12093 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 186 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, March 13, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 13, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 186 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 186 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 186 (Version officielle) 147 186 13 03 2015 2015/03/13 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. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) moved that Bill C-2,

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-2. Third reading Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my voice to the ongoing dialogue on Bill C-2 , the respect for communities act. Since Bill C-2 was introduced in the House of Commons, it has been the subject of much debate. Over the past few months, we have heard many different opinions about the proposed legislation.

At the same time, there are aspects of the bill I believe we should now all agree on. They relate to the bill's contribution to maintaining public health and public safety in all of our communities. As this is my first opportunity to speak about the bill, I will take some time to review the important points raised by the members of the House, the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, who led the consideration of this bill at committee stage, and the expert witnesses who were called before that committee to share their knowledge and views on the substance of this bill.

The health and safety of Canadians is something our government is committed to protecting and maintaining. It is an important issue, which we campaigned on. It is why Canadians elected this government and why we stand on this side of the House working to bring forward bills that allow us to do just that. What is this bill about? In its decision regarding Insite in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Minister of Health's discretion to grant or deny exemption applications and to request information for that purpose.

In exercising her discretion, the Minister of Health must take into account public health and public safety considerations in accordance with the charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada decision also stated that the Minister of Health must consider evidence, if any, of the five following factors when assessing an exemption application related to activities at a supervised injection site: one, the impact of such a facility on crime rates; two, the local conditions indicating a need for such a supervised injection site; three, the regulatory structure in place to support the facility; four, the resources available to support its maintenance; and five, the expression of community support or opposition.

Why are supervised consumption sites considered to impact both public health and public safety? Let us look at what is actually at play when it comes to providing an application for an exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or CDSA, for activities at a supervised consumption site. As we have all heard, the CDSA controls activities involving controlled substances and precursors to minimize the risk of diversion to an illegal use. The CDSA and its regulations do, however, allow access to controlled substances for medical, scientific, and public interest purposes.

One way the CDSA makes this possible is through exemptions under

section 56 of the act.

Section 56 provides the Minister of Health with the authority to grant an exemption from provisions of the CDSA for activities involving controlled substances. Bill C-2 would amend

section 56 to create a distinct regime for an exemption for activities involving illegal substances that are obtained on the streets and are then used in supervised injection sites. This is the reality of what is going on now, every day, at Insite. I hope we can all agree that a solid framework is needed when we are overseeing the use of street drugs in this way. According to a 2008 report by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, supervised consumption sites are described as specialized facilities that provide injection drug users with sterile consumption equipment and “a clean, unhurried environment”.

The clients frequenting these sites typically have a long history of drug use and drug abuse and often live on the margins of Canadian society, untouched by traditional health or social services. It has been argued that these types of sites serve to meet the needs of those who use drugs by serving as a point of entry into health and social services.

However, it is also important to remind listeners that the drugs used on the grounds of the facility are illegal and that these pre-obtained illegal drugs are acquired on the black market, usually from drug dealers and others who are exploiting the addictions of Canadians. This market presents obvious health and safety risks, so it is only right that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act should lay out a framework to address this. That is why the bill is clearly needed. The current system does not provide the tools needed to adequately consider the complex risks associated with supervised drug injection sites.

The respect for communities act would provide the minister of health with information needed to properly assess

section 56 exemption applications and to balance public health and public safety considerations, in accordance with the charter. To be more specific, the bill sets out the criteria that build upon the five factors set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. These criteria would provide clarity to the applicants on the type of information the minister would consider in an exemption application related to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Given the serious risks to human health and public safety associated with illegal drugs, and given that substances obtained from illegal sources are known to contribute to organized crime, our government believes that exemptions to undertake activities with them should be granted only once rigorous criteria, identified in Bill C-2 , have been addressed. Under Bill C-2, the minister of health would continue to have responsibility for granting the exemptions. However, to provide clarity and transparency in the application process, the bill sets out the information requirements to inform these decisions.

I have looked at this very carefully through the lens of being both a former mayor of a small town and a health care practitioner. I believe that what the minister has created in the bill is a positive and appropriate framework for these decisions. Bill C-2 specifically identifies the type of information the minister would need to support informed decision-making. It would ensure that the Minister of Health would have access to community perspectives from a broad range of relevant stakeholders so as to give consideration to the potential impact a site could have on a particular community.

To take that local government perspective, they are often looking at zoning applications and uses for different pieces of property, and there are frequently very strong opinions on both sides. Again, it is the community that has the ability to express those opinions. The ability of people to express their opinions to help inform the decision-making is absolutely critical. Applicants would have to provide a report on consultations with the licensing authorities for physicians and nurses as well as with local community groups.

As well, letters of opinion would be required from, for example, provincial ministers of health and public safety, the head of the local police force, and the lead health professionals of the government of the province. These individuals would be consulted in their professional capacities so that the minister's decision could be informed by leading experts from the local area. These letters would contain their opinions on the proposed activities and any public health and public safety concerns they might have.

The applicant would need to provide a report outlining the views of these groups and describing how they would respond to any relevant concerns raised during the consultations. The applicant would also be required to describe proposed measures to address relevant concerns raised by the head of the local police force, the local government, and community groups. Available information about crime and public nuisance, public use of illicit drugs, or inappropriately discarded drug-related litter, such as needles, would also have to be submitted, along with any law enforcement research or statistics on the subject.

In addition, to address the safety of individuals and communities, the applicants would need to provide a description of the potential impact of the proposed activities at the site on public safety. This would include available information on crime in the vicinity of the site and in the municipality and a description of measures to be taken to minimize the impacts. Applicants would also be required to provide information on security measures, record keeping, and the establishment of procedures for the safe disposal of any controlled substances or the devices that facilitate their consumption.

Criminal record checks for key employees would also need to be provided. Members on the other side of the House have raised a variety of concerns regarding the proposed legislation and the information required to support an application for an exemption for activities conducted at a supervised consumption site.

(1010) I would like to point out that we need to balance the obligations being placed on applicants with the needs of the Canadian public, meaning the individuals, organizations, and businesses that would become the eventual neighbours of any supervised consumption site in their communities. A typical and appropriate community process should happen at a local level. That is what this bill is about.

It would set up clear parameters and would require a thorough consultation process to ensure that applications for these supervised drug-injection sites were thoroughly reviewed by local experts and community members as part of any decision. Our government believes that it is important to give members of the public an opportunity to provide input into proposed activities that could impact their communities. That is why, under Bill C-2 , the minister would also have the authority to post a notice of application for a 90-day public comment period to seek direct input from community members.

It is not unlike a rezoning application, whereby a large sign is posted to inform everyone who is local that it will happen. It is part of the local community consultation process. That is what I have found so surprising about the debate on this bill until now. The opposition members continue to delay and drag out the debate, when the single largest accomplishment of the bill is simply consultation with local communities. To be quite frank, to me it is incomprehensible.

Members in this House need to pride themselves on local grassroots input, whether it is for an environmental assessment process or a rezoning, so I am surprised that there seems to be such resistance to providing what is normal due process in important decisions a community makes. I am pleased to see that we are making some progress on this today. Consultations are not the only improvement contained in the bill. There are also important new clarifications that would be brought to the inspection regime to monitor these sites following their establishment.

This would ensure that the government had the tools needed to monitor any injection site that may be established following the new consultation process. One of Health Canada's responsibilities under the CDSA is to monitor the distribution of controlled substances and to inspect facilities, as needed, to verify compliance with the act, its regulations, and the terms and conditions of an exemption. This is done to minimize the risk of diversion and any negative impact on public safety. I do not think anyone should argue about the importance of having that measure in the bill.

As someone who was responsible for a health centre, there were many different groups that had the ability to come in and monitor the work we were doing, whether it was on our work with controlled drugs and substances or the privacy commission. Again, these are appropriate and necessary safeguards. The proposed legislation would amend the CDSA, which sets out the powers of inspectors. The amendments would provide authority for inspectors to enter supervised consumption sites for inspections to validate information on any exemption application received by Health Canada.

These amendments would also authorize inspectors to enter a site for which an exemption was granted at any reasonable time to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of the exemption. Again, these are appropriate measures and safeguards that would be put in place. If the conditions of the exemption were not followed or the act or regulations were not complied with, there could be a danger to public health or safety, and an exemption could be revoked. That brings us back to the real issue at play, which is the danger to public health and public safety.

It is no secret that when illicit drug activities take root in neighbourhoods, the health and safety of individuals, families, and communities are put at risk. Illicit drugs that are bought and sold on the streets are inherently dangerous and present dangers in the communities in which they are found. For example, we know that the proceeds from the sale of illicit substances often contribute to organized crime, and the use of these substances can increase the risk of harm to health and safety, especially when these substances are unregulated and untested.

(1015) While a supervised consumption site aims to reduce the risk of illegal drug use, it is also important to keep in mind that no level of oversight can ever make illegal, untested street drugs completely safe. That is why I also want to note that the bill will require applicants to provide information regarding the drug treatment facilities that may be associated with the injection site. I think all members of this House can agree that the true goal of the program designed to help those of us struggling with addictions is to end drug use in a safe way.

That is what any of us would hope for family or friends fighting an addiction. It is only right to analyze the drug treatment facilities that are proposed and associated. We often hear about safe injection sites being a pathway to treatment, to care. As someone involved in the health care business, I too frequently saw people who were desperate to have detox, to have rehabilitation, to have support with nothing being available to them. If this is to be a pathway to supporting people in their recovery, then it has to be associated with those pieces of the treatment puzzle.

