OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 154 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, December 3, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES December 3, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 154 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 154 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 154 (Version officielle) 147 154 03 12 2014 2014/12/03 14:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 2 p.m. Prayers

Statements by Member's (1400) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statments by Members [ Translation ] Persons with Disabilities Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, on the International Day of Disabled Persons, to share one of their concerns. It is simple, but paramount. Persons with disabilities are asking to be treated like every other person.

They are an integral part of society and have all the same rights as other members of society. This is not an overly complicated request, but it is surprising how hard persons with disabilities have to fight, day in and day out, so that their rights are recognized. That includes the right to education, to work, and to receive basic services that are easily accessible to everyone else. We need to help the public recognize the potential of persons with disabilities and encourage them to contribute to society. We also need to treat them with dignity, just like any other Canadian.

That way, we can change our perception of persons with disabilities.

[ English ] Health Care Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, recruiting and retaining health care practitioners can be difficult in rural Canada. This is often further challenged by the lack of modern office space designed for health care professionals. In my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's, a dedicated group of local volunteers is working to change that. They are fundraising to build a collaborative health care facility to service the municipality of Chester, the Hubbards area, Tancook Islands and my hometown of New Ross.

Our health centre will attract and provide space for primary care practitioners, wellness professionals and visiting specialists. The building will include a main reception area, information centre, six medical offices and additional clinic space. This is an ambitious project and I would like to congratulate all who have worked on or contributed toward it. This group of dedicated volunteers has already raised $3.1 million with a goal of raising $4.5 million. Please visit www.ourhealthcentre.ca to follow this terrific project and see how to donate.

(1405) Persons with Disabilities Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today is International Day of Persons With Disabilities and New Democrats are celebrating the contributions Canadians with disabilities have made to this country.

We are deeply concerned though about how little progress Canada has made in meeting its obligations to improve access, employability and services to persons with disabilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities An estimated 4.4 million Canadians are living with disabilities and many suffer from income insecurity, substandard housing, limited employment opportunities and unequal access to the health services they depend on. The UN charter sets goals to improve these conditions, but the government has no plan to get there.

That is why we are asking today that the Government of Canada invite the UN special rapporteur on persons with disabilities to make an official visit to Canada to assist us in achieving the commitments that Canada signed on to. The entire NDP caucus is committed to building a fairer and more prosperous Canada where each citizen has the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential, and this must include our disability community.

Charitable Giving Mr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I would like to thank 12-year-old Zoe Winn of Airdrie, Alberta, for reminding us of the importance of generosity. Like thousands of Canadians, Zoe and her family support Operation Christmas Child. Three years ago Zoe packed 30 shoeboxes. Last year, she filled 70. This year, with the outstanding support from local businesses, she packed 100 shoeboxes. That is just the beginning of Zoe's generosity. She also volunteers with Stephen's Backpacks Society, one of Airdrie's best known charitable organizations.

This society was also born of a child's generosity. In 2006, then six-year-old Stephen McPhee inspired a movement when he insisted on filling backpacks for homeless children in Calgary and across our region. I am inspired by the generosity of these children. This Christmas season, let us all remember that a single gift can change a life. Let us also remember that the act of giving changes two lives.

Housing Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Minister of State for Social Development referenced a shelter in my riding, built by her department with federal funds. She blamed me for cost overruns approved by her department in advance. What the minister did not tell the House was that the additional funds were needed to make the shelter accessible. In fact, what was required was an elevator. That was the reason it cost more. These changes were required not only to meet new provincial guidelines but as I said, to make the shelter accessible for people with disabilities.

That information was not in the Sun news story, so I guess it was not in her briefing notes. On this the International Day of Persons with Disabilities does the minister really think that making housing accessible is an unacceptable cost overrun? Is it something that she defines as a waste of taxpayers' money? On this day of all days, it is time for the minister to support making housing accessible and to stop defining reasonable accommodation and meeting provincial accessibility guidelines as a financial burden, and not something to be mocked.

Building good housing, accessible housing and affordable housing is her job. She should get to work.

North Vancouver Mr. Andrew Saxton (North Vancouver, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is beginning to look a lot like Christmas. In North Vancouver, we are starting our celebrations with lights, decorated trees, activities for kids, hot chocolate and gingerbread for all. This Saturday at Shipbuilders' Square, the North Vancouver Christmas festival has all this and more. People can take

part in lots of fun, free activities for the whole family, like making Christmas ornaments, lanterns and gingerbread cookies. Of course, the main star of the show, Santa Claus, will be on hand for photos with the kids or people can head over to the Lynn Valley Village Plaza for the fourth annual Christmas tree walk where they can enjoy the many Christmas trees on display. Also this year, North Vancouver's own Capilano Suspension Bridge Park hopes to once again claim the title for the world's tallest living Christmas tree, a 250-year-old Douglas fir that stands 152 feet high.

This stunning sight will be draped in hundreds of thousands of twinkling lights, which have also been strung along the suspension bridge itself. This holiday season North Vancouver is the place to be. Ho, ho, ho.

(1410) [ Translation ] Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord Fundraising Campaign Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the holidays are fast approaching. I would like to tell the House about the tremendous effort and selflessness of the hundreds of fundraisers who will soon take to the streets throughout my riding of Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord to collect donations and non-perishable food items for people in need. This is a long-standing tradition in Quebec that deserves our encouragement and praise.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the dedication and generosity of the volunteers who get involved when the time comes to help the less fortunate in our community. I would like to thank each and every one of the men and women who, just by sharing, make our community a better place.

[ English ] Journey Neighbourhood Centre Mr. Kyle Seeback (Brampton West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the first anniversary of an organization that has done incredible work for the people of Brampton, the Journey Neighbourhood Centre in Ardglen. It was created over a year ago to deliver social services for local residents. The centre's goal was to help unite and empower residents of the community. Its founding was spearheaded by a great Bramptonian, Pastor Jamie Holtom.

Pastor Jamie was aided by many people, including Ted Brown of Regeneration, Brampton Safe City, the United Way, Habitat for Humanity Canada, and also many local volunteers. Its efforts are currently being spearheaded by Barbara-Anne Smith. The centre took on a new role after a fire devastated the Ardglen neighbourhood. Through fundraising and support services, it has played a key role in helping those affected get back on their feet. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking the Journey Neighbourhood Centre for a fantastic first year and wishing it a very happy anniversary.

Charitable Giving Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to pay tribute to the generous folks in the Peace Country who are giving back this Christmas season. Our communities are filled with hard-working people who are serious about supporting those in need. Over the past weeks, we have witnessed thousands of local residents engage in efforts that support others. Churches, businesses, schools, community groups and others have come together to stuff shoeboxes that will be sent to poverty-stricken kids in faraway places.

They have donated food to local food banks. They have collected toys for “Stuff the Bus” and “Stuff the House” campaigns to give children who are less fortunate toys this Christmas. Money, time and resources have also been given in support of others in need. I am proud of our community. This Christmas there are many throughout the Peace Country and the world who will share in the season because of the generosity of local residents.

On behalf of the House, our government and the thousands who will benefit from their efforts, we want to thank each and every one of these people who have given back to make this Christmas season right for others.

[ Translation ] Jean Béliveau Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Habs, Quebec and Canada have lost a great man. Last night, “Le Gros Bill”, as he was affectionately known, passed away. Jean Béliveau was a true champion as well as our captain, both on and off the ice. Not only did he win the Stanley Cup 10 times with the Montreal Canadiens, but he also made a huge contribution to many charitable organizations over the years. His greatness, both literal and figurative, earned him a number of distinctions, including the Ordre national du Québec and the Order of Canada.

The only thing greater than his hockey career was his humility, despite all those honours. He twice refused appointments to the Senate, and he even refused the position of Governor General, for the simple reason that he wanted to stay close to his family and his community. [ English ] A gentleman on and off the ice, Jean Béliveau was truly the perfect example of an athlete whose impact goes beyond his sport and even beyond borders. [ Translation ] The torch raised by the current Montreal Canadiens players will be a little heavier now, although it will also be raised a little higher, in honour of this great man.

