OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 115 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES September 24, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 115 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 115 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 115 (Version officielle) 147 115 24 09 2014 2014/09/24 14:05:00 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 our national anthem, led by the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville . [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Health and Fitness Advocate Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, when we members rise to pay tribute to a person from our ridings, we identify those who inspire not only our communities, but also our country.

Today I pay tribute to just such a hero, Frank Kurucz, who has literally saved people's lives through his coaching. Among other things, Frank created the Nomads running group 50 years ago, which is an informal club of men who run together on weekends. As recently as last Saturday, 84-year-old Frank was running, inspiring those of us who ran with him. Frank also initiated Fit Fellas, a well-attended fitness class now led by Barrie Chapman, at the very busy West Vancouver recreation centre.

Frank also initiated the West Van Masters Mile race, and coached at the YMCA, UBC volleyball and soccer, and at women's and other groups. Frank was also West Van's first director of parks and recreation, and the hero who lit the Olympic cauldron there in 2010. The single theme in all of these activities is the importance of integrating health and fitness to maintain a successful, well-balanced life and a strong community. Mr. Speaker, through you, I say thank you, Frank, on behalf of the many you have inspired.

Veterans Advocate Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House of Commons to pay tribute to a great Canadian, Steinar Jarle Engeset. Steinar was born in Norway in 1942. In 1966 he immigrated to Canada with his wife. He became instrumental in Harbour Grace, Newfoundland, for opening up the northern shrimp fishery. He created many jobs in that part of the country. Steinar si best known for his advocacy on behalf of Canadian veterans. He was born during the war and has never forgotten that it was the Canadians and our allies who liberated his country and his parents.

Thus, Steinar arranged the first Convoy Cup. The Convoy Cup is made up of the air force, Canadian navy, and merchant mariners who sailed essential supplies to Britain at that time for the liberation of a free Europe. What an honour it was to be with Steinar on his vessel as he did the sailpast of HMCS Sackville , Canada's naval memorial, where he personally took the salute from Canada's honoured merchant navy veterans. I pay a special tribute from the House of Commons to a great Canadian and a great man in Steinar Engeset.

Fall Fairs Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, fall fairs are occurring in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and across Canada. These fairs draw communities together and provide the opportunity for both children and adults to celebrate not only agriculture but also their communities, the backbone of our country. I am particularly impressed by the young people who put their names forward to act as ambassadors not only for their fair but also for their community and the businesses in it.

Each and every one of the contestants I have met so far shows the qualities to be a leader throughout life. I extend my best wishes to all the young people who participate in the Fair Ambassador competitions. Each ambassador for their regional fair then goes on to compete for the Ontario Ambassador. Many times that title has been brought home to Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. Fall fairs are not done yet, and I look forward to many more before the snow flies.

[ Translation ] Creole Month Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, [ Member spoke in Creole as follows: ] sak pasé? Jodia mwen salué toute collègue mwen yo nan Parlement canadien, nan langue zancètre mwen, le créole. I have the great privilege of highlighting the 13th edition of the Mois du créole, which has been organized by KEPKAA, an organization that has been working to promote Creole in Quebec through education, culture, and the arts since 2002. In Canada, more than 200,000 people, including yours truly, come from countries where Creole is spoken.

Those countries include Haiti, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Guyana, the Seychelles, and islands of the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean. We are proud to contribute to Canada's cultural richness. I would like to congratulate the organizing committee and the president of KEPKAA, Arcelle Appolon, for the work they do to promote Creole. To conclude, I would like to salute all those who speak Creole, the language taught to me by my parents, that I have taught it to my children, and that I am proud to speak here. [ Member spoke in Creole ]

[ English ] Riding of Calgary Northeast Mr. Devinder Shory (Calgary Northeast, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge some great community organizations that make the hardest-working riding of Calgary Northeast a great place to live and raise a family. First, congratulations to Sue Scott and her team, including volunteers at Cardel Place recreation centre, and to the Country Hills public library on their 10th anniversary. Congratulations also to the Skyview Ranch Community Association for another successful AGM. I commend it for promoting a diverse and inclusive community.

Thanks to community members Fred Ghogomu, Don Monroe, Charles Bonny, Balraj Nijjar, Chand Singh Sadioura and others for their passion in serving the community. Finally, TV Channel i also deserves congratulations on its 15 years of service to the Bangladesh community here in Canada and throughout the world.

[ Translation ] Jeannot Caron Ms. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today it is my great pleasure to celebrate the exceptional contribution of an individual in my riding. Jeannot Caron received the Prix d'excellence de leader engagé, an award recognizing his dedication to community leadership, during the 26th symposium of the Réseau québécois de Villes et Villages en santé, an organization that promotes healthy communities. He is a dynamic man who brings people together and is deeply involved in his community, but his personal history is unusual.

After a difficult time in his life, he was forced to live on the street. It was not easy for him to reintegrate, but he chose to use his experience to help those most in need. Every day, Jeannot battles the stereotypes that plague homeless people and those struggling with mental health issues. He manages several community organizations, co-founded the Solidarité itinérance maskoutaine round table on homelessness, and was an active participant in creating Lit'inérance, which offers shelter to the homeless. He is extremely generous in sharing his experience. My hat goes off to you, Jeannot.

If there were more people like you, the world would definitely be a better place.

(1410) [ English ] Vasu Chanchlani Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, September 14, I was honoured to attend and speak at a memorial service for my dear friend and mentor, Mr. Vasu Chanchlani. He was not only a close friend of mine, but of Canada's as well. Mr. Chanchlani was a celebrated businessman and a philanthropist. Although he came to Canada in 1979, his close ties with his home country of India fuelled his advocacy for building a stronger relationship between our two great nations.

As one of the founding members of the Canada India Foundation, he understood the true potential of building a strong bond with India, which led to the rich, long-standing partnership that we continue to build upon today. His passion for education shone through as he gave generously to many of our Canadian universities in the areas of health, research, international relations, and literature, to name a few. He accompanied the Prime Minister and the Governor General on their official visits to India. My thoughts and prayers are with Vasu's family at this time.

His contribution to Canada and India will never be forgotten and will be honoured forever.

Teaching Excellence Award Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Mr. Byron Ross, who was recently recognized by our Prime Minister with an award for teaching excellence. Mr. Ross taught in the business program at the Swan Valley Regional Secondary School in Swan River, Manitoba. He taught his students tangible skills that provided them with the tools to become intuitive business leaders and entrepreneurs. He used hands-on techniques to teach the students responsibility and business sense.

His teachings have literally paid dividends for the students and their community. The school's store, the Tigers Den, operates during regular school hours and brings in over $100,000 in annual sales. His students have also partnered with the Swan Valley Credit Union to create their very own Tigers Credit Union with their own board of directors and operations. Finally, through the youth in philanthropy program, his students help evaluate funding proposals through the Community Foundation of Swan Valley, helping to deliver $5,000 in annual funding to deserving youth programs. Congratulations to Mr.

Ross for living by his students' motto, “To make a difference today for tomorrow”.

Urban Forests Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today on this National Tree Day, I would like to speak to the importance of urban forests. Urban forests impact a significant number of Canadians, almost 85% of our population, yet Canada lags behind other G7 countries in the value we place on them. In the United States, management of urban forests falls under the responsibility of an individual equivalent to a Canadian deputy minister. Urban forests are dynamic ecosystems that purify our air and water, help to control storm runoff, and conserve energy.

Trees add form, structure, beauty, and breathing room in urban design. They reduce noise, provide recreational space, and add real economic value. My hometown of London, Ontario, known as the Forest City, has introduced parallel legislation at the municipal level in recognition of the value of urban trees. My Motion No. 536 proposes a federal leadership strategy to preserve, protect and promote urban forests for their life-giving value to Canadian communities.

I am grateful for the assistance of Michael Rosen, president of Tree Canada, in developing this strategy, as well as my New Democratic colleagues for their support. I urge every member to support this important initiative, and I wish them all a happy National Tree Day.

Islamic State Hon. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, when ISIL began murdering thousands of innocent men, women, children, and religious minorities, it completely violated every value Canadians hold dear. When ISIL threatened Canadians because we do not share its twisted view of the world, our government remained resolute in its strong stand against such atrocities. We condemn these terrorists and their violation of human rights and human dignity.

Though other parties may feel the need to try to rationalize away the threats Canadians face in a dangerous world, our government has been firm and swift in its response, helping to deliver military supplies to Iraqi forces combatting ISIL and sending military advisers to support them. Our government will not sit idle. We will stand with our allies in condemning the threat and will work with them to extinguish it.

(1415) [ Translation ] Women in Politics Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of taking

part in an evening of seminars with the theme “Laval women in power: models of political engagement”. The event was organized by the Table de concertation de Laval en condition féminine, or TCLCF, under the auspices of the Réseau Lavalloises d'influence. Women from the education sector at the municipal, provincial and federal levels all came out to talk about the political reality and demystify the decision-making structures, hopefully making them less daunting and less intimidating. I am proud to be part of the NDP, a party that believes in gender equality. In fact, over 40% of our caucus members are women.

Nevertheless, there is still a lot of work to do. Women are underrepresented in politics. We do politics differently and we do it well. It is up to us as female elected representatives to share our experiences and help women across the country get involved and run for political office. That is why I support initiatives like the one just led by the TCLCF, and I congratulate them on their efforts. We must take our rightful place immediately; we must not wait. Women in politics—this is non-negotiable. We must show our pride and break the glass ceiling once and for all.

[ English ] Islamic State Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been watching the events in Iraq unfold with increasing horror over the past couple of months. There is no doubt that ISIL, also known more appropriately now by the name Daesh, are the most barbaric, heinous terrorists this world has ever known. Our Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister have shown unrelenting leadership on this issue. Just this week, Daesh called for attacks on Canadians and all westerners.