Everyone in this House probably has family and friends who are aware of enormous dollars that have been spent to send their loved ones to treatment centres because there are no public options available as they were desperately struggling with recovery. These changes are in line with our government's balanced approach to tackling illegal drug use in Canada. In 2007 we introduced a national anti-drug strategy. The strategy focuses on drug prevention and access to treatment for individuals who suffer from drug dependencies.

It also focuses on combatting the production and distribution of illicit drugs by targeting drug dealers and producers who threaten the health and public safety of our communities, and more particularly important, of our youth. One of the key components of the strategy is the enforcement action plan, which has increased the capacity of law enforcement to proactively target organized criminal activities.

For example, under this plan, funding was provided to the RCMP to expand its dedicated anti-drug team to help locate, investigate and shut down organizations involved in the production and distribution of illicit drugs. Funding was also provided to enhance the capacity of the criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute offenders. Through these and many other activities under the national anti-drug strategy, we have made great progress in helping to protect public health and safety.

To emphasize just how much the issues related to public health and public safety are intertwined, both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Public Safety appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to address questions raised by members in their consideration of this bill. During her testimony, the Minister of Health clearly stated that, “This legislation was not prepared overnight or on a whim”. It was “...drafted to specifically codify a detailed ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in September 2011 on a supervised injection site”.

As I have said, that ruling identified the specific factors the Minister of Health must consider when reviewing applications that grant exemptions from Canada's drug laws to allow such sites to be established. There are many things I could say about the process. I know 20 minutes is a long time, but it can also be a short time. Most people in the House, I expect, have had families and friends who have struggled with addiction. We heard a very powerful statement yesterday from one of our colleagues.

We are trying to create a balanced piece of legislation that will really, as I say, take care of the public safety issues, to look at the public health issues and respond to the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

(1020) Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the member across talks about the opposition dragging out the debate, and she also underlined the importance of consulting with community groups. In terms of the consultative process regarding Bill C-2 , has she gone to the grassroots community partners around her, places such as ASK Wellness, Henry Leland House, Crossroads Inn, the Phoenix Centre? Has she talked to the president of ASK Wellness, Elizabeth Harris, about the bill? Has she talked to the president of the Phoenix Centre, Fawn Holland?

I am just wondering what their input was in her own community and whether she has consulted closely with them in Kamloops. Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, I have ongoing dialogue with many members in Kamloops, including ASK Wellness, on many pieces of legislation, whether it is our prostitution legislation or others. The member is missing the point. The point is that there are criteria giving consistency to how applications will be received.

Most importantly, what it would do is say that if there is ever a proposed site in Kamloops, all of the groups that the member mentioned would have the ability to speak very directly to it, as would the local government and police force. Again, what we are talking about is the ability of communities to have consultation and be able to determine what is appropriate and what is going to be helpful to deal with what is a very difficult challenge.

(1025) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is clear with this particular bill that the Prime Minister's Office is trying to give the impression that we are going to have all of these injection sites scattered across the country unless we pass this legislation. If we take a look at the one injection site that we have here in Canada, there was immense consultation. We had federal, provincial and municipal cooperation that had all sorts of other stakeholder and community involvement. The stakeholders included first responders, health care professionals and police agencies.

The whole nine yards was brought in together to put this one site into being. It is ludicrous to believe that communities and others would not be consulted. The real reason is that this is nothing more than Conservative spin to try to create an issue that is just not there. Why does the member believe that this legislation is even necessary? Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, the member is making my own point. This legislation would take the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which lays out five things that need to be looked out. The Minister of Health needs to give the exemption.

It is our responsibility to ensure that with those criteria, there are processes and systems around it. Again, to be quite frank, the member is making my point that this legislation would create the system that is needed to address the important issues. Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we talked a little bit about barriers in getting programs like this off the ground and having community confidence. Some of that is a lack of legislative direction. What we would provide here is that legislative direction, which has that criteria.

One of the pieces of criteria that I was most interested in hearing about, and I wonder if the hon. member could expand on it a little, is the criteria around ensuring that plans includes treatment plans to go along with the safe injection sites. Communities can understand and invest in that. Could my hon. colleague expand a little bit on that piece in plainer English terms? Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, I have worked in small northern communities and I have seen the decimation that addictions can create in those communities. I also saw the huge lack of appropriate detoxification and rehabilitation services.

I can remember time after time when people came to me and said, “Listen, we are ready to quit”. I had to say, “I am sorry, but there no are beds or services available”. I told them that in six months, we may be able to give them the support that they need. That was a shame, because six months later, those people might not have been ready anymore. Treatment and prevention services that are directly associated with the site is an enormous and absolutely critical piece of this complex and comprehensive puzzle. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like the member's comments on a speech given by Dr. Julio Montaner, the director of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. He said that the government “just doesn't get it”. He said: ...instead of complying with the Supreme Court of Canada, they are making it even more difficult for people to access a service that has been shown to be lifesaving. Dr. Montaner is one of our leading world experts on AIDS and believes that this bill is wrong-headed. Through you, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the member to comment on that, and ask her how many safe injection sites the department of health is projecting to be exempted in the first year after this law is proclaimed.

(1030) Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest of respect for Dr. Montaner in terms of some of the work he has done around HIV/AIDS. I have listened to him speak here on Parliament Hill. The point of this legislation is that we would put in place some appropriate parameters around the minister determining whether to give an exemption. There is even a process around rezoning applications. When a mining company is looking at establishing a mine, there is a process around it.

We have created straightforward criteria that look at a balance, include prevention and safety, and include community consultation. To be quite frank, I think all opposition members should be on board with us on this particular piece of legislation. [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the problem with this bill is that it is now harder to set up a supervised injection site than it is to build a pipeline. Want to build a pipeline? Do not bother asking permission from the mayor, fishers or farmers. Just do it.

Want to set up a centre to help people who really need help, because life as a drug addict is not easy? You will have to come up with the sun, the moon and the starlit sky. Will someone please explain to me why it is so easy for oil companies to do what they want and why insurmountable obstacles are put in the way of people who want to help folks who are suffering? I would really like to know why that is. [ English ] Mrs. Cathy McLeod : Mr. Speaker, I absolutely have to disagree with the hon. member. He needs to look at what is in this bill. Consulting with communities is perfectly appropriate.

Making sure there are criminal record checks of the people who are going to be running these operations is absolutely perfectly appropriate. Having plans in terms of what will be done with the needles so that they are disposed of properly is absolutely appropriate. Having inspectors make sure that people are complying is absolutely appropriate. I look at every single element in this bill. They are not overly onerous and they are appropriate protections for the health and safety of communities. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in such an important debate.

I wish we had longer to discuss such a critical issue, but the government, of course, has issued another one of its time allocation motions. I cannot remember if it is 91 or 92 times thus far. We will have a grand total of two and a quarter hours to debate this pressing public health issue, but that is the way it is. In my remarks today, I want to first examine how we got here on safe injection sites. Second, I want to talk about the bill itself. Third, I want to talk about the ideological underpinnings that are self-evident in this legislation.

I cannot do better, frankly, than to start with an almost poetic description of the crisis that led to this. This is from the Supreme Court of Canada in its famous 2011 judgment relating to the Insite centre in Downtown Eastside Vancouver: In the early 1990s, injection drug use reached crisis levels in Vancouver’s downtown eastside.... Epidemics of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C soon followed, and a public health emergency was declared in...September 1997.

Health authorities recognized that creative solutions would be required to address the needs of the population of the [downtown eastside], a marginalized population with complex mental, physical, and emotional health issues. After years of research, planning, and intergovernmental cooperation, the authorities proposed a scheme of care for drug users that would assist them at all points in the treatment of their disease....

Operating a supervised injection site required an exemption from the prohibitions of possession and trafficking of controlled substances under s. 56 of the CDSA, which provides for exemption at the discretion of the Minister of Health, for medical and scientific purposes. Insite received a conditional exemption in September 2003, and opened its doors days later. North America’s first government-sanctioned safe injection facility, it has operated constantly since then. [...] It does not provide drugs to its clients, who must check in, sign a waiver, and are closely monitored during and after injection.

Its clients are provided with health care information, counselling, and referrals to various service providers or an on-site, on demand detox centre. The experiment has proven successful. Insite has saved lives and improved health without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area. It is supported by the Vancouver police, the city and provincial governments. The court ordered the minister of health to grant a “constitutional exemption”, as it called it, to the Insite facility, so it could continue to operate free from federal drug laws.

The minister was then ordered by the court to grant an exemption under

section 56. That is what happened. The government responded with Bill C-2 , which is before us today. It is my strong belief that the bill before us will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Many lawyers and experts have said the same thing. Why? Because it is a thinly veiled attempt to not do what the Supreme Court of Canada required. This is a public health emergency, and the response is to provide a list of criteria that is so vast that no one believes there will ever be a safe injection site as a function of this legislation.

It is absolutely opposed to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. The parliamentary secretary just spoke about the criteria being perfectly normal. Of course, it was all very much in place when the city of Vancouver got its Insite facility. No one is suggesting that there should not be public consultation and the like. I have had a raging debate with my colleagues as to just how many hoops will have to be jumped through to ever get one of these safe injection facilities under Bill C-2 . I cannot decide.

There are 26 criteria listed in the bill, but, as they say on television, there is more. After the 26, the long, many-paged list of criteria that has be jumped through before the exemption can be granted, there are two at the end that raise a number of eyebrows. I will just read them, so members can see why it is so difficult to know. One of them at the end is “any other information that the Minister considers relevant to the consideration of the application”. I have no idea what that means. It is entirely subjective. She could consider the price of tea in China and that might be considered relevant.