Thank you, Mr. Béliveau.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, under our new family tax cut and benefits, all families with children in Canada will be better off. One hundred per cent of families with children will benefit by an average of over $1,100 per year. A single mother with two kids who earns $30,000 will benefit by $1,500. Our family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit will put money back in the pockets of Canadian families. We are doing so because we believe that Canadian families know best how to spend their money.

The Liberals and the NDP would take that money away from Canadian families and give it to big government bureaucracy. We won't let them get away with it.

(1415) Parkdale Anti-Violence Education Working Group Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : As we approach the 25th anniversary of the Montreal massacre, I want to pay tribute to work in my riding done by PAVE, the Parkdale Anti-Violence Education Working Group. This coalition of service providers takes action on International Women's Day, Take Back the Night, and December 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

I am proud to join PAVE each year to present the Rose McGroarty Memorial Scholarship to a woman who has survived violence and has enhanced the lives of other women and children in Parkdale. PAVE brings together women from the community to help them develop into leaders and find their voice to fight sexual violence and the accompanying silence and isolation. Let us all thank groups like PAVE that work to end violence against women so that the Montreal massacre is never repeated.

International Trade Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement, Canada's first with an Asian market, will create thousands of new jobs in Canada and will provide Canadian business and workers with a gateway to Asia. Having lived in Asia and worked there for a decade, I can attest personally to the importance of that gateway. Last week, the Minister of International Trade informed this House that the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement had passed third reading in the Senate.

Today this fabulous minister announced that the legislation has received royal assent. This announcement coincides with the passage of the FTA in the South Korean National Assembly yesterday. With this latest milestone, Canada and South Korea are on track to bring the agreement into force on January 1, 2015, fulfilling the commitment made by our Prime Minister and the President of South Korea. Canadians know that when it comes to opening new markets and creating export opportunities for Canadian businesses, only this Conservative Government can be trusted to deliver the goods.

[ Translation ] Jean Béliveau Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I had an extraordinary childhood during which my father introduced me to kings, queens and presidents, but he was never more proud than when he was able to introduce his eldest son to Jean Béliveau. Every time I met Mr. Béliveau thereafter and shook his hand, I saw what an impact he had not just on me, but on everyone around him.

He was a man who epitomized dignity, respect and kindness. [ English ] Jean Béliveau was a man of class, of strength, who demonstrated the kind of leadership that inspired not just players but all who watched and met him. He will be greatly missed, but he will continue to inspire generations of not just young hockey players but of Canadians across this great country. [ Translation ] At this difficult time, our thoughts go out to his family: his wife Élise, his daughter Hélène, and his grandchildren. We will miss you, Gros Bill.

Jean Béliveau Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to learn that Canada lost a legendary hockey player, Jean Béliveau, whom many people affectionately called “Le Gros Bill”. On the ice, he led the Montreal Canadiens to 10 Stanley Cup wins, five of them back to back in the 1950s and1960s. The owner of the Montreal Canadiens, Mr. Molson, put it well when he said that Mr. Béliveau made an immeasurable contribution to the development of our sport and our society.

Jean Béliveau was a great leader, a gentleman and without a doubt the most extraordinary ambassador that our national sport has ever had. Mr. Béliveau was named an honorary Team Canada member and the honorary captain of Canada's 2010 men's Olympic hockey team. Some of the other honours bestowed on him include the Order of Canada, the Ordre national du Québec, having his image on a postage stamp and, in 1971, having his number 4 jersey retired. We extend our sincere condolences to his family and friends.

[ English ] Conservative Party of Canada Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of the session, we see more poor performances from the front bench of the Conservative Party. The Minister of the Environment , who frequently heckles, has been reduced to reading the newspaper in the House. The Minister of Veterans Affairs does not get much of an endorsement from the PM, but he does get a PMO staffer to babysit him. The Minister of State for Social Development does not think that questions should be asked in question period.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is going to sell the Canadian Wheat Board to his buddies from Chicago for the low, low price of zero dollars. It all adds up to a government that does not take responsibility for its actions, that will never admit to any mistakes, and that is counting out the remaining days of personal drivers and expense accounts. Who will be today's symbol of this tired and out of touch Conservative government?

(1420) Taxation Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it feels like Santa Claus has come to town early this year. Our new family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit will help 100% of families with kids by an average of over $1,100 a year. The majority of benefits will flow to low and middle-income families. Families in my riding of Don Valley West are pleased that we are putting more money back into their pockets so they can spend it on their priorities. Let me tell the House about three important things we know.

First, our Conservative government is on track to balance Canada's budget. Second, our family tax cut will help families balance their family budget. Third, and most importantly, the Liberal leader thinks a budget can balance itself. Our government will continue to help Canadian families keep their hard-earned money in their pockets.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] Veterans Affairs Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Department of Veterans Affairs is obviously facing a growing demand for services given that an entire generation of Afghanistan veterans is approaching retirement. Meanwhile, the Conservatives decided to cut the department's staff by 25%. Nearly 1,000 professionals who know our veterans have been fired by this government. How is the Department of Veterans Affairs supposed to help a growing number of veterans with 1,000 fewer employees? Right Hon.

Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the government is increasing services for veterans by cutting red tape. I would like to note that today, we have lost Jean Béliveau, a great Canadian both on and off the ice. He was a giant in our national sport and in our national life. I would like to express our condolences and our admiration to his family and friends. [ English ] I just want to repeat that today we have lost Jean Béliveau, a truly great Canadian and Canadien. He was a giant in our national sport and in our national life.

We all want to express our condolences and our admiration to his family and friends. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, staff at Veterans Affairs even warned the minister that these layoffs created a risk that Veterans Affairs would be unable to meet the needs of veterans, Canadian Forces members, and their families. Nine veterans service centres have been closed, and 1,000 staff have been laid off. The minister is knowingly putting our veterans at risk. Instead of firing the staff, why does the Prime Minister not fire the minister? Right Hon.

Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, here is the reality. We have taken resources out of backroom administration, from bureaucracy. We have put it into services. There are more benefits and more money for veterans than ever before, and more points of service. That is called good administration, good government, and it is good service for the veterans of this country. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' callous disregard for our veterans does not end there.

Conservatives are now arguing before the courts that the government's repeated promises over the years to care for injured vets were just political promises and should never have been taken seriously to begin with. I quote: “These statements were political speeches not intended as commitments or solemn commitments.” Does the Prime Minister stand by that argument, made by his own lawyer in court, that the government's promises to veterans were just political speeches?

(1425) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am obviously not going to comment on matters before the courts. What I can say is the following: The substantive matter is a measure passed by the previous government, and supported by all parties in this House, including the NDP. The reality is that this government has enhanced veterans services in numerous ways. We brought in the Canadian Forces income support allowance, which the NDP voted against. We brought in the veterans bill of rights, which the NDP voted against.

We brought in compensation on the Agent Orange issue, which the NDP voted against. There were enhancements to the veterans independence program, which the NDP voted against. I could go on. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for the Prime Minister , he is proving that he actually does think that they were only political speeches. He does not think veterans in our country have a right to service. He has said through his lawyers in court, in Canada, that these are political speeches and that those promises should never have been taken seriously.

Instead of blaming the veterans for actually taking his word, why does he not start respecting his word? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the items I just listed are not political rhetoric. They are real services and programs for our veterans. The rhetoric is from these guys, who when actually faced with doing something for veterans, vote against them every single time. We deliver.

Health Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP will reopen every one of those nine offices. This week, members of Parliament voted unanimously in favour of an NDP motion to give ongoing support to the victims of thalidomide. When will this vote be followed by action by the government? When will the Prime Minister confirm specific funding for ongoing support for victims of thalidomide in our country? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as the House knows, the government has committed to that, and the minister and the department continue to meet with the victims association. However, it is good to know that the NDP will hire more bureaucrats at Veterans Affairs. What it will not do is vote for enhanced funding for the community war memorial program, enhanced benefits under the earning loss and supplementary retirement benefit program. The NDP will not vote for the financial support program. It will not vote for career transition services, for mental health services, for disability awards and allowances.