In addition to the threat Canadians are facing, what is also alarming is the direct targeting of Christians within Iraq. CNN, churches, and other news organizations have all reported that Daesh is marking their homes with an Arabic symbol signifying “Christian”. Is there anything in history that can compare to this barbarity? It is an affront to everything Canada stands for. It is outrageous to all Canadians. We cannot stand idly by. We cannot be ambiguous. I urge all members of the House to speak out clearly, loudly, and in unison against the tactics and very existence of Daesh.

Let us heed the lessons of history.

[ Translation ] New Brunswick Election Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the team of Liberal candidates elected on Monday evening and the new Premier-designate of New Brunswick, Brian Gallant. Mr. Gallant ran a good campaign with an emphasis on job creation and fiscal responsibility. [ English ] The New Brunswick Liberals, under Brian Gallant's leadership, won a majority government on Monday night by discussing real issues that matter to New Brunswickers: jobs, affordability, and health care.

The Conservatives' record of job losses and financial mismanagement turned voters away from them, and even the visit of the Leader of the Opposition last Friday could not prevent the NDP from being shut out of the New Brunswick legislature. New Brunswick needs strong leadership at a tough time, and Brian Gallant is up to the task. [ Translation ] I am sure that my colleagues join me in congratulating all the members of all the parties elected in Fredericton on Monday evening.

[ English ] Islamic State Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada will not and cannot stand idly by while the barbaric terrorist organization ISIL continues its slaughter of innocent civilians and religious minorities. We stand united with our allies and will work with them to address this threat. As we have said, inaction is not an option.

That is why Canada has delivered military aid to Iraqi forces, has deployed Canadian Armed Forces members to provide strategic and tactical advice, and has provided funding to support regional efforts to limit the movement of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria. We have been clear that the clock on Canada's 30 day, non-combat deployment began on September 5, when it was announced by the Prime Minister . At the end 30 days, we will look at renewing the mission. Opposition leaders have been briefed on this deployment. The ministers of foreign affairs and defence appeared before a parliamentary committee.

While the NDP is primarily concerned with minute details, our focus is on what matters, and that is addressing the threat that ISIL represents, not just to the region but to civilization itself.

[ Translation ] National Defence Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadian soldiers are taking

part in a war, and contrary to what we just heard, the government refuses to answer basic questions. We still do not have any information on the exact number of soldiers taking

part in this war and, again, unlike what we just heard, we have not received any real information on the exact duration of the mission in response to the opposition's questions. Unlike the Liberals, who are prepared to give the Conservatives carte blanche, as usual, we are trying to get more information. The Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary refuse to be accountable to Canadians. Their presentation yesterday was pathetic. (1420) [ English ] When asked if he would condemn this, the member for Kitchener Centre used a horrible comparison.

He compared women's weight to the farce we saw in this House yesterday. Gender issues and terrible comparisons aside, it is obvious the Conservatives know how wrong they are on this issue. The purpose of asking questions in this House, again compared to what we have heard from that member, is to get answers, not to ask questions for nothing. Failing to provide those answers is disrespectful to this institution, to Canadians, and to our soldiers. Canadians deserve better.

Vasu Chanchlani Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to recognize a great Canadian, Mr. Vasu Chanchlani, who, sadly, passed away on September 7. Born in India, Vasu immigrated to Canada in 1979. He soon established himself as a successful entrepreneur who directed much of his energy to philanthropy. Vasu provided generous support to university health and other research programs and helped to mentor young leaders in the Indo-Canadian community.

He was a founding member of the Canada India Foundation and actively worked to strengthen bilateral relations between Canada and India. His work directly improved the lives of many people, earning him widespread respect. We join with Vasu's family and many friends in mourning this great loss and express our profound gratitude for Vasu's contributions to our country. He represented the very best of Canada.

Statement by the Speaker The Speaker : Before we proceed to question period, the Chair wishes to make a brief statement. The office of Speaker is an ancient one, and there are many procedural authorities in this country and abroad that describe the Speaker's role. Our own tome, House of Commons Procedure and Practice , encapsulates my role, as follows, at page 307: The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and serves the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices.

Despite the considerable authority of the office, the Speaker may exercise only those powers conferred upon him or her by the House, within the limits established by the House itself. With respect to question period proceedings, contrary to what some members and others may believe, this means adhering to practices that have evolved over a broad span of time and that have consistently been upheld by successive Speakers.

By way of example, on October 28, 2010, Debates page 5505, Speaker Milliken said: As all of the hon. members know, the Speaker has no authority over the content of answers given by a minister or parliamentary secretary in response to a question asked during question period. The issue came up again on December 1, 2010, Debates page 6677, and on that occasion Speaker Milliken stated: The minister, in his response, may not have answered the question, but it is not the role of the Chair to decide whether a response is an answer or not to the question.

Indeed, the Chair has no authority to rule an answer out of order unless the answer contains unparliamentary remarks or a personal attack on some other member. It is not for the Chair to decide whether the content of a response is in fact an answer. As we have heard many times, that is why it is called question period not answer period.

In my own ruling regarding question period proceedings, delivered on January 28, 2014, I stated very clearly: There has been much discussion recently about the nature of answers during question period, with calls for the Speaker to somehow intervene, citing practices in other countries.... Each parliament has its own traditions. Successive speakers in our House have maintained our tradition of not intervening in respect of answers to questions, and I do not intend to change that. For me to deviate from this long-standing practice would require an invitation from the House.

To date, the House has not seen fit to alter our practices or to give directions to the Chair in that regard. That being said, I have no doubt that Canadians expect members to elevate the tone and substance of question period exchanges. As your Speaker, I hope the House can rise to that challenge. To be absolutely clear on another point, any suggestion that the rules of repetition and relevance apply to question period is wrong and ignores the long list of Speakers' rulings to the contrary. Another of our time-honoured traditions is that of respect for the office of Speaker.

O'Brien and Bosc, at page 313, states that: Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker--an allegation of bias, for example--could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly. I wish to conclude with an appeal to members on all sides. Needless to say, the kind of unsavoury language or expression that we heard yesterday does little to assist the Chair in managing question period proceedings, and I urge all members to be judicious in the expressions they choose to use.

I also ask all members to heed my request of last January 28, when I asked members: ...to consider how the House can improve things so that observers can at least agree that question period presents an exchange of views and provides at least some information. The onus is on all members to raise the quality of both questions and answers.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions (1425) [ Translation ] National Defence Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for answers to the clear questions put to the Conservatives about the military deployment in Iraq. Yesterday, the Conservatives again refused to answer questions about this and instead chose to make unparliamentary remarks. The member for Selkirk—Interlake said that the mission will end on October 4. However, he cannot speak for the government because he is not a member of cabinet.

Today in the House, will the Conservative government confirm to Canadians that the 30-day military deployment in Iraq will actually end on October 4? [ English ] Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has been clear both inside and outside the House that the clock started on the 30-day deployment on September 5. At the end of these 30 days, we will look at renewing the mission. The atrocities currently being committed by ISIL cannot be left unanswered. It is outrageous that the NDP would have us do nothing in the face of that threat.

It is time the NDP explained what it would do to stop ISIL and its terrorist regime. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it has been confirmed that Canadian soldiers are required to have visas approved by the Iraqi government before they can be deployed. The member for Selkirk—Interlake , even if he is not a minister and cannot really speak for the government, said last night that there were “some difficulties in dealing with logistics”.

Since this military deployment is still ongoing and since it is set to conclude in just 11 days, precisely how many Canadian soldiers are on the ground in Iraq today? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no fact to that statement at all. I can confirm that we have committed 69 members of the Canadian special armed forces to be in Iraq to provide tactical and strategic advice in a non-combat role, and that is exactly what we are doing. Hon.

Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : I know the Conservatives find this complicated, Mr. Speaker, but it was actually a question and not a statement. The question was, how many of them are on the ground in Iraq now? When asked two weeks ago in committee, the minister said that a status of forces agreement with Iraq outlining operating rules for Canadian Forces had not yet been completed. That was two weeks ago in a parliamentary committee with the foreign affairs minister. Has that status of forces agreement now been completed and, if so, will the government table it in Parliament, yes or no? Mr.

James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have committed to 69 members being deployed to northern Iraq to fight—to be in an advisory role with the Peshmerga, helping it out, along with the invitation of the Iraqi government. We are there strictly in an advisory role, non-combat, and it is very clear what we are trying to do there. It has been laid out by the Minister of National Defence and it has been laid out by the Minister of Foreign Affairs over and over again. The NDP just does not get it.

Why are the New Democrats so opposed to us sending over members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have expertise in the area of counterterrorism? Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there are no boots on the ground, so they must be in sandals or levitating. They are not in a combat mission, but they are there to fight. [ Translation ] Yesterday, the member for Selkirk—Interlake also hinted that it is entirely possible that the 30-day mission in Iraq could last longer.

Before Canada commits itself any further, when will the Conservatives keep their promise to provide all the information to which Canadians and parliamentarians are entitled and to hold a vote in Parliament after a thorough debate? We have the right to vote, as the Conservatives promised, on whether Canada is to go to war. (1430) [ English ] Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has routinely deployed the Canadian Armed Forces around the world in non-combat roles.

It has never been the practice to have a vote on such deployments in Parliament. Just recently, we have HMCS Toronto in the Black Sea, we have troops on the ground in Poland taking

part in exercise,s and we have members of the Royal Canadian Air Force plus equipment of the RCAF involved in air policing missions, all as part of NATO's Operation Reassurance. We never voted on any of that. Having said that, the opposition has its own opposition days when it can bring this forward for debate and also a vote.

[ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this evening the House will vote on the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women. We are very proud of the role the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou played in forcing this debate and less proud of the Government of Canada, which has categorically refused to hold a public inquiry into the fate of 1,200 aboriginal women.