(1035) However, there is more. It says, “any prescribed information that is submitted in the prescribed manner”. I guess they can make a regulation and prescribe a bunch more. It is 26-plus open criteria, plus a whole list of others that might be prescribed later. This is not a normal series of criteria for granting an exemption. It then goes on and provides a series of principles that seem to swallow the entire thing.

It states, in part, “The Minister may only grant an exemption for a medical purpose” to allow these safe injection sites in exceptional circumstances and after considering a whole bunch of other principles, including criminal activity, organized crime, risks of overdose, and unadulterated controlled substances. We cannot read this legislation without basically saying that the government is trying to make it as hard as possible to do what the Supreme Court ordered in one of Canada's leading public health emergencies ever. There is no need to take my word for that.

The British Columbia Medical Journal had an article, before this legislation, by a number of leading AIDS researchers. It starts with this, “Our current approach to the epidemic has been an utter failure”. The

article then lists the costs for people having to go to the hospital, There is a cost of $500,000 per patient to deal with AIDS, and the cost of emergency care in hospitals, not to mention the homeless. That is why the police have been so strong in Vancouver in support of Insite. The

article goes on to talk about how it has been a failure because of the traditional law enforcement paradigm of the current government: more crime, more legislation to deal with crime, more police. It has been an utter failure, according to the police themselves. I had a chance to meet with Dr. Simpson of the Canadian Medical Association yesterday, and the CMA is strongly in favour of this kind of harm reduction approach. It is reflected in the strategy that Vancouver, the Vancouver Board of Trade, and small business have embraced.

It seems that everyone has embraced it but the Conservative government, which seems to think it will help its base in passing a law that is so obviously contrary to the spirit of the Supreme Court. The four-pillars approach has been what Vancouver has embraced. Those four pillars to dealing with the crisis are the following: one is enforcement, that is granted; second is treatment; third is prevention; and fourth is harm reduction. It is harm reduction of the kind that is reflected in the Downtown Eastside Insite facility, and a very comprehensive plan was put in place by the city to address this.

At this point, I must pay tribute to the retiring member for Vancouver East , in whose riding this occurred. She has been utterly amazing in her advocacy on behalf of the poorest people in our community: aboriginal people, frequently; people from cultural communities; people who have come from all over the country to live in the Downtown Eastside and deal with addiction. They are dying at overdose rates that are absolutely staggering. I want to pay tribute, as well, to Senator Larry Campbell, who was then the mayor of the City of Vancouver.

He embraced a harm reduction strategy from the start and deserves a lot of credit for helping implement the four-pillars strategy in Vancouver. All that the health advocates have been saying is that we need this in other communities. We need it in my community, and I will come to that. The public health officer of Toronto has been pleading for meaningful legislation. What they are getting from the current government is a farce. They know it, and the courts will soon know it.

We will have wasted a lot of time doing something that is so obviously not a public health measure but simply a sop to the Conservative Party base. I will demonstrate the truth of that in a moment. That is where we have landed with Bill C-2 . This is a government that is more concerned with punishment than compassion; a government that is putting ideology over evidence. Let me speak about the Canadian Medical Association and its members response to this legislation. They were asked, like so many, to be consulted on this, and they were. What they said was quite staggering.

They said the following: The CMA fully endorses harm reduction strategies and tools, including supervised injection sites.... Bill C-2...proposes new, far reaching, and stringent conditions that must be met by a proponent who is applying to establish a supervised injection site. The CMA maintains that safe injection sites are a legitimate form of treatment for the disease of addiction, that their benefit is supported by a body of research, and that the conditions proposed under Bill C-2 are overly restrictive.

(1040) That is what the doctors are telling us. It is obvious to them, and it is obvious to most Canadians who have had an opportunity to read this thinly veiled effort to stop supervised injection sites. When the government looked at the evidence and consulted on this, it was self-evident that it needed a harm reduction strategy, that it needed to make exemptions possible under

section 56 more readily available. What it ended up with is what has brought us here today. The number of people who are opposed to this legislation is staggering, such as the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association. However, we also need to address those people who are trying to get safe injection sites in their communities. There is only one in Canada, and it is in danger now I suppose, but certainly Toronto wants one. Dr. David McKeown, the Medical Health Officer of that great city said: I come at it from a public health point of view.

Toronto was one of several cities in Canada looking to implement supervised injection sites as part of an evidence-based, comprehensive approach to health services for people who address drugs. The board feels the proposed Bill C-2 is not consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court on supervised injection. If Bill C-2 is passed as written, we believe it will be a significant barrier for any community or health system in any province that has come to the decision that those services would serve both the public health and public safety interests of local residents. Good luck trying to get one, Toronto.

Good luck, Victoria. I happen to represent the city of Victoria, and I am proud to do so. Let me tell everyone what is going on in my city. Many local agencies have expressed an interest in opening a safe injection site, but there is no application because it is considered that there is no way they would get it. Why bother? There are so many conditions that are required, that they do not think there is any chance. Nevertheless, people are dying in the streets.

Katrina Jensen, AIDS Vancouver Island executive director, in 2013, said: We have had eight overdose deaths in the last six months and those are deaths that could have been prevented if we had a supervised consumption site.... Good luck getting one, Victoria. I am here to say that the chances of doing so are remote at best. That is where we are. That is why I asked the parliamentary secretary whether or not Conservatives had any projection as to how many of these facilities would be up and running a year later. I did not get any answer at all.

I will refer to something that I know many people have been concerned, which is why it is taking this long to get here, and why it is that the Conservative government has done everything it can to thwart this legislation coming forward.

Stephen Maher, a journalist, wrote the following in 2013: On the afternoon of Friday, September 20, [2013, the health minister] sent out a news release announcing she was taking action against Health Canada officials who had approved an application from doctors who wanted to give heroin to addicts. “Our policy is to take heroin out of the hands of addicts, not to put it into their arms,” she said. It was odd. Why would [the health minister] issue a news release attacking her own officials? The next morning a clue landed in the inboxes of Conservatives across Canada.

Fred DeLorey, director of political operations for the party sent an e-mail to supporters: “Drug treatment programs should be focused on ending drug use--not giving illicit drugs to drug addicts. That's why I was shocked to learn today that Health Canada approved funding to give heroin to addicts--against the wishes of the elected government.” There was a link to surprise, surprise a Sun News story: “What the heck is Health Canada on?”, the anchor asked, throwing to a reporter who said that “government bureaucrats, many are saying, have used a loophole to allow individuals to legally receive prescription heroin”.

DeLorey's email ended with a link to a Conservative Party website with a big picture of a hypodermic needle and a place for people to enter their name and email address.

(1045) Here is the punchline. If one enters one's data, half an hour later DeLorey will send an email with a warning “If the NDP or Liberals are elected in 2015, you can bet they would make this heroin-for-addicts program permanent”, and then hits readers with a pitch for $5 to help the Conservatives fight back. I guess it is clear why we have taken this long. We know about the fundraising efforts on the backs of people who are dying. This is a public health emergency, yet the Conservatives are trying to use it as a fundraiser.

I do not know what to say except that people deserve better than such a mean-spirited government addressing the legislation in this kind of way. I need to go back to the criteria. The parliamentary secretary was making it sound, and I will use her word in her debate, “typical”. However, as a lawyer, I have never seen anything like the criteria the Conservatives have put forward in an apparent attempt to implement the Supreme Court of Canada's response to this public health emergency. Here are the criteria in the new and improved bill, Bill C-2 , to get one of these exemptions to allow a safe injection site.

Let me be clear. Talking to the police and the neighbourhood, and doing full consultation is a no-brainer. Everybody understands that. How could any municipality get away with doing otherwise? It is what Vancouver did so effectively. However, there is more criteria set out in the bill, such as: The Minister may consider an application for an exemption...that would allow certain activities to take place at a supervised consumption site only after the following have been submitted: Here I will paraphrase. First, there is the requirement for scientific evidence demonstrating that there is a medical benefit.

Duh, there have been 30 studies already on Insite. Europe and Australia have learned about this, but I guess we need more science on this. The second is the requirement of a letter from the provincial minister, a letter from the local government, a description of the measures that have been taken to address any relevant concerns in the letter, a letter from the police force saying it is okay, a description of this and that. I am only at five, but there are 26 criterion, including this open-ended thing.

I do not want any Canadian to think this is somehow an ordinary list of relevant criteria, because that would be to misstate and distort the evidence before us. Speaking of evidence, I need to talk about what happened after the safe injection site was opened in Vancouver. First, there had been a twelvefold increase in overdose deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. There had been an astounding increase in communicable diseases among injection-drug users, such as hepatitis A, B and C, as well as AIDS.

However, when the safe injection site was opened, there was a 35% decrease in overdose deaths, a decrease in crime as well as communicable disease rates and infections and relapse rates for drug users. That was because a science-based, evidence-based approach was taken. People were now saying, and the Supreme Court of Canada was persuaded, that this health service would save lives. It would save a lot of money as people were no longer presenting at emergency centres and hospitals. It would reduce the amount of crime.

That was evidence before the Supreme Court of Canada, and it was why it decided that a constitutional exemption was required by the minister. The bill before us is public health legislation, although one would never know it. It was sent to the public safety committee, not the health committee, by the government. Public health does not get a lot of mention in the legislation nor in the parliamentary secretary's speech.

If we are to face a public health crisis as adult Canadians, then we need to face up to the fact that the four pillars work, that a comprehensive approach is required, that safe injection sites must be licensed and welcomed into communities when reasonable consultation has occurred, rather than the legislation before us, which thwarts this, sadly, for nothing but political purposes.

