OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 003 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, October 18, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 18, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 003 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 003 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 003 (Version officielle) 147 003 18 10 2013 2013/10/18 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

Government Orders Government Orders (1005) [ English ] Respect for Communities Act Hon. Kellie Leitch (for the Minister of Health) moved that Bill C-2,

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-2. Second reading Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to our government's respect for communities act, which would help to ensure the health and safety of our communities. Our government has always maintained the principle that Canadians deserve a voice in how their country and their communities are developed and protected.

The legislation before us today proposes to entrench this belief into law regarding supervised injection sites and is guided by a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2011. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provides the legal framework for the control of substances that include dangerous and addictive drugs. Because of the potentially harmful nature of these substances on the health and safety of our communities, there need to be guidelines around their use. The respect for communities act helps to strengthen that framework and entrenches elements of the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling into law.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act prohibits the possession, import, export, production, and distribution of controlled substances. However, there are certain situations when there may be a legitimate activity that involves the use of a controlled substance. These include activities by researchers, law enforcement agencies, and health professionals. The act has the capacity to allow for these activities under

section 56. In its ruling, the court affirmed that it remains the Minister of Health's authority to exercise discretion in granting

section 56 exemptions and noted that its decision was not an invitation, for anyone who chooses, to open a facility for drug use under the banner of a safe injection facility. This ruling was unique in that it touched upon illicit substances and their application with regard to supervised injection sites. No such provision exists in the current wording of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Given what we know about the serious risks associated with the possession, use, and production of illicit substances, exemptions to undertake activities with them should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and only once rigorous criteria have been addressed by the applicant seeking to conduct such activities. The court included five factors in its 2011 ruling that it indicated the minister must consider when assessing an application to undertake activities at a supervised injection site.

These factors include evidence, if any, on the following: the impact of such a site on crime rates; local conditions indicating a need for such a site; the regulatory structure in place to support the site; resources available to support its maintenance; and expressions of community support or opposition, which is quite critical indeed. The bill being debated here today would codify these factors into law and provide a mechanism for the minister to receive the information needed to properly assess any such applications. The proposed approach would add a new

section to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that would deal specifically with exemptions for activities involving the use of illicit substances. This

section would also establish the rigorous criteria an applicant would have to address before the minister would consider an exemption for activities involving illicit substances at a supervised consumption site. I would like to use the remainder of my remarks to explain some of the information applicants would have to provide when applying for an exemption under this new regime for activities involving illicit substances at a supervised consumption site.

In order to have an application for an exemption considered by the Minister of Health , an applicant would have to address all of the criteria included in the bill before us today in the application. This would give the minister the information needed to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling on the decision-making process. This information would obviously have to be provided before an application to undertake activities at a supervised injection site could be considered. First, the applicant would be required to provide evidence that there was a need for a supervised consumption site.

(1010) This evidence could include such information as the number of persons who consume illicit substances in the vicinity of the site and in the municipality in which the site would be located; relevant information, including trends, if any, on the number of persons with infectious diseases that may be related to the consumption of illicit substances; and finally, relevant information, including trends, if any, on the number of deaths, if any, due to overdoses in relation to activities that take place at the site.

The applicant would also need to provide a description of the potential impacts of the proposed activities at the site on public safety. Information about crime, public nuisance, public consumption of illicit substances, or the presence of inappropriately discarded drug-related litter, such as used needles, would need to be provided, along with any law enforcement research or statistics on public safety. There would also be a requirement to provide information on how the applicant would mitigate the risk of illicit substances being diverted from the proposed site.

The applicant would have to describe the measures to be taken to minimize the possible diversion of controlled substances or their precursors as well as the risk to the health, safety, and security of all persons at the site. This could include criminal record checks for key staff members and careful record-keeping on the disposal, loss, theft, and transfer of controlled substances and precursors. The applicant would also have to provide a letter from the head of the local police force for the area where the proposed site would be located.

This letter would describe his or her opinion on the proposed activities and any concerns related to public safety and security. The applicant would also be required to indicate any proposed measures to address concerns identified by the head of the local police force. The applicant would have to provide a letter from the provincial minister responsible for health describing his or her opinion on the proposed activities and how the activities would be integrated into the health care system. The letter should also identify any available treatment services for individuals who would use the site.

The applicant would also have to provide a letter from the local government of the municipality where the site would be located describing his or her opinion on the proposed activities at the site. This would include any concerns, again, about risks to public health or safety. If any relevant concerns were noted in the letter, the applicant would have to provide a description of the measures that had been or would be taken to address them. The applicant would also have to include a report on the consultations held with relevant community groups in the municipality where the site would be located.

This report would provide a

summary of the opinions of the community groups about the proposed activities, copies of all of the written submissions received, and a description of the steps that would be taken to address any relevant concerns that were raised. Once all of the information was submitted, including, if necessary, the explanation of why there was a lack of information or evidence for certain criteria, the Minister of Health would be able to consider the application. The minister could also ask the applicant to provide additional relevant information, as required, to help in the decision-making process.

These application requirements for supervised consumption sites are in line with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision and would enable the Minister of Health to make informed decisions on supervised injection sites. Combined, they form the heart of the respect for communities act. They would ensure that Canadian communities are given a voice when any such application is made.

Given the importance of understanding the potential impacts supervised consumption sites may have on the communities in which they exist, the proposed legislation would also provide an opportunity for the Minister of Health to call for public input during a 90-day comment period. It is crucial that members of the community, those individuals who will live and work in the same vicinity as the proposed supervised consumption site, have the opportunity to provide feedback.

These are the individuals who would be most impacted by this type of local decision, whether it is the mother pushing a stroller down the street toward the park as an individual who has taken drugs comes out from the supervised consumption site, or whether it is the senior citizen walking the dog down that very same street. Surely these individuals ought to have an opportunity to express their comments.

(1015) In assessing an application for an exemption for activities involving illicit substances at a supervised consumption site, the Minister of Health must exercise discretion by balancing both public health and safety. The approach outlined in the respect for communities act would strengthen our laws and give our government the tools we need to follow through on the ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada. I urge all of my hon. colleagues to support the bill and to work toward its speedy passage.

In the remaining time allotted, if I might digress, I would like to speak a bit to some of my experience as a former municipal councillor. There is a similar consultation process undertaken by communities when any development application is brought forward. As an example, for the sake of this debate, let me cite an elegant four-storey, live-work development being brought in. The proposed tenants are a creative florist and a creative architect who propose to have their shops down on the main floor, and these proprietors would live upstairs.

Before this type of development could take place in my community, the applicant would need to submit a number of items that the municipality would consider. These items would then be circulated to all sorts of bodies within our community, including utilities, Bell, Rogers, and our local airport authority. Schools would be consulted, both on traffic patterns and the availability of school space in the area. All of this information from these external groups would then be gathered and assessed by professional planning staff in our municipal department.

They would then make a recommendation to elected councillors and the mayor. All of that information would be available during a public, open, evening meeting. However, long before that public, open meeting ever took place, I would have a local community meeting. I would never drive my constituents down to city hall. I would go to a local school gymnasium or a local church basement and present the application to them. The applicant would be required to have a number of consultant studies done before this application was even circulated in the community. For example, we could require a shadow impact study.

The applicant would have to go out and hire a technical consultant and engineering firm that would then model the shadowing impacts on neighbouring residences' backyards and front yards. They would model for us so that the community could see the shadow impact throughout the day. It would show the impact it would have on the neighbouring homes as the sun rose and set. We would then require them to model what it would look like throughout the course of the year, as the days were shorter or longer, and the impact it would have on residents in the community. This is a very fair thing to require.

I think there is a general consensus nationwide, and certainly in Ontario, that individuals who have already chosen to make their homes in a community ought to be consulted before something new comes into their community. These are the individuals who have helped to build the fabric of that community. They are the ones who define the character of the community. These are the moms and dads and children who come out and volunteer and clean up our green spaces. They are the ones who have fund-raised to build the local arena.

They are the individuals who have perhaps lived in the same neighbourhood in the same community for generations. They are the ones who have offered their sweat, their toil, and their vision to build the neighbourhood they would like to live in. When they pop their heads out the front door and look down their sidewalk, the impact of what that streetscape looks like, what the walk to their school looks like, and what the walk to their local grocery store looks like will impact them each and every day.

Therefore, if we have these types of requirements before we allow what by anyone's estimation might be a lovely four-storey development to come into a community, surely it is only reasonable that we would seek the input of local police enforcement officers and local community members before we would allow an illicit drug consumption site to be erected in a community. Let us remember what this site is actually doing. Individuals are not taking prescribed medications within these sites. They are going out and illegally purchasing illicit drugs. No one knows the contents of those drugs.

The addict does not know the contents of those drugs. When the addict walks in with those drugs and is then injected under supervision, even those offering the supervision do not truly know the content of those drugs. That individual then leaves the premises hopped up to do as he or she would. This addict may hang out on the sidewalk or wander down to the local park or the front of the grocery store as our mothers may be trying to walk down that very same street. Surely our mothers ought to be consulted about the impact this will have on their local community.

(1020) We also have a number of schools in each and every community. The schoolchildren and their moms and dads ought to be consulted before one of these types of facilities is erected in their community. We do a lot of debating and a lot of talking here in the House of Commons. We all value an excellent dialogue, a good conversation and a healthy debate. It is incumbent on us to ensure that we allow for that same type of conversation, that same dialogue, to exist within our communities when something of such significance is imposed upon them.