Will the Conservatives finally support aboriginal women this evening? [ English ] Tonight the Conservatives can do the right thing and agree to a full public inquiry so families of these missing and murdered women can begin to have closure. Will they vote yes or no? Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have been very clear multiple times in the House, we are standing up for these victims of crime. So the Leader of the Opposition can hear it clearly, let me quote yet again from Bernadette Smith, whose sister Claudette Osborne went missing in 2008.

She said, “This Action Plan is something that our families have been waiting for. I would like to thank...the Government for their commitment to addressing this issue.” This is addressing it now, not waiting for the future. She also said, “This Action Plan will have a direct impact on families and it will help keep our women and girls safe.” That is what it is about. It is about acting now, ensuring they are safe now and are no longer victims of these crimes.

The Economy Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today's young people are the first generation of Canadians to be worse off than their parents. The gap in income between older and younger workers has grown nearly 50% wider since the 1980s. What will the government do to restore the promise of progress for all Canadians? Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has provided record support for low-income Canadians. For example, we have removed over one million low-income Canadians, 380,000 of whom are seniors, from the tax rolls.

We have increased the amount that Canadians can earn without paying taxes. We have created landmark working income tax benefits to support low-income Canadians who work. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement for the most vulnerable seniors. However, the Liberals and NDP have voted against these measures and against low-income Canadians each and every time. [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, an expert report indicates that the income gap between older and younger workers has grown by almost 50% since the 1980s.

Young people not only earn less, but there are also fewer jobs available for them. This evening, the government has the opportunity to vote in favour of a solution that will create jobs and contribute to economic growth. Will it vote for the Liberals' plan? Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, thanks to our government, the percentage of Canadians living in low-income families is now the lowest it has been in 30 years. Since 2006, low-income families have seen a 14% increase in their real after-tax income. Over 40% of all taxpayers are not paying any net taxes.

It is therefore not surprising that the federal tax burden is the lowest it has been in 50 years.

[ English ] Employment Insurance Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the last thing Canadians need is the Conservative minister's EI plan that gives a stronger incentive to businesses to shrink and fire than to grow and hire. Conservatives can still fix this. Tonight, will they vote for our plan to provide an EI premium exemption to Canadian businesses for new jobs they actually create?

(1435) Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the last thing Liberals are qualified to talk about is EI. The Liberals used EI premiums as a political slush fund, and they completely raided the account by almost $60 billion. We are lowering EI premiums by 15%. We are going to save small business over $550 million. That is 780,000 businesses, 90% of all businesses in our country.

[ Translation ] The Environment Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, while the international community is doing its part to restart negotiations on fighting climate change, the Minister of the Environment is giving speeches to an empty room. No one is interested in what the Conservatives have to say about the environment, because it is straight out of another century. Waiting to see what others announce is not leadership. What measures will Canada put forward at the Paris conference in 2015? [ English ] Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have been clear, going forward to the Paris agreement, that we want an agreement for Canada that is fair, that includes all emitters and all economies. I was very pleased to hear many of the countries speaking at the UN forum yesterday agreeing with Canada's position. That is showing leadership. Canada has consistently been moving to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our country and at the same time growing the economy.

We have done that without introducing a $20 billion carbon tax. Our plan is working. We can do both, not one or the other. [ Translation ] Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the fight against climate change is a significant challenge for Canada, but it is also an amazing opportunity for many industries that are involved in developing clean technologies. Canada is going to be left out of decisions that are made and partnerships that are formed in New York. Why are the Conservatives depriving our companies of these economic opportunities? [ English ] Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have stated before in the House, Canada's greenhouse gas emission level represents less than 2% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. Canada has also one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world, with 77% of our electricity supply emitting no greenhouse gas. Our sector-by-sector approach in Canada is working.

We continue to see greenhouse gas emissions decreasing, while at the same time the economy is growing, and that is being done in partnership with private industry in our country. We are doing this without introducing a $20 billion carbon tax that would kill jobs. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, any credit given to the electricity sector is thanks to the provinces. The federal government is not getting the job done, and we are playing catch-up to the U.S. This so-called sector-by-sector approach ignores the single most polluting sector.

The oil and gas sector makes up 25% of all emissions in Canada, and its emissions are predicted to triple. What we get are re-announced vehicle regulations that will not even come into force until 2017. Once again, when will the government introduce its oil and gas regulations? Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was very proud to announce further action that we were taking related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the auto industry. We announced that in New York this week.

At the same time, we are moving forward to introduce regulations for the heavy-duty vehicles again. That will result in further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Again, we are doing this without introducing a $20 billion carbon tax that would kill jobs in our country. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, leadership means being out in front, not following the U.S. because we do not have a choice. Nothing that has been re-announced this week will get Canada any closer to meeting our emissions goals. In fact, we are going to miss it by 100 million tonnes or more.

That is not leadership, and nobody is fooled. Instead of bragging about what little the government has done, could the minister explain to us how it plans to meet its climate change goals? Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our record in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In 2012, Canada became the first major coal user to ban the construction of traditional coal-fired electricity. The United States followed suit in 2014. Now that is showing leadership.

We are also the founding member of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition that is focused on taking immediate actions, which is producing real results in two years. We are moving forward. I encourage the member to read the annual report that was released at the UN, which demonstrates we are taking—

(1440) The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Lambert.

[ Translation ] Employment Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Social Development lectured the provinces over the issue of temporary foreign workers. He thinks the real problem is that the provinces are not investing enough in technical and vocational schools. There is nothing but cynicism from the man who is responsible for bungling the temporary foreign worker program and who is incapable of providing reliable job market data to the provinces. Will the minister finally get his own program in order instead of pointing fingers at the provinces? Hon.

Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the question was not clear. That said, we conducted a comprehensive reform of the temporary foreign worker program, which led to a 75% drop in employers' requests for foreign workers. I am working closely with the provinces and territories to improve the training systems in order to give young Canadians the skills and abilities they need to take on the jobs that exist all across our growing economy. [ English ] Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Social Development seemed to be a tad confused yesterday. Instead of accepting responsibility for his own mismanagement of the temporary foreign worker program, the minister is out there blaming the provinces for letting the program get out of hand. He takes no responsibility for his own mistakes. Where is the minister's accountability for the way he completely bungled the temporary foreign worker program? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, with all due respect to my NDP critic, it might behoove her to actually read the remarks that I made, which had nothing to do at all with the temporary foreign worker program. I was talking about the skills agenda, about our work with the provinces to retool our training programs to ensure that young Canadians have skills that are relevant for the labour market of today and the future. I was not talking about the temporary foreign worker program.

I was encouraging provinces to use the 50% increase in the Canada social transfer that our government has provided them with and ensure that it goes toward relevant training, training that leads to real jobs and bright career prospects for young Canadians. I would encourage the NDP to join us in this work to provide those skills. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister mismanaged the temporary foreign worker program for six years. Surely if he thought it was growing out of control, as he mentioned, he had plenty of opportunity to take action.

Instead, the Conservatives relaxed the rules and made it easier to bring in foreign workers. Now the minister wants us all to believe that this was the fault of the provinces. Why will the minister not take responsibility for the mess he has made and finally fix the program? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I made no such suggestion, comment, statement, or allusion. It is a complete fabrication of the member's imagination. However, I have a question for the member.

Her leader said on live TV earlier this year that the temporary foreign worker program “morphed into having everybody in your McDonald's or your Tim Hortons coming from another country”. However, 98% of the people who work at Canadian restaurants, and 96% of those who work at McDonald's, for example, are Canadian citizens or permanent residents. My question for the Leader of the Opposition is, who are those people he sees when he says everybody working in those restaurants is coming from another country?

Aboriginal Affairs Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we have an important vote tonight on an important debate. I ask my colleagues on the other side to do the right thing, to recognize the growing and overwhelming consensus for a national inquiry into the issue of the 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women, to recognize that their special committee report is not the answer to this social crisis. It is not the answer families are still looking for. Will they finally listen?

(1445) Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, having gone out and spoken to aboriginal families across the country, I can say that what they have asked for is our action plan. As opposed to waiting like the NDP would like to, they would like action and they would like it now. They want to be supported. They want prevention programs. They want to make sure they are protected. These have been victims of domestic violence, and I must say I commend the RCMP, because 90% of these crimes have been solved. We are focused on the others.

However, let us be clear: we are taking action now for these families and victims of crime as opposed to what the NDP wants to do, which is just sit and watch the world go by. [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister's so-called action plan cannot be trusted. We are talking about 1,200 missing and murdered aboriginal women, and the problem continues. This evening, my colleagues opposite will have the opportunity to take meaningful action in memory of these women who were victims of violence.

They can vote against a report that symbolizes 30 years of indifference and 30 years of inaction, and they can finally acknowledge the need for a national public inquiry. Will they take action? [ English ] Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I guess what I would like to ask the NDP is to support our concrete plan to make sure that we are getting action for these victims of crime. This is very clear. Aboriginal women and aboriginal families have asked us and compelled us to move forward with this.

We are acting now, and I ask the NDP to support it, but I do not expect that, because New Democrats have opposed every initiative we have put forward. Whether it be shelters for aboriginal women on reserve or whether it be matrimonial property rights, they vote against these things. Let us be clear. We are about action, making sure these families and victims of crime are supported now.

[ Translation ] The Environment Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Quebec Superior Court halted exploratory drilling in Cacouna, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the one responsible for the whole mess. She refused to provide the Quebec environment minister with a scientific assessment of the impact this drilling would have on the health of belugas, an iconic species that is threatened. When will the Conservatives stop pitting environmental protection against economic development, to the detriment of both the environment and the economy? [ English ] Hon.

Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me clarify something. The object of yesterday's ruling was a review and authorization undertaken by the Quebec provincial government under provincial laws in Quebec. DFO conducted its own review of TransCanada's work and improved it, based on strict conditions. I remain confident in the diligence and the expertise of DFO scientists, and as this is a legal matter, I have nothing more to add.