(1050) Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest. As the critic and my colleague was going through the list of what he called onerous things that would have to be done to get a safe injection site going, not one of them seemed unreasonable: scientific data, the ability to have criminal record checks, community consultation, a letter from the police. The opposition is fearmongering around what is an appropriate and reasonable framework. I have to pick up on one of the member's comments.

Does he also believe we should provide the heroin and the illicit drugs in these sites? Is that something he believes should also be part of this proposal? Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr. Speaker, I think I just heard the parliamentary secretary ask whether we should provide heroin at these sites. Did I understand that? The evidence before the Supreme Court was that people would bring their own drugs in for safe injection. They would be provided services, counselling, detox and so forth to try to get them off these drugs. I cannot believe anyone involved in this debate would ever make such a suggestion.

As to the reasonableness of the criteria, it is the astounding amount of information that must be provided. Critics are concerned about that. There is a stacked deck, to use the words of my colleague from Vancouver East , designed to frustrate. That is the reason I went after the number of criteria, coupled with principles that later seem to fly in the face of even granting such an exemption in the first place. Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for becoming the new health critic for the New Democratic Party.

As the health critic, could he explain to me why the bill was sent to the public safety committee instead of to the health committee?

(1055) Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for all her efforts on health reform in Canada. I much appreciate her comments. Why this bill was sent to the public safety committee rather than the health committee is simple. It is because the government does not see this as a health issue. It sees it as a law enforcement issue. It wants to spend more money to maybe put more addicts in jail, and maybe that will make the world a better place. That is contrary to the evidence of Dr.

Julio Montaner, a world expert on AIDS, who says that the government “just doesn't get it” and has put up roadblocks with this stacked deck of criteria. That is why the government sent it to the public safety committee rather than the health committee, because it does not even accept that we have a public health crisis in our cities. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his great analysis. When he was speaking, I was harking back to 2011 when I was invited to Oakland for an international conference on HIV-AIDS prevention and how to deal with it.

Guess who was the keynote speaker? It was the model of prevention, our friends from Vancouver. We were on the international stage, but, meanwhile, back home the government was challenging them. I was asked as a Canadian politician to explain that and I could not. However, at the same time, Oakland had declared a state of emergency because of HIV-AIDS. The people were saying that we had to stop locking up people for drug use and start helping them. They were really looking to Canada as a world leader in this area because we were seen as a model.

How is this health approach important versus the public safety approach? It is despicable that people would try to make money off victims. Maybe you could talk about the different approaches of health versus public safety. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Before I go to the member for Victoria , I would ask all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues. The hon. member for Victoria . Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr.

Speaker, I am very proud to come from British Columbia, which has the first safe injection site in North America, welcomed by the police, the province and business. It makes me proud. However, it makes me sad and angry at the same time, because a few kilometres away from where I live people are dying on the streets. When people come to my community, they ask me about this public health measure. They ask me if I think they can get one of those facilities in Victoria. I look at the legislation, shake my head and tell them I do not see how they can.

We have to wait for the lawyers to once more take this to the Supreme Court of Canada, and once more get it struck down. In the meantime, this is no joke. People are dying. I am proud my colleague went to Oakland and saw Vancouver featured on the international stage. I am hopeful that in the Senate, Senator Campbell, who has been such a champion of this, will do what he can do to see if we can get back on track with such an important initiative. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I agree with every word in the speech by my friend from Victoria.

Bill C-2 is not so much a disguised attempt but a blatant attempt to do indirectly that which the Conservative administration could not do directly, which is prevent the building of any new Insite clinics. As for use of this issue politically, I harken back to when the former minister of foreign affairs—now we must refer to him only as the member for Ottawa West—Nepean —was in the Mike Harris cabinet. He said that they wanted mandatory tests of drugs for welfare recipients because “We don't want to see them shooting their cheques up their arms”. It is a long-standing use for propaganda and for fundraising.

I want to draw his attention to one of the many criteria that are there for purposes of defeating the building of an Insite clinic. They are listed as A through Z and Z1. There is one that says before a clinic is built an applicant must provide the CV and work history of senior employees. Could the hon. member for Victoria recall any instance in his experience where a facility that does not yet have a permit to be built knows the names and has the CVs of every senior employee? Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague and friend from Saanich and the Islands for all her work on this important initiative. We tried to have amendments she brought forward, supported by the NDP, to have this entire travesty repealed, but we were unsuccessful. I have never heard of a criteria requiring CVs for every employee in any such statute. When the member talked about A through Z and Z1, I am still debating with myself just how many criteria there are. A through Z is 26, but then there is one that seems to say anything can be prescribed, anything the minister considers relevant.

We do not even know how many criteria there will be. We do not think there will ever be any safe injection sites as a result of such a wrong-headed and mean-spirited statute.

(1100) Hon. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments carefully. I was involved in this debate when I was parliamentary secretary and before that, as health critic. The terminology is important. It is not a safe injection site in Vancouver. It is called a supervised injection site. Would the member agree that there is no such thing as a safe injection site or safe injections? If I understand the member correctly, he wants facilities to be BYOH, “bring your own heroin”. Is that what he is suggesting?

Is he offering up his riding for a supervised injection site that he is promoting so valiantly today? Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr. Speaker, those are three questions, but I will try to be short in response to my hon. colleague. “Supervised injection site” is the right terminology. They are safe, however, because no one has died at Insite as a consequence of injecting there. BYOH is insulting. This is not what I want. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the fact that people were allowed to bring their drugs there for safe injection under supervision.

My riding will not have any sites because this law will not allow, in the real world, any such facilities to be licensed.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ Translation ] St. Patrick's Day Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on March 17, many countries, including Canada, the United States and France, will honour Irish immigrants by joining them in simple, friendly celebrations of their national holiday and the joy of being an immigrant of Irish origin. St. Patrick's Day is about people celebrating in the streets of Ireland. It is also celebrated all over in Irish pubs in big cities.

Young and old alike love to see leprechauns, those little red-headed folk sporting top hats and clovers, and all the people dressed in green with Irish flags painted on their cheeks. On March 17, I will be in my riding learning about Irish history through the cultural references and folklore of our good Irish friends, and I encourage everyone to do the same. Do not miss this wonderful opportunity.

Polyform Inc. Mr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, founded in 1963, Polyform Inc. is Quebec's largest manufacturer in the business of transforming expanded cellular plastic. In 2012, the company built its own recycling facility, which can transform a wide variety of plastics. Every year, Polyform continues to invest and develop new technologies that enable it to increase its recycling capacity. Today the company recycles no less than five million kilos of plastic of all kinds.

On March 2, 2015, at this year's EPS EXPO in Indianapolis, Polyform won the Excellence in Expanded Polystyrene Recycling Award. This is the second award the company has won since the beginning of the year. I want to congratulate the entire Polyform team, not only on the recognition it has received, but also on its environmental commitment.

[ English ] Persian New Year Mr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Nowruz, the Persian new year, is fast approaching. This is a very important celebration in my riding of Richmond Hill, which is home to one of the largest, most dynamic Persian communities in Canada. Festivities of all kinds are taking place, from elegant Nowruz galas to the hustle and bustle of the Nowruz bazaars to the thrilling fire festival at Richmond Green. Richmond Hill has it all.

This is also a time to celebrate the rich culture of the Persian people and the extraordinary contributions they have made and continue to make to our great country, including, of course, the great town of Richmond Hill. Their remarkable talents and expertise include business, academia, medicine, science, and arts and culture, to name but a few. I am proud to call so many Persian Canadians my friends. I wish all of those who are celebrating across Canada a very happy Nowruz. Nowruzetan pirooz .

(1105) [ Translation ] Montreal North 100th Anniversary Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of Montreal North. Montreal North is in the riding of Bourassa, which I have the honour to represent in Parliament. Montreal North is also where I spent my first 10 years in Canada. That is where I went to high school, at the Henri-Bourassa composite school. I have good memories of those wonderful years. Montreal North has a slogan that makes me proud because it represents us so well: “Where everyone feels right at home”.

Montreal North welcomes people from all over. It has a wealth of diversity. Is that not the image we have of Canada? I want to thank everyone who contributed to this celebration: the elected officials, in particular Mayor Gilles Deguire; the members of the Société Montréal-Nord 2015 board of directors and its chair, Claude Poirier; Sister Angèle; Oliver Jones; and all the volunteers. Happy anniversary and enjoy the celebration.

[ English ] Team Canada Brier Victory Mr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to extend warm congratulations to Team Canada on winning its second straight Tim Hortons Brier victory. After a slow start at the Brier, the foursome switched up the roles and moved Moose Jaw native Pat Simmons up to skip. They never looked back after the switch. The team was rounded out by John Morris, Carter Rycroft, and Nolan Thiessen. Simmons, who shot 93% in the final, was named winner of the Hec Gervais award as the most valuable player in the playoffs.

I am also proud to offer congratulations to Saskatchewan's Steve Laycock on their bronze medal victory over Brad Gushue's team. Finally, I hope all members join me in wishing Team Canada well at the Ford World Men's Curling Championship beginning at the end of this month in Halifax.

Pensions Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing a retirement security crisis. The Conservatives have blocked attempts to make retirement more secure for Canadians. The Canada pension plan is proven and reliable, yet the Conservatives have broken their promise to strengthen it for future generations of Canadians. The Conservatives have also raised the age of retirement from 65 to 67. Private pension plans and the workers who own them must take a back seat during bankruptcy proceedings.

The Conservatives want to make it easier for employers to change secure defined benefit pension plans to risky target benefit plans. As well, younger Canadians today are financially squeezed between having to care for their aging parents and raising their own children. Canadians want their government to act, and New Democrats are ready. We will secure and enhance the CPP, restore the retirement age to 65, help make the workplace pensions of Canadians more secure, help lift seniors out of poverty, and help our young people prepare for their own retirement.