That is the difference between the rhetoric over there and the action here.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we thought we had reached the point where we could not be shocked anymore by the Prime Minister 's shoddy treatment of our veterans, but now we learn that to pad his books, he has actually underfunded our military cemeteries. He has cut 80% of the staff doing this solemn work. Thousands of grave markers needed repair and were not fixed last year. When will the Prime Minister apologize for his disrespect of our veterans? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I note that the government has enhanced funeral services for our veterans through successive budgets. It has also enhanced the contributions to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Guess who stood in their places and voted against that? The member for Papineau and the Liberal Party, once again. Veterans are not fooled. They know all they get is rhetoric from the Liberal Party. They get actions and services from this government. [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, we have now learned that the Prime Minister 's negligence toward veterans goes beyond what we ever could have imagined. In addition to failing those who need mental health services, today we learned that the Conservatives cut resources for military cemeteries. Will the Prime Minister finally apologize for his disrespect for our veterans?

(1430) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the government has enhanced funeral services for our veterans through successive budgets. We have also enhanced the contributions to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Every time we have enhanced these benefits and services for veterans, the member for Papineau and his party have voted against them. The Liberal Party is all about rhetoric. Our government is about action and services.

Public Safety Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, there will be a memorial service to mark the tragic events at École Polytechnique. Although the Minister of Justice does not seem to want to understand what happened, will the Prime Minister finally meet with the group Polytechnique Remembers, the survivors and their families who have some serious concerns about his firearms bill? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member for Papineau is mistaken. [ English ] We all know that Marc Lépine singled out women for his slaughter.

One can never understand why somebody would ever act like that. This week we will remember those 14 lives that were so tragically snuffed out. This government will continue its commitment to work against criminals, to crack down on crime, and also to support victims and prevent these kinds of horrific actions.

[ Translation ] The Environment Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, if we are going to combat climate change, everyone needs to work together. China and the United States have agreed to co-operate with the international community, but here in Canada, the minister continues to play dirty. She refuses to include the opposition in the Canadian delegation going to Lima for the climate change conference. Furthermore, she does not even want to give us a briefing to explain what will be on the table at the conference.

Why does the minister keep playing games with the opposition and the international community? [ English ] Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have always said that for any international agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, all major economies and emitters must do their part. With the United States and China accounting for 39% of the emissions, we are encouraged by the promises they have made to reduce their emissions as Canada emits less than 2% of GHG emissions.

In 2012, Canada's GHG emissions were roughly 5% lower than 2000 levels, while the economy grew by 10%. We will continue to play our part by reducing emissions at home and working with our partners across the globe to establish an international agreement that includes all emitters. [ Translation ] Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, by showing up empty-handed at the UN conference on climate change in Lima and by having one of the worst environmental records in the G20, the Conservatives are losing more and more credibility and becoming increasingly isolated, as is the Minister of the Environment .

There are 195 countries coming together to negotiate a legal framework to replace Kyoto, so why are the Conservatives trying to sabotage it? [ English ] Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada is playing a leadership role on the international stage. We have helped over 60 developing countries reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. We are also doing our part by contributing to the green climate fund.

We are also a founding member and major financial contributor to the climate and clean air coalition. We are also addressing short-lived climate pollutants under Canada's chairmanship of the Arctic Council. We will continue to protect our environment, while keeping our economy strong. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister noticed, while reading the headlines in question period the other day, that our trading partners are moving on climate change and Canadians want action.

Her department, Environment Canada, says that the government is going to miss its targets, that the oil and gas sector has the largest emissions and it is going to continue to grow the fastest. The world is watching. Will the minister announce, finally, oil and gas regulations? Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as we have said before, this is a continental issue that needs a North American solution.

Our government will continue to work with the United States on reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the oil and gas sector. We feel it is best to align with the United States, as we have with the transportation sector. We will continue to protect the environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that maintains job creation and economic growth for Canada.

(1435) Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, just as the conference in Lima got under way, the minister made an 11th hour funding announcement for green climate finance. However, the problem is that the money was not in the budget or the estimates. Key important details like where the money would come from, how it would be spent, how it would be paid out and over how long a period of time were left out. Could the minister confirm that this is new money, and that it will be paid out this year? Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government wants to reach a fair agreement in Paris that includes all emitters and all economies. It is important that an agreement be durable, flexible and effective. Meanwhile, Canada will continue to take concrete actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while keeping our economy strong.

As Canada emits less than 2% of the greenhouse gas emissions globally, Canada's current capita emissions are now at their lowest level since we started recording in 1990. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, time and time again we come to the House and the minister trumpets all these Liberal failures on climate change like it is a free pass for her to do nothing. However, it has been eight years. It is time that the Conservatives quit finger pointing and actually start doing their job. Climate change is a clear and dire threat to Canadians. The negotiations in Lima urgently need leadership and ambition.

Is the government finally going to take climate change seriously? Will it commit to a binding global agreement? Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have always said that for an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all major economies and major emitters must do their part.

With the United States and China accounting for 39% of greenhouse gas emissions, we are very encouraged by the promises they have made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as Canada emits less than 2%. We will continue to play our part by reducing emissions at home, and work with our partners across the globe to establish an international agreement that includes all economies and all emitters.

Ethics Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to work with my colleagues on the government side to deepen their understanding of

section 404 of the Canada Elections Act. This is what we know. A corruption scheme was set up by SNC-Lavalin to funnel political money to key politicians, and the Minister of International Development was one of those politicians. He has admitted that his riding association received $25,000 under this scheme, which would make those donations illegal. We now know the name of the SNC executives who funnelled the money. Therefore, it is a straightforward ask. Why not just strike the names of those contributions?

Does the Minister of State for Democratic Reform not believe that this is part of living up to the Canada Elections Act? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as we know, donations are limited to $1,200 a year, and those are personal donations. Our party certainly does not accept donations that do not respect the law. At the same time, we support Elections Canada as it investigates SNC-Lavalin.

If Elections Canada finds that SNC-Lavalin made illegal donations, then we, as we would expect the Liberals and the party of the Leader of the Opposition , will refund those monies. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged. We are starting to come out of the darkness and getting closer and closer to the light. We are talking about the administrative work of government, because a key cabinet minister was the recipient of a political corruption scheme. The names of the SNC-Lavalin executives who funnelled the money are known. Why wait until the end of somebody else's investigation?

What we need to understand is whether the minister will reassure Canadians and tell them he that wants nothing to do with this SNC scheme, that he will stand and say that he will do the right thing and return that money so we can have confidence in his role as a government minister. Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I just answered that, and I just indicated that. At the same time, I suggested that the Liberals, as well as the Leader of the Opposition 's party, should do the exact same thing.

Let us remember that it was this party that brought in the Federal Accountability Act, which took out the influence of big unions and big money from the political process. Unfortunately, the NDP did not read that law because it immediately broke it by accepting some $300,000 worth of illegal union contributions. We have not even got to the $1.5 million that it still owes Canadians for illegal satellite offices. (1440) [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives need to stop hiding behind an inquiry that might not be completed until after the next election.

The Marteau squad and the Charbonneau commission uncovered a well-organized scheme through which SNC-Lavalin, using false names, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the parties in power. A number of SNC-Lavalin executives admitted everything. Now it is the Conservatives' turn to come clean. Can the Minister of State for Democratic Reform assure us that the money will be reimbursed, or will he allow his party to campaign with dirty money? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I just said, if Elections Canada's investigation indicates that SNC-Lavalin donated illegally, then we, as we would expect the Liberals and the party of the Leader of the Opposition , will refund any of those monies. With respect to the Charbonneau Commission, I would suggest she ask the Leader of the Opposition , the member for Outremont , who actually served as a cabinet minister in the government that is indicated in that Charbonneau Commission investigation.

At the same time, I would ask her to refresh her memory, with respect to the Federal Accountability Act, which makes accepting union donations illegal. We would also encourage the return of that $1.5 million the NDP has illegally taken from the Canadian taxpayers for satellite offices. There are areas where— The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster .

Government Accountability Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, dirty money seems to be a Conservative specialty. We have witnessed the Minister of Veterans Affairs boasting about his failure to help veterans. We have witnessed the Minister of the Environment reading a newspaper in order to evade questions about the Conservatives failure to manage the Nutrition North program, while people go hungry in her riding. Now there is boasting about the government when it has one of the worst environmental records in the industrialized world.

There has been abject failure on veterans affairs and on the environment. My question is for the Prime Minister. When will Conservatives acknowledge their many mistakes and when will those ministers start doing their jobs? Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the record of our government and of our ministers in particular, who perform very strongly.

What is sad is that in the face of declining poll standings and in the face of very weak policies, the NDP has decided it will, instead, resort to a new strategy: the strategy of personal attacks.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister suggested that the reason he had been absent on his file is because he was in Italy commemorating those killed in the Second World War. He suggested “Lest We Forget” meant something different to him. Last year, he cut $2.5 million from the very program responsible for preserving the memory of deceased Canadians who served us in war and peace. He fired 33 people who were responsible for maintaining these symbols of remembrance, including the memorial he visited in Italy. Could he tell us why the hypocrisy, or has he already forgotten?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to ensure that we have the right people in the right locations to assist our veterans and their families. Our government has invested billions of new dollars since 2006 in veterans' benefits and services, investments for new front-line mental-health clinics, and new access for veterans' families to family centres on seven military bases. We will continue to make improvements to support our Canadian veterans and their families. Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, that must explain the vote-anything-but-Conservative movement, because they are so happy. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot explain away savage cuts to veterans' services—lapsed billions, nine closed veterans centres—by standing up as the minister of commemorations and then turn around and slash the program responsible for the preservation of the memorials to those who fought and died for Canada. Why did the Conservatives cut $2.5 million last year and fire 33 people responsible for maintaining Canadian symbols of remembrance? Of course, it was for more advertising, right? Hon.

Julian Fantino (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I stated, our government has invested billions of dollars in improving the quality of life of veterans and their families. However, it is quite ironic that in budget submissions, the main estimates of June 6, 2012, the Liberals declined to support Commonwealth War Graves Commission funding to make sure that our deceased service members' graves were well maintained. Also, education assistance programs for children of deceased veterans were not funded by the Liberals.

(1445) Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it would be nice if he showed up to explain the main estimates. Since 2008, the Conservatives have cut 949 positions or about 25% of the workforce. They let billions lapse and closed nine veterans centres, but they have still been able to increase Veterans Affairs advertising. It was $4 million in the spring and $5 million this fall. After chastising war service vets, running away from Jenny Migneault and failing to answer basic questions, is the real reason the minister has not yet been fired because he is really just doing the Prime Minister 's bidding?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in order to support veterans and their families with better programs and services, our government has made significant investments in mental health treatment for Canadian veterans. We have shifted bureaucratic resources to front-line service delivery. We have doubled the number of counselling sessions. We will assign Veterans Affairs employees to several military bases to speed up medical file transfers between our two departments. All of this is building on improvements that we have been making since 2006, and we will continue to do so.

[ Translation ] Persons with Disabilities Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today is the 23rd International Day of Disabled Persons. One in six Canadians live with a disability and they are three times more likely to live in poverty. Canada has signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, yet the government has done nothing to fulfill its obligations. Why is the government making cuts to affordable housing and door-to-door mail delivery instead of putting a plan in place to respond to the needs of those living with a disability? [ English ] Hon.

Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians with disabilities know that there is no other government that has been as supportive of them, not only in terms of assisting them but also including them in and helping them access the workplace and other community places. We have renewed the labour market agreements for persons with disabilities. This has helped over 289,000 Canadians with disabilities to find employment. We have increased funding for the opportunities fund and for the enabling accessibility fund.

We have introduced the historic registered disability savings plan. Every one of these initiatives that we have introduced and promoted for people with disabilities, the New Democrats have voted against, unfortunately. Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Canadians living with disabilities, the Conservatives have been all show and no substance.

They signed the UN convention, but they have not fully implemented it; they created huge backlogs at the Social Security Tribunal; they cut home mail delivery; and they have done nothing to address housing challenges or the high levels of poverty among Canadians with disabilities. Canadians deserve better. Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs invite the UN Special Rapporteur on Disability to come to assess Canada's progress and make recommendations for improvement? Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, here is what we are doing.

This government is meeting with Canadians with disabilities who want to be in the workplace, who want community places to be accessible. We are listening to them and we have responded, whether it is with our enabling accessibility program, our opportunities fund, or our renewed labour market agreements. Canadians who have disabilities but also a number of amazing abilities know that this government recognizes that and wants them to be included in all aspects of Canadian life.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in 2012 the Conservatives cut one-third of the staff at the Canadian Grain Commission and said there would not be any impact. Well, surprise, there was. There were fewer inspections, and now buyers of Canadian wheat are complaining about under-weight shipments and variable quality. In fact, one foreign-based buyer found 850 kilograms of peas in what was supposed to be a wheat shipment.

Under the minister's watch, the commission cannot get farmers' grain to market, cannot assure the quality of the grain at market, and cannot even deliver the right quantity to the market. When will the minister stand in his place, apologize to Canadian wheat farmers, and tell them that he intends to make it right and that he will stop failing Canadian farmers in the future? Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member opposite likes to cherry-pick his facts. I have some great ones here.

The number of Canadian farms earning half a million dollars and more has increased by 166%. Farm cash receipts for the first three-quarters of this year totalled $42 billion, higher than previous years. Livestock receipts are up over 15% from the same period last year and now total $18 billion. Net cash income reached $12.7 billion in 2013, higher than it has ever been, and crop receipts rose by 4%. We have a great story to tell for farmers across Canada.

(1450) Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, allow me to rephrase a question from yesterday. At first glance, we might think that it is completely crazy to give away all the significant assets of the Canadian Wheat Board to an American agri-food giant until we look at who is on the board of directors of that corporation. It is none other than the paper bag prince himself, Brian Mulroney, and then it starts to look like Conservative on Conservative shenanigans.

Now there are two options: either this monumental corporate giveaway is completely crazy or it is an unconscionable handout to a well-connected Conservative. Which is it? Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the antics of my friend from Winnipeg Centre are well-known across Canada. A number of law firms have sent their kids through college on the fees they have collected as he apologizes and pays out dollars to people he has wronged. The member is wrong again.

This is a process driven by the CWB through a recognized audit and legal firm looking at the process and making sure that everything is fair and above board.

Persons with Disabilities Mr. Phil McColeman (Brant, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today is International Day for Persons with Disabilities, a day that serves to remind us that all Canadians need to be treated with dignity and equality. Thanks to the strong leadership of the Prime Minister , our Conservative government is a world leader in providing support for Canadians living with disabilities. Could the Minister of State for Social Development please explain what this government is doing to help Canadians with disabilities gain the skills they need to obtain jobs? Hon.

Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brant for the great work he is doing on behalf of Canadians with disabilities. No government has done more to support Canadians of all abilities than our government through the great programs I have already mentioned. Through the labour market agreements for persons with disabilities, we have helped over 289,000 Canadians with disabilities find jobs. We have also fulfilled our promise to reform the opportunities fund. I just launched the new national call for proposals this past Monday.

Canadians can be proud of our actions to ensure that all Canadians of all abilities can participate and contribute to our communities and economy.

[ Translation ] Science and Technology Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as if muzzling our scientists were not enough, now the Conservatives have decided to once again cut funding to the Canadian Space Agency. Funding will be cut by $50 million next year and $100 million in two years. Dozens of employees will lose their jobs. How can the Conservatives claim to care about the aerospace industry, which is centred in Quebec, when they keep gutting one of its success stories, year after year? [ English ] Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, of course we are very proud of Canada's role in space, topped off last year by the remarkable job of leadership that Chris Hadfield showed us as leader of the International Space Station. In fact, we have answered the questions that have been raised by communities who are looking for leadership from Ottawa on the space file. We had the Emerson space report that came to the Government of Canada and we have acted on every single one of those recommendations. We have moved forward, including in this year's budget, with new commitments to Canada's space framework.