Employment Insurance Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are clearly out of ideas on the economy, and their fiscal incompetence is putting middle-class jobs and families at risk. The Conservative EI scheme would hurt small businesses by incentivizing the firing of people, rather than encouraging job creation. However, the Liberal EI premium exemption would help create jobs and encourage growth in Canada's economy. When are the Conservatives going to abandon their narrow interests and adopt the Liberal plan, which is great for Canada? Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the Liberal leader's hastily conceived back-of-the-envelope mishmash of ideas would do the very thing he indirectly and incorrectly identifies is the problem with our plan. It would encourage firing workers, especially temporary or seasonal workers. In contrast, our plan would generate 25,000 jobs and provide $550 million to the small business sector, which is the generator of employment in this country. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal plan to provide an EI break for new hires is endorsed by Canadian job creators.

Restaurants Canada says, “This Liberal proposal for an EI exemption for new hires would help restaurants create jobs”. Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters says, “Liberal plan would create jobs”. CFIB says, “Love the [Liberal] plan.... Lots of job potential”. They all agree that the Liberal plan would help create jobs and growth. Will the Conservatives listen to Canadian business and adopt the Liberal plan for jobs and growth?

(1450) Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the CFIB was very clear. Our plan would create 25,000 person-years. This is extremely advantageous for the economy, for the generation of employment in this country. In contrast, the Liberal plan would encourage the firing of seasonal and temporary workers, precisely the opposite of what we want to achieve. Ours is a plan that would generate employment and economic growth. We are onside for an economic surplus, which would provide advantages to all Canadians.

[ Translation ] National Defence Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in 2008, the Conservatives decided to cancel the contract to replace the Royal Canadian Navy's supply ships. Because of these delays, in a few months the navy will find itself without any joint supply ships and may have to stay in port. Caught off guard, the Conservatives are now going to buy ships that are at the end of their lifespan from the American military. Well done.

Can the Minister of National Defence tell us how much the Conservatives' mismanagement of the supply ships is going to cost Canadians? [ English ] Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is delivering equipment to the Royal Canadian Navy by investing $4 billion to modernize the Halifax -class frigates and $36.6 billion in the national shipbuilding procurement strategy.

The joint supply ship project will deliver two ships and will replace the navy's Protecteur -class vessels that are now more than 40 years old and nearing the end of their service lives. The navy is currently investigating all options to address the immediate impact of retiring these two vessels. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is happening here. Conservative mismanagement has left our navy without critical resupply capabilities.

The government knew full well that these ships in service since the 1960s needed urgent replacement, yet it cancelled the joint support ship contract in 2008. These ships would be in the water now. Why has the navy been left to scramble, and what will this new gambit of buying aging ships from the United States cost Canadians? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Navy, as I already said, is currently undertaking the most comprehensive fleet modernization and renewal in peacetime history.

This includes the modernization of 12 Halifax -class frigates, seven of which are already completed with their refits. As always, we are going to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the tools and the equipment to get the job done.

Foreign Affairs Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Conservatives like to go hard on these great big announcements, but they are so soft on the real follow-through. Let us look at the government's sanctions against Russia, because they are full of loopholes. On top of refusing to sanction key business players close to President Putin, it turns out that Canadian sanctions are three times less likely to penalize Russian oil companies as sanctions from the United States. Will the minister please explain how letting Russian oil companies off the hook helps Ukraine? Hon.

Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the strongest sanctions against the Russian regime. Let me quote the figures exactly. Canada has approximately 171 sanctions against the Russians. In contrast, the U.S. has only 107 and the European Union 146. This government is leading the sanctions against Russia. She should check her facts. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is not about the number of sanctions but their targets.

According to The Canadian Press , the sanctions imposed on Russia very carefully avoid targeting oil and gas companies. The United States is targeting 13 oil companies, while the Conservative sanctions target only five. It is strange. The four largest companies are completely immune. What is the Conservatives' priority? Is it to support the people of Ukraine or to protect the economic interests of oil companies? [ English ] Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member should have listened to the President of Ukraine when he said that Canada is one of the best friends that Ukraine has ever had. That should answer her question in reference to Canada's very strong support for the Ukrainian people, including their government. We will continue, as we have said, to look at this situation, and we will continue to be a strong supporter of Ukraine in its fight for freedom from Russia.

(1455) Public Safety Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians have seen atrocity after atrocity committed by the barbaric group ISIL. Western journalists have been executed in cold blood, residents of Iraq and Syria have been brutalized, and Canadians have been singled out as a target. This is all in the name of radical Islamic terrorism. While our Conservative government has created new tools for protecting national security, the Liberal leader has mused that taking a passport away from a radical extremist is an affront to Canadian values.

Can the Minister of Public Safety update the House on what our government is doing to protect Canadians from the threat of ISIL? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member for Don Valley West is right. The Islamic State is a threat to Canadians and our way of life. That is why our government listed this barbaric group as a terrorist organization today. [ Translation ] The Islamic State is a serious threat to our country and our way of life.

That is why, today, the government added this terrorist entity, whose actions are shameful and barbaric, to Canada's list of terrorist groups. Let us be clear. Individuals who engage in acts of terrorism are not worthy of carrying a Canadian passport.

[ English ] Agriculture and Agri-Food Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservatives have proven that they are unwilling to defend grain producers. When the pressure was on, the Minister of Agriculture stood up in the House, before committee and as part of the order in council, and said that we were going to fine those rail companies $100,000 a day. Here is today's reality. The Minister of Transport says no, hang on, it is only going to be $100,000 a week. So much for tough talk. I have a simple question for the minister.

Why did he back down and when will he finally stand up for farmers? Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have missed it, but in my opinion, this is the best agriculture minister that we have seen. He has stood up, all the time, for grain farmers. He has consistently acted to ensure that grain farmers are protected. CN has not hit its levels. We will enforce. It is in violation, and we will continue to make sure that we protect, through the Minister of Agriculture , grain farmers in Canada. Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the reality is that last spring, the Ministers of Transport and Agriculture crossed the country talking tough, announcing fines of $100,000 a day, but when it came to cracking down on rail companies that failed to deliver Canadian grain, Conservatives just rolled over. Now we have learned that the actual fines are only a fraction of that amount. Prairie farmers are saying that this is just par for the course; the intervention was too little, too late. Can the minister tell our farmers why the minimal penalties? Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, again I want to personally thank the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for his great work on the file, to ensure that we are working together as a government on this matter. We should also talk to the people out there who are the ones who are the beneficiaries of Bill C-30 . Brett Halstead, president of the Canadian Canola Growers Association stated: This action demonstrates that Government is listening to farmers' concerns. We look forward to working with the Government and other industry stakeholders. Quite frankly, the opposition is not in the game on this one.

The government is the one that is dealing with this on a daily basis and is out front through the minister.

[ Translation ] The Environment Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a Superior Court judge had to suspend drilling off the coast of Cacouna. In her decision, she criticized Quebec, which never received the scientific opinions that were requested from Fisheries and Oceans Canada's science branch. The scientists' inability to speak up resulted in the premature commencement of an oil company's operations with complete disregard for our environmental obligations.

Contrary to what the minister said, they are drilling in beluga habitat without knowing what beluga experts think of the undertaking. Will the minister finally let the experts speak and will she provide the scientific opinions? This whole screw-up happened because of how her department is run. They are not fooling anyone. [ English ] Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again. The object of yesterday's ruling was a review of a Quebec provincial government law.

I cannot speak for the Province of Quebec, but what I can say is that DFO conducted its own review of TransCanada's work and approved it based on strict conditions. The decision was based on science, carried out with the expertise of DFO scientists. I find it ironic that the New Democrats claim to be on the side of science and then turn around and question our scientists' competence when it suits their politics. (1500) [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not provide a scientific opinion.

There were opinions for seismic surveys, but not for drilling. The judge was clear: none of the officials involved in reviewing the file had any expertise on marine mammals. She also noted that Quebec never obtained scientific opinions from Fisheries and Oceans Canada's science branch. Does the minister realize that by keeping those scientists quiet and allowing drilling at Cacouna to begin prematurely, she is responsible for this whole mess and she failed to meet her environmental obligations? [ English ] Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, again let me repeat: the judge was not ruling on a federal authorization; the judge was ruling on a Quebec provincial authorization, and I cannot speak for the Province of Quebec. However, I do know that our DFO scientists conducted reviews, reviewed TransCanada's work, and approved it based on the very strictest conditions. This is a legal matter. I have nothing more to add. As I said before, all of the scientific information is on the Internet.

National Defence Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the navy trusted the Conservative government's claims that it would replace its aging ships. What a mistake. Now Canada's only naval supply ships are being retired, but replacements the government finally commissioned are way behind

schedule and will not be available for years. That means our navy will simply not be functional. Now the government is panicking and may have to buy old, used American ships instead. Let us give the parliamentary secretary another chance to level with Canadians. How much will the Conservatives' woeful incompetence cost when they have to cancel their made-in-Canada supply ships that they already commissioned? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, that is really rich coming from the Liberal Party, a party that cancelled our replacements to the Sea Kings, the party that went and bought used submarines. The member for Markham—Unionville back in 2008 said, when referring to the defence file, that he thought the defence budget had gone up at an alarming rate, so we will take no lessons from the Liberals while we are trying to help the Royal Canadian Navy. We are investing in modernizing the frigates and we have a $36.6 billion program in the national shipbuilding procurement.

Public Safety Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, not only is climate change having a disastrous impact on the environment; it is wreaking havoc on municipalities and their budgets. Just like with climate change, the federal government's response to natural disasters is also missing in action when it comes to this issue. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is pleading with the government to review and rewrite its disaster protocols. Cities should not have to wait months for financial help.