All Canadians deserve a secure and dignified retirement, and a New Democratic government will take action to ensure that each and every Canadian has just that.

Wearing of Veils Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, the wearing of the burka and the niqab has been the subject of polarized debate. [ Translation ] The wearing of religious symbols and clothing in the public sphere is appropriate under all but a few specific circumstances. [ English ] Obtaining a driver's licence, a citizenship card, or a passport are some of these circumstances, the latter requiring that citizens even remove their glasses for their photo.

In addition, everyone's face should be uncovered during the course of the citizenship ceremony and while he or she is voting. [ Translation ] Basic common sense dictates that a person needs to allow visual identification by the public servant dealing with the issue. If a woman refuses to uncover her face because the official in front of her happens to be male, we should be able to accommodate her by having a designated female public servant available to step in. [ English ] Furthermore, anyone wearing a veil that does not cover the face should be allowed to testify in court.

Reasonable Canadians will debate this topic in a measured and respectful manner.

(1110) Margaret Kennelly Mrs. Pat Perkins (Whitby—Oshawa, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour the life and exceptional career of a Whitby—Oshawa resident who recently passed away. Margaret Kennelly, a Second World War veteran, joined the Women's Royal Canadian Naval Service in 1943, when she was just 18 years old. She served as Leading Wren and was stationed in Halifax until her return back home in 1946. Following her discharge, Margaret became a member of the Royal Canadian Legion Ladies' Auxiliary Branch 112. She also served the Legion as treasurer and the first female president.

In 1988, she was made a lifetime member. I know that all members of the House will join me in sending our heartfelt condolences to Margaret's family. We would like them to know that we are forever grateful for her service to our country.

[ Translation ] International Day of La Francophonie Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic for la Francophonie, I invite all Canadians to celebrate the International Day of La Francophonie, which is held every year on March 20. It is a day of celebration for 275 million French speakers on five continents. This magnificent language, the fifth most spoken language in the world, gives us a great power, the power of numbers, but also the means to build international relationships. We have major responsibilities with respect to this language.

We can write and speak French properly in order to perpetuate it. By being committed to French, we undertake to promote French in all its forms. We should be proud of French and promote French through tangible and progressive actions. Our history, our traditions, our culture and especially our future are amazing because of the French language. On March 20, let us be proud to celebrate la Francophonie.

[ English ] Halabja Massacre Mr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the Halabja massacre, also known as Bloody Friday. March 16 marks 27 years since the brutal chemical weapons attack perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's regime on Kurdish civilians, which killed as many as 5,000 innocent people and injured almost 10,000 more. Kurdish Canadians will be gathering across the country over the next week to remember this horrific crime against humanity and its victims.

As we reflect on what took place at Halabja, we also recognize the determination of the Kurdish people, who are today facing off against ISIL in northern Iraq. Kurdish forces have played a crucial role in protecting civilians and religious minorities from ISIL. Canada is proud to be advising and assisting our Kurdish allies as they combat this genocidal death cult, and we stand with them and Kurdish Canadians in commemorating the Halabja massacre.

[ Translation ] International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as a woman who is a member of a visible minority, I know what kind of damage intolerance can cause, no matter where it originates. I strongly condemn this form of violence. It is therefore with a great deal of emotion that I rise to draw the House's attention to the upcoming International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on March 21. This day is an opportunity to recognize how all cultural communities and people from all walks of life help to build our country.

At a time when the government is playing on the fears of Canadians to try to win votes, I would like to remind members of the essential role that political leaders and elected officials must play in combatting racism, discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. The statements that we have heard recently from the other side of the House are unacceptable. Racism has no place in our speeches. I strongly believe in the values of love, openness and freedom, which are values that all Canadians share.

These values will help us to combat discrimination in our society, help everyone to feel welcome, and help us to work together to build a united Canada that better reflects who we are.

[ English ] Justice Ms. Roxanne James (Scarborough Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since 2006, our government has introduced more than 30 tough-on-crime measures. Through these measures, we have made significant accomplishments in three key areas: tackling crime by holding violent criminals accountable for those crimes, giving victims of crime a stronger voice, and increasing the efficiency of the justice system. As promised in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, this week we further built upon this success with the introduction of the life means life act.

This legislation will ensure that those convicted of the most heinous murders will breathe their last breath behind bars. Providing for life sentences without parole is essential to express society's denunciation of the worst criminals. Canadians knows that our government will always put the rights of victims before the rights of criminals.

(1115) 2015 Templeton Prize Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there are saints who live among us. The 2015 Templeton Prize has been awarded to a man of deep faith, Jean Vanier, the son of our 19th Governor General, Georges Vanier. Jean Vanier was called to found L'Arche, now a federation of 147 communities in 35 countries where people with and without intellectual disabilities live and work together as peers, and all are transformed by the encounter.

Vanier co-founded Faith and Light, consisting now of 1,500 groups in 82 countries supporting the intellectually disabled, their families, and their friends. Everywhere in the world, we live with brothers and sisters who have intellectual disabilities. To really meet them and become friends is also becoming open, in Vanier's words: ...to love people, to respect them deeply, to live authentic relationships with others, to yearn for truth and justice in the huge family of humanity. Today, let us celebrate the saints who live among us.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the retirement income security benefit announced on Monday will provide financial stability for veterans who are moderately to seriously injured as well as to their families. However, our Conservative government is not stopping there. Earlier today the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced strengthened benefits for Canada's part-time reserve force veterans to ensure they have the support they deserve. These improvements will ensure the earnings loss benefit is calculated in the same way for reserve force veterans as it is for regular force veterans.

We place the highest priority on making sure veterans and their families have the support and services they need when they need them. Today's action is more evidence of our Conservative government's commitment to ensuring that veterans and their families are treated with care, compassion, and respect.

[ Translation ] Ethics Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, debating ideas and bills is a healthy activity in any democracy, even if the different parties do not necessarily share the same opinions. However, ethics should generally be something that everyone agrees on. We owe that to Canadians. The Conservatives would not stop talking about an ethics overhaul before they came to power, but their ethics record this week has been terrible. We have lost count of how many people from the Prime Minister's Office will have to testify at the Duffy trial.

The former public works minister was found guilty of patronage and conflict of interest. We learned that Nigel Wright and the Conservatives are punishing the people of Maniwaki because they turfed out Lawrence Cannon in the last election. Furthermore, this week we learned that the RCMP is trying to get more information on 150 fraudulent invoices submitted by Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin. It is no wonder that Canadians cannot wait to get rid of this government in the upcoming election.

This fall, they will have the option of voting for an honest, progressive government that will look after everyone, not just its own friends. [ English ] Taxation Ms. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as tax season approaches, constituents in Newmarket—Aurora have been overwhelmingly supportive of the tax-free savings account. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons agreed that the tax-free savings account is extremely important for seniors. This is another example of how our government is helping seniors, middle-class families and indeed, all Canadians.

Unlike the Liberal leader, they cannot rely on their trust fund to pay for their retirement or their kids' education. The Liberal leader wants Canadians to pay more tax and the NDP voted against the tax-free savings account. Overall, 11 million Canadians of all ages and income levels have opened an account, allowing them to save, tax-free, for their own priorities. Our Conservative government is fulfilling our promise to keep taxes low, and we will continue to do so while putting more money back in the pockets of families.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Public Safety Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is now being reported in Turkish media that the individual who was detained for allegedly helping three British schoolgirls join ISIS was working for the Canadian embassy in Jordan, where Bruno Saccomani, the former head of the Prime Minister 's security detail, is the ambassador. Can the government confirm that someone linked to Canadian intelligence, an employee, an agent or an asset, is being detained in Turkey?

(1120) Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yes, we are aware of some of these reports. However, I cannot comment on operational matters of national security. I would like to remind the House that the threat of terrorism, the international jihadi movement against Canada, is real. We just have to look at the news. Day after day we are hearing of more instances of people who have allegedly left Canada to join ISIL, to fight for ISIL beliefs.

Canadians know that it is this government that is bringing forward legislation to better protect Canadians. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last night's committee testimony underlined that the sweeping changes Conservatives have put forward in Bill C-51 are excessive, unnecessary, and dangerous to our freedoms, but what really stood out last night was the disrespect shown to a witness. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill suggested that the National Council of Canadian Muslims had ties to Islamic terrorist groups and that they were, in her words, “half-hearted in the fight against terrorism”.

Will the member apologize for her disgraceful behaviour? Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and its allies, countries like Canada that believe in openness and tolerance. We see this again and again in the news. We have seen recent attacks here in Canada, Paris, in Copenhagen and Australia. Let me talk about the reasons why we brought forward Bill C-51 .

Our national security agencies have identified serious gaps in the existing legislation that they need to better protect Canadians. That is what this government is doing. We brought forward common-sense measures and I certainly hope that the NDP will eventually get on our side. [ Translation ] Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Ronald Atkey, a former Conservative minister and chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, stated very clearly that allowing CSIS to ask a judge to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will turn into a constitutional nightmare.

Why does the government want to rush a bill that is ill-conceived? [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard from a number of witnesses. It was the second day of testimony. The first day, of course, was Tuesday with both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice appearing. We look forward to continued debate and information coming from all sides with their views on this.

Talking about the gaps that have been identified by our national security agencies, it was very clear when Commissioner Paulson said that it would also be very helpful in respect of those people we do not know anything about. He was referring to the information-sharing aspects of this particular bill. We have brought forward these common-sense measures and I certainly hope the opposition parties will get on board.