I am very proud to stand in support of Bill C-2 and to support our government, our Minister of Health and our Prime Minister in bringing the bill forward. Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the member for Mississauga—Brampton South on her appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. Here we are debating the first bill. The bill could be more properly named the anti-public safety bill because it is very stacked against public safety.

Despite what the member has just said, if one looks at the bill and examines it very closely we can see that it is designed to prevent any safe injection site from ever being able to operate. I would like to ask the member if she knows anything about InSite, the only safe injection site we have in Canada, which is operating in Vancouver, or how it operates. Is she aware that it went through all of the municipal requirements that she just talked about? As a former city councillor, I am very familiar with public notification, input, and so on.

I wonder if she is aware that InSite went through a vigorous process of public scrutiny, city council looking at the application, and so on. In fact, it is now very well accepted in the community. Has she ever visited the facility? Does she know what goes on there? If the member thinks the municipal process is a good process, then why not let these applications be dealt with at the municipal level? Why does it require that the minister have all these criteria in effect so that she can turn it down? Ms. Eve Adams : Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the kind words of welcome.

I, too, look forward to working with the hon. member. I know how passionate she is about the health of Canadians. By way of clarification, I am not looking to simply impose the same types of municipal controls as we would have on a development application on a site of this nature. I was looking to offer an example before any development takes place. I think I used the example of a flower shop or an architect's office, and the level of scrutiny, circulation, detail and public consultation that takes place before a simple building would be erected.

Similarly, the bill proposes that for something that would be a consumption site, which is something that clearly falls under the jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court has ruled, the Minister of Health would use her discretion to invoke a number of factors in making any decision. We should bring that level of scrutiny, detail, rigour and public consultation to something as serious as this. InSite is currently functioning out in Vancouver. I am well aware of the facility. When its operating status expires it will need to come through this very same system that is being proposed.

However, I think that these are very reasonable measures. If we are looking to bring a consumption site into a community, it is very reasonable to have community consultation and to look at surrounding crimes rates.

(1025) Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, congratulations to my colleague. I wish her well in her new challenges. As a former municipal councillor, I am well aware of the challenges that communities face when they are trying to find other solutions to what they call “safe injection sites”. I also know the scrutiny that the one in Vancouver underwent. Has the member ever visited the site? Secondly, it is clear by the millions of dollars and time that we have all invested in the issue of prevention that what continues to be the goal we all want is safe communities, without question.

However, we have a serious problem. The only success I have seen so far, which is limited, is the safe injection site in Vancouver. I visited that site and the community with much trepidation, I have to say. I watched it and all of the fears that many of us had were unwarranted. It seems to be a step forward in harm reduction that is actually going to help people. I do not hear a whole lot of complaints from those communities. Even though I am from a Toronto community, I have watched it because what was in Vancouver was a trial project. If the member does not think this works, what does she think should be done?

Ms. Eve Adams : Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. I thank the member for her kind words. I look forward to working with her. The bill sets out, based on the Supreme Court's ruling, the factors that the Minister of Health must consider before permitting consumption sites to be erected in a community. Contrary to the member's remarks, scientific evidence is one of the factors that the Minister of Health must consider. We need to respect good science.

To speak to the heart of the issue, of whether or not we are genuinely helping drug addicts continue with their drug addiction, I do not think that is anyone's goal here. I hope that is not anyone's goal here in this chamber. I think the ultimate goal that any compassionate individual would have would be to see a drug addict fully recover and regain a lifestyle that is drug free. That should be our prime goal. For those who are not reaching that goal, we need to offer compassionate, science-based treatment. The bill certainly recognizes that.

In fact it requires that the Minister of Health consider that, along with community impact, local crime rates and public safety factors and considerations. Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her thoughtful and thorough presentation today. Clearly, she is dealing with this issue from a well-informed position as a former municipal councillor. I, too, congratulate her on her new role.

I would like to ask the member how the legislation will ensure that Canadian families get a say when a supervised injection site is planned to open down the street from their homes, schools or businesses. How will we know that families will have a say in that relocation? Ms. Eve Adams : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent question. The member for Toronto is incredibly hard-working and has spent a great deal of the summer consulting with his community and residents, not only on this issue but on a number of pressing issues that the GTA faces. This question speaks to the heart of the issue.

Many of these illicit and illegal drugs are purchased and acquired through illicit means, such as the proceeds of crime. That is how these drugs are being purchased and taken into an injection site. The individual then leaves the injection site hopped up on drugs. The bill would require the Minister of Health , when the individual looks at all the information that the applicant looking to establish this type of facility is proposing, to also seek community input. There are a couple of ways to do that.

The applicant would be required to seek community input and all written responses would need to be provided to the department. The minister would also have the opportunity to post a public notice and invite comments for a 90-day period. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a number of concerns about the parliamentary secretary 's statements, both in her speech and in her responses to questions. I live in a community where there is an average of 16 deaths per year from overdoses by injection. We are working very hard in our community to find a solution.

When the parliamentary secretary says things like “deaths, if any” and “evidence, if any”, it seems very clear to me that the government has not considered the real evidence here. The minister who has to make these decisions would be the Minister of Health . It seems very peculiar to me that the government has now chosen, in contrast to the previous bill, to send the bill to the public safety committee, where I sit.

It seems to me that the only conclusion one can draw is that there is an attempt right now in the House to create false fears about public health and safety, which I think is a very serious concern to communities that are grappling with this very serious problem.

(1030) Ms. Eve Adams : Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court very clearly laid out five rigorous criteria sets that need to be considered by the Minister of Health before any such consumption site can be authorized. That is what the bill does. The bill seeks to enact specific and guiding legislation to assist the minister in making a decision. I do not know why someone would take issue with providing basic information, basic local statistics, so that the minister can make an informed decision and so the information can be presented to the community, so that the community can make an informed decision. Ms.

Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the parliamentary secretary present the bill today. It is very important that we look back at the history of this case and begin with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2011, because it has been referenced a lot. If we can just remember, InSite, as I mentioned earlier, did go through a rigorous process to establish itself in the city of Vancouver and has been a very successful operation in saving people's lives, preventing overdoses and improving public safety in the neighbourhood.

Of course, it was challenged all the way by the Conservative government and it did end up at the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that InSite was a very important health facility. I want to quote a very key part of its ruling because the legislation that is now before us is supposedly based on this ruling. The Supreme Court of Canada ruling said: On future applications, the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety.

In accordance with the Charter, the Minister must consider whether denying an exemption would cause deprivations of life and security of the person that are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption. That is what the Supreme Court of Canada said. What was the government's response to that?

Reading from the press release that the Minister of Health issued June 6 when the bill was first introduced, she began by saying, “Our Government believes that creating a location for sanctioned use of drugs obtained from illicit sources has the potential for great harm in a community”. There was nothing in this press release and in fact when one reads the bill, there is nothing in it that strikes the balance that was referenced by the Supreme Court of Canada for public health and public safety. From the very beginning, from the get-go, it has been very clear that the bill is a stacked deck.

It is designed to frustrate and to make it virtually impossible for any safe injection site to be established in this country. One has to ask the question: why is the government so biased on this issue? Why have Conservatives refused to consider all of the evidence that has been put before them? We just had the recent situation, a very similar case where the Minister of Health overruled her own experts on an application that was approved to provide heroin maintenance in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside in the inner city.

It was quite astounding to see that the minister ignored all of the evidence, overruled her experts, stepped in, intervened and made it clear that this special application, which had been approved by her officials, would not go ahead. What was most disturbing was to see that both of these cases, the safe injection site bill and also the application for heroin maintenance, within 24 hours, became a fundraising letter for the Conservative Party of Canada. Imagine that government legislation and an intervention and interference by the minister is catapulted and turned into a fundraiser for the Conservatives' base.

I find that really alarming and it illuminates for us what this debate is really about. It is about creating an environment of fear. It about creating an environment of division. It is about creating an environment based on them and us. It is about an environment that the Conservatives want to escalate that demonizes people who use drugs and people who are facing serious addiction issues. The parliamentary secretary made some references to the bill. When we actually read through the bill to see what is required, it is quite incredible.

First of all, the parliamentary secretary said that the minister must consider criteria that are laid out as part of a submission for an application to set up a safe injection site in any particular community. However, clearly what the bill says is that the “Minister may consider an application” once the application has been submitted and the criteria met. It is not even that she must then look at it, but she may. Even the discretion takes place at that level.

(1035) When we look at the criteria in the bill it literally goes from (

a) to (z). There are 26 different criteria considerations that are so onerous and so stacked that they would make it virtually impossible to even meet the criteria laid out in the bill. For example, it requires a letter from the provincial minister who is responsible for health. It requires a letter from the local municipal government. It requires a letter from the head of the police force, outlining any issues that it has. It requires a letter from the leading health professional organization. It requires a letter from the provincial minister responsible for public safety. It requires a statistical analysis.

It requires police checks for people. It requires extensive public consultation. All of this has to be gathered in addition to a 90-day public notification period that the minister herself can also conduct. There are two streams of information coming in, and even then, as we can see from the bill, the minister actually does not have to consider the application. Once this information has been gathered, there is further consideration in the bill, subsection (5), that lays out that the minister may only grant an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after having considered the following principles.

I think these principles clearly lay out the government's intent. The principles are: illicit substances may have serious health effects; adulterated controlled substances may pose health risks; the risks of overdose are inherent to the use of certain illicit substances; strict controls are required...; organized crime profits from the use of illicit substances; and criminal activity often results from the use of illicit substances. What I find really curious about these principles on which this bill is based is that there is absolutely no mention of public health. There is no mention of preventing overdoses.