On the environment, the government is at best negligent; on disaster relief, it is just plain incompetent. When will Canadians and municipalities be able to depend on the government to show up when it is needed? [ Translation ] Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our Canadian government has a remarkable record when it comes to supporting Canadian communities struggling to cope with natural disasters. What is insulting is that the Liberal member voted against a $200 million budget to prepare Canada and communities for natural disasters.

If anyone is missing in action, Mr. Speaker, it is the gentleman on the other side of the House.

[ English ] National Defence Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just stated in New York that the United States has requested additional resources from Canada in Iraq. The Prime Minister says that he needs to have some debate in cabinet before he can make any decision on this file. Will there also be a debate and vote in the House of Commons? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we have been supportive of U.S. efforts in forming the coalition to tackle ISIL, and that is why we have committed Canadian Forces in a non-combat role. We are coming up to the end of 30 days from September 5 and we will have these discussions as we review our progress and look at renewing our commitment.

(1505) [ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, you are quite right; this is called question period and not answer period, unfortunately. Along with the NDP, there are now 87 municipalities that have passed resolutions opposing the end of home mail delivery in Canada. Now we have heard that Canada Post will need to rent commercial space in large cities for its mailboxes. Knowing the Conservatives, it will probably cost more to rent thousands of square feet of space than it would to just deliver the mail to people. Enough with the wasteful spending.

Will the Conservatives ask Canada Post to go back to the drawing board and defend and protect this service, which people really want? Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in 2013, Canada Post delivered one billion fewer letters than it did in 2006. Two-thirds of Canadians do not receive mail at their door. [ English ] In answer to the member's question, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities overwhelmingly defeated a motion asking the government to turn over the changes at Canada Post. Maybe he should check his facts.

Public Safety Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the community of Surrey is rightly outraged. On Monday, a convicted high-risk sex offender who was released into the community last year was charged with the second degree murder of 17-year-old Serena Vermeersch. Cases such as these make it clear that we must continue to make the protection of our communities a top priority, especially when it comes to protecting our children. Our government committed to supporting victims and punishing criminals. Could the Minister of Justice update the House on our progress? Hon.

Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is a horrific case. Our thoughts are with the Vermeersch family. After years of soft-on-crime policies from the Liberal government, Canadians can now count on our government to re-establish Canada as a country where those who break the law are punished with penalties that match the crime. To date, our government has presented over 30 justice bills. We made it a priority to protect our most vulnerable, our children, by cracking down on child sex predators.

We have introduced more consecutive and mandatory minimum sentences for serious violent crime. We ended house arrest for child sex offences. We got rid of the faint hope clause, raised the age of consent, and gave more protection for victims. Serious violent crime deserves serious time. That is what our government is delivering.

International Trade Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, finally but long overdue, the government signed an agreement with South Korea, such that we have implementation legislation before the House. However, the government's tardiness in getting to this point has cost the beef and hog industry countless millions of dollars, allowing the United States to displace us in that important market. If it is not implemented by January 1, the government stands to give our competitors a further 2.5% tariff advantage.

Will the minister act with urgency and assure the industry that this will be implemented by the January 1 deadline? Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government was very pleased to host President Park of Korea this year, when we actually signed the final trade agreement. We have asked every party in the House to move this agreement forward legislatively in a timely way. This agreement is very important to Canada. It would increase our exports by 32%. We expect it to add close to $2 billion of economic activity to our economy.

In more than 13 long, dark years under the Liberals, they got nothing done on the trade file. On this side, we get it. We are standing up for Canadians.

Mining Industry Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, tonight the House will vote on a bill that can help cut off— Hon. Ralph Goodale : What a joke. The Speaker : Order, please. We have moved on to the next question. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has the floor. Mr. Paul Dewar : Mr. Speaker, tonight the House will vote on a bill that can help cut off resources to violent extremists in the Great Lakes region of Africa. These extremists have killed millions, used rape as a weapon of war, and enslaved children.

Their atrocities are financed by the sale of conflict minerals that end up right here in Canada. Civil society and industry, including the Mining Association of Canada, want to see this bill move forward. I have a simple question. Will the Conservatives support this important legislation?

(1510) Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has long been committed to combatting conflict minerals and is always looking for ways to improve our efforts. Unfortunately, Bill C-486 is fundamentally flawed, and instead of making tangible progress on the issue, it stigmatizes the region in Africa and creates burdens and red tape that would only serve to harm the people of the Great Lakes. Canada will continue to work with the Great Lakes region and the Canadian industry to increase transparency and accountability in resource development.

Health Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, people in my riding are closely watching international efforts to address the faraway public health threat posed by Ebola and more familiar public health issues closer to home, such as the yearly flu season. I myself have been very proud to see Canada at the forefront of the world's united response to the Ebola outbreak and the fact that our public health agency has had a significant hand in developing a number of experimental vaccines and treatments.

Could the Minister of Health please update the House on the latest developments in Canada's public health agency? Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his work on the health committee. He is, in fact, right that Canada is at the forefront of the fight on the Ebola crisis, and leading that effort is Dr. Gregory Taylor. It makes me very happy to inform the House and the country that Dr. Gregory Taylor has just accepted the appointment to become Canada's Chief Public Health Officer. I congratulate him.

He has the confidence of the international public health community and, of course, the provinces and territories. I know he will work very hard to earn the confidence of all Canadians.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, elected officials in the greater Longueuil community are angry about the Conservatives' intransigence and arrogance regarding Canada Post. The people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, especially seniors and people with disabilities, are very concerned about the arrival of community mailboxes. How can the government support the elimination of home mail delivery and continue to ignore the unanimous voice of elected officials in the greater Longueuil area? [ English ] Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I have said in the House before, Canada Post is facing a reality where people are simply not utilizing the mail anymore. They are using other means to send their transmissions. As a result, there were one billion fewer pieces of mail delivered in 2012. It has taken a five-point plan, put together to ensure that going forward it will be self-sufficient, as it is supposed to be under its legislation. We support Canada Post and what it is doing.

[ Translation ] The Environment Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Quebec Superior Court issued an injunction to halt work on the Cacouna oil terminal until October 15. Quebec called on Fisheries and Oceans Canada to provide clarification on the scientific analysis that raised concerns about the project, but those requests were ignored. What is more, the company refuses to commit in writing to protecting the belugas' natural habitat. The federal government is so confused that it seems to be more concerned about supporting TransCanada than protecting our environment.

Will the government wait and comply with the studies and findings of the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, the BAPE, before proceeding with the project? [ English ] Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to Quebec's authorization, but that was the subject of yesterday's ruling. It was a review undertaken by the Quebec provincial government under Quebec provincial laws. DFO conducted its own review of TransCanada's work, and we did approve it, based on science advice and under the strictest conditions.

The Speaker : That concludes question period for today. The Chair has notice of a point of order from the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[ Translation ] Points of Order Oral Questions Points of Order Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on a point of order to draw your attention to something that happened yesterday in the House. The hon. member for Wascana misled the House. [ English ] As you know, Mr. Speaker, misleading the House is a grave offence. The precedents that support this view are extensive. It is important that I rise to raise this question to hold the member for Wascana accountable for what he says. During question period yesterday, the member said: Mr.

Speaker, the CFIB and economists like Mintz, Moffatt, and Gordon all support the jobs approach of my colleague, the member for Papineau. Stephen Gordon reacted to this on social media by saying the member for Wascana “...misrepresents my views of the House of Commons.... I never said anything nice about LPC EI proposal”. He then added, “...I think the...proposal is yet another gimmick in a long line of 'job-creation' gimmicks.

I should be pleased if the hon. member for Wascana could read that into Hansard.” I believe this problem could be easily fixed and I hope the member for Wascana will take this opportunity to correct the record and not bring Mr. Gordon into his ill-fated scheme.

(1515) The Speaker : It sounds like that might be more of a matter of debate, but I see the hon. member for Wascana is rising. I will give the hon. member for Wascana the floor if he wishes to respond. The hon. member for Wascana. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Gordon holds those views, I am happy to accommodate him, but I would also point out that his views are also contradicting Jack Layton's platform from 2011. The Speaker : Perhaps it is best if we move on to tabling of documents.

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings [ English ] State of Canada's Forests Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table the 2014 State of Canada's Forests report. [ Translation ] I encourage all Canadians to read this document on Canada's forests.

[ English ] National Fiddling Day Act Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon (Miramichi, CPC) Bill S-218. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill S-218,

an act respecting national fiddling day . She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce Bill S-218 ,

an act respecting national fiddling day, which would designate the third Saturday in May of each year as national fiddling day. The art of fiddle playing has a significant role in culture and social history of Canada and is practised in all regions of our great country. The enactment of a national fiddling day would give Canadians a chance to celebrate and appreciate the rich history and beauty of fiddle music in Canada. I trust all members of the House will support this bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Petitions Pensions Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands a petition signed by people from New Brunswick. Provincial government pension experts and seniors' support agencies are in favour of an increase in Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan benefits. They are calling on the federal government to work together with the provincial and territorial governments to increase pension benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans and implement a fully funded plan to phase in such an increase without delay.

(1520) [ English ] Canada Post Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the people of Bathurst, New Brunswick. The petition states that between 6,000 and 8,000 Canada Post workers will lose their jobs and that the reduction in service could lead to the privatization of Canada Post, which is essential to public service. The petitioners call upon the government to reject the Canada Post plan to reduce service and to explore other options to update the crown corporation business plan. Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to present more petitions on the issue of Canada Post's cancellation of services. The petitioners ask that the necessary legislative steps be taken to reverse Canada Post's proposal and ensure that we have door-to-door postal delivery service throughout Canada. The petitions call on the Government of Canada to take the necessary legislative and regulatory steps to immediately reverse the implementation of recently announced service rollbacks and cost increases proposed by Canada Post Corporation.