[ Translation ] The Economy Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is strange. They are pushing this controversial bill, but they will not introduce a budget. Canadians deserve better than that. This week, private sector economists said that the government had no reason to delay introducing a budget. The Conservatives are futzing around while Canadians are losing their jobs. Again this morning we learned that the unemployment rate rose by two points in February. In other words, there are now 50,000 more unemployed workers.

What is the government waiting for to introduce a budget that will stimulate job creation? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is lowering taxes. We are bringing forward measures that help create new jobs. The Liberals and the New Democratic Party are pushing a high-tax, high-debt agenda that would threaten jobs. The New Democratic Party is pushing a $21-billion carbon tax, and that would hurt our economy and kill Canadian jobs. We know that monthly job numbers can be volatile, but what is more important is the long-term trend.

Since the recession, we have created 1.2 million net new jobs. They are overwhelmingly full-time jobs in the private sector. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Here is the long-term trend, Mr. Speaker. Conservatives have lost more than 400,000 full-time, family-sustaining manufacturing jobs and they have the worst record for good job creation in a generation. Canadians deserve better than Conservative policies. Unemployment jumped by more than 50,000 Canadians last month and we saw 29,000 private-sector jobs disappear.

Far too many Canadians either lost their jobs or fear that their jobs will be the next to go. When will Conservatives admit they have messed things up and when will they finally introduce a budget that puts good jobs first?

(1125) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats and Liberals propose one job measure, and that is their tax increases. They believe that the only way to create jobs is to, in their words, increase taxes on families and on job creators. We have the opposite approach. We have a low-tax plan for jobs and growth. It has created 1.2 million net new jobs; 85% of them are full-time, 80% are in the private sector, and two-thirds are in high-wage industries.

We will continue to ensure taxes go down so that job creation goes up. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the problem is that job creation is actually going down. The Canadian economy lost 29,000 private sector jobs last month. Alberta lost 14,000 jobs. Private sector economists have warned us that low oil prices and slow growth will be with us throughout 2015, and that there is no reason to delay the budget. We need a budget now, with a plan for jobs and growth. Why is the Minister of Finance dithering and delaying? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our government has a low-tax plan for jobs and growth for all sectors of the Canadian economy, and that plan is working. That plan will bring Canada to a balanced budget in 2015-16. As we have stated, we will not bring forward the budget any earlier than April. While we are focusing on balancing the budget and creating jobs, the Liberal leader is pushing through a high-spend, high-tax plan that would see working families hurt and that would see unemployment rise. We continue to look for ways that we can put money into the pockets of Canadians.

Canadians know they are better off with this Conservative government. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today's job report also shows that there are fewer jobs for young Canadians. In fact, there are 160,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than in 2008. Meanwhile, Canada has just set another new record for high levels of household debt. There is a connection between household debt and a weak job market for youth in Canada. Middle-class parents are taking on extra debt in order to help their adult children make ends meet.

When will the Conservatives actually understand the real challenges faced by middle-class families? When will they give them a real plan for jobs and growth? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, it is a bit rich, that question coming from the member. It brings to mind the following quote: It took nine years of Conservative government to undo many of the counterproductive, interventionist policies of Liberal governments which had effectively rendered the Canadian economy incapable of moving forward. I agree with that quote.

The same member who asked the question, the member for Kings—Hants, is the one who issued that statement. [ Translation ] Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today we learned that 50,000 more Canadians lost their jobs in February. Meanwhile, household debt has reached record levels. On average, Canadians owe $1.66 for every dollar of disposable income. Middle-class families are suffering under the burden of their debts. They need help. Where is the Conservatives' budget? Where is the plan to stimulate job creation and growth here in Canada? [ English ] Hon.

Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, middle-class Canadians know that they are better off with this Conservative government. Median net worth of Canadian families has risen by a whopping 45% since we were elected. Thanks to the leadership of our Prime Minister , for the first time in Canadian history, middle-income earners are better off than Americans. The member also knows that the vast majority of benefits from our new family tax breaks would go to low- and middle-income Canadians. Canadians know they are better off with this Conservative government.

[ Translation ] Public Safety Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 will have a significant impact on Canadians' rights and freedoms. The evidence heard yesterday in committee was very clear. According to well-known experts, such as lawyer Paul Champ and Professor Craig Forcese, Bill C-51 could open the door to secret detention. It is not surprising that Canadians are mobilizing and protests against Bill C-51 are expected to be held across Canada this Saturday. How much longer will the government ignore Canadians' concerns? (1130) [ English ] Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 actually has five components to it. The first one is information sharing. We have changes to the passenger protect program, which would allow the airlines to stop people from boarding planes and travelling overseas. Of course, there are areas with regard to lowering the threshold for tools that law enforcement agencies have been calling upon.

In fact, we heard in committee that Commissioner Paulson of the RCMP felt that these tools that we would provide for national security agencies would be extremely helpful and would actually fill the gaps that have been identified by those very same agencies. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, even witnesses who, in theory, support the Conservatives have pointed out major flaws in this bill.

Ron Atkey, a former Conservative minister and the first chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, said yesterday in committee that it would be unfair to greatly expand the powers of CSIS so that it could conduct disruptive activities here or abroad, while leaving the watchdog frozen in time. Why are the Conservatives still ignoring these serious concerns? [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there is nothing of greater priority to this government than the safety and security of Canadians.

The national security agencies, the RCMP and CSIS, have identified gaps in our current legislation. Bill C-51 brings those common sense measures. We actually heard as well yesterday from witnesses that we are in a new era of terrorism and that the threat is evolving, and we need to modernize the tools we have for our law enforcement and national security agencies. That is precisely what Bill C-51 is doing, and I wish, for once, that the NDP would actually support a common sense measure to tackle terrorism. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, speaking of common sense, we have had 12 witnesses appear before the public safety committee this week, witnesses from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives, and every single one of them has highlighted serious problems with Bill C-51 . The bill is so bad that Canadians in over 50 towns and cities across the country will be rallying against it this Saturday. Just like the experts at committee, they are saying that the bill is excessive, unnecessary, and dangerous to our freedoms.

Why will the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of Justice or anyone over there not start listening to Canadians and pull back on the bill? Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was actually very pleased to see that the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations appeared at committee yesterday. He had some concerns, and I was very pleased to be able to respond to those concerns and explain how the bill would work with regard to information sharing.

Most people across Canada believe that if one branch of government comes across information pertinent to the national security of this country and the safety and security of our citizens that that branch of government should be able to relay that information to our national security agencies. That is precisely what Bill C-51 would do, and I was pleased to be able to answer those concerns.

Ethics Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this week we heard that the current Minister of Public Works passed over 160 proposals to fund one from a Conservative insider. What kind of message is the minister sending about the government? When a community organization applies for a grant to the Government of Canada, it should not feel the need to do favours for the Conservative Party. It should be able to trust that the proposal will be considered fairly, based on its merits. Why did she pick this project in Markham ahead of all the others? Hon.

Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I always believed that this particular project to improve accessibility for handicapped people at the Markham centre was worthy and was in the public interest. I accept the guidance provided by the commissioner to make sure that these programs are handled in a manner that is fair, accessible, and equitable for everyone involved. [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, ever since the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner released her damning report concerning the favouritism shown by the Minister of Public Works , we have been trying to get an explanation. The government claims that the minister acted on her own and in good faith, and yet three ministers and two of the Prime Minister 's close advisers intervened on behalf of a good friend of the Prime Minister to overturn a decision made by departmental officials. Can the minister tell us if it is common for three ministers and two of the Prime Minister 's advisers to get involved in awarding such a small grant?

Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I always believed that this project to improve accessibility for handicapped people in the Markham Centre was worthy and in the public interest. I accept the guidance provided by the commissioner to make sure that these grant programs are handled in a manner that is fair, accessible and effective for everyone involved.

(1135) Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as of a few months ago, Agop Evereklian is once again working for the Conservatives. To refresh the memory of the House, this former chief of staff to Mayor Tremblay was found guilty of fraud in 2005. His judgment is so poor that the Prime Minister himself had to ask him to cut ties with a dubious campaign manager during the 2011 campaign. How can the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec allow someone with such a dubious past in terms of ethics to be involved in distributing grants for the agency? Come on.

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec works with all regions of Quebec to promote economic development. I hope my colleague realizes that we have even helped his riding. Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, according to former Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau, the Minister of Public Works blocked a grant promised by Lawrence Cannon in order to punish the Pontiac voters for voting the wrong way. At the end of the day, it is the people who use the Jean Bosco centre, people with disabilities trying to enter the labour market, who are the victims of the Conservatives' pettiness in this case. Will the Prime Minister explain what role his chief of staff played in all of this? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, under our Conservative government, Patrick Brazeau is not in charge of grants. The NDP might want Patrick Brazeau to tell them what to do with taxpayers' money, but it does not work that way on this side of the House. It is not surprising that the NDP and the Liberals would have to raise taxes, if they say yes every time Patrick Brazeau or someone else asks for money. Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Senator Brazeau was credible enough for the Conservatives to appoint him to the Senate.