In fact, Suzanne Benoît, president of Aéro Montréal, said: “We salute the government's vision in making space sector a priority” for the Government of Canada. We are taking action, delivering the goods for the space sector. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the senseless cuts to the Canadian Space Agency come after a decade of budget freezes under Liberal and Conservative governments.

While NASA is launching Exploration Flight Test-1 tomorrow, the first crew-capable spacecraft to leave low-earth orbit in more than 40 years, the Conservatives prefer cutting funding to science across the board and muzzling scientists. Why is the government pursuing these cuts to the CSA? Why is it laying people off from our space agency? Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the space agency is strong and going in the right direction under the leadership that we have put forward.

Better than that, we have added new effective funding, for example, renewing our commitment for the James Webb Space Telescope, which will advance the globe's understanding of the cosmos and all that it entails for the future of scientific discovery. This is something that the global scientific community has asked for. Canada has always been a leader in space. It continues to be a leader, and it will partner with these key projects that will keep Canada in the very front row of leaders in space.

(1455) Justice Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a new report from the Department of Justice shows that the number of aboriginal women in Canada who are behind bars has grown by a shocking 97% in the decade since 2002. This overrepresentation is compounded by a lack of access to culturally appropriate programming and rehabilitation, and the complex needs of many aboriginal women offenders. Does the minister acknowledge that when one community doubles its representation in prison in a decade, the status quo is simply not working? Hon.

Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we recognize the unique challenges that aboriginal people face in the criminal justice system. They are clearly overrepresented. That is why it has been our priority to invest in programs such as the aboriginal justice strategy, and since 2007 we have committed to record levels of funding for the aboriginal justice strategy.

This funding and these investments support community-based justice programs aimed at lowering crime rates, reducing the overrepresentation, as I mentioned, and contributing to the safety and security of on-reserve residents. We must all continue to work together with our first nations to improve their quality of life. Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative tough on crime agenda is disproportionately impacting aboriginal women, who now make up fully one-third of all incarcerated women in Canada.

The Correctional Investigator has warned the government that there is an urgent need for change in the way aboriginal offenders are treated. His warnings were dismissed by the minister, and now we have a crisis on our hands. Instead of continuing this failed approach, why does the government not invest in community resources to prevent aboriginal women from being criminalized in the first place? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we are doing. We are investing specifically in aboriginal justice programs.

We are working across many departments to ensure that we encourage more aboriginal people to participate more fully in Canadian society and the Canadian economy. We have tabled legislation specifically aimed at ending violence on reserve and around the country.

The sad reality is that on all of those occasions when we have brought forward legislation to protect aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, giving them matrimonial property rights, for example, and putting forward legislation that holds offenders accountable, and doing more to protect streets and communities across the country, the NDP has opposed those measures.

Northern Development Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's trip to the Arctic was a $786,000 photo op this past summer. Did he not see the homelessness and the hunger of the northern and Inuit people? Did anyone inform the government of people digging in landfill sites for food? The minister for the area has been a dismal failure. The needs of the people are not being looked after. She is burying her head in a newspaper when important questions are being asked in the House of Commons.

When will the Prime Minister stop posing for photo ops in the Arctic and start filling the cupboards of Inuit people? Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I stated in the House yesterday, the well-being of Nunavummiut and their families has always been my top priority and continues to be. As an Inuk born and raised in Canada's Arctic, I know how important access to healthy food is for our children and for our families.

I also know how important it is for Inuit people to maintain their traditional hunt, whether that be the seal hunt, the polar bear, the beluga, or the narwhal. I will continue to stand up for northerners and Inuit for healthy food.

[ Translation ] The Environment Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, speaking of belugas, the government is responsible for this whole Cacouna mess. Why has it not done anything to protect belugas or the other 66 species that have been deemed at risk by scientists since 2011? The Department of Fisheries and Oceans' director general for the Quebec region said that the area around Cacouna needs to be protected. He said that the decree will reflect that. Does the minister agree with her director general or will she, once again, shirk her responsibilities? (1500) [ English ] Hon.

Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is already illegal to kill, capture, harass, or harm the beluga whale or to destroy its habitat under the Species at Risk Act, the fisheries protection provisions of the Fisheries Act, and the marine mammal regulations. St. Lawrence belugas are listed as threatened, and all the required protections are currently in place. COSEWIC has proposed to list it as endangered. A decision will be made after consultations are held—that is the process—and information and impacts are analyzed.

Canadian Heritage Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, the Government of Canada decided to use a refurbished bakery warehouse for the Canada Science and Technology Museum. The result was an uninspiring facade, leaky roofs, mouldy walls, and exposure to asbestos. Now we learn the government knew the museum's roof was collapsing. While the Conservatives were spending over half a million dollars to re-brand the Museum of Civilization, they let asbestos rain down on exhibits and a collapsing roof compromise visitors' safety. Why did the minister delay funding and let things get this bad?

Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was absolutely pleased to announce, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the MP for Ottawa—Orléans , that our government has proudly invested in the museum of science and technology to modernize, upgrade, and repair this treasured institution. Our Conservative government has in fact made significant investments into our Canadian national museums since 2006.

To be honest, I do not know how to take that question, because if the New Democrats actually cared about our national museums, they would not have voted against the vital investments to, for example, the Canadian Museum of History. We will take no lessons from them. We will be proud of our investment. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, they are asleep at the switch. Even with mould, a decrepit roof and asbestos, school groups were still being allowed in. Think about it: that is unbelievable, but the Conservatives have known about it since 2013. What are they waiting for?

The Museum of Science and Technology is important, but the government has been dragging its feet on this file at least since 2013, if not before, and that has put people at risk. Can the Conservatives explain why they have been so slow to react on this file? Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we are very proud of our recent announcement for the Museum of Science and Technology to modernize, upgrade and repair this treasured institution.

However, once again, as I said, our Conservative government has made significant investments in our Canadian national museums. Every time we do that though, the NDP decides to vote against things like our investments in the Canadian Museum of History, which is in Gatineau, close to where the member who just asked the question is from. If they really care, they will vote for these investments, not against them.

[ English ] Foreign Affairs Mr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on October 26, Ukraine held its parliamentary elections. Canada sent over 300 observers to monitor these elections. As well as having the largest contingent of any contributor, our government has been the strongest of the international supporters of Ukraine as it works to restore its economic stability and implement democratic reforms. That includes our Prime Minister telling Vladimir Putin to his face to “get out of Ukraine.” Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence please comment on this development?

Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Etobicoke Centre for all his hard work in support of a democratic, strong, and prosperous Ukraine. Yesterday we learned that the Ukrainian parliament voted in favour of a new Ukrainian cabinet, which happens to also be the anniversary of Canada being the first western nation to recognize Ukraine's independence. We encourage the new government to work with the people of Ukraine in fulfilling their economic and democratic aspirations.

Restoring the public's confidence in the institutions is one of the many priorities the government of Ukraine must endeavour to achieve. Canada will always stand with the people of Ukraine, and we look forward to working with the new Ukrainian government.

Canadian Heritage Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in 2004 Parks Canada began an archaeological dig at the 17th century Acadian village of Beaubassin in Cumberland County, Nova Scotia. After finding over 6,000 artifacts and the foundations of 40 structures, the area was declared a national historic site and bought. Unfortunately, work on the site ceased three years ago. Will the heritage minister ensure that funds are provided to at least establish an

interpretation centre and proper explanation of this incredible Acadian site in time for Canada's 150th anniversary?

(1505) Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada is committed to protecting the environment. Since we formed government, we have created a number of parks, two national marine conservation areas, three marine protected areas, three national wildlife areas, two national parks, and one national historic site. It is a shame that those members of the opposition will not be supporting the Rouge national park bill that is going before the House at third reading.

Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this week we have reports of the stoning to death of two gay men in Syria. That is the reality too many LGBT refugees face around the world. When seeking asylum in Canada, LGBT refugees rightly fear disclosing their status for fear that the basis of their claim will be revealed and violence will follow. Gay refugees from Uganda have been attacked and murdered in a Kenyan camp after making Canadian refugee claims.

Will the minister commit to concrete action to ensure the safety of LGBTQ refugees making claims for asylum in Canada? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in Canada is proud of our role in providing protection and refuge to those from the LGBT community who have sought that protection from around the world. We did so in the spirit of the conference recently held in Toronto. We have done so on a large scale in the case of Iran. If there are other cases the member would like to bring to our attention, I invite him to do so outside of this place.

International Development Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada is a steadfast supporter of the World Food Programme. All Canadians are proud that Canada is the third-largest contributor to this program, and we pay what we pledge. We applaud the organization's indispensable work in fighting global hunger, especially in conflict zones such as Syria and Iraq. With that in mind, I rise today to express my complete dismay at the acclamation of Iran as a member of the World Food Programme executive board.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights please comment on this development? Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the selection of Iran to the World Food Programme executive board is completely regrettable. Iran continues to be an agitator to peace and security. Its actions, in particular in Syria, have contributed to the ongoing suffering and food shortages that the World Food Programme aims to alleviate.

We do not see how a regime that so blatantly inflames starvation can have any credibility within this organization.

[ Translation ] International Trade Ms. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, many cheese producers in my region are worried about what free trade between Canada and Europe might lead to. Although they have developed some fine, high-quality cheeses, many are afraid that the arrival of several tonnes of subsidized European cheese will undermine our fledgling industry. Quebec cheese makers have proposed countervailing measures to ensure the sustainability of the industry. Will the Conservatives examine that proposal and compensate cheese makers appropriately? Hon.

Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that we have signed the free trade agreement with the European Union and the party opposite has yet to support that agreement. One very specific provision clearly informs cheese makers in Quebec and Canada that there will be a compensation mechanism. We are currently in negotiations with them and compensation will follow in due course.

[ English ] The Environment Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, one of Canada's most respected conservatives, Preston Manning, is calling for a price on carbon. He knows that the marketplace can reduce CO2 pollution. Truly Conservative MPs should support carbon fee and dividend. Not a penny goes to government, and money goes right into the pockets of Canadian families. Which Conservatives will dare to publicly agree with Mr. Manning and let markets reduce both CO2 and poverty? Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, unlike all the opposition parties, we do not believe in a carbon tax.

Presence in Gallery

The Speaker : That concludes question period for today. I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Mrs. Barbara Winters. She was one of the first upon the scene at the war memorial on October 22 and provided first aid to Corporal Cirillo as well as support and encouragement to him as he fought for his life. Today she received the Deputy Minister of Justice Humanitarian Excellence Award. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

(1510) [ Translation ] Jean Béliveau Tribute Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among parties in the House. I believe that if you seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion, and for a moment of silence to be observed in the House of Commons to recognize the death of a legendary Montreal Canadien.

The motion reads as follows: That the House recognize that Jean Béliveau was a legendary captain of the Montreal Canadiens; recognize that Canadians are deeply touched by the loss of this gentleman, who left his mark on an era through both his athletic excellence and his strength of character; celebrate his brilliant career marked by 18 seasons with the Montreal Canadiens and 10 Stanley Cups; and offer its condolences to his wife Élise, his daughter Hélène, his two granddaughters Mylène and Magalie, as well as the entire Montreal Canadiens family, which was part of his life for over six decades.

Motion [ English ] The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to) The Speaker : We will now have a moment of silence. [ A moment of silence observed ]

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ 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 four petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the 63rd Westminster seminar on practice and procedure held in London, United Kingdom, from June 16 to 20, 2014. Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the reports of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting: the meeting of the standing committee held in Riga, Latvia, April 4 to April 6, 2014; its participation in the joint visit of the Sub-committee on the Transatlantic Relations and the Sub-committee on the Transatlantic Economic Relations, held in Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia, April 30 to May 3, 2014; and the 2014 spring session, held in Vilnius, Lithuania, May 30 to June 1, 2014.

(1515) Committees of the House Justice and Human Rights Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-32,

An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts . The committee has studied the bill and has decided, unanimously, to report the bill back to this House with amendments. Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill S-221,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against public transit operators) . The committee has studied the bill and has decided, unanimously, to report the bill back to this House without amendments. I hope the House leaders move quickly on both these items.

Criminal Code Ms. Wai Young (Vancouver South, CPC) Bill C-639. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-639,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of critical infrastructures) . She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce my private member's bill to protect Canada's critical infrastructure. Currently, the punishment for those who interfere with critical infrastructure is not appropriately defined in the Criminal Code, relative to the severity of these acts. Across Canada, interference with critical infrastructure has put communities at risk. These acts should be considered more than just petty crimes.

The legislation, which I propose today, would keep our communities safe by providing law enforcement with an additional tool to protect and secure critical infrastructure. Balanced and fair, this bill is a result of months of consultations with stakeholders across Canada. This legislation would create a new offence under the Criminal Code to capture conduct related to interference with critical infrastructure and would provide the flexibility required to adapt to the changing nature of threats.

By promoting harsher sentencing, the measures proposed would deter criminals and punish those whose crimes cause serious economic disruptions and endanger the public safety of Canadians. I ask my colleagues in this House to support this legislation, and I look forward to their input and debate. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 27th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, requesting an extension to consider Motion No. 428 presented to the House earlier, be concurred in. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Does the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The House has heard the terms of the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Sex Selection Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of numerous British Columbians to table a petition that refers to over 200 million missing girls worldwide. This femicide has created a global gender imbalance and crisis, resulting in violence and the human trafficking of girls. The petitioners call on Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

Canada Post Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I submit a petition on behalf of the many residents in my riding regarding postal services, which have diminished greatly over the past while: Saturday services, home delivery, as well as extended hours, and in many cases small communities actually losing their postal outlet. This petition comes from the community of Leading Tickles.

(1520) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from constituents in my riding of Wellington—Halton Hills, predominantly from the town of Erin, who call on the government to apply a fee to greenhouse gas emissions and for the money raised from the fee to be distributed among Canadians.

Impaired Driving Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition from a large number of Canadians who are asking the Government of Canada to acknowledge that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. In the interest of public safety, these citizens of Canada want tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the Criminal Code of Canada to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

Sex Selection Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, a documentary by Canada's public broadcaster, the CBC, revealed that ultrasounds are being used in Canada to tell the sex of an unborn baby, so that people can choose to terminate the pregnancy of the unborn child if it is a girl. [ Translation ] An overwhelming majority of Canadians believe that terminating a pregnancy because of the sex of the child should be illegal. [ English ] Both the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and the Canadian Association of Radiologists strongly oppose the non-medical use of fetal ultrasounds. [ Translation ] I have the honour— The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster on a point of order. [ English ] Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, it was not clear at all that the member is actually reading a petition. He has not indicated who has signed it. He knows the rules of the House, that 25 people must sign for it to be presentable in the House of Commons. It was not clear at all to me that this is a duly-presentable petition that the member is tabling. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member.

I think the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans will be getting around to that. I know the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster is correct and that the member for Ottawa—Orléans will know that the explanation around petitions should not be a commentary by the member himself but, rather, on behalf of petitioners. I am sure that he will be getting around to that point in short order. The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans. Mr. Royal Galipeau : Mr. Speaker, the record will show that the hon.

House leader of the official opposition was interrupting me at the time that I was stating in Canada's other official language that I was, forthwith, tabling the petition. This is what I was saying as I was so rudely interrupted. [ Translation ] It is an honour for me to present this petition on behalf of Canadians a mari usque ad mare , who are against aborting female fetuses. [ English ] In doing so, I join the petitioners who want to put an end to the three deadliest words in the world “It's a girl.”

