel Davidson Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dechert Devolin Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dreeshen Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Dykstra Easter Eyking Falk Fantino Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Foote Fortin Freeland Freeman Galipeau Gallant Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Gill Glover Godin Goguen Goldring Goodale Goodyear Gosal Gourde Gravelle Grewal Groguhé Harper Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hillyer Hoback Holder Hsu Hughes Hyer James Jones Julian Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret'

s) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Latendresse Lauzon Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) Leef Leitch Lemieux Leslie Leung Liu Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacAulay MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mai Marston Martin Mathyssen May McCallum McColeman McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) McLeod Menegakis Michaud Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nicholson Norlock Nunez-Melo O'Connor Opitz O'Toole Pacetti Papillon Paradis Payne Péclet Pilon Poilievre Preston Quach Rafferty Raitt Rajotte Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Saxton Schellenberger Scott Seeback Sellah Sgro Shea Shipley Shory Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Smith Sopuck Stanton St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Sweet Thibeault Tilson Toet Tremblay Trost Trottier Trudeau Turmel Valcourt Valeriote Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 262 NAYS Nil PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Respect for Communities Act The House resumed from June 17 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 motion that this question be now put. Bill C-2. Second reading The Speaker : Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-2 . The question is on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-2 .

(1540) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 218) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Baird Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock O'Connor Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 143 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Cash Chicoine Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Foote Fortin Freeland Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Hughes Hyer Jones Julian Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Tremblay Trudeau Turmel Valeriote -- 122 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

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

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: Division on motion deferred The Speaker: Pursuant to an order made Tuesday, May 27, the division stands deferred until Thursday, June 19, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

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

Government Response to Petitions

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 10 petitions.

[ Translation ] Committees of the House International Trade Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, entitled “Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement”. [ English ] Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, New Democrats understand the importance of trade to Canada's economy and believe we must expand and diversify our trade relationships around the world. That is why New Democrats support broader and deeper economic relations with the European Union. We believe a well-negotiated agreement between Canada and the EU would have the potential to benefit citizens of both jurisdictions. We are pleased to see a report on CETA tabled today and would draw Canadians' attention to the supplemental report drafted by the NDP, appended to the study.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government has mishandled the CETA file egregiously. It has bargained poorly and communicated desperation. It has failed to negotiate with transparency and accountability and ignored vast numbers of important Canadian stakeholders.

Serious concerns have been raised about CETA's impact on Canadians' prescription costs, on our dairy industry, on our supply management system, on our provinces' and cities' ability to encourage local economic development and deliver public services, and on our government's ability to legislate in the public interest, especially in the health, environment, and social policy areas. It is our hope that this supplementary report will help to further inform parliamentarians about the diversity of Canadian perspectives concerning CETA.

(1545) Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the previous two interventions, I would like to highlight for the House that on page 51 of the English version of the report on the Canada–European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, the Liberal Party also submitted a supplementary report, and I recommend that all hon. members read it.

CSEC Accountability and Transparency Act Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) Bill C-622. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-622,

An Act to amend the National Defence Act (transparency and accountability), to enact the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today introduce my bill, the CSEC accountability and transparency act. The Liberal Party of Canada has a long history in establishing Canada's framework for national security.

A Liberal government established Canada's first peaceful signals intelligence function by an order in council in 1946 and established the Communications Security Establishment Canada, or CSEC, in 2001, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. However, the laws governing CSEC have not been updated since then and do not reflect the rapid advances in Internet and communications technology since 2001. This bill aims to correct that situation. It would establish clear rules for judge authorizations and for the reporting, oversight, and review of CSEC operations.

It would strengthen protection of Canadians' personal communications, including their metadata, by updating CSEC's legal statute and by providing intelligence and security oversight by a committee of parliamentarians, consistent with most western democracies. This bill would help improve transparency, an important Liberal value, and would restore public trust in this important establishment that is so vital to protecting the security of Canadians. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Food and Drugs Regulations Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP) Bill C-623. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-623,

An Act respecting the amendment of the Food and Drugs Regulations (labelling of certain food products) . She said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to introduce my first bill, which aims to amend the Food and Drugs Regulations, specifically with respect to the labelling of certain food products.