The director general of the Jean Bosco centre is disgusted with the pettiness of the Conservatives, who are using public funds to reward their friends and punish their adversaries, and I quote: It is disgusting....Our clientele is disabled and already heavily burdened. People should not have to pay the consequences of such a scheme... Can the Prime Minister explain why his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, got involved in this case? [ English ] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the application was rejected after both an internal and an external review. We have to decide between projects all the time. What the New Democrats have just confirmed is that they believe that Patrick Brazeau should be in charge of grants and contributions. Maybe that is how they would run their government if they ever had the terrifying prospect of coming anywhere near taxpayers' money, but Canadians will never allow the NDP or the Liberals to do that, because they know that they will only pay more taxes and face more debt if that were to ever happen. Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, Vic Toews wife now denies that she took a $1-million kickback from a first nations chief who was directly involved with her husband, the senior minister for Manitoba. She says it was no more than $50,000 tops, as if that makes it okay. I know it is peanuts on the scale of Conservative shenanigans. Mulroney's personal rogues would not even get out of bed for that kind of chump change. Would the government not agree that it is time to tighten up on the post-employment rules for ministers and their spouses so that they cannot exploit the time they spent in public office for personal and private gain? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is a dispute between three individuals, none of which is the federal government. At the same time, when it comes to accountability, it is the NDP that owes Canadian taxpayers close to $5 million for illegal offices. That is $2.7 million for illegal offices and millions of dollars for illegal mailings, and they refuse to pay that money back. When it comes to accountability, they have nothing to talk about. They took illegal money from unions.

They have illegally taken money from Canadian taxpayers, and now they are refusing to even pay it back.

(1140) Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, since 2011, 70% of funding under the enabling accessibility fund has been spent in Conservative ridings. Conservatives have been using a program designed to help those with disabilities as a political slush fund to reward their friends. If that is not bad enough, now the Prime Minister himself ensured that a failed application was put on top of the pile, fast-tracked, and given over $1 million. It is like Duffy all over again. There is one word for this bad behaviour; it is called corruption. How can he defend it? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the reason we created the enabling accessibility fund is to help people with disabilities have the same access to community centres, churches, synagogues, mosques, and recreational centres every other Canadian enjoys, and that is why we have been proud to fund wheelchair ramps, special elevators, and a whole host of other projects that help disabled people across the country.

We have also brought in the registered disability savings fund so that parents can set aside money for their disabled children's futures, and I am happy to say that both of those programs have been an enormous success. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this week we heard the racist views of the member for New Brunswick Southwest on the economic role of “whities” and “brown people”. The member spewing this racism is the Prime Minister 's former director of communications.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and kick him out of the Conservative caucus, or is there a place for racism within the government? Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member has apologized, but who has not apologized is the Liberal leader for his comments earlier this week. In fact, regarding his speech, B'nai Brith has said, “Such language is divisive and only does a disservice to Canadians interested in dealing with pressing issues of the day”. When will the leader of the Liberal Party stand up and apologize for his comments earlier this week? Mr.

Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, so the standard of accountability within the government can be reduced to 140 characters on social media. The member for New Brunswick Southwest has shared his racist views on suitable jobs for “whities” and “brown people”. This is not an isolated incident. The same member has also referred to first nations as Canada's teepee republic. Will the Prime Minister remove the member from his caucus, or do Conservatives condone racism? Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the member has apologized, but we are still waiting for the apology from the Liberal leader for his comments earlier this week. B'nai Brith Canada also said, regarding the Liberal leader, that he: is the latest in a long [line] of politicians who fall into the trap of drawing highly-inappropriate[ly] and offensive Nazi-era comparisons by using the term ‘none is too many’ haphazardly. The Liberal leader should apologize for his speech given earlier this week.

[ Translation ] Canadian Heritage Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the CRTC announced that it was lowering the Canadian-content quotas for television, knowing full well the impact that that regulation has on the entire television industry. This decision will undermine the creation of local programming. What is more, it shows the Conservatives' complete disregard for the new digital reality in the media. A report was already sounding the alarm on digital issues in 2011.

Why did this government ignore the repeated testimony of the creators of our cultural sovereignty? [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada's television, film, and digital media industry contributes nearly 125,000 jobs to the Canadian economy. That is why we proudly created the Canada media fund in 2009 to help with the creation of quality by Canadians for Canadians. Our government has worked tirelessly to better serve Canadians, bringing them better consumer choice in television while protecting Canadian jobs.

We have always been clear: Canadians should not have to pay for the channels they do not want. They should get the ones they choose. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, that is irrelevant. I am sorry, but that is not what we are talking about. By reducing the space reserved for broadcasting Canadian content, the CRTC is making a dramatic change to the public policies that were put in place to support creation here in Canada. He is talking about jobs, but we are talking about culture. The result is that producers and creators are being put at risk.

Our television programming will reflect who we are less and less. Is the minister aware that although talking about jobs for Canadians may be part of her role, her main priority should be to protect and promote the diversity of our cultural sovereignty here in Canada? (1145) [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware of the rapidly changing media environment, to which no industry is immune in our country.

We are carefully reviewing the decision, but to come back to the main point, we created the Canada media fund specifically to assist Canadians in the industry. When we look at the 125,000 jobs that come out of that industry, it is because they understand, they know, they create, and they produce, all with Canadian content, and it is for Canadians. We should let them make the decisions in terms of how we drive forward in the industry.

[ Translation ] Rail Transportation Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there has been another train derailment resulting in an oil spill, this time in Manitoba. That is on top of the three accidents that occurred in northern Ontario in just one month. With the Lac-Mégantic tragedy still fresh in our minds, the government is telling us that the tank cars that the Transportation Safety Board of Canada does not feel are safe enough will not be phased out until 2023.

How does the minister intend to reassure Canadians when we will have to live with unsafe tank cars for another eight years? [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would have expected the member to be excited about the news that there are solid new tank car standards in the country. They include thicker steel. They include top fitting protection, better protection on the valve, and of course, full head shields, among other important features.

Those are proposed standards, obviously, and that is a commitment we are moving forward on to ensure, among all the measures we have taken to support rail safety, such as better oversight, more inspectors, and all those actions, that Canadians remain safe. Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it has been six days since the Gogama train derailment. I visited the crash site and saw the horror of the devastation. The communities of Gogama and the Mattagami First Nation are concerned about the environment and their safety.

Citizens have been told that for trains with more than 20 cars their speed will be reduced from 80 kilometres to 48 kilometres an hour from Capreol to Hornepayne. Could the minister confirm that the speed reduction will be permanent? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are obviously very concerned about the number of incidents that have taken place in the area of Gogama. We do not yet know the cause of the derailments, but expect that the company should and will fully co-operate with the Transportation Safety Board in its investigations.

In the meantime, we continue to take a number of very important actions to increase rail safety. We have brought forward new legislation that I hope the member will support as it comes before the House, which will hold railways to account and give inspectors the ability to actually order specific fixes on their problems.

Veterans Affairs Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there have been reports in the media that the government is making changes to the benefits provided to reservists in the Canadian Forces. Could the government tell us exactly what those changes are? Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today's announcement is about respect for reservists. [ Translation ] With this announcement, part-time veteran reservists will receive the same minimum level of income as armed forces veterans through the earnings loss benefit.

Our measures now comply with the recommendations made by the Veterans Ombudsman and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. This new initiative is further evidence of our Conservative government's commitment to ensuring that our veterans and their families are treated with care, compassion and respect.

[ English ] Employment Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report on the temporary foreign worker program yesterday. The Conservatives' data collection system is a mess. We cannot even get a simple answer to this question. Do employers really need to hire foreign workers or are there local Canadians available to do the job? How could the Conservatives mismanage a program so badly that there is no way of even telling if foreign workers are needed? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have formed the program to ensure that Canadians come first for Canadian jobs. We have required that employers sign an attestation that no Canadian will be either put out of work or out of hours if a temporary foreign worker is hired. We have required employers do extra outreach to hire underemployed groups within the Canadian labour force, such as aboriginals, new Canadians and young Canadians. We have brought in tough new fines and even jail time for those who break these and other rules.

We are working hard to create more jobs through lower taxes and ensuring Canadians come first for those jobs. (1150) [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, is the minister contradicting the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report? The report clearly says that they do not have the information they need to make such claims.

The Conservatives did such a poor job of managing the temporary foreign worker program that employers started to use this program for purposes other than those intended, namely to fill positions at the bottom of the wage scale and avoid recruiting local workers. Will the minister finally overhaul this program and find ways to confirm that the program actually works? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have already reformed the program to ensure that Canadians come first for Canadian jobs.

These changes include requiring the employer to prove that no Canadian will lose either a job or hours of work if a temporary foreign worker is brought in. We put limits on the percentage of positions that can be filled by temporary foreign workers. We will continue in this direction.

Forestry Industry Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the other resource-rich regions in Quebec, the forestry industry is struggling. Mills need investments and jobs are precarious. Modernizing the industry is the key, but the Conservative government is not doing enough to build the forestry industry of the future.

Will the government immediately renew the forest sector research and development initiative previously offered by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and replenish funding for the investments in forest industry transformation program? According to the Forest Products Association of Canada, the industry needs $500 million over six years. Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we have given more support to the forestry sector than any other government in the history of Canada. We are investing in innovation, but the NDP rejected our plan. Our focus on innovation, energy efficiency and market expansion has paid off remarkably for the forestry sector. [ English ] Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP has launched a study of the forestry sector at the natural resources committee, one that is so important to so many communities in northern Ontario and across the country. We have lost more than 100,000 forestry jobs under the Conservatives' watch.

Many forestry towns are in crisis. The government support for industry transformation is drying up. Will the minister commit to ensuring there is new support for forestry in the upcoming budget? Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have and we will continue, and he will continue to vote against it. In northwestern Ontario alone we have seen no less than five or six mills either open for the first time or reopen. People are getting jobs in this sector. Woodland operators are back to work.

All the member does, and the NDP members from northern Ontario do, is vote against every one of these initiatives. People who work in the forest sector know that, and they will hold them accountable for it.

Veterans Affairs Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today we find out that Canadian veterans injured before 2006 will see their benefits clawed back under the government's new retirement income security benefits plan. When the minister was asked if he would fix this problem, he reportedly said, “we are not looking into that at this time”. Will the government reverse this clawback and ensure that no veteran loses a single penny under this new plan? Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member's assertion is false.