There is no mention of preventing serious infections, like HIV/AIDS or hepatitis C. There is no mention, no principle of ensuring basic public health or protecting public safety. What are the principles about? Clearly, they are about frustrating any application and giving the minister so much room that she can easily turn down any application, if she even decides to consider it in the first place. We attended the briefing that the government gave on the bill, and in that briefing it was made very clear that, if the criteria are met, the application may be considered but it will not necessarily be approved.

We find this bill offensive, and we will be opposing it. Clearly the bill does not live up to the spirit and the intent of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling. It is designed to frustrate that ruling, and in fact I would suggest that there will probably be ongoing legal challenges about this legislation. This bill is designed to create a situation where everything will run in the government's favour to not even consider applications or, if it does, to simply turn them down based on the principles it has outlined.

Let us just take a couple of minutes to talk about the one case that we do have in Canada, which is called InSite in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Setting up InSite was probably the most important health measure that has ever been undertaken in this country. It took years for it to be up and running. It went under incredible local scrutiny. There was opposition. In Vancouver today, not only do the police support the safe injection site, but so do local businesses, the board of trade and municipal politicians.

In fact, I think members would be hard pressed to find anyone in Vancouver who would actually dispute the value and the importance of this particular facility that is located on East Hastings Street. The facility has been scrutinized and has been the subject of 30 scientific studies and reports. It has gone through enormous evaluation.

(1040) However, what I think is most important is that if we actually visit the place, we can see for ourselves what work is being done and how important it is to provide a safe, medically supervised environment for people with serious addiction issues to get off the street and to be in an environment where they are safe, where they are taken care of and where they can make contact with health care professionals. I have seen that because most of the people who use this facility are my constituents. I know many of them personally.

What I find really just incredibly disappointing is that no ministers of health have had the courage, or even just the reasonable wherewithal, to actually visit InSite to find out for themselves what is going on. All of this rhetoric, all of this bias that the Conservatives show is based upon an ideology that they are perpetuating. It is not based upon either experience or first-hand knowledge. It is not based upon consideration of the incredible body of evidence that now exists. It is simply based upon a political position that they have staked out because they think it caters to a Conservative base.

I find that really quite abhorrent, in terms of how we approach public policy in this country. I do not know how much money has been spent on all of the litigation involving InSite. It is probably in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet this facility in Vancouver has survived. It has survived all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and is still continuing to operate. In fact, just a few weeks ago it celebrated its 10th anniversary, and I use the word “celebrate” because it was a celebratory event.

To see the people in the community who have become part of the clientele of InSite, to see the people who are actually still alive, who are better off, who are doing better, who are better connected, who have a health connection—these are very important things. Without InSite, many of those individuals would likely have died of overdoses. However, is there anything in the bill that would address that, the simple basic human fact that InSite is part of the solution, not part of the problem? We do not see anything in the bill on those issues.

I know that the government has come under intense scrutiny and criticism from a number of organizations across the country, which of course it has ignored. For example, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition and the Pivot Legal Society issued a statement in which they made it very clear that: People who use drugs are entitled to needed health care services just like all other Canadians. It is unethical, unconstitutional and damaging to both public health and the public purse to block access to supervised consumption services which save lives and prevent the spread of infections.

I think that is it in a nutshell. What we are talking about here is public health. It is about community safety. It is about people giving people very basic access to health services, yet we would never know that by looking at this legislation; we would never know that by reading the minister's press release; and we would never know that by listening to the rhetoric we have heard from the government side on this bill and on the issue generally.

The Canadian Medical Association issued a press release when the bill first came out, in June, in which it said: ...the CMA is deeply concerned that the proposed legislation may be creating unnecessary obstacles and burdens that could ultimately deter creation of more injection sites. Dr. Evan Wood, a renowned scientist who works for the B.C.

Centre of Excellence in HIV/AIDS, points out that one of the important aspects of a safe injection site is that, given that each HIV infection costs on average approximately $500,000 in medical costs, InSite has contributed to a 90% reduction in new HIV cases caused by intravenous drug use in British Columbia, which is why the B.C. government has been such a strong supporter of the program. That is from an

article he wrote in The Globe and Mail in June.

(1045) We also have Dr. Mark Tyndall, who is the head of infectious diseases at the Ottawa Hospital. He says: Supervised injection sites will be opened in Canada and the government will be challenged for its callous and misinformed policies through legal avenues and whatever else it takes to do the right thing. Thousands of Canadians, the poor, the addicted, the mentally ill, our brothers and sisters, are depending on us. These are just a few of the opinions and analyses that have come in from people who have studied this issue over and over again.

We need to understand that if this bill goes through, not only would it prevent other safe injection sites from being set up in Canada—and we do know that there is a great interest in Toronto, Victoria and Montreal—but it would also have an impact in Vancouver. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, the current exemption permit for InSite will be up in March 2014, so it too will have to go through this process. Given the incredibly ridiculous and absurd criteria and considering the stance of the government, we can see that approval is very unlikely, or it will be very difficult to get. What does that mean?

It means that a place that has been operating successfully for 10 years, that has been well accepted in the community and that went through all of the approval processes will potentially be shut down, and people will be turfed out on the street. It means people will die of overdoses. It means we will see open drug use on the streets. It means we will see greater pain and suffering in this community, and the whole community will be impacted by that.

I want to keep coming back to the most basic point of this whole debate, and that is that a safe injection site is not some kind of bogey man or some kind of scary place; it is simply a health facility. It is a health facility that provides a service that helps people who are facing very difficult addiction issues. It provides a safe, medicalized and supervised environment. It helps people get into treatment. It helps people get off the street. Most important, it stops people from dying of overdoses. Does that mean anything to these Conservatives? Do they even care that people are dying?

What they want to do is vilify those people. We heard the parliamentary secretary. She talks about her mother and somebody else's mother walking down the street. This is about creating fear in local communities. Maybe that is the reason, as my colleague has pointed out, that this bill is going to go to the public safety committee, because the Conservatives want to have it viewed only through a lens of law and order, as opposed to a needed, necessary and essential public health approach that is about public health and public protection for people, not only the drug users but the community as a whole.

This bill that we have before us is the antithesis of a public health approach. What is this bill really about? It is about fear. It is about dividing people. It is about demonizing people. I find that really offensive because we are talking about individuals. Drug use cuts across all classes. It cuts across people of all different political persuasions, so we have to examine whether this bill is something that would hurt not only the existing safe injection site but the potential for others across the country that would save lives. Amendment I will finish my remarks by moving a motion.

I move, seconded by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine : That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-2,

an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , because it: (

a) fails to reflect the dual purposes of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) to maintain and promote both public health and public safety; (

b) runs counter to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Canada v. PHS Community Services Society, which states that a Minister should generally grant an exemption when there is proof that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and when there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety; and (

c) establishes onerous requirements for applicants that will create unjustified barriers for the establishment of safe injection sites, which are proven to save lives and increase health outcomes. (

d) further advances the Minister's political tactics to divide communities and use the issue of supervised injection sites for political gain, in place of respecting the advice and opinion of public health experts.

(1050) Hon. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the one thing I will start by saying, and this is in my role both as a parliamentarian and as a pediatric surgeon, is that fearmongering is about who talks about fearmongering and that is all the opposition member is doing. We are focused on ensuring that parents with young children feel safe in their communities. All the member opposite wants to focus on are those things that really get parents anxious and concerned and I encourage her not to do that. Canadians are so proud of their health care system.

If we want to save lives, the very best place is in an emergency department. That is where we have all the facilities. That is where we can take care of people and ensure we save lives, unlike what happens when one is on the street and things like that happen. We are proud of the facilities we have in Canada. The physicians who work in those facilities do excellent work and we should commend them for their service. What I am most concerned about is the lack of understanding of what communities really want and need. What are the member's thoughts with respect to the involvement of communities and families?

Why is she, as the parents in my riding of Simcoe-Grey would say, pro-heroin and anti-salt? Why is she pro-heroin and against the potato growers in my riding? Maybe she could answer those questions.

(1055) Ms. Libby Davies : Mr. Speaker, the minister's ignorance is absolutely breathtaking, especially since she is a health professional. To suggest that people just be trundled off to the emergency department tells us that she knows absolutely nothing about InSite and what it does. One of the reasons it was set up was to prevent people from going through a revolving door at the emergency department at an astronomical cost of ambulances and being in and out of emergency departments. InSite is about public health and public safety. It is not about whether one is pro or against heroin.

These drugs and substances exist in our society and unfortunately there are people who use them. Our job as legislators is to bring forward sound public policy based on evidence, not a demonization of people, not on fearmongering, but to bring forward programs based on public policy and health facilities that actually save lives. That is what InSite has done. I challenge the minister to visit and find out actually what it does. Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have to applaud my colleague. I know the amount of work she has done in her community in the Vancouver area on these kinds of issues.

She understands them far better than any of us in the House. She has visited InSite many times. I repeat the fact that I had a lot of apprehension when that InSite location started and I have watched it carefully. Clearly, prevention has not worked to the extent that we wanted. What other suggestions does the hon. member have with respect to Canada's policies to move forward on the whole issue of drug prevention and to help those when it comes to harm reduction? Ms. Libby Davies : Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague took the time to visit and to find out.