My bill, which was announced on May 24 in Quebec City during a demonstration to promote awareness of GMOs organized by AmiEs de la Terre, would make it mandatory to label any food products that contain hormones or antibiotics and to indicate on the label when slaughter waste is used in the production of meat and poultry. Under Canada's existing labelling practices, product labels must indicate how much salt, fat, cholesterol and carbohydrates the products contain, but no legislative provision requires producers to disclose to consumers many other elements that are present in foods.

As my party's consumer protection critic, I think it is important to give people the opportunity to make educated choices about the foods they want to consume. That is why this bill calls for increased transparency regarding the labelling of hormones and antibiotics, as well as the labelling of slaughter waste used in the production of meat and poultry. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1550) Committees of the House Canadian Heritage Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Wednesday, February 5, 2014, be concurred in. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for that warm welcome. I would like to discuss this report, which was tabled just after the House returned following the adjournment for the holiday break. It was about preparations for the Sochi Olympic Games.

It is very important to take this opportunity to congratulate the athletes for their fine performance and to thank them for how they represented us on the world stage. [ English ] With all due respect to our interpreters, since I get to work alongside these stakeholders and the athletes, I will, in the other official language, again repeat and offer my congratulations to our athletes for their phenomenal performances and the pride with which they represented us in Sochi. [ Translation ] I would like to talk about the recommendations in this report.

The first recommendation had to do with the biggest and most worrisome issue about the Sochi games. I am talking about issues related to protecting human rights and, more specifically, Russia's anti-LGBT laws. Those laws caused a lot of political tension and a lot of fear and concern over how people would be treated, especially those from abroad.

We are talking here about Canadians who attended this event as athletes, coaches, support staff and journalists and everyone else involved in the mission to Sochi. [ English ] My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca , who is our critic for LGBT rights and issues in Canada, and I worked hard together to bring this issue to the forefront in terms of the concerns that a lot of folks expressed in the lead-up to the Sochi games.

One of the things that concerned us greatly was the fact that on several occasions we had the opportunity to raise the issue in the House and question the Minister of Foreign Affairs as to what exactly was going to be done and whether the government would accept the New Democrats' recommendation to appoint a special consular official, as New Zealand did, who would deal specifically with any issues that could arise concerning the anti-gay laws in Russia. Unfortunately, the government did not act upon that idea.

Not only that, but we were unable to get any sort of concrete information as to what exactly was being done. We had to limit ourselves to very vague ideas of possible extra consular staff and extra attention possibly being brought to the issue without any specifics. [ Translation ] That said, in committee and in the report, we were pleased to find that, despite our great disappointment regarding the lack of specific information from the minister concerning security measures, we nonetheless could see the good will to ensure people's safety.

No matter our political allegiance, we all agreed that Canadians going to Sochi for the Olympic Games had to be safe. Naturally, we are very pleased that there were no unfortunate incidents and that everything went as it should. Despite our political differences on this issue, it is important, from that perspective, to recognize the work done by the consular officers on site. They were on the alert and there were no incidents. We are very pleased with that and with the government's response. Although some details were missing, we have to be satisfied with how events unfolded.

Setting aside the security issue, with this study we also had the opportunity to look into the development of, and funding for, our athletes. That is a very important matter. It is interesting because every time we ask questions about sport or physical inactivity among young people, the government likes to say that it is making record investments in sport. It is probably the only time we will hear this from an NDP or opposition member with respect to a government position. However, we agree with this government position and we do not want to make any changes to government investments in our Olympic athletes.

Nevertheless, the major concern raised in committee was not how much money was spent, but how the money was spent. (1555) [ English ] A big concern arose with regard to the own the podium program, which is obviously the cornerstone of the government's policy when it comes to funding sports in Canada, and more particularly, when it comes to funding our Olympic athletes and their successes. There are some challenges coming up in the next couple of days with own the podium, because own the podium was coming to an end in its first iteration.

There was a need, according to nearly all the witnesses who presented to committee, to see that we had proper timelines in place to allow for the proper development of athletes. There was some concern about some of that funding being too short term. I think it is important to highlight the government's response to the committee's report, which did raise in recommendation No. 2 that we see that this funding continue over a longer term.