The retirement income security benefit will provide financial stability to veterans who are moderately to seriously injured, and to their families. Our government will also streamline the multiple monthly financial benefits into a pension system for our most seriously injured veterans. I thank the veterans ombudsman and other veteran groups for their input on this issue, which will provide security to veterans and to their families.

National Defence Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Military Police Complaints Commission found the military's investigation of the death of Corporal Langridge to be incompetent and lacking professionalism. Its handling of this traumatic situation has been mired in secrecy and a seven year ordeal for the family. The family has asked to see the entire board of inquiry report, but have been stonewalled. Instead, this week it was provided with a selective partial report, which blames the soldier and his family for this horrible tragedy. Will the government denounce these deplorable findings and commit to releasing the full report?

(1155) Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what happened in this case is completely unacceptable. The inclusion of these remarks in the board of inquiry report is further evidence of how unacceptable it was. Our thoughts remain with the family of Corporal Stuart Langridge during this very difficult time. The Department of National Defence is reviewing the Military Police Complaints Commission report. We want to ensure we act upon those recommendations so this never happens again.

[ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the honour of debating my bill to harmonize Canada's laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Unfortunately, the Conservatives immediately refused to seize this historic opportunity for real reconciliation. My question for the minister is very simple: does he share the opinion of his parliamentary secretary, who insinuated that the rights of indigenous people are incompatible with the rights of other Canadians? Hon.

Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must correct the member. The parliamentary secretary did not say that. He simply said that the hon. member's bill would give a group of Canadians, in this case aboriginal Canadians, a veto over the will of Parliament. That flies in the face of the Canadian Constitution, which is why we will not be supporting his bill.

[ English ] Public Safety Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, recognizing human rights is not a zero-sum game. The parliamentarian should know that. This is the same shameful rhetoric the Conservatives use when it comes to Bill C-51 . It was denounced yesterday by the National Chief Perry Bellegarde. He said: First Nations know better than anyone how easy it is for governments to ignore, erode and eradicate our most basic human rights and freedoms until you barely recognize the land you’re living in. Why will the government not listen for once? Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased that the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations appeared at committee yesterday. I gave me an opportunity to respond to his concerns and to clarify the misconceptions that had been spread by the opposition parties. Let me be very clear. With regard to the information sharing act, in the bill we stress: For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression. This means that it is not included in this

section for information sharing. However, it also has to apply to the fact that, if it undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or the lives or the security of the people of Canada. Protests are not any of those.

The Economy Mr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals and the NDP are focused on their carbon tax and tax-hike plan, our Conservative government is working on the economy and projects that will create jobs. The Prime Minister was in Saskatchewan to announce an important project for our economy. Could the parliamentary secretary update the House on this important announcement? Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Palliser for all the hard work he has done for his constituents, not only in his riding but also in Saskatchewan. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was in Saskatchewan to announce a major infrastructure program of over $32 million for the twinning of Highway 7 to four lanes, from Saskatoon west to Delisle. This project will not only create jobs, it will improve safety, enhance traffic flow and reduce travel time. Unlike the NDP and Liberals, whose only plan to improve the economy is to raise taxes, we are committed to lowering taxes.

That was why we launched the building Canada fund and approved, to date, over $5 billion worth of projects.

[ Translation ] Canada Revenue Agency Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act is based on self-assessment, but the act is getting more and more complex. The Conservatives are trying to use it to win votes. The agency acknowledges that 44% of the calls it receives go nowhere and that even when people manage to talk to someone, they have a one in four chance of being misled. Furthermore, the letters the agency sends are unreadable. For all of these reasons, I am concerned that seniors in particular will be at a disadvantage.

What will the minister do to ensure that these people are treated fairly? (1200) [ English ] Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, to begin with, we encourage anyone who believes they have received incorrect information from CRA to make a formal complaint. We expect CRA to continuously improve the quality and accuracy of the telephone service it provides. We are implementing several measures to improve the quality of services offered by CRA.

Justice Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in our 2013 Speech from the Throne, our government promised to introduce legislation to ensure a life sentence meant a sentence for life for those convicted of the most heinous murders. I am proud to say that this week we have delivered on yet another promise made to Canadians by introducing the life means life act. It is part of our government's commitment to return Canada to a place where the severity of punishment meets the severity of the crime.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice inform the House of the effects of this legislation? Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Oxford for previous career and work as a police officer, keeping Canada's streets and communities a safer place for all Canadians. Canadians do not believe that those convicted of the most heinous murders should have access to parole. This legislation would make that a reality.

It would protect Canadians and our streets and communities by keeping the dangerous offenders in custody for most of their natural lives. Importantly, it would do this by eliminating parole eligibility. It would ensure that those who suffered the tragedy of the loss of their loved ones would no longer have to revisit the horror of that tragedy through the ongoing parole. The Canadian justice system exists for Canadians— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Public Safety Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, earlier today in question period, we heard the parliamentary secretary for public safety say that, “I was very pleased to be able to respond to those concerns and explain how the bill would work”. She was referring to the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations who explained that Bill C-51 must be withdrawn for violating the rights of first nations under

section 35 of the Constitution. My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development . Could he please undertake an educational program for members of his caucus to understand the notion of constitutionally-enshrined rights cannot be explained away by a parliamentary secretary? Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way already knows that all legislation is vetted through legal evaluation. We are very confident in the constitutionality of this piece of legislation.

National security agencies have identified gaps in keeping Canadians safe and protecting national security. That is what this bill is about. There has been enough hysteria from across the way from the NDP and the Green Party. It is time to support measures that will protect Canadians and keep our borders safe.

[ Translation ] Regional Economic Development Mr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, FD) : Mr. Speaker, the people of Lanaudière have not been spared the woes of the current economic climate. The Conservatives claim that the economy is a priority. However, instead of investing in communities, they are spending billions of dollars on measures such as income splitting that benefit the wealthiest people but do not create a single job in Lanaudière. Ottawa is even holding back money earmarked for economic development.

At what point will the federal government finally do something meaningful to support workers and to help entrepreneurs in Lanaudière create jobs? Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is working very hard to foster economic diversification of all regions of Quebec. Since 2006, over 440 projects have been distributed in Quebec, and we will continue with that approach. Natural Resources Mr.

Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, FD) : Mr. Speaker, every day we see more people and municipalities in Lanaudière opposing the energy east pipeline. They refuse to assume all the risks of an oil spill and reject the idea that the only economic spinoffs will come from cleanup fees in the event of a disaster, especially when it comes to oil that even the U.S. President describes as extraordinarily dirty. Why do the Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP think it is okay to force a pipeline on Quebeckers that even the United States is refusing? Hon.

Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are not taking a position until the review is completed. The National Energy Board is responsible for listening to people directly affected who have pertinent information or knowledge in the field. We have been clear. The plans will be studied only if they are safe for Canadians and pose no risk to the environment.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1205) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 22 petitions.

Committees of the House Government Operations and Estimates Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in relation to its study of the supplementary estimates (C), 2014-15.

I am proud to report that the committee, in keeping with its commitment to make a more thorough and robust examination of the supplementary estimates, undertook to study $730 million of the $733 million in estimates that were referred to the committee, which is again in keeping with what all committees should be undertaking: to examine the estimates and not simply allow them to pass unnoticed.

[ Translation ] Official Languages Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages entitled “The Economic Situation of Official Language Minority Communities: Building Sustainable and Growing Economies”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requested that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. [ English ] Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a dissenting report to the previously mentioned report.

It is entitled “Providing Responsible Governance to OLMCs: the New Democratic Vision”. There are good things in the report. The NDP fought hard for multi-year funding and support for arts and culture infrastructure. However, there was important testimony that was omitted concerning the identification of vulnerabilities and the lack of services of equal quality, lack of good data, the importance of co-operatives as tools of development, and problems with francophone immigration.

Recognition of Charlottetown as the Birthplace of Confederation Act Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) Bill C-659. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-659,

An Act to Recognize Charlottetown as the Birthplace of Confederation . He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to table a private member's bill to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation. We just went through a celebration of the 150th anniversary of the meetings of the Fathers of Confederation in Charlottetown. Immediately after the 2014 celebrations, Province House began a substantial renovation. It is my sincere hope that this bill will pass in time for the 150th anniversary of Confederation itself. There was, in 1996, a declaration by the Prime Minister that gave Charlottetown this very recognition; the goal of this bill is to enshrine that declaration into

an act of Parliament. I would particularly like to recognize the substantial efforts by Philip Brown from Charlottetown, who was instrumental in pushing to have this measure come to the floor of the House of Commons. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions Agriculture Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table in the House the following petition. [ Translation ] It is a petition signed by the people of Orleans who support Development and Peace and are calling on the government to adopt international aid policies that support small farmers, especially women, in order to recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty. (1210) [ English ] Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, some constituents asked me if I would table this petition in the House of Commons, and I have to say that I am very impressed by the number of people who have signed it. It shows that people in Halifax really care about the rights of small-scale farmers to preserve and exchange and use seeds.

The petitioners are asking the government to adopt international aid policies that support small-scale farmers; to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers; and that they protect the rights of farmers in the global south to preserve, use, and freely exchange seeds. The petitioners and I look forward to the minister's response. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand today to table a petition signed by residents of Winnipeg North.

In essence, the petitioners are asking that we adopt international aid policies that will support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty. The petition goes on to ask that Canadian policies and programs be developed in consultation with small family farmers and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use freely, and exchange seeds.

Prostitution Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, more than 200 petitioners are drawing Parliament's attention to the fact that a high percentage of prostitutes are forced into the sex trade and into trafficking in sex, that a big majorit