Prostitution Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that I am pleased to present on behalf of constituents. The first is on prostitution. The petitioners note that the current rules on prostitution have been struck down by the Supreme Court. They also note that a high percentage of people are forced into prostitution through human smuggling. The petitioners call on the Canadian House of Commons to legislate the purchase of sex with a woman, man, or child as a criminal offence. They would be delighted to know that our government is doing exactly that.

Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition notes that 92% of Canadians believe that sex-selective pregnancy termination should be illegal. The petitioners call on the Canadian Parliament to end discrimination against girls occurring through gender selection abortions.

Canada Post Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand in the House to bring forward a petition signed by hundreds of people in the community of North Bay who are frustrated with the plan by the government to allow the end of door-to-door service by Canada Post, with 6,000 to 8,000 jobs being lost. The petitioners have also expressed their deep frustration that they have no real political representation in North Bay that is willing stand up and defend the interests of the people who are trying to protect home delivery. Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I rise to present a petition. It will come as no surprise that residents in my riding are continuing to sign petitions protesting the loss of home mail delivery by Canada Post. The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan for reduced services and to explore other options to update the Canada Post business plan. Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I stand to present four petitions, again based on the reduction in postal services by Canada Post. There is one from the community of Garden Cove in my riding of Random—Burin—St.

George's, another from Robinsons, another from Conne River, and another from the community of Heatherton. The petitioners are saying that what is happening with Canada Post under the government and under its direction is in fact not fair. The government is cutting back on services in communities where sometimes the only federal presence is the post office. Not only is Canada Post cutting back on hours throughout the week, but it is also cutting out the entire service on Saturdays, the time when most people are able access service at the postal outlets.

The petitioners are calling on the government to reinstate the hours that have been reduced as well as to reinstate full-time service on Saturdays.

Firearms Reclassification Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present that has been signed by a large number of people in my riding. The petition came about due to a reclassification of firearms made by the RCMP in recent months. The petitioners are calling on the government to enforce the Firearms Act and regulations in an open, transparent, and fair manner.

Rail Transportation Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present petitions on behalf of dozens of members of my riding of Parkdale—High Park who are very concerned about the dramatic increase of tank cars carrying crude oil and other hazardous substances through the neighbourhood, in some cases right behind many homes. There has been a community meeting. Sadly, Transport Canada officials were not permitted to attend. The petitioners have many questions about rail safety.

The petitioners are specifically asking to know what is being transported through the neighbourhood in the DOT-111 cars; what the strategies and timetables are for phasing out the DOT-111 cars; whether there is any plan to reroute any of these cars; what emergency plan is in place should there be a derailment; and what resources and funding are available should there be a disaster from an oil spill, car malfunction, or train derailment.

(1525) Health Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians in Guelph and across Canada are calling on the Government of Canada to require all producers and manufacturers to include potassium on the nutritional facts table on all food labels. They are seriously concerned that many prepackaged foods are not required to list potassium additives.

In the best interests of those who must keep an eye on their potassium intake, such as people suffering from heart and kidney diseases, hypertension, and many other similar conditions, the petitioners are calling on the government for assistance to take a proper and more active role in the promotion of health by requiring potassium to be included on lists of nutritional facts.

Aboriginal Affairs Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions from constituents in my riding of Wellington—Halton Hills. The first set calls on the House of Commons to immediately hold an inquiry into the deaths and disappearances of aboriginal women and girls.

Anaphylaxis Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitioners requests that Parliament enact a policy to reduce the risk for anaphylactic passengers.

Conflict Minerals Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I have petitions from right across the country, but primarily from Calgary. These petitioners are asking the government to deal with the horrific conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where 5.4 million people have died since 1998. The petitioners want the government to enact Bill C-486 to stop the revenues coming from conflict minerals and the trade therein. They are also asking that the government support Bill C-486, which, as I noted today in question period, is being supported by the Mining Association of Canada.

DNA Databases Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions. The first is from residents in my own constituency of Saanich—Gulf Islands. The petitioners are calling for the establishment of a DNA data bank. This would assist in finding missing persons and solving cases. We are very gratified that money for this was included in the 2014 budget. I do note that that money is not to be spent until 2017. The petitioners would certainly like to see the data bank established sooner.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is for a tanker ban along the B.C. west coast. I am proud to have seconded the bill put forward by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley earlier this week. The petitioners from Vancouver would support that as well. Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from residents of British Columbia, calling for the government to rejoin the UN convention on drought and desertification.

Prostitution Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have here more than one petition from Canadians who acknowledge that prostitution laws have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but who do not want Canada to be lawless with respect to prostitution. They are calling on the House of Commons to legislate so that it would be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man, or child, and they would like the House of Commons to move forward quickly on that.

[ Translation ] VIA Rail Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition from some of my constituents calling on the government to restore VIA Rail passenger service. My region is remote, and without VIA Rail service it is even more isolated. We hope that the government will listen.

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

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

(1530) Motions for Papers Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Message from the Senate The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Before we go to the orders of the day, I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that it has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-221,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against public transit operators) .

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) moved that Bill C-41,

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-41. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about the landmark Canada-Korea free trade agreement and to outline clearly why it should be implemented without delay. Both the 2013 budget and Speech from the Throne are clear that this government's top priority remains the creation of jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity.

As an export-driven economy, Canada requires an aggressive international trade strategy that continues to open up new markets for Canadian businesses. One in every five Canadian jobs is dependent on exports, and over 40,000 Canadian companies are active exporters around the globe. They include global leaders in a diverse range of sectors, from aerospace to ice wine and everything in-between. In a competitive globalized economy, hard-working Canadians depend on freer and more open markets for their economic security. That is a reality that this government understands.

We know that our Canadian companies can compete with the very best in the world and win anywhere in the world, and our Conservative government is committed to supporting them as they grow and succeed. The global economy is rapidly evolving, and emerging markets in Asia and elsewhere represent significant untapped trade and investment opportunities. It is imperative that we keep up with the times. That is why this Conservative government has embarked upon the most ambitious pro-trade plan in our nation's history.

Increased trade means greater employment prospects, more prosperity, and more food on the table for Canadians and their families. It also means more choice and better value for consumers. It means better priced and higher quality input, which would allow our Canadian manufacturers to remain competitive in a fiercely competitive global marketplace. Let me provide some historical context. Members may recall that a previous Conservative government had the vision to negotiate the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, followed by the North American Free Trade Agreement, which, of course, included Mexico.

Members may also remember that it was both the NDP and the Liberals who loudly opposed both of those agreements, claiming that they would cause Canada to lose its culture, its health care system, its sovereignty over water resources, and that we would see our economy hollowed out and lose millions of Canadian jobs. In fact, the Liberal Party of the day even threatened to tear up NAFTA. Of course, none of those dire predictions came true. Over the last 25 years, Canada's economy has added millions of jobs and attracted hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign investment.

Our trade with the U.S. has tripled, and our bilateral trade with Mexico has increased more than sevenfold. The last time I looked, our health care system was intact, we still had full control over our water resources, and Canadian culture is alive and well. My point today is that many of those same naysayers and anti-trade activists are trotting out the same old tired arguments against every new trade agreement that Canada negotiates. I want to assure the members that their dire predictions were wrong 25 years ago, and they are just as wrong today.

Prior to 2006, the previous Liberal government largely neglected trade as an engine of economic growth. In fact, during 13 long, dark years in power, the Liberals were only able to sign three small trade agreements, putting Canadian workers and businesses at severe risk of falling behind in the global marketplace. However, there is good news. We have delivered on our commitment to dramatically expand economic opportunities for Canadians through trade and investment.

Over the eight short years since our Conservative government was elected, we have successfully concluded free trade agreements with no less than 38 different countries. That number includes the most comprehensive and ambitious trade initiative in Canada's history, the Canada-European Union free trade agreement. This past summer, we announced that we had completed the text of that treaty, and later this week we will be celebrating that achievement.

(1535) However, make no mistake about it, our efforts on the trade file are far from over. The cornerstone of our pro-trade plan going forward is the global markets action plan, which we call GMAP. We released it last fall. The GMAP guides our government's activities on trade and investment. It is our blueprint for increasing exports and supporting Canadian companies in markets all around the world. The GMAP outlines a broad array of trade initiatives, from negotiations of trade and investment agreements, to extensive stakeholder consultations and revamped market access plans.

Crucially, we have identified priority foreign markets and priority sectors of our economy that are most important to Canadian exporters, and we are focusing our energies and resources on those priorities. Not surprisingly, countries in the Asia-Pacific region figure prominently in GMAP because of the growing importance of that region of the world. That brings me to the legislation before us today. This past Monday, I was pleased to sign Canada's first free trade agreement with an Asian country, namely the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. South Korea is a modern economic miracle.

That country's economic growth over the last 30 years has been remarkable. Since 1980, South Korea's GDP has grown more than six-fold and its economy has experienced an average annual growth rate of 6.5%. Korea has become a technological powerhouse and its global conglomerates, many now household names within our own country, anchor key regional and global value chains. Given the size and dynamism of South Korea and our long history as friends and allies, implementing this historic agreement should be a no-brainer.

As I noted, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement marks Canada's first bilateral trade agreement in Asia and will strengthen our economic ties with an increasingly important country that is both a priority market and a natural and complementary partner for us. This agreement truly represents Canada's gateway to Asia. Commercial engagement between Canada and South Korea is already significant. Last year, two-way bilateral merchandise trade between our countries was roughly $11 billion, and two-way investment is approaching $6 billion.

However, there remains great potential to expand this important partnership and this agreement will help unlock that potential. Indeed, the Canada-Korea free trade agreement will, in a very positive way, forever transform the way we do business with each other. All told, this agreement is projected to boost Canada's economy by nearly $2 billion a year and increase Canadian exports to South Korea by 32%, creating thousands of new jobs in every region of our country and across every sector of our economy.