The government does say, and as I said it is a fact, that it has continued the record investment in the last budget, but it is very wishy-washy in terms of how long that funding will actually be in place and whether the timeline will be appropriate for the different sports organizations. [ Translation ] In terms of the own the podium program, witnesses also talked about the sports it supported. Own the podium, as the name suggests, focuses mainly on the sports that we are most likely to medal in.

We heard from a number of witnesses who represented associations for sports in which we were deemed unlikely to have a chance of winning, sports that do not get a lot of attention, such as biathlon. We heard from representatives of the biathlon association. We do not want to change the funding strategy, but we do not want to abandon athletes in sports that are more obscure—I do not really like that word because it seems negative—and sports where athletes tend to be forgotten. It is very important not to do that. Once again, the government response does not really address that issue.

Recommendation No. 4, which we talked about in committee, is about encouraging private sector investment. All of our sports associations and the Canadian Olympic Committee rely heavily on funding from the private sector. The NDP and taxpayers know that it is important and good for private companies in our society to support and encourage our athletes in this way. However, it is extremely important for the government to create an environment that encourages private sector investment.

Several witnesses told us that that is not always the case, despite major improvements since the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver. [ English ] In that sense I think we are somewhat satisfied with the government's answer. We agree we need to find better ways to encourage private funding for athletes and for the Canadian Olympic Committee and all the sports associations that represent our athletes so well, that structure them so well, and represent the sports so well. That being said, there is not a concrete plan yet.

The Minister of State for Sport , with whom I have an excellent working relationship, and I will be discussing this in the coming weeks, months and years leading up to the next winter Olympics. Recommendation No. 5 from the committee's report deals with an issue that has been at the core of the work I have done since becoming the NDP sports critic. It is the question of youth inactivity and how we can find better ways to take advantage of these great role models that we have in our Olympic athletes and these great ambassadors, dare I say great human beings?

They are fantastic people I have had the honour and pleasure of meeting. They are ready and willing to help young Canadians be more active. They are ready and willing to be those role models.

(1600) Many of the witnesses who presented to committee did bring up this concern. I think, as we see in the recommendation, part of that comes through working with provinces and territories and, through them, with municipalities. Municipalities are obviously at the front line of the services offered to Canadians when it comes to infrastructure, for example, when it comes to having sports programs in place at the more local level. I think that is interesting. I remember having a discussion with some of the witnesses and some of the stakeholders, both in committee and in private discussions.

I think that one of the ways we need to move forward is to look at the funding as a pyramid. [ Translation ] At the top of the pyramid are the elite, our Olympic athletes, to whom we will continue to provide financial and moral support. However, when our Olympic athletes perform for us, they also inspire future Olympians, young people in our local communities. That is the base of the pyramid.

There is a very good expression for this: [ English ] A rising tide raises all ships. [ Translation ] We should be funding sport and supporting our Olympians with the aim of encouraging young people to be more physically active. That is something that the sports community is very supportive of. At the local level, we encourage people to be active. Of course, not every young person is going to go on to become an Olympian. However, some of them will maintain healthy lifestyles and others will become Olympians.

It is a win-win because we will have an active community as well as up-and-coming Olympians, who will make us very proud. In its response, the government mentioned the children's fitness tax credit. I was disappointed with that response because we concluded that the children's fitness tax credit was hugely inadequate and did not address the needs of everyday Canadians. [ English ] Let me explain myself in a bit more detail.

I think the first big flagrant problem with the tax credit for youth physical activity is the fact that when we look at the income brackets of those who are benefiting from this tax credit, it is those who do not need it. At the end of the day, it is a situation where one has to put out in order to get back. Folks who are able to pay are getting extra money in their pocket, which is fine.

However, the flip side of the coin is that folks in lower-income brackets who do not necessarily have the ability to pay for the skyrocketing costs of participating in sports, whether that is the equipment or the registration costs, are not able to benefit from this tax credit. That is a huge problem. [ Translation ] Our preliminary research shows that tax credits do not really seem to help those who are not already enrolled in physical activities or sports. Those who benefit from the tax credit are usually already enrolled in a sport anyway.

The government says that this tax credit is meant to be an incentive for those who are not already involved in physical activities, but it is clear that the policy and social objectives of the tax credit are not being met. That is why we are trying to find a way to improve this policy, which has proven to be somewhat disappointing. (1605) [ English ] I want to say another word on the rising cost of sport in this country. When we look at some organizations, I think of the phenomenal work that is done by an organization like Right to Play. It is an organization that sometimes goes to war-torn areas in the world.