What InSite represents is part of a bigger regime that we call the four-pillar approach, which includes prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. This was actually pioneered by the city of Vancouver about 13 years ago. There has been a lot of focus on InSite, but it is a very important element of a broader picture. Therefore, yes, prevention and treatment are very important, education is very important, but so is harm reduction. What is really concerning is that the Conservative government dropped the pillar of harm reduction in 2007.

It decided unilaterally, on a political basis, that harm reduction would no longer exist in our country. In actual fact, it is a very important element in ensuring there is street access to health care for people, ensuring that services being provided are accessible and literally get people in the door, into a safer environment, so they can get into treatment and the help they need. InSite is part of that continuum. It does not exist on its own. It is part of a broader health continuum that needs to happen. [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, supervised injection sites are based on the principle of harm reduction, which is an increasingly popular public health principle. Condom distribution is a simple example of harm reduction. We realized that simply telling young people not to have sex did not work. They had sex anyway, and they had unprotected sex. We figured we should at least give them condoms so that they would not get sick. Can the member draw some parallels with other harm reduction strategies that have proven effective or have worked to keep people from getting sick? [ English ] Ms. Libby Davies : Mr.

Speaker, I know my colleague has a background in nursing and understands these questions very well. She makes a very good analogy that we have all kinds of programs, whether it is safer sex or needle exchanges, to reduce the risk, because this is about public health. One of the problems with injection drug use is the increase and risk of communicable diseases, like HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C. By ensuring a safe and medicalized environment, we are preventing the increase of these very infectious and communicable diseases.

The Speaker : There will be four minutes remaining for questions and comments after question period. We will move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Kitchener Centre .

Statements by Members Statements by Members (1100) [ English ] Oktoberfest Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, each October Kitchener residents and visitors from near and far dust off their lederhosen and iron their dirndls for KW Oktoberfest. This Bavarian celebration began in 1969 when the founders at the Concordia Club decided to make it a week-long community event every year. There are more than 40 cultural and family events, 16 fest halls are open all week, the local economy benefits and 70 charities raise money for worthy causes.

This festival celebrated Monday with one of the largest Thanksgiving parades in North America, but there is still time to enjoy German culture and life this weekend. Visit Willkommen Platz in downtown Kitchener for information. Our thanks to the Government of Canada for delivering $138,000 in support this year. Thanks also to the thousands of volunteers who make Oktoberfest a success. Grab Onkel Hans everyone and zigge zagge zigge zagge hoi hoi hoi. Prosit .

Pensions Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, most seniors retiring today will not have the pension savings that experts recommend for a comfortable retirement. Sylvester wrote to me to say fixed pensions cannot compete with the rapid increases in the cots of living. Jane had this to say: “As a senior renting an apartment in your riding my main concerns are affordable housing and security as a tenant. My rent rose 2.3% this year but my savings earned much less. I am not keeping up with inflation”. The NDP is calling for concrete measures to increase the financial security of retirees.

We must boost the coverage of the CPP, return OAS eligibility to age 65 from 67, increase the GIS to raise all seniors out of poverty and ensure that persons with disabilities receive adequate continuing support when they switch from provincial benefit plans to the federal pension plans. Allow me to end by thanking all of the organizations in my riding of Toronto—Danforth that are continuously fighting for better living standards for seniors.

Iraq Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Mujahedin-e Khalq , or MeK, are Iranian refugees living in exile in Iraq. MeK refugees have suffered serious hardships living in camps Ashraf and Liberty, including being targeted by mortar and rocket attacks. On September 1, the last remaining residents of Camp Ashraf were attacked, leaving 52 dead and 7 abducted. The MeK are protected refugees and must be provided the necessary protection at Camp Liberty to prevent further atrocities.

The seven abducted individuals are feared to be at risk of deportation to Iran, something that is illegal under international law. It is well known that the regressive clerical military dictatorship of Iran subjects political prisoners to inhumane conditions, including torture, rape and executions. In support of the abducted individuals, members of the diaspora around the world are engaged in hunger strikes.

I condemn the latest round of violence in the strongest of terms, demand the immediate release of those abducted and ask that the government of Iraq uphold its obligations and guarantee their safe passage to Camp Liberty.

Persons Day Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today is Persons Day, in celebration of Canada's famous five, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Emily Murphy and Irene Parlby, who asked the Supreme Court of Canada in 1927 to answer the question does the word “person" in the British North American Act include female persons? When given the wrong answer, the five took their case to London, England, the highest court of appeal. On October 18, 1929, women were deemed persons, thus paving the way for women to contribute fully to Canadian life.

The five are immortalized on Parliament Hill and must be a source of inspiration to us all to end injustice. Appallingly, today women earn roughly 20% less than men, face barriers to employment, strive to break through the glass ceiling and suffer the violence affecting one-third of all women in Canada. In the words of Nellie Clung, women must, “Never retract, never explain, never apologize”.

Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to pay tribute to Gordon Hunter of Florenceville—Bristol, New Brunswick, who was inducted in to the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame this week. While his academic interest led him to the practice of law, Gordon's heart was in egg production. In 1985, Gordon and his wife Brenda assumed the ownership of Hunter's Poultry and guided the operation to new growth levels.

Gordon's foray into egg industry politics began in 1985 when he joined the New Brunswick Egg Marketing Board, which led to roles at the provincial, national and international levels representing egg producers. Gordon's dedication to egg farming and his ability to provide leadership has made him an outstanding representative, as evidenced by numerous re-elections by his fellow producers. However, more than just the industry, the local community has also benefited from Gordon's generosity, including his 40-plus years as a member of the Rotary Club and his selection as a Paul Harris fellow.

On behalf of all the good people of Tobique—Mactaquac, I congratulate Gordon on his induction and his steadfast dedication to egg producers and the development of the egg industry in Canada.

(1105) [ Translation ] Maxime Trépanier Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on August 11, 2013, the entire region of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu was saddened by the tragic death of Maxime Trépanier, an avid hot-air balloon pilot. Mr. Trépanier was only 27 years old. Maxime came from a very good family. I know his family because I had my ballooning baptism with his father, Normand, and his brother, Danny. I remember having the honour of being baptized with a bottle of bubbly by his mother, Line, who is missing him terribly.

This father of two young children, a three-year-old and a baby of six months, lost his life trying to help a fellow pilot in trouble. His death was mourned by the entire community of pilots and all members of the International Balloon Festival of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, the largest of its kind in Canada. The festival was celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. Rest in peace, Maxime. Those who knew you will remember you as a generous man who was always ready to help others.

[ English ] Sandy Wakeling Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the Pitt Meadows Citizen of the Year, Mr. Sandy Wakeling. Sandy has been a model of the true community servant since moving Pitt Meadows 14 years ago. His local community work included schools, government offices, the chamber of commerce and the Friends in Need Food Bank. He spent countless hours volunteering with non-profit groups too numerous to mention. Much of this was done while he battled a very serious illness. Sadly, Sandy passed away this past July at just 42 years of age.

He is survived by his wife, Ali, and their two young sons, William and Sebastien. Sandy, in his own words, exemplified true community spirit when he said: Live life to the fullest and seize the day. Take pride in everything that you do, while remembering never take yourself too seriously. ... Always remember to think about the big picture, and work to make the world of our children a better place than the world we were born into. That is good advice for us as parliamentarians. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to an outstanding Canadian who will be deeply missed.

Summer Events in Mississauga South Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the people of the beautiful riding of Mississauga South for a memorable and productive summer of 2013. I take this opportunity to let the House know a bit about the exciting and busy summer I was lucky enough to enjoy. Mississauga South is the home of so many unique festivals and events that I could not possibly list them all, but I want to at least mention a few.

I was able to attend many charitable events, such as the Lakeshore Community Corridor's annual Paddle for the People on the Credit River, as well as the Terry Fox Run on a beautiful Sunday morning at the lighthouse. Buskerfest and the Waterfront Festival were attended by thousands of local area residents, and the Southside Shuffle attracted the usual huge number of jazz and blues music aficionados from all over North America. Mr. Speaker, you might not know that Port Credit has its own farmers' market.

My favourite booth was Daddy O Donuts, because the quintessentially Canadian maple bacon doughnut is truly a wonder for the taste buds. Members may consider this an open invitation to visit Mississauga South to try one.

[ Translation ] Co-operatives Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this week we are celebrating National Co-op Week and International Credit Union Day. I would like to begin by recognizing a new national association, Co-operatives and Mutuals Canada, which, beginning in January 2014, will represent co-operative and mutual enterprises across Canada. Co-operatives play a strategic role in our society and in our economy.

They are major drivers of economic growth and job creation; they teach and promote democratic values; and they are businesses that work for the benefit of their communities and meet community needs. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the Conservative government of the urgent need for concrete measures to strengthen the co-operative sector and make the federal government an active partner in their development. We in the NDP will continue listening to the concerns of co-operatives and working closely with them to find solutions to promote their growth and increase funding to them.

(1110) [ English ] Lac-Mégantic Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of Canadians is a priority for our government. On July 6, 2013, 47 people lost their lives in the tragic Lac-Mégantic incident. While we are still waiting for the investigations to be completed to fully understand what happened, our government took immediate action. In fact, shortly after the incident, the Minister of Transport issued five emergency directives to rail companies.

These included that trains carrying dangerous goods have two operators at all times and that no trains transporting dangerous goods be left unattended. Yesterday the Minister of Transport announced a new directive that will ensure that all crude oil being transported will be properly tested and classified, and that the results will be sent to Transport Canada. This will provide Transport Canada with an additional means to monitor industry compliance and to focus its efforts for the greatest safety benefit for all Canadians.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and victims affected by this tragic incident.