As significant as those numbers are, there is another equally compelling reason to get this agreement implemented as quickly as possible. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement will restore a level playing field for Canadian companies in the South Korean market, where our fiercest competitors, including the United States and the European Union, are already benefiting from their own preferential access due to their own free trade agreements with South Korea. Canada cannot continue to idly stand by as our competitors' goods maintain an advantage over Canadian ones.

Implementing this trade agreement without delay is the best way to support Canadian businesses and the hard-working Canadians they employ. However, one does not have to take my word for it: stakeholders representing every sector and every region of the country have been calling on our government to move with dispatch to get this agreement in place. On March 11 of this year, in Seoul, Korea, I was delighted to witness our Prime Minister and South Korean President Park announce the conclusion of negotiations.

In the days that followed, many different companies and business associations publicly congratulated our government on that achievement. During the latest milestone in the implementation process, the tabling of the text of the treaty in the House this past June, we again heard from Canadians. Their message to us was loud and clear, that this agreement needed to be brought into force as quickly as possible.

(1540) Canadians overwhelmingly support this deal and when we look at the agreement, that should be no surprise. Our Conservative government is firmly committed to only signing trade agreements that are in the best interest of Canadians. Let us look at some of the details of this agreement. This is a 21st century, state-of-the-art free trade agreement that is ambitious in reach and comprehensive in its scope.

It covers virtually every facet of modern commerce, including trade in goods and services, business mobility, investment, government procurement, intellectual property, technical barriers to trade, the environment and labour rights. The centrepiece of the agreement is, of course, the elimination of tariffs on virtually all trade between Canada and South Korea. In numerical terms, nearly 90% of Canada's exports will be duty free upon entry into force of the agreement, and over 99% will be duty free once the agreement is fully implemented.

These numbers translate into concrete benefits and opportunities for Canadian exporters, importers, investors, manufacturers and consumers all across our country and across all sectors of our economy. Canada is a nation endowed with a wealth of both natural resources and human resources. We have people with the creativity and skill to turn the natural resources into a wide range of industrial goods, including in the aerospace, rail, information technology, chemical and pharmaceutical sectors, to name just a few.

I am pleased to say that over 95% of Canadian industrial exports to South Korea will be duty free immediately with the remainder being phased out over a number of years. This agreement will also result in the immediate elimination of South Korea's tariffs on liquefied natural gas, which is a commodity that has great potential to become a key driver of Canadian exports to South Korea in the future, especially from the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Then there is Canada's forestry sector. This sector is another key contributor to the Canadian economy.

In 2012, the sector contributed over $20 billion to Canada's GDP and employed close to 250,000 Canadians, many in well-paying, high-skill jobs. This agreement will benefit Canadian forestry workers by eliminating tariffs on forestry and value-added wood products, while further diversifying our exports into Asian markets and reducing the sector's dependence on the United States. I will speak for a moment about Canada's high-quality, premium fish and seafood products.

Canada's proximity to the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Great Lakes and other resources has allowed Canadians to develop one of the world's most valuable commercial fishing industries. This sector contributes more than $2 billion to Canada's GDP and provides over 40,000 jobs for Canadians in everything from fishing to aquaculture to fish processing. It is the economic mainstay of approximately 1,500 communities in rural and coastal Canada. We know the quality of Canada's fish and seafood products is second to none, and South Koreans are already showing a great appetite for our products.

In fact, shortly after the announcement of the conclusion of negotiations for this trade agreement, Korean Air Cargo launched weekly service to South Korea from Halifax and expected to transport a minimum of 40,000 kilograms of live lobster over the course of the last summer. Not only have these shipments helped to develop the South Korean market for fresh Canadian lobster, they have positioned South Korea as Canada's gateway for fish and seafood exports to other Asian markets, most notably Japan and China.

It goes without saying that in this free trade agreement, we have obtained a very favourable outcome for fish and seafood, one which eliminates 100% of South Korean tariffs, many immediately. I do not have to remind my colleagues on the other side of the House, especially those from Atlantic Canada and the Pacific coast, that a vote against the speedy implementation of this trade agreement is a vote against Canadian jobs.

(1545) I want to also mention how this trade agreement will benefit our hard-working Canadian farmers and the more than two million people employed in the agriculture and agri-food industry. In addition to Canadian beef and pork, Canadian icewine is becoming a hit with South Korea and throughout Asia. We want to promote those products. This trade agreement supports Canadian vintners and Canadian beef and pork producers to further expand their market share.

The tariff elimination package contained in this trade agreement represents a tremendous outcome for Canada, particularly given that South Korea's current tariffs are, on average, three times higher than ours. Beyond tariffs, the agreement also contains a wide range of commitments pertaining to non-tariff measures, which is an area that has been identified as a priority for our stakeholders. The agreement includes ambitious outcomes on services and investment.

This trade agreement includes a framework of reasonable protections that would result in a more secure and stable environment for investors in both countries. This will contribute to increased bilateral investment flows between our countries, creating more jobs, spurring creativity and technology, and linking Canada to global value chains. Canadian investors are already recognizing the significant investment opportunities in South Korea, as well as its ability to be a potential test market for the larger Asian region.

Just this past May, Canadian clothing brand Joe Fresh announced that it would open its first store outside of North America in Seoul, Korea. The flagship store in Seoul is only the start of its investment in South Korea, as the company plans to open nine more retail outlets in the capital by the end of the year. The sooner this agreement is implemented, the sooner Canadians will start benefiting from the outcomes I have just mentioned, and the sooner Canadian companies can leverage the new-found market access into economic success. Our Conservative government will be there to support them every step of the way.

In addition to securing unprecedented market access for our companies, we are also supporting Canadian companies through our suite of trade promotion tools, tools such as Canada's trade commissioner service and the export financing and insurance products delivered by Export Development Canada. They are tools such as the government to government contracting support provided by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. There are many other tools that we are providing, including trade missions, which our government and ministers lead all around the world.

In short, we will be there to support our small and medium-sized businesses as they explore new opportunities in South Korea. This trade agreement is comprehensive. It is high quality. It will create new opportunities for Canadian companies and contribute to our long-term prosperity. I would remind my hon. colleagues of the robust outcomes across the board that this agreement would deliver. We owe it to our companies and we owe it to Canadians to ratify this agreement as quickly as possible.

Early implementation of this free trade agreement will ensure that Canadians can quickly begin to reap its economic benefits, providing more choice for Canadian consumers and more prosperity for our nation as a whole.

(1550) Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the minister on the conclusion of this important agreement. It is, however, common ground that one of the weaknesses of this agreement is its impact on the Canadian auto sector, which is a key Canadian industry that adds billions of dollars to Canada's GDP. Industry players, such as Ford and Unifor, which represent most auto workers in Canada, are concerned that removing the 6.1% tariff on Korean products would damage domestic auto production and sales. The U.S. negotiated a superior

chapter on auto with Korea in its deal. There is a longer phasing period for tariff reduction and there is also a snap-back provision that protects U.S. auto production in case of a Korean auto product surge in that country which harms the U.S. auto sector. Canada did not get this measure. Why did Canada not get as good a deal on the auto sector and the auto

chapter as the U.S. did in its deal with Korea? Hon. Ed Fast : Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that the premise of his question is quite incorrect. Canada secured a better outcome on autos than our competitors to the south. I would remind him that the United States only received temporary accelerated dispute resolution. Canada was able to negotiate permanent accelerated dispute resolution mechanisms, which will clearly benefit our auto sector when it has disputes with the Korean government on non-tariff barriers.

I would also remind the member that on the safety standards relating to autos, we have been able to negotiate rules that allow Canada's manufacturers to build to EU standards and to U.S. standards, something again the U.S. was unable to secure. I would also remind the member that the tariff phase-out on autos in the U.S. deal is five years. On the Canadian side, our exporters will have access to the Korean market immediately. There are many other distinctions that make our agreement more valuable.

I would encourage that member and his party to stand in the House and support this agreement because it is in the interests of Canadians. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is important we recognize that the government has not been overly proactive per se on the file. Chile, Singapore, the EU and the United States have already signed free trade agreements with Korea. As a result of the government not doing its work, markets have been lost. I look at the pork industry in the province of Manitoba.

It could have been doing much better had the government really been on the file in a more proactive fashion. Does the minister believe the pork industry in Manitoba will be compensated for his slowness to achieve an agreement as a result of the U.S. market taking up some of that production and selling to Korea at the expense of many Manitoba pork producers? Hon. Ed Fast : Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that pork producers are strongly in favour of this agreement and have lauded us for getting this deal done.

I would remind the member that this negotiation started under a Liberal government and it never got it done. It took a Conservative government to conclude negotiations with Korea in a way that represented significant benefit to our economy. I would also remind that Liberal member of the sorry history of the former Liberal government on trade. Over 13 long years, how many trade agreements did it get done? It was three. This government in a short eight years has concluded free trade agreements with 38 different countries around the world, and there are more to come.

We will not take lessons from the Liberals on trade. We are the ones who have credibility on trade. Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it was an honour and a pleasure for me to be on the international trade committee for two years while we were going through the negotiations. Agriculture in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is one of many small businesses in my riding, but it is the main industry. With respect to the trade agreements that have been made, I have always believed that agriculture forms the foundation because we want safe, secure food in our country and then we build on that.

Could the minister clarify the significance of what this trade agreement will mean to pork and beef producers in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex? They are some of the best in the country. We have the greatest around the world. What will the impact be on their industries as a result of this agreement?

(1555) Hon. Ed Fast : Mr. Speaker, the member really put his finger on what this is all about. It is about improving opportunities for Canadians, for Canadian companies, for our agriculture sector, for processes across the country. I can tell the member that the beef and pork industries, the cattle producers, are strongly in support of our efforts to conclude this agreement. I can also tell him that our goal was to achieve a balanced outcome to this agreement, one that represented a long-term benefit to Canadians.