It also goes to developing countries where it is a lot more challenging to put in place the proper sports infrastructure, to get kids involved, because they are worried about day-to-day issues. They are worried about eating. They are worried about clean drinking water and things like that. They are not necessarily thinking about physical activity. Right to Play has done phenomenal work in using sports as a tool to build communities, using sports to get young people involved in their communities in a positive way.

I always like to say when I meet folks that one of the reasons I got involved in politics in my community was through sports. It is a way to meet people in the community, to be involved with them and, hopefully, one that leads to more constructive community participation. That being said, when we think about the work that Right to Play does, it is unfortunate that we sometimes forget what is happening in our own backyard. To that point, there is some great work being done.

I know there are some projects that are getting aboriginal youth more involved in sports, programs that unfortunately do not always have the support that we would like to see from the government, so when I see this answer from the government, I am obviously pleased to see that it is acknowledging the problem, but it is far, far from enough. [ Translation ] Let us look at the other recommendations in the report and the aspect that pertains to the provincial governments. I think it is important to understand the challenge facing the sports community in terms of respecting jurisdictions.

A number of witnesses said that provinces such as British Columbia and Quebec were good examples to follow when it came to some aspects of their programs to encourage young people to participate in sports. We are hoping for collaboration in that regard. In its response to the report, the government promises to strengthen and improve that collaboration. However, we are still concerned.

Whether we are talking about sports—a somewhat less partisan topic—or about more substantial issues in this Parliament, we know that collaboration with the provinces sometimes means that the federal government offloads its responsibilities onto the provinces. It is extremely important that collaboration means just that and that the federal government fully assumes its responsibilities and does the work it needs to do in that regard, while respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces. The most obvious example is education, where most of the work is done to encourage young people to engage in physical activity.

I would also like to talk about certain aspects of the study that are not necessarily included in the recommendations but that we hear about. However, I do not want to forget a major recommendation in the report that deals with doping and injuries, two extremely important issues. In committee, we heard from a witness from the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, who spoke specifically about doping. [ English ] When I look at the question of doping, there are some serious concerns.

As far as we and the stakeholders are concerned, not enough is being done right now, especially on how we behave in terms of border security and with what is happening at the ministry of public safety with the handling of drugs. Often they are steroids, as in this particular case, and there is a huge problem with the amount of information available.

A lot of time steroids are finding their way into products that are being consumed, with very little to no information available for athletes, so they are consuming these in ignorance, and that is a very serious problem. (1610) [ Translation ] I see that I am running out of time. It is crazy how time flies when you are talking about something you feel passionate about. The government did not really mention concussions in its response, but I would like to say that the answer to that problem is simple.

It involves supporting the bill introduced by my colleague from Sudbury , my predecessor as the critic for sport, which seeks to implement a national strategy to combat injuries in amateur sports, particularly concussions, which are a scourge. We are working very hard to try to set up a round table to bring together experts. The government brags that it has made unprecedented investments in the study of concussions. However, we know that too much work in this area is being done in silos. We need to bring together the stakeholders to solve this problem.

I will end on that note, and I encourage members to ask me questions so that I am able to share more information on this subject.

Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chambly—Borduas for his speech on a very important report. This sector too often gets neglected in our society. Less than two years ago in Beauport—Limoilou, we inaugurated a modern arena that has two skating rinks. It is very useful and meets the needs of the people of Beauport. In addition, Quebec City will be breaking ground on a centre that houses indoor soccer fields.

Municipalities are certainly doing their part, but the government is clearly just wasting money with a tax credit that ultimately does not do anything for a large portion of the population. Could my colleague give us more details on how the government's priorities are creating a problem with respect to providing active support to amateur sport? Mr. Matthew Dubé : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question, especially since the Is Canada in the Running? report card was published recently. This report card addresses the problem of childhood physical inactivity.