Status of Women Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, on Persons Day, women celebrate 84 years since the British Privy Council overturned a Supreme Court of Canada ruling they called “a relic of days more barbarous than ours”. Many Canadian women were finally considered to be persons under the British North America Act. Why not all women? Disgracefully, aboriginal women have struggled much longer for equal rights. Until 1960, they had to abandon their aboriginal status for the right to vote.

Still, we celebrate those five feisty Alberta women who pursued their rights: Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Henrietta Muir Edwards, and Louise McKinney. Of course, the struggle continues for equal pay for work of equal value, access to affordable child care, and equal seats at corporate and cabinet tables. Women continue to speak out for justice for missing and murdered aboriginal sisters and for equal access to education and services. Those with LEAF, Coalition des femmes de l'Alberta, Elizabeth Fry and Idle No More deserve our thanks.

I call on all MPs to commit to ending violence against women, discrimination, and poverty, and to seek true gender equality with the “famous five” as our guide.

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : This Conservative government has the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canadian history, and we are delivering results. Earlier today, Canada's Prime Minister announced that Canada and the European Union have reached a historic agreement on free trade. [ Translation ] This agreement will open the doors to the world's largest economy for Canadian exporters and create jobs and opportunities here. [ English ] Canadian consumers will also benefit from this agreement.

Once the final deal is in place, tariffs will be removed on 99% of all products coming into Canada from the European Union. Of course, we do not expect the third party to understand these benefits. The Liberal leader has no plan for our economy. His head is in the clouds and his policies are up in smoke. This government supports free trade. The official opposition supports no trade. [ Translation ] Meanwhile, the third party supports the drug trade.

[ English ] Raymond Loo Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to honour the life of Raymond Loo, one of Prince Edward Island's pioneering individuals in organic farming. Raymond and his wife Karen operated Springwillow Farms, a certified organic mixed farming operation producing everything from beef and potatoes to black currants and dandelions. Mr. Loo was a promoter of the organic movement when it was not popular to be so. He carried his convictions boldly and proudly.

Working in a number of farm organizations, he represented P.E.I. on the Canadian Organic Regulatory Committee, aiding the development of a Canadian organic standard. A man of ideas, it was his drive and persistence—his stubborn streak, he would say—that put P.E.I. organic products in the Japanese market. Awarded the Nuffield Scholarship in 2011, he studied the marketing of agriculture products from islands. As his wife Karen said, “Raymond believed you are only limited by how far you can dream.” We offer our best wishes to his family and thank them for sharing Raymond with us.

[ Translation ] International Trade Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement with Europe will clearly benefit Quebec by providing privileged access to a market with 500 million consumers and eliminating trade barriers to key Quebec exports. This is an historic agreement that shows our government's commitment to focusing on job creation and sustainable prosperity.

A study conducted with the European Union before the start of the negotiations found that a free trade agreement would boost Canada's revenues by $12 billion a year, which would be equivalent to the creation of 80,000 new jobs. The Conservatives support free trade. Meanwhile, the NDP does not support free trade and the Liberals support the drug trade.

(1115) [ English ] Freedom of Information Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, freedom of information is the oxygen democracy breathes. It is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy that citizens have an absolute right to know what their government is doing with their money. However, yesterday Canada's Information Commissioner served notice in no uncertain terms that the freedom of information system in this country has collapsed under the Conservative administration. She stated: ...there are unmistakable signs of significant deterioration in the federal access system.

She also said that Conservative cuts have had a direct and adverse impact on the service that institutions provide to requesters. It was the culture of secrecy that allowed corruption to flourish under the Liberal regime, but the Conservatives are even worse. They are obsessed with hoarding information and use the black shroud of secrecy to systematically deny the right of the Canadian public to know what their government is doing. Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant.

After 2015, the NDP is committed to shining the light of day on the inner workings of a truly open government and putting an end to the paranoid secrecy that— The Speaker : Order, please. Oral questions. The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Aboriginal Affairs Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are watching the situation in Elsipogtog First Nation in New Brunswick with great concern. This situation underlines the importance of peaceful and respectful dialogue between governments and indigenous peoples and of honouring the duty to consult and accommodate before impacting people's rights. What is the government doing to fulfill its duty and assist in helping to calm this situation? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we have done plenty. We have invested in clean water projects. We have opened hundreds of brand new schools. We have worked with aboriginal communities to allow for responsible resource development that will create jobs for the talented and ambitious young aboriginal Canadians who will be the future of Canada. We will continue to work for the improvement of the quality of life for our aboriginal peoples, who are our partner in the future and in this country of ours, Canada.

Ethics Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, court documents have shown that a number of the Prime Minister's aides were well aware of ongoing talks with Mike Duffy. On February 11, Mike Duffy spoke with the Prime Minister's chief of staff in the Prime Minister's Office. Two days later, the Prime Minster spoke with Mike Duffy about his expenses after a caucus meeting. Does the Prime Minister still contend that neither Mr. Duffy nor Mr. Wright mentioned their meeting or anything at all that they had been discussing? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the Prime Minister answered all of these questions to the best of his knowledge before the summer. The reality is that we are the only party with a credible plan to reform the Senate. We have already started 12 new rules to reform the way senators claim expenses. We have invited the Auditor General to come in and inspect all of the expenses of senators over the last two years.

We are arguing before the Supreme Court that Canadians should have the ability to provide their democratic input on who represents them in the upper chamber and that there should be term limits so that our senators serve for a limited period of time and not until they are 75.

International Trade Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP welcomes progress on a trade agreement with Europe. We support greater trade with Europe, but any deal must be a good deal for Canadians. Today's announcement contains a lot of hype, but not the actual text of the agreement. Canadians are still left waiting to read the fine print. Why will this government not just release the text of this deal and let Canadians judge it for themselves?

(1120) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, less than 24 hours since the deal was actually announced, the NDP has already succeeded in being on both sides of the issue. It is really a rhetorical game of acrobatics. The NDP should really be proud of that kind of manoeuvre. On this side of the House, our position has always been clear: 80,000 net new jobs, half a billion new customers for Canadian job creators, $1,000 in additional income for the average family of four in this country.

This is a good deal, it is the right thing to do, and we are proud of the Prime Minister for delivering it. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the question was about the release of the text of the deal. Obviously, different sectors of our economy will be affected in different ways by a free trade agreement with the European Union. It is therefore important to have access to the text of the agreement in order to know just how the agreement will affect all of our industrial and commercial sectors.

I will repeat the question: when will the government release the text of the free trade agreement? [ English ] Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting opportunity for Canada, with 500 million new consumers and a 20% increase in trade with the European Union, yet earlier this week the NDP, before even seeing a potential agreement, opposed it. Today the Prime Minister signed the agreement in Brussels. A sector-by-sector overview is being released, and Canadian stakeholders from coast to coast are excited.

This is a win for Canada. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I challenge the government to demonstrate that we already decided to support or oppose the text of the agreement. We are talking here about an agreement that could have a major impact on many sectors of our economy, and I would like to ask the Conservatives to take the question more seriously and answer it in a less partisan way.

If they refuse to release the agreement immediately, can the Conservatives at least tell us what type of compensation is planned for drug pricing and for the cheese sector? [ English ] Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have been dealing with this in the most open and comprehensive way, without partisanship. All of the provinces have been consulted. All stakeholders have been consulted— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order, order. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor, and we will allow him to finish his answer.

The hon. parliamentary secretary. Mr. Erin O'Toole : Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the provinces have been a part of this process, including the province of Quebec. Earlier this week, the Leader of the Opposition opposed an agreement without even seeing it. It seems like only the NDP and the Québec solidaire are against this deal that will be great for Canada.

[ Translation ] Ethics Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been calling for honest answers about the Mike Duffy affair for six months now. All we get from the government are nonsensical responses and attacks. I have a very simple question. According to security records from the Prime Minister's Office, Mike Duffy had a meeting in room 204 Langevin Block on February 11, 2013. Who did he meet with? [ English ] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the Liberal Party, of all parties, ask about the Senate.

In fact, the Liberal leader 's position is that the Senate should stay just the way it is, because it provides, in his view, an advantage to Quebec over all other provinces. We on this side of the House believe that the Senate should serve all Canadians. That is why we brought in 12 tough new rules to ensure that spending by senators is honest and responsible. We have asked the Auditor General to conduct a thorough investigation of all senators' expenses going back two years. We have asked the courts for a legal instruction manual on how the Senate can be reformed or potentially abolished. Ms.

Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, that is just more attacks and bluster. One has to wonder just what the Conservatives are covering up. Here is another specific question. According to those same Prime Minister 's Office security logs, the next day, February 12, 2013, Senators David Tkachuk and Irving Gerstein attended separate meetings, also in room 204 Langevin Block. Who precisely did they meet with?

(1125) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our position on the Senate is clear. Not only must Senate expenses be made responsible through 12 tough new rules, not only must the Auditor General have access to all the information on those expenses and a wide-ranging investigation, but the Senate itself must be reformed.

That is why the Prime Minister has asked the Supreme Court of Canada for a legal instruction manual on how we can reform the Senate by allowing Canadians to vote on who should represent them there and on term limits so that senators serve a reasonable period of time rather than until age 75. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians demand accountability in what happened in the PMO. We will not stop asking questions until we get real answers, not evasion.