Clearly, in the beef and pork sectors, as the U.S. and the EU were able to bring their agreements into force, it represented a tilting of the playing field against Canada. This agreement would, of course, rectify that situation. I also want to highlight that Canada has a world advantage in a host of sectors. In agrifood and agriculture, we produce premium, high-quality products for which our trading partners are prepared to pay a premium price. That is the opportunity in South Korea. They want our products. We are now going to be able to make those products available to them. [ Translation ] Mr.

Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of International Trade for his speech. I am also very pleased to hear him say that he was pressured by pork producers, among others. They have better things to do than to pressure the minister. Considering how long it took for the minister to conclude this agreement—the government has been in power for almost nine years—why did he give priority to signing minor agreements with dictatorships and tax havens in Latin America rather than entering into an agreement with South Korea? [ English ] Hon. Ed Fast : Mr.

Speaker, I am not sure exactly where that question was directed, but I will try to understand. The member refers to smaller economies around the world. Canada has, of course, negotiated trade agreements with countries such as Peru, Colombia, and Honduras. Unlike the opposition, which believes that isolation is the way to treat countries that are emerging from a troubled history, this government believes that engagement is the way forward.

When we engage, when we provide new opportunities for trade and new opportunities for these countries to develop their own prosperity and move more of their people into the middle class, we are also able to share with them our best practices in such things as human rights, the environment, labour, and democracy. That is where Canada's strength is. That is why we engage with those countries. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I reviewed the agreement with Korea, and unless I missed something, I do not see an investor state provision within this agreement.

Did Canada attempt to achieve that with Korea, and if not, why not? Did Korea reject our efforts? Hon. Ed Fast : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should read her materials again. I do not know if she was able to listen to my speech. I highlighted the fact that this agreement does actually include investor protections.

Essentially what it does, just for her elucidation, is set out a clear set of rules that apply after an investment is made, such that if a Canadian company invests in the Korean marketplace, the Korean government cannot discriminate against that Canadian company and cannot treat it less beneficially than a Korean company. The same thing holds true for investments into Canada. The other thing this investment

chapter does is set out a clear set of rules under which investment disputes are resolved. Those disputes will be taken out of the domestic context into the international arbitration context, where unbiased, fair, broadly accepted rules will be applied by fair, independent, and impartial arbitrators. (1600) [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Drummond , The Environment. [ English ] Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, as the official opposition critic for international trade, I am pleased to stand to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party on Bill C-41 ,

an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. By way of background, Canada and South Korea first discussed the possibility of a trade agreement in 2004, and negotiations for a trade agreement officially launched in July 2005. In a testament both to the challenges that such agreements pose and to less than satisfactory diligence on the part of various governments, it took some nine years to bring this agreement to completion. Notably, several trade agreements have been concluded by Korea and other partners over the past 10 years.

A trade agreement between Korea and the EU entered into force in 2011, and a Korea-U.S. agreement became operative in 2012. As well, Korea and Australia recently concluded negotiations. As I will expand upon later, these nations' agreements have played a critical role in shaping Canada's bargaining position. As major competitors with Canada, their advantage in securing preferential first entry to the Korean market has done substantial damage to Canadian exporters in a myriad of sectors. The Canada-Korea free trade agreement was signed on March 11, 2014, and submitted to Parliament on June 12, 2014.

Once in effect, the agreement will eliminate 98.2% of South Korea's tariff lines and 97.8% of Canada's tariffs. While many tariffs between our two countries are already quite low, there are a significant number of tariffs and other barriers to market that exist that will either be removed immediately upon this agreement's implementation or phased out over various periods of time. The NDP uses three important criteria to assess trade agreements.

First, is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values, and if there are challenges in these regards, is the partner on a positive trajectory toward these goals? Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant and strategic value to Canada? Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? New Democrats also evaluate trade agreements on a comprehensive basis to determine if they are of net benefit to Canada. In our estimation, we believe that the Korea trade agreement meets these tests.

I will deal with each in turn. First, since emerging from authoritarian to civilian rule in 1987, South Korea has transitioned into a multi-party democracy with an active trade union movement, a diverse civil society, and freedom of expression. South Korea's so-called tiger economy has succeeded in rapidly industrializing the country and raising the welfare and incomes of the Korean people. Today South Korea is a developed country, ranking 15th on the Human Development Index, the highest in East Asia.

South Korea has developed social programs, sound rule of law, low levels of corruption, and high access to quality education, including having the highest level of post-secondary education participation in the OECD. In recent years, South Korea has emerged as a global leader in environmental economics, investing billions in an ambitious green growth strategy aimed at improving energy efficiency while boosting renewables and green technology.

There is no doubt that South Korea is a democratic country that possesses admirable environmental and labour standards and shares important Canadian values, including respect for human rights. Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant and strategic value to Canada? South Korea is a G20 country with the 15th-largest GDP. It is the G20's eighth-largest importer. South Korea is Canada's seventh most important trading partner and our third largest in Asia, after the two larger economies of China and Japan. In 2013, total bilateral trade between our two nations totalled nearly $11 billion.

Canadian exports to South Korea totalled $3.4 billion, while Korean exports to Canada totalled $7.3 billion. In relative terms, Canada exports the same amount to South Korea as it exports to France and Germany. We import approximately the same amount as we do from the U.K. South Korea is also a major part of the Asian global supply chain and is a gateway market for other Asian economies. As this is Canada's first trade agreement with an Asian country, it provides an important opportunity to gain advantages in the Pacific region and diversify Canada's export markets.

Economic models predict that this deal is expected to increase Canadian exports to South Korea by 32% and expand our economy by $1.7 billion.

(1605) In addition, the Canadian and South Korean economies are largely complementary, meaning that most Canadian industries do not compete directly with Korean industries. As Korea has emerged as a world leader in renewable energy and green technology and needs energy and energy technology from Canada in return, we can increase our trade in these important sectors and, more importantly, build Canada's green technology sector. Domestically, a trade agreement with Korea offers significant economic benefits to a broad cross-section of economic sectors in Canada that represent all regions of the country.

In fact, this agreement is favoured by almost every industrial sector in Canada. Sectors that support the Korea free trade agreement include manufacturing, heavy industry, aerospace and transportation, forestry and wood products, agriculture, beef and pork industries, agri-foods and food processing, energy and chemicals, fish and seafoods, financial services, and high technology. In sum, South Korea is a large market that offers significant opportunities for Canadian business to gain a foothold in important Asian markets.

It is vital to note that Canadian exporters have lost some 30% of their market share in South Korea since 2012, when the EU and the U.S. implemented agreements and secured preferential access for their companies. These losses are estimated to total several hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and are mounting each year that U.S. and European competitors enjoy tariff advantages and increased market access to Korea. The losses have been particularly heavy in the agri-food, seafood, and aerospace industries. These sectors sustain thousands of quality, family-supporting jobs with high rates of unionization.

As an example, when Korea signed the FTAs with the United States and the European Union, Canadian aerospace exports to Korea dropped by 80%, from $180 million to roughly $35 million. Yuen Pau Woo, former president and CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, and, in my estimation, Canada's leading expert on Asia-Pacific issues, said that Canada is: ....an outlier compared to most of our industrialized country competitors, certainly in the G-7 and the OECD, and that puts us at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis countries that do have trade agreements with Asian partners.

The best example of this competitive disadvantage is in the case of Korea, where we have been negotiating—as you all know—coming to nine years now. In the meantime, we have been overtaken by the United States and more recently, by Australia. Both of those countries now have margins of preference, particularly in the cultural sector, that put our exporters at a disadvantage. Canadian exporters need a level playing field to compete in Asia and to protect the jobs they provide here in Canada. In the view of New Democrats, this agreement is essential to do so.

This agreement offers the opportunity for Canadian producers and exporters to increase trade with a modern democratic country with a high-income complementary economy. It will allow Canadian producers in a wide variety of sectors to more effectively access an Asian gateway economy that plays a pivotal role in global supply chains and offers entry opportunities not only to Korea but to other Asian economies. It will level the playing field for Canadian exporters, who can compete with the best in the world when given the opportunity to do so on equal terms.

It will permit Canada to deepen our Asian presence and diversify our trade patterns beyond the North American and European markets. There is no doubt that Korea is both a significant and a strategic economic partner for Canada. Third, are the terms of the proposed deal satisfactory? This is not the precise agreement that New Democrats would have negotiated. This deal includes investor state dispute settlement, a provision that allows corporations to launch legal challenges to government measures that they believe violate the terms of the agreement.

They are permitted to file their suits not in domestic courts but in international trade tribunals that lack certain fundamental attributes of judicial independence and the rule of law. This is something the New Democrats would not include in any trade agreement we negotiate. We believe such provisions carry excessive risk and are unnecessary when dealing with nations with independent and well-functioning judiciaries, which both Canada and South Korea possess. There are also legitimate and well-founded concerns about the possible impact of this agreement on the Canadian auto sector.

Knowledgeable industry actors, such as Ford Motor Company and Unifor, which represents most auto workers in Canada, have both expressed the view that this agreement will reduce domestic auto production and sales, and that South Korea adopts policies that serve to impair access to its domestic market.

(1610) In our estimation, however, when viewed on a comprehensive basis, this agreement is of net benefit to Canada. It benefits the vast majority of Canadian export sectors, and we believe that its weaknesses can be dealt with by effective Canadian government policies. An examination of a few key sectors bears this out. This agreement is not only good for Canadian agriculture and the agrifood industry, it is essential. The agrifood sector represents 8% of the Canadian economy and is said to sustain one in eight jobs, or over two million jobs.

As stated, Canada has suffered significant losses in market share for Canadian agricultural exports to Korea following implementation of the Korea-U.S. deal in 2012. For example, Canadian beef exports to South Korea shrank from $96 million in 2011 to $8 million in