We have well-developed infrastructure in Canada. We have some of the best sports infrastructure in the world. The situation my colleague mentioned in his riding is a good example. We are talking about what more the federal government could do, but the answer is obviously not always infrastructure. We could point out some examples of infrastructure that is not well developed, but overall, that is not the problem. Of course, the government responded to the report we are talking about today by saying that the tax credit was one of the solutions it was putting forward. However, the tax credit is not enough.

I spoke about the problems with the tax credit and the fact that it did not fix the problem. The government has a responsibility to review its policies. The government could provide more support for sports associations, which could serve as an example to our children, our communities and our families. This could be a new way to encourage them to get involved in physical activity. We are certainly not lacking in arenas. There is another problem, but the government does not seem to be able to identify or address it. Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chambly—Borduas for his speech and his work as sport critic. He clearly said that this issue affected him personally. He is truly passionate about anything related to sport. I read the report and recommendations. I know it was a lengthy undertaking, and I congratulate the committee members, particularly my colleague, for their hard work. During question period, he questioned the government about the impact of cuts to the CBC. Point 3.6 of the report refers to the media and social media. It says that arranging media coverage is an important part of the preparations.

Since my colleague is very familiar with this file, I would like to know whether this issue was looked at in committee. Was there any consideration given to the potential impacts of cuts to the CBC or elsewhere? With respect to the media, how will these cuts affect athlete performance when it comes to amateur and Paralympic sport?

(1615) Mr. Matthew Dubé : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As well, I promise him that one day I will learn how to stop when skating. Then I might not look so bad as the sport critic. All kidding aside, my colleague raises a very good point. In committee, we looked particularly at the situation with respect to the Paralympics. Since the Paralympic Games are held after the Olympic Games, the media frenzy surrounding the games calms down a bit and the dust has settled somewhat. It is often quite unfortunate.

We are all guilty—probably even some members in this House—of moving on to something else and in the process forgetting about these highly courageous, exceptionally talented people whose performances are sometimes more impressive than those of their fellow athletes who competed in the Olympics. That said, the question was raised as to whether the Paralympic athletes could be better represented in the media. The Canadian Paralympic Committee said that it had managed to do extraordinary work with CBC/Radio-Canada, which broadcasted the games.

Seeing the excellent work they did and just how happy they were to have made so many gains makes the cuts to Radio-Canada and the CBC all the more disappointing. After all this work, which took years, the public broadcaster has become more sensitive to the situation facing Paralympians. This is the kind of example that shows us the problems that these cuts can cause. Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on the excellent work he does as the critic for sport. I also want to talk about the situation in my riding, where there is a serious lack of sports infrastructure.

What is more, I have a timely example, with the World Cup of Soccer under way. In my riding, I am told there are so few soccer pitches that 500 young people are unable to play. Good physical health and healthy eating are important for young people. I would like my colleague to draw from his experience and elaborate on how we can help provide affordable sports to help families and young people develop good eating habits and become physically active. These types of problems do not just exist in arenas. Mr. Matthew Dubé : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I mentioned this earlier.

By all accounts, in some cases, there are some gaps when it comes to infrastructure, even though Canada is doing well overall. Nonetheless, some regions and municipalities lack sports infrastructure. The situation is made worse by the fact that money for sports infrastructure has been cut from this year's budget. When we consider the excise tax and everything else, we see that this is causing problems for municipalities. To address the hon. member's other point about young people and the importance of leading an active life, I would say that this goes beyond that.

We cannot underestimate or deny how important sports can be in a young person's life. Look at the organization Sports Matter. [ English ] The sports matter program has the great idea of seeing some more inter-ministerial collaboration on what sports can do. For example, you may see the Minister of State for Sport work with the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Public Safety . When we are looking at youth delinquency, for example, a great way to solve the problems involved would be getting kids involved in sports or seeing the Minister of State for Sport work with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration .

Hockey Night in Canada has a Punjabi broadcast now. There is a reason for that. It is because sports is a great gateway for new Canadians to become more active and more involved in their communities. There are a lot of those effects that the sports community sees and, unfortunately, the government does not always see. That being said, I do want to end on a positive note. While there are criticisms to raise and problems in the report, I have to say that I have been able to work very well with the Minister of State for Sport .