Those same PMO security logs indicate that an unidentified third party joined Senator Gerstein and his PMO host at that meeting on February 12, 2013. Who was that other person? Was it the Prime Minister ? If not, who was it? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, three questions in a row, and absolutely nothing about the middle class, nothing about consumers, nothing about taxpayers, and nothing about families. The Liberals are focused on everything but the well-being of Canadian middle-class families.

On this side of the House, we are delivering a plan that will make for more affordable consumer goods and a bigger market for our Canadian businesses so that we can create jobs, and of course, the climax of our economic agenda today is the Prime Minister 's successful conclusion of a free trade agreement with the largest economy in the world. Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday we did not hear any answers to simple questions on the Wright-Duffy affair. I would like to ask a simple question.

Has anybody in the PMO been contacted by the RCMP with respect to their investigation into the Wright-Duffy affair? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as we have said on a number of occasions, Mr. Wright handled this file. He has taken sole responsibility for it. We will continue to work with all authorities to make sure that we get to the bottom of this matter. [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, a press conference cannot make people forget about the fraud, the shenanigans and the crimes that took place, especially when we have no response from the one person at the centre of the scandal: the Prime Minister . Has the RCMP asked the Prime Minister's Office to hand over one or more documents directly or indirectly related to the $90,000 cheque Nigel Wright gave to Mike Duffy? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, as we have already said and as we said in the throne speech, the status quo is not an option.

If the Senate cannot be reformed, we will shut it down. In the meantime, we will continue to work with the authorities involved in this investigation. Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. In June, the Prime Minister said that Nigel Wright was the only one in his office who know about the Mike Duffy affair. However, the RCMP has since revealed that David van Hemmen, Benjamin Perrin and Chris Woodcock knew as well. Despite all of that, his parliament secretary had the nerve to claim yesterday that Mr. Wright acted alone.

I am giving the Conservatives an opportunity to set the record straight. Aside from these four individuals, who in the Prime Minister's Office knew about the $90,000 cheque? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright has taken full responsibility on this. He acted on this file on his own and has taken sole responsibility. We will continue to work with authorities to make sure that we can get to the bottom of this, and we are co-operating in any way we are asked.

With respect to the Senate, we are going to continue to make some very important reforms in the Senate. We know, of course, that the NDP is flip-flopping on this. When they were trying to enter into a coalition agreement with the Liberals and the Bloc, they actually asked for six senators of their own. On the one hand, they want to get rid of the Senate, unless they can get their own members into the Senate. We will continue to make the real reforms Canadians have asked us to do with respect to the Senate.

[ Translation ] Access to Information Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Information Commissioner pulls no punches in her report on access to information. She writes about failure and even says that “the integrity of the federal access to information program is at serious risk”. I repeat, “serious risk”. At the very least, can the government tell us how many access to information employees were transferred to other tasks last year? (1130) [ English ] Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, in 2012-13, our government set a number of records for openness and transparency. This government processed a record number of access to information requests, released a record number of materials, and had an improved turnaround time. Our government processed nearly 54,000 access to information requests, which is a 27% increase over the previous year—over 10,000 more requests. The government also released a record number of materials, over six million pages released, an increase of nearly two million. The numbers do not lie.

Canadians are getting better and more access than ever before, thanks to this government. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yes, Conservatives have set a number of records, but none I would brag about. The Conservatives committed to spend $50 million, they say, on access to information matters, but the Information Commissioner says that she does not know where the money was spent. She said: “My office has been cut. Some offices have been cut, certainly in their ATIP shops, and some departments have been cut to the point where they can't produce the documents”. We are facing a crisis here.

Can they tell us how much has actually been removed from ATIP budgets in the last two years? Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the question. Again, the government processed a record number of access to information requests, released a record number of materials, and had improved turnaround times. Our government processed nearly 54,000 access to information requests, a 27% increase over the previous year. The government also released a record number of materials.

Over six million pages were released, an increase of nearly two million. We will continue to improve access to information for Canadians. We are getting it right on access to information, increasing that to Canadians.

Consumer Protection Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, for over seven years, the Conservatives have failed to act, or actually, voted down help for consumers. Families are being squeezed, and they are asking now why it is the government has failed to act against banks and credit card fees and why it has failed to act on airline passenger rights. My question for the government is this: Are you afraid of the banks and the credit card companies? Are you afraid of the airlines? Why have you not helped protect consumers?

The Speaker : The hon. member should know not to use the second person when addressing questions but to address comments to the Chair. The hon. parliamentary secretary. Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadian consumers deserve access to credit on fair and transparent terms.

That is why we have taken action to protect Canadians using credit cards by banning unsolicited credit card cheques, requiring clear and simple information, providing timely advance notice of rates and fee changes, limiting anti-consumer business practices, and ensuring that prepaid cards never expire. Our Conservative government believes that with better information, Canadian consumers can make informed decisions in their best interest, unlike the NDP, which voted against our consumer protection regulations and against our legislation to improve financial literacy. [ Translation ] Ms.

Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives brag about helping consumers, yet it does not take much to satisfy them. Passengers will continue to wait on the tarmac without accountability or compensation from airlines. Merchants will continue to see their profit margins swallowed by credit card companies, and drivers will continue to get gouged at the pumps. Are the Conservatives just paying lip service to helping Canadian consumers? [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we heard the concerns of small business and introduced a code of conduct. The code has been welcomed by consumers and industry groups, especially small business. We continually monitor compliance, and we are now working with small business and consumers to ensure that both are heard. However, the NDP voted against the code and against supporting small business and consumers. Shame on them.

(1135) [ Translation ] Food Safety Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this government's failure to take action on food safety is completely unacceptable. Despite repeated crises on its watch and despite the government's decision to quietly shift responsibility for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency away from the Minister of Agriculture , who was doing a terrible job, the throne speech contains absolutely nothing specific about food safety. There is barely a “we'll see”. When will the government finally take this issue seriously? [ English ] Ms.

Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the health and safety of our families is a priority for this Conservative government. Canada has one of the healthiest and safest food systems in the world, and we aim to keep it that way. Bringing CFIA into the health portfolio family means that Canadians can be assured that not only will we insist on the safest food possible but we will also be focused on ensuring that Canadians are eating healthy food. Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are not serious about food safety.

Over $56 million is being cut from the agency, and 300 staff have been let go. There have been over 50 recalls just this year. CFIA does not have the resources it needs to do its job of prevention and inspection work. When will the new minister finally commit to giving the resources it needs to CFIA to protect Canadians? Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since 2006, there has been a net increase of over 750 inspectors. There have been no cuts to front-line food inspectors.

The Speech from the Throne set out our commitment to start talking to and listening to Canadian parents about how to help them make healthy food choices for their families.

Ethics Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the chief of staff from the Prime Minister's Office cut a cheque to a senator for $90,000. We have been asking for the documents surrounding that whole cover-up, whatever it is that the Prime Minister knows and says he does not know. We have been calling for the documents. They have been saying, “We don't have any documents”. Then, over the summer, the RCMP, in court, said that there are hundreds of documents.

My question for the Prime Minister is this: When can Canadians expect to see a government that is going to be honest and bring forward the hundreds of documents surrounding this whole affair? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is utter gall to have a Liberal talk about honesty in government. This is coming from a party that was thrown out on its butt for one of the largest scandals in the history of this country. Because it was so entitled to its entitlements, Canadians from across this country threw it out.

Now they have a government that is the most open and honest government in the history of this country. We just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board how we are opening up access to information and opening government for all Canadians. We are going to continue to work hard to make sure that the Senate is reformed, even if the status-quo Liberals are going to do everything in their power to stop us from doing that. We will shine even a bigger light— The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, that answer is an absolute joke. There was no relevancy whatsoever to the question. For more than a year the former parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister lectured anyone who wanted to listen on ethics. When he found out that Elections Canada was investigating him for cheating on an election, he launched a baseless attack against it. The member for Peterborough faces very serious charges and potential prison time. This after the Prime Minister defended the member's expenses in the House.

Will the Prime Minister and the Conservatives stop attacking Elections Canada and give the resources necessary for Elections Canada to— The Speaker : The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on every count that matters to Canadians this government is getting the job done. When it comes to the Senate we have brought in bills with respect to term limits. Those members were against that. We have brought in bills with respect to electing Senators. Those members were against that.

Last spring we brought in 12 tough new measures with respect to spending in the Senate. Their senators did not want that. Yesterday we brought in even further accountability to those senators who are alleged to have defrauded Canadians of a lot of money. The Liberals are against that as well. We have brought forward some reforms to the Senate to the Supreme Court of Canada. We will be moving forward with Senate reform as quickly as we can, even if the Liberals want the status quo.

[ Translation ] Justice Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, clearly this government has no plan to ensure that Quebec is fully represented in the Supreme Court of Canada. Apparently the Government of Quebec will be challenging Justice Nadon's nomination, which is certainly a first in the 136-year history of the Supreme Court. Will the government accept the recommendation of the Barreau du Québec and immediately turn this matter over to the Supreme Court?

(1140) Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I could not be more clear: we will defend the right of Quebeckers on the Federal Court bench to also sit in Canada's highest court. The opinion of former Supreme Court justice Ian Binnie, which was also endorsed by former Supreme Court justice Louise Charron and by noted constitutional law expert Peter Hogg, is very clear in this regard. Justice Nadon is eminently qualified and we are confident that he will serve the court with distinction.