At the end of the day, it is a very positive file to work on, because even though we do not always agree on the methods behind the madness, we do have the same ultimate goal. When it comes to sports, it is one file where it is really important to bring that point to the forefront, maybe more than any other. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the opportunity to have this report brought forward. Within the Northwest Territories, we have been very successful this year at the Olympics. We had two participants out of a population of 40,000 people. It is very significant.

It speaks to the work that has been done by our government in the north to encourage, through participation in things like the Arctic Winter Games, young people to get into competitive sports. I think that is part of it as well, that these opportunities are given. Do you see the Canada Summer Games and those types of activities leading people forward to the Olympics?

(1620) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : One more time, I will remind all hon. members to direct their questions to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues. A very short answer, please. Mr. Matthew Dubé : Mr. Speaker, I will take the opportunity to congratulate those folks from the Northwest Territories. Coming from the north, I appreciate the member's comments. That is exactly where we see how sports can be a bridge for folks. Considering Canada's geographic and social diversity, I think one of the elements that can bridge that is sports. That is something we can all agree on.

Hopefully this report is a first step in that right direction and in the work that we can continue to do on this file. Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) Motion Mr. Speaker, I move: That the House do now proceed to the orders of the day. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

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

Some hon. members: Yea.

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

Some hon. members: Nay.

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

(1655) The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 219) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Baird Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock O'Connor Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 138 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Atamanenko Aubin Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Cash Chicoine Choquette Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Foote Freeland Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Hughes Hyer Jones Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Laverdière Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty Michaud Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Raynault Regan Rousseau Sandhu Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stoffer Sullivan Tremblay Trudeau Turmel Valeriote -- 98 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declared the motion carried.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Victims Bill of Rights Act Bill C-32—Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Motion Mr. Speaker, I move: That, in relation to Bill C-32,

An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts , not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

(1700) The Speaker : There will now be a 30-minute question period. With questions, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, here we have what I believe is the 75th use of time allocation in this House. We have the Conservatives applauding because of their limited grasp of representative democracy. We know we have members from more than 300 ridings who represent all different kinds of people in this country and all different kinds of ridings; so when the Conservatives have heard from two or three people, they already have their mind made up and are ready to go on to whatever they want to do. They are not willing to listen to good ideas.

Even on bills like this one, where we are actually supportive in principle, they insist on time allocation. My question to whoever is handling this debate at this time—we seem to have a variety of ministers who stand up; I hope it is the Minister of Justice —is this. Why are the Conservatives not willing to listen to additional good ideas on this topic and things that we might be able to offer to improve this bill? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am always proud to be here to support government legislation, bills that have been introduced through my department. Bill C-32 , as the member knows, is a very important piece of legislation pertaining to victims rights, which he has now clearly indicated his party is supporting. I believe that may be the case with the Liberal Party as well. I note that the bill has been debated for five days.

There have been hours devoted to the opportunity for members of the opposition, as well as government members, to rise in this place and clearly put on the record new ideas and constructive suggestions that might add to the bill. The member speaks of representative democracy. He would know that time allocation motions have been used throughout the history of this place. He would also know that we now have an opportunity to send the bill on to committee, where we can actually hear from Canadians.

In addition to the 308 members of Parliament, we would have an opportunity to hear from Canadians and organizations interested in advancing victims' rights. That is what the bill is about. We need to get it into place. We need to secure it in legislation, so that those rights would actually extend and protect victims in Canada today. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have moved 75 time allocation motions, and a few weeks ago, they extended sitting hours for the House. Last night, not one single Conservative rose to debate the Conservative bill.

We have been here for a few weeks now. However, none of the Conservative member are rising to debate their bills. I understand that there is a sense of urgency and that they absolutely want to debate their bills. However, could the minister tell us if his colleagues will do us the honour of showing up in the House of Commons and debating their own bills? [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, I know I will be here. I am on House duty. I would ask the hon. member about the time, not that long ago, when they could not even raise 15 members from their entire caucus to stand in the House.

As a result, that occasion and another occasion actually had consequences for them, because their leader then had to go before a committee and talk about some of the illegal activities of their party, some of the illegal exercises they were going through to defraud taxpayers of money. They used taxpayer money for partisan activities, to send out flyers and to fund offices outside of areas where they actually had electoral support. Perhaps the member would like to respond and tell us why she does not want to show up to work?

Why does she and her caucus not want to be here to actually debate important issues like victims rights? (1705) [ Translation ] Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to hear the minister say that time allocation motions have been used throughout Canadian history. When time allocation was used by the Liberals, his party and his prime minister said that it was an affront to Parliament. I really wonder if he understands that we want to hear from Canadians in committee and that we also represent Canadians. My riding has 99,000 voters and a population of 130,000 people.

I do not think that many of them attend committee meetings. That is why I am here, and that is true of all my colleagues and the minister's colleagues as well. I would like to respond to what he said to my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île when he talked about how we could not raise 25 members to stand and prevent the leader of the official opposition from testifying. First of all, the opposition leader had the courage to testify, unlike most of the ministers in this place. Second, the Speaker ruled that the manoeuvre was not allowed. In closing, I wonder what he really means when he talks about being on duty.

Last Thursday, they had a bit of trouble getting back to the House to vote at 11 p.m. We wonder who is really on duty. Is he not tired of seeing his government act this way? [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, I know they are anxious to get to their hot dog and hamburger party tonight, but this is an important issue. We are dealing now with victims rights. We want to move this legislation along, so we can actually protect victims in Canada, so we can have the bill in place that would accord them protection from re-victimization in the courts.

It would allow them a flow of important information, so they can make decisions for themselves and their loved ones. Bill C-32 has had five days of debate in the House of Commons. We know there will be ample further opportunity at committee. There will be an opportunity when the bill comes back to the House. I do not know why they do not want to do their jobs: show up, debate important bills, and allow Canadians to see that this Parliament actually functions. Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, when a right is violated, what recourse does the victim have to seek restitution? Hon.

Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, when the bill becomes law, one of the rights that to be entrenched in the bill is that individuals who seek restitution will have recourse. As a result of our government, we now have a federal victims ombudsman. Victims would have the opportunity to seek recourse and see that restitution, get the information they needed and the protections that would be afforded them when the courts ordered certain protections around individuals. Very often we are talking about individuals who have been sexually assaulted or abused physically.

In cases of seniors, it sometimes involves fraudulent acts that have robbed them of their life's savings. The bill is designed specifically to allow recourse. In addition to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there would also be a victims bill of rights, which would be there specifically to protect those in Canada who have, unfortunately through criminality, found themselves as victims caught up in our system. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the present debate on the time allocation motion. Again, this is the 75th time allocation motion.

I would like to single out this particular time allocation motion by pointing out that the government said at the beginning that these were old bills that had been amply debated during previous Parliaments. However, this bill is new. It was introduced by the Minister of Justice , who is here to answer questions. He seemed to be saying that there has been enough debate.

I was wondering whether he could tell me how many speakers, hours or days it takes before the Conservatives consider that this bill has been debated enough and muzzle Parliament, preventing members from all parties to speak to the bill. [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Speaker, to be clear, all parties will speak to this, and all parties have spoken to this. We have had five days dedicated to the debate so far. Yesterday we used time allocation on Bill C-2 , which had over 97 speakers and over 26 hours of debate.

When I was minister of defence, we had a bill that had been presented over three successive Parliaments, and it had been debated endlessly. The members of the NDP continue to put up speakers time after time, reading the same speech, using the same specious arguments, somehow to prevent the bill from becoming law. We are saying enough is enough. There has been debate on this important issue. Some major consultations took place to put the bill before Parliament. Some 500 individuals and groups were given the opportunity, from every province and territory, to speak about the bill.

Canadians have had a lot of input on the bill already, and they will have more opportunity at committee. It is time for the members of the NDP to put victims first.

(1710) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. We need to acknowledge the fact that the majority Conservative government has set a record on the number of times in which time allocation has been brought in to force through its legislation. We would have said that back when the Conservatives passed time allocation 30 times. However, today, we are talking about 75 pieces of legislation where the government has brought in time allocation. Time allocation is closure. It is designed to stop debate inside the House of Commons.

It is really all about that. With respect to wasteful time, we have literally used dozens and dozens of hours debating closure and time allocation on bills. We are talking pretty close to 100 hours just on the issue of process. Will the government House leader acknowledge that the real reason we are dealing with this issue today is because of the government's inability, and the official opposition's inability, to negotiate a timely discussion so the legislative process can move forward, without having to implement time allocation on every bill, it would see