[ English ] Health Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there was barely a mention of the critical issue of health care in the Speech from the Throne. The Conservatives have failed in their promise to reduce wait times, failed to deliver home care and failed on pharmacare, but they are quite happy to impose billions in health care cuts on the provinces. When Canadians are so concerned about health care, why was it missing from the government's Speech from the Throne? Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our government is committed to a strong, publicly funded health care system guided by the Canada Health Act. That is why we are providing tools to the provinces and territories to deliver health care in their jurisdictions. We announced a long-term, stable funding arrangement that will see transfers reach $40 billion by the end of the decade. That is historic. Our government is following through on our commitment to provide the highest recorded health transfer dollars in Canadian history. [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the $31-billion budget cuts are certainly not going to help the provinces deliver quality services to their people. Health care is a top priority for Canadians and their families. The fact that there was barely a mention of health in the Speech from the Throne is very worrying. There was nothing in the speech about the renewal of agreements with the provinces in 2014, nothing about drug costs or shortages, and nothing on caregiver support. Recent reports are alarming. Those with serious illnesses will be forced into crippling debt to get through this difficult period.

This debt spiral leading to poverty is worrisome. When are the Conservatives going to wake up? [ English ] Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to innovation to ensure our health care system is sustainable. At a recent meeting with provincial and territorial colleagues, our Minister of Health discussed the need for innovative solutions to ensure that we have a strong health care system now and well into the future.

On the topic of historic health care transfer dollars, I want to reassure our colleagues that we will hit a record $40 billion in transfers by the end of the decade. We are also funding over $1 billion for innovative health research that funds over 14,000 researchers across Canada. Through our record transfer dollars we are helping all Canadians.

[ Translation ] Justice Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, because of the Conservatives' fiasco with the appointment of Justice Nadon—and by the way, this has never happened in 138 years—Quebec will be under-represented on the Supreme Court of Canada for up to five years. Only eight justices can currently hear cases. It is incredible. Furthermore, the court must rule on a number of important and complex cases, including the Senate case. What will the Minister of Justice do to ensure that Quebec has full representation on the Supreme Court of Canada as soon as possible? Mr.

Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we will continue to appoint Supreme Court of Canada justices on the basis of merit and regional representation. Obviously, we would prefer to have a full bench at the Supreme Court of Canada. However, given the quality of the justices, I am sure they will properly carry out their obligations and responsibilities. Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, an important vote is missing.

Three seats were set aside for Quebec and, at present, only two are occupied. [ English ] The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the land. It should be a source of unity for all Canadians, not a source of conflict and division. What is the minister going to do to resolve the issues surrounding Justice Nadon's appointment and ensure that such a situation never repeats itself?

(1145) Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we will continue appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada based on merit and regional representation. In this case, obviously, it would be ideal to have the full panel of the court, but with the quality and depth of the judges that are presently on the bench, they will certainly be able to very ably meet their responsibilities and commitments.

International Trade Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada is a trading nation and today our Prime Minister has delivered an historic deal with the European Union. There will be 500 million new customers. Our government is getting the job done for Canadians, for workers and for business. When we trade, we become more competitive; prices for goods and services fall; wages, salaries and standards of living go up; businesses can hire more workers; and Canadians have more opportunities.

Would the parliamentary secretary update the House on how our government will help Canadians and consumers make a choice for lower prices for goods and services? Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that terrific question. Once CETA is fully implemented, approximately 99% of EU tariff lines will be duty free. That includes 100% of non-agricultural lines and over 95% of agricultural tariff lines. It is truly a game changer for Canada: prices down for consumers and employment up, with 80,000 net new jobs.

At the end of the day, there will be a $1,000 net benefit to families like those in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

Rail Transportation Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, across Canada communities are voicing concerns over increasingly dangerous rail cargo. Alberta is no exception. Daily, tanker cars of hazardous substances pass through our cities and towns. Albertans suffered first-hand the bunker C derailment at Lake Wabamun. While Canadians looked to the throne speech for commitment to action, we saw just vague mention of the issue. The question is simple. When will the government finally phase out the use of DOT-111 cars for dangerous cargo? Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : It is quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. The minister yesterday took action by announcing a directive that will ensure that all crude oil being transported be properly tested, classified and the results be sent to Transport Canada. That is an additional means to monitor industry compliance and focus our efforts for the greatest safety benefit for all Canadians.

With respect to the DOT-111 cars, Transport Canada has already accepted the TSB's recommendation on DOT-111 railway cars, and as recommended by the TSB, new railway cars are being built to new standards. Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, across the country train tracks run right through the middle of communities. Some are small towns, some are densely-populated cities like mine. It is not like sound recommendations have not been suggested from the Transportation Safety Board, for example. Life-saving solutions are staring us in the face, but still nothing from the government.

Canadians deserve to know what steps are being taken to make our communities safer. When will Transport Canada provide real-time information to municipalities about dangerous goods? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government's top priority is the safety and security of Canadians. The member will know that the minister has met with representatives, not only from the rail companies but from municipalities as well, specifically on the topic of dangerous goods. They are all reporting that it is a good dialogue.

We further agreed that first responders should have information on the type of dangerous goods being transported through their communities. We expect that all parties can arrive at a system that everyone agrees with. [ Translation ] Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, practical measures must be taken to improve railway safety. Broad principles in a throne speech without any positive changes to support them do not provide any protection for people who live near railway lines.

Here is a practical measure: CN must ensure that its freight trains slow down from 100 km/h to 64 km/h when passing through urban areas. Everyone in Montmagny and many other cities agrees with this measure. Here is a very specific question about a targeted measure. Will the Conservatives require trains transporting hazardous materials to slow down when they pass through urban areas or not? [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the minister is engaged in a very important dialogue with municipalities and railway companies, specifically on the topic of the transportation of dangerous goods. That is a productive discussion, as the municipalities themselves are saying. We are listening to municipalities. We will make sensible recommendations and take action.

(1150) [ Translation ] Consumer Protection Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want us to believe that they are standing up for consumers, but the regions no longer have access to CBC/Radio-Canada television as a result of the blind budget cuts the Conservatives made in 2012. Basically, they want to force companies to offer pick-and-pay cable services. However, they are forcing thousands of people in the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and other regions to pay top dollar for cable just so that they can have access to CBC/Radio-Canada television programming.

That is unacceptable. Why are the Conservatives ignoring the problems of consumers in the regions? [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the role the CBC plays in our Canadian society and the funds that it receives to deliver those services. In fact, the president of the CBC has said they can continue to fulfill their mandate and implement their 2015 plan while participating in our government's deficit reduction action plan. They are on track. Let us trust them to do their job.

Veterans Affairs Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, a young veteran, Kate MacEachern, began her “long way home” walk at the Canso Causeway in Nova Scotia. She walked to raise the Canadian public's awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder and to raise funds for Military Minds. Today, 1,685 kilometres later, she arrived in Ottawa and sits here with us. When will the government allocate the required funds and resources to help veterans such as Kate who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder? When will the government step up to the plate? Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has made substantial investments to support Canada's veterans, including almost $5 billion in new, additional dollars since taking office. This funding has been put toward improved financial benefits, world-class rehabilitation and tuition costs to help veterans transition into civilian life. While our government is making improvements to veterans benefits, Liberals and the NDP have voted against new funding for mental health treatment, financial support and home care services. Hon.

Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, substantial? Nine district offices are closing. They are laying off case workers across Canada. Veterans are advised to go to the Service Canada office or dial the 1-800 number. In some instances the case workers are a five-hour drive away from the veterans. Why is the government walking away from our veterans and not giving them the service that they deserve? Why? When are they going to do it? Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, there are now 600 additional points of service across the country available to Canadian veterans. A critically injured veteran no longer has to drive to a district office. Our government now sends a registered nurse or case manager to visit them in the comfort of their own homes.

Correctional Service of Canada Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this week at the coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith the commissioner of Correctional Service of Canada made a very shocking statement. He told the jurors not to bother making costly recommendations to fix the mental health crisis in our prisons because he had no money to implement changes. These are changes that would prevent more suicides and avoid more deaths in our prisons like Ashley Smith's.

Would the minister explain why his department does not view the prevention of deaths in prison as a spending priority? Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, first this is a very sad case and our thoughts and prayers do go out to Miss Smith's family. Our government, as the opposition members know, was directed by Corrections Canada to fully co-operate with the coroner's inquest, and it has done so. Our government takes the issue of mental health in prisons very seriously.

That is why we have taken action to improve access to mental health treatment and training for corrections staff in prisons. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Don Head, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, who testified at the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith, issued a shocking statement. He basically said that costly recommendations should not be made. However, Ashley Smith is dead because there is obviously something wrong with our system. What is the Conservatives' solution?

Is it to stand idly by and allow others like Ashley Smith to inflict harm on themselves and die? [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is continuing to take concrete steps on the issue of mental health in prisons. Both access to treatment services for inmates and training for staff have improved as a result of our strong leadership of this Conservative government.

In fact, it was our government that ensured faster mental health screening, we created a mental health strategy for prisoners and we extended the mental health psychological counselling. Above all else, we have improved staff training to help in this area.

(1155) International Trade Mr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canadian history. Today in Brussels, the Prime Minister delivered on this plan once again. While the NDP supports no trade and the Liberals support only the drug trade, our Conservative government is pursuing free trade that will benefit hard-working Canadians. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade please inform the House how our government's pro-trade plan is creating jobs and opportunities for all Canadians? Mr.

Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once the Canada–Europe trade agreement is fully implemented, agricultural tariff lines will be 95% reduced or removed. That means 500 million new consumers, hungry consumers, for beef, pork and bison. I know that Soderglen Ranches in Airdrie is excited about the opportunity the European market holds for our beef producers. This is a $1 billion part of a $12 billion net benefit as a result of this deal for Canada.

Search and Rescue Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, a recent National Defence report acknowledged and revealed glaring inadequacies in search and rescue in Canada's north. Among those many weaknesses was the limited and aging fleet of aircraft and the limited deployment areas of operation for those aircraft. It points out also the limited capability to respond to shipboard scenarios, including oil spills and major communications on weather reporting voids. All of these things point to future tragedy in the north, but we know it can be prevented.

Will the government act now to ensure these things are taken care of? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be assured that we have one of the most effective search and rescue systems in the world. Our government directed that a comprehensive analysis of peak periods of seasonal, weekly and daily SAR activity across Canada be conducted to optimize our SAR readiness posture. SAR regional commanders will continue to adjust their SAR postures based on seasonal updated data.

Additionally, we have undertaken a quadrennial review of search and rescue systems right across Canada.

[ Translation ] Co-operatives Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives seem to have forgotten about Co-op Week. Co-operatives are important economic drivers, but they were completely overlooked by the Conservatives in the Speech from the Throne. This is Co-op Week, but the Conservatives are not doing anything to help this sector of our economy flourish. When will the Conservatives finally acknowledge just how much co-operatives contribute to the Canadian economy? [ English ] Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, during National Co-op Week, I would like to recognize the continuing contributions of Canadian co-operatives to our economic prosperity. For over 100 years, co-operatives have been a fundamental part of communities across the country, creating jobs and promoting growth. Our government remains committed to ensuring that the right conditions are in place to support the development, innovation and growth of Canadian co-operatives.

International Trade Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced today that Canada and the European Union have reached an agreement on an historic trade deal. We know the NDP will oppose this agreement. The NDP is anti-trade. My constituents will not be fooled. They understand that free trade creates real benefits for hard-working Canadians. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade please tell me how my constituents will benefit from this deal? Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has been watching the Canada-Europe negotiations closely, and we are happy to report that steel and steel products will reduce from a 7% tariff rate to a 0% tariff rate. In Sault Ste. Marie that means Essar Steel Algoma and their workers will benefit tremendously from this deal. It means 80,000 net new jobs across Canada, from coast to coast to Sault Ste. Marie.

(1200) [ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this Speech from the Throne is a terrible way to start this session. It contains absolutely nothing of substance for aboriginal peoples. There is nothing about a national inquiry into missing and murdered women, the chronic underfunding of schools on reserve, or the lack of consultation about resource extraction projects. The UN rapporteur is using the word “crisis“ and saying that the situation in New Brunswick is worsening.

Can the government explain why aboriginal peoples' cries are falling on deaf ears? [ English ] Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course we reject the premise of that question. Our government has taken significant steps since taking office in 2006 to advance the cause of aboriginal people across Canada. Whether it is first nations transparency on reserve, safer water on reserve, bringing matrimonial property rights to women on reserve, we are standing in the corner of first nations.

That party and that party down at the other end continually vote against everything we do to improve the lives of first nations in Canada.

[ Translation ] International Trade Mr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, Quebec milk and cheese producers were shocked to learn that they were betrayed by the federal government, which had promised to protect supply management. These producers are now trying to determine and understand the exact impact on their industry of the free trade deal signed today with the European Union. They have the right to know what they are going to lose and what the federal government has in store for them.

They deserve to have complete transparency and not just vague promises that seem improvised for the sole purpose of stifling protest. Will the government finally come clean with Quebec cheese and milk producers on what is in store for them? [ English ] Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this Canada-European Union deal is good for Canada and it is good for Quebec. It is a $12 billion addition to our GDP. We have consistently said that the three pillars of supply management will be maintained and they are.

Growth in the cheese sector in particular means that there should not be any impact to our dairy farmers. However, as the Prime Minister said today in Brussels, if there is an impact, they will be given compensation. I would note that both the governments of Ontario and Quebec have stated they support this approach. I hope all members in the House support this deal.

Regional Development Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, it looks like the Conservatives have it in for northwestern Ontario. There is nothing in the throne speech for the north. There is no plan to help forestry. EI staff are being axed. Thunder Bay's Revenue Canada office is closed. People will have to drive hours to process a FAST card application. Now our veterans must travel nine hours to Winnipeg for service. Do the Conservatives intend to cut our region off completely? Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, FedNor will continue to focus on community economic development, business growth, competitiveness and innovation that creates jobs and long-term prosperity across northern Ontario. We will continue to ensure that communities and businesses in northern Ontario have the tools they need to have a strong diversified economy. Our government is working with all levels of government, including first nations and other stakeholders, to ensure that we maximize the economic opportunities and long-term sustainability of northern Ontario.

Points of Order Oral Questions Points of Order Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, members of all corners of the House are secure in the fact that you keep order in this place. Personally, I thank you. Earlier today during question period, I heard something while the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade was speaking. [ Translation ] One of the members here claims to be an eminent jurist, a woman with ample experience in this House. She used language that has been considered unparliamentary for over 40 years.

I am talking about the member for Gatineau , who used an expression that was banned by Beauchesne and in all later works, including O'Brien and Bosc. Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member is referring to. I would be curious to know what I said. I say so many things. Of course, I am not one to bite my tongue; I will give him that. However, quite honestly, I am surprised that this has anything to do with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade . I do not know. Perhaps the member could refresh my memory.

(1205) Mr. Royal Galipeau : Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that the hon. member for Gatineau would not make me repeat the words she used in the House. The expression can be found on page 144 of Beauchesne, near the bottom. In an alphabetical list, it begins with b . Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr. Speaker, I know I talked about “BS”. Is that what my colleague is referring to? If so, I said “BS”. People can fill in the blanks as they wish. Maybe “BS” means “big spender” or “big whatever you like”. I will have a look at page 140-whatever of Beauchesne.

It is an expression that was used frequently on the radio when I used to do call-in shows. I apologize for having offended the member. [ English ] The Speaker : I do not know if there is much to be gained by continuing on in this. All members should be very judicious in the words they use. If their abbreviations may cause some to suspect that they might be unparliamentary, they should shy away from that as well.

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings [ English ] Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual reports on the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act from the Auditor General of Canada for the year 2012-2013. [ Translation ] This document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[ English ] Ways and Means Notice of Motion Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table, on behalf of the Minister of Finance , a notice of a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013, and other measures.

Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the ways and means motion that I would like to introduce on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources . Pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a ways and means motion to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Excise Tax Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

Foreign Affairs Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaties entitled Amendments to

Annexe I of the International Convention Against Doping in Sport, notified 27 September 2013; an Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution, Preparedness and Response in the Arctic, done at Kiruna on May 15, 2013; Amendments to Appendices I and II on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted at Bangkok from March 3 to March 14, 2013; Amendments to Appendix III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, notified on January 27, 2011, September 23, 2011, January 4, 2012, June 27, 2012, and March 14, 2013; and an Exchange of Notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America concluding amendments to the Treaty between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on Pacific Coast Albacore Tuna Vessels and Port Privileges, done at Washington on June 17 and 18, 2013.

An explanatory memorandum is included with each treaty.

(1210) Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (for the Minister of Transport) Bill C-3. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-3,

An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Petitions Employment Insurance Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions signed by Edmontonians. These petitions were circulated by the Coalition des femmes de l'Alberta. The first petition has to do with employment insurance. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to review the EI eligibility requirements and the benefit period to better serve caregivers, the majority of whom are women.

Pensions Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with work and poverty among seniors. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to maintain the eligibility age for old age security at 65 and to invest more in the guaranteed income supplement program.

[ English ] Animal Welfare Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have over 2,000 names here in support of my private member's Bill C-322 in regard to horse slaughter. Petitioners are calling for a prohibition on the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption as well as horsemeat products for human consumption. These names come from Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

Aerial Spraying Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition, with over 800 names, deals with an issue that many of us have seen or heard about. It is called chemtrails. Petitioners say there is aerial spraying being carried out without the knowledge or consent of the people in Canada. They want the government to fully inform the people of Canada about this aerial activity occurring high in our skies, to explain why it is being allowed to take place and to cease this activity. Most of these names come from the communities of Barrie, Calgary and Ottawa.

[ Translation ] Democratic Republic of the Congo Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to present a petition initiated by Bishop Dorylas Moreau, of the Diocese of Rouyn-Noranda. This petition calls for the condemnation of the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the restoration of lasting peace. The situation in the Congo has been rather disturbing since 1966. The war continues. Brothers and sisters are truly living in very difficult situations.

Perhaps the fact that two Congolese priests are now working in the Diocese of Rouyn-Noranda, due to a shortage of priests in the region, is creating stronger links with the Congo. In my view, it is important to do something about this situation, which is why I wanted to present this petition.

[ English ] Climate Change Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, signed by citizens in and around my riding of Beaches—East York in Toronto. The first petition deals with climate change and requests that the Government of Canada acknowledge the urgency of climate change and the magnitude of challenges remaining, that it recognize that a sector-by-sector approach will be too slow and that a comprehensive climate change plan is needed, and that it develop real-world solutions for farmers as drought conditions may increase and for vulnerable families as food prices may increase.

Genetically Modified Alfalfa Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with genetically modified or genetically engineered alfalfa. The petitioners call upon Parliament to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa in order to allow for proper review of the impact on farmers in Canada.

(1215) 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 Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Business of the House and its Committees Notice of Closure Motion S.O. 57 Hon. Peter Van Lo