CBC/Radio Canada Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of petitioners from across Canada. The petitioners are concerned about funding to CBC. They feel it is very important, especially for CBC Radio in both languages, that there be national, regional and local programming to underscore our shared national consciousness and identity. The petitioners also comment that the $1 billion that Canada invests in the CBC results in over $4 billion in economic benefit to the country. I am very pleased to present this petition on behalf of petitioners from Thunder Bay and across Canada.

Pensions Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition that is signed by many residents of Winnipeg North dealing with Canada's pension programs: OAS, GIS and CPP. They make up a critical part of Canada's social safety net and provide the basic needs to hundreds of thousands of residents here in Canada. Ultimately, the petitioners further believe that people should be able to continue to have the option to retire at the age of 65, and that the government not in any way diminish the importance and value of Canada's three major senior programs.

(1525) Impaired Driving Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by many constituents calling for tougher laws for those convicted of impaired driving causing death, and a redefinition of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

Consumer Product Safety Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by residents of my constituency of Saanich—Gulf Islands calling for measures to be taken to ensure that Canadians know about the safety and content of the products they use for personal health as well as food safety, giving Canadians, as consumers, the right to know what is in the products.

Terrorism Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition, from petitioners in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and particularly in the Ottawa area, calling on the Government of Canada to conduct a parliamentary review into the events that occurred in the United States on September 11.

Impaired Driving Ms. Wai Young (Vancouver South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions on behalf of British Columbians who want to acknowledge that current impaired driving laws are too lenient. The citizens of Canada want to see tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want to see the Criminal Code of Canada changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 749 and 751 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ] Question No. 749-- Ms. Niki Ashton : With respect to the Action Plan to Address Family Violence and Violent Crimes Against Aboriginal Women and Girls mentioned by the Minister of Status of Women and found on the Status of Women Canada’s Website: (

a) what is the definition of the word “community” as used; (

b) what is the definition of the word “aboriginal” as used; (

c) how much of the funding mentioned in the Action Plan was announced for the first time in the Action Plan; (

d) what criteria were used to justify the funding granted through the Action Plan; (

e) what consultation was conducted in order to create the Action Plan, (

i) who was the consultation conducted with, (ii) what are the details of any records or documents pertaining to these consultations; (

f) how much of the overall funding discussed in the Action Plan is reserved exclusively for (

i) First Nations peoples, (ii) Inuit peoples, (iii) Metis peoples; (

g) how will the funding and programs mentioned in the Action Plan specifically include or exclude First Nations, Inuit and Metis regardless of residence; (

h) how will Inuit, Metis and First Nations fairly benefit from funds and programs promised in the Action Plan; (

i) what criteria will be used to ensure fair distribution; (

j) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the Community Safety Plans, (

i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; (

k) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the funding allocated to Justice Canada in order to “break intergenerational cycles of violence and abuse”, (

i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for this funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) when will this funding be made available, (

v) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; (

l) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the funding secured for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)’s Family Violence Prevention Program, (

i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for this funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) when will this funding be made available, (

v) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; (

m) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the new 5 million dollars over 5 years secured for Status of Women Canada, (

i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for this funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) when will this funding be made available, (

v) is this funding to be distributed through the existing Women’s Program, (vi) will this funding be renewable after two years, (vii) will this funding include projects pertaining to research or advocacy, (viii) how will this funding be distributed fairly among First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples, (ix) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; (

n) of the 241 million dollars invested in the On-Reserve Income Assistance program, what percentage of this funding was allocated to women, (

i) what gender-based analysis has been conducted for this program, (ii) how much of this funding was made available to Inuit, (iii) how much of this funding was made available to Metis peoples, (iv) how much of this funding was made available to First Nations; (

o) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the 1 million dollars secured for Status of Women Canada’s Women’s Program, (

i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for this funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) when will this funding be made available, (

v) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; (

p) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the 1.5 million dollars secured for Justice Canada to support Aboriginal Victims Family Violence Prevention Program, (

i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for this funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) when will this funding be made available, (

v) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; (

q) how much money did the government spend on the Family Violence Prevention Program of AANDC between 2010 and 2015; (

r) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the 158.7 million dollars secured for the Family Violence Prevention Program of AANDC, (

i) how do organizations, individuals, First Nations or communities apply for this funding, (ii) how are funding recipients expected to account for that funding, (iii) what studies have been done to assess what resources will be needed in order to apply for and account for that funding, (iv) when will this funding be made available, (

v) how was the need for this funding determined; (

s) what are the expected outcomes and outputs of the 18.5 million dollars that will directly support shelters, (

i) how do shelters receive this funding, (ii) how are shelters expected to account for that funding, (iii) will this funding be made available to build new shelters, (iv) what percentage of this funding will be accessible to Inuit, (

v) what percentage of this funding will be accessible to Metis, (vi) how much of this funding will be allocated to each reservation, (vii) how was the need for this amount of funding determined; and (

t) how much funding did on-reserve shelters receive yearly from 2010 to 2015? (Return tabled) Question No. 751-- Mr. Paul Dewar : With regard to the government’s commitment on July 3, 2013, to accept 1,300 Syrian refugees: (

a) how many Syrians have been granted refugee status in Canada since July 3, 2013; (

b) how many Syrian refugees have been admitted to Canada from overseas since July 3, 2013, broken down by (

i) total amount, (ii) month; (

c) how many of the Syrian refugees admitted to Canada from overseas since July 3, 2013 have been government-sponsored, broken down by (

i) total amount, (ii) month; (

d) how many of the Syrian refugees admitted to Canada from overseas since July 3, 2013 have been privately-sponsored, broken down by (

i) total amount, (ii) month; (

e) of the government-sponsored Syrian refugees admitted to Canada from overseas since July 3, 2013, how many were admitted from (

i) Syria, (ii) Iraq, (iii) Jordan, (iv) Lebanon, (

v) Turkey, (vi) elsewhere; (

f) of the privately-sponsored Syrian refugees admitted to Canada from overseas since July 3, 2013, how many were admitted from (

i) Syria, (ii) Iraq, (iii) Jordan, (iv) Lebanon, (

v) Turkey, (vi) elsewhere; (

g) of the privately-sponsored Syrian refugees admitted to Canada from overseas since July 3, 2013, how many were sponsored by (

i) sponsorship agreement holders, (ii) groups of five, (iii) community sponsors; (

h) how many applications to privately sponsor Syrian refugees have been received by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, broken down by (

i) total amount, (ii) sponsorship agreement holders, (iii) groups of five, (iv) community sponsors; (

i) how many applications were received on behalf of Syrians seeking refugee status in Canada, from (

i) January 1, 2011 to July 3, 2013, (ii) July 3, 2013 to present; (

j) of the Syrians granted refugee status in Canada since July 3, 2013, how many applied from within Canada; (

k) of the applications received on behalf of Syrians seeking refugee status in Canada, how many remain in progress, dating from (

i) January 1, 2011 to July 3, 2013, (ii) July 3, 2013 to present; (

l) what is the average processing time for applications received from January 1, 2011 until July 3, 2013, on behalf of Syrians seeking refugee status in Canada, broken down by (

i) overall time, (ii) privately-sponsored refugee applicants, (iii) government-sponsored refugee applicants; (

m) what is the average processing time for all applications received from January 1, 2011 until July 3, 2013, on behalf of individuals seeking refugee status in Canada, broken down by (

i) overall time, (ii) privately-sponsored refugee applicants, (iii) government-sponsored refugee applicants; (

n) what is the average processing time for applications received since July 3, 2013, on behalf of Syrians seeking refugee status in Canada, broken down by (

i) overall time, (ii) privately-sponsored refugee applicants, (iii) government-sponsored refugee applicants; and (

o) what is the average processing time for all applications received since July 3, 2013, on behalf of individuals seeking refugee status in Canada, broken down by (

i) overall time, (ii) privately-sponsored refugee applicants, (iii) government-sponsored refugee applicants? (Return tabled) [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

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

Government Orders Business of Supply [ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Proportional Representation Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) moved: Motion That, in the opinion of the House: (

a) the next federal election should be the last conducted under the current first-past-the-post electoral system which has repeatedly delivered a majority of seats to parties supported by a minority of voters, or under any other winner-take-all electoral system; and (

b) a form of mixed-member proportional representation would be the best electoral system for Canada. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Today being the last allotted day for the supply period ending December 10, 2014, the House will proceed as usual to the consideration and passage of the appropriation bills. In view of recent procedures, do hon. members agree to have the bills distributed now? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ English ] Mr. Craig Scott : Mr. Speaker, I should start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent .

This motion is intended to put our parliamentary democracy on the right track by fixing what is an extremely unfair electoral system. Every voter counts equally, from a philosophical perspective, so every vote should count equally within our electoral system. Unfortunately, the current system does not do that. Allow me to quote a former highly respected MP who everyone knows has the health of our parliamentary democracy at heart and first in mind: Why not turn the theory of representative government into reality?

Legislatures that reflect citizens' values, in proportion to how we vote in elections, can help make balance, moderation, diversity, inclusiveness, and maturity the refreshing new hallmarks of Canadian [parliamentary] democracy. That was from J. Patrick Boyer, Progressive Conservative MP for Etobicoke—Lakeshore , 1984 to 1993. Paragraph (

a) in the motion says: ...the next federal election should be the last conducted under the current first-past-the-post electoral system which has repeatedly delivered a majority of seats to parties supported by a minority of voters, or under any other winner-take-all electoral system; Paragraph (

a) is designed to attract a consensus of MPs affirming that our current system, a winner-take-all system of first past the post, must go. Many, if not most, Canadians do not actually know that our system produces huge distortions. There are three kinds of majorities that emerge from an election in Canada: false ones, arbitrary ones, and inflated ones. The false majority is the biggest concern. A party may receive well less than 50% of the vote but end up with well over 50% of the seats.

When Canadians hear about a landslide victory or a government getting a majority government, many, if not the majority of Canadians, do not know that this means only seat count. It does not mean that the governing party received 50% of support. In 2011, the current government, not the first but probably the 20th since Confederation, came into power on these terms: it had 39.5% of the national popular vote and 54% of the seats. Another example is the Progressive Conservatives in 1988, who with 57% of the seats had only 43% of the votes. Those were the Mulroney years. The next year, the Liberals came in.

They had 60% of the seats with 41% of the vote. Do members know what happened? The Progressive Conservatives went from 169 seats to two seats. They received 16% of the national vote and received less than 1% of the seats in the House of Commons. This is not a partisan thing. NDP governments across the country in provincial governments have also benefited from our wonky system. The NDP under former premier Bob Rae received 57% of the seats with under 38% of the vote. It can get arbitrary, as well.

For example, in Quebec, in 1998, the PQ won 60% of the seats with 43% of the vote, despite the Liberals actually getting 43.5% of the vote. Inflated majorities are common. Even in the situation where a party manages to get over 50% of the vote in a province, usually where there are only two parties, it can end with the ridiculous result that a party gets all or almost all of the seats. In 1987, under our system, 60% of the votes for the Liberals in New Brunswick produced 100% of the seats; 58 out of 58 seats for that entire period were in the hands of one party.

Forty per cent of the electorate was shut out from representation in that legislature. In B.C., in 2001, 58% of the vote produced, for another Liberal Party, 77 out of 79 seats: 97%. This is fundamentally unfair, quite obviously, not to mention, frankly, absurd. However, this unfairness is not the only consequence. Our voting system has knock-on effects, what I would call pathologies, that undermine the health of our entire democracy, from how Parliament works to citizen engagement. I would simply like to go through a few of those problems. I will list them, because in debate, I can go into them in more detail.

(1530) Here are eight problems. One, our system produces a false sense and exacerbation of regional differences. We almost get, for decades and decades, only Conservative MPs from Alberta. It creates the idea that somehow Alberta is monolithically a Conservative province. Nothing could be further from the truth. Two, it diminishes the diversity of viewpoints in Parliament, especially from different areas of the country. We never hear from a rich range of voices from many provinces because of that problem of regional exacerbation.

Three, it promotes majorities in the House of Commons such that, because of our system in which the Prime Minister has so much power in an executive embedded in the legislature, if the Prime Minister and the government are of a mind, the views of 60% of the electorate, having elected only 40% of the opposition MPs, do not have to be taken into account. Legislation can be rammed through if a government is so minded. Four, there is an under-representation of women in our system. Five, adversarialism and hyperpartisanship are emphasized over co-operation and compromise in legislative activity.

Six, the chances of poor legislation because tunnel vision and single ideologies, which do not have to grapple with other points of view on the floor of the House and in committees, also can dominate. Seven, citizen frustration goes through the roof, and it is one of the contributions to lower voter turnout.

Eight, the role of MPs is undermined due to the fact that in our system, voters have to choose, with one vote, the local representative they would like to have representing their constituency and the party they would like to see with the most seats in the House of Commons, and quite often, they are choosing one other factor, which is which party leader they prefer. All of these things, under a properly structured proportional representation system, would be dealt with. What is the NDP advocating?

Let me start by quoting from Tom Mulcair, the leader of the official opposition, the member for Outremont , who said a year and a half ago: Electoral reform is an important way to reinvigorate our democracy, and in 2015 New Democrats will be seeking a mandate to introduce a proportional-representation voting system that better reflects the true political preferences of Canadians. We are committed to ensuring that 2015 is the last unfair election.

Only last week, we deepened that commitment by explaining how we would form a special all-party task force upon becoming government and then would legislate to a deadline that would produce a proportional-representation system of a mixed sort by 2019. It is important to note that NDP conventions over the years have emphasized “that mixed-member proportional representation must be adapted to Canada”. The fact is that we have examples. New Zealand, Germany, and Scotland are three healthy democracies we will be borrowing from.

The fact of the matter is that the lessons they have learned have to be applied in a way that takes into account Canadian realities. It is important as well to note that we are intent on not reinventing the wheel. Here in Canada, much work has been done over the decades on mixed-proportional representation as the best proportional representation system for Canada.

Eight out of nine commissions or citizen assemblies created by governments in the last dozen years in Canada have not only advocated getting rid of our first-past-the-post system but have advocated adopting MMP, or mixed-member-proportional representation. What is mixed-member proportional representation? The way I like to talk about it is as three pairs that are married into a rather harmonious whole. It is much simpler than people think. I would start by saying that two principles are merged.

One is the principle that voters in each local constituency or riding should be able to elect a single MP directly accountable to them. That is our current system. The second is that voters in each constituency should also have their party preference directly count so that party representation in the House of Commons, that is the seats, the number of MPs, is proportionate to the degree of support the party actually received in the national vote. Let me now take the voter into the voting booth. This is how voters will understand how easy this is. These two principles are merged by giving voters two votes.

Let us call it a one ballot, two votes approach. Under the first vote, on a single ballot, citizens elect a single local MP to represent their riding. With the second vote, they vote for a candidate, on a list, of the party they prefer. It is this second vote that tells us the number of seats each party should get in the House of Commons, and then from the list, MPs go to the House of Commons, join their local MPs, and voilà, we have a much-reformed system that would get rid of all of the pathologies I listed that are part of our current system.

(1535) Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite on this issue of democratic reform. I know he has worked long on this issue over many years. I want to make a comment. Let us say that we move to mixed proportional representation as a system of voting. We would end up with a House of Commons with some 300 members of Parliament. Let us say that 200 of those members of Parliament would be local members of Parliament representing local geographic districts across country.

We would have another 100 members of Parliament who would be selected by the parties themselves, based on the percentage of the popular vote each party received in the general election. Currently, however,

section 67 of the Canada Elections Act gives party leaders the final determination as to who party candidates will be. What we would in effect have is a system in which party leaders would have the final say on these 100 MPs, making them beholden to the party leaders and not to any other group or constituency here in this country. I note that Bill C-586 , the reform act, would remove that statutory requirement for the party leader's endorsement. I wonder if the member would comment on the relationship of that bill to the NDP's opposition supply day motion.

(1540) Mr. Craig Scott : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate where the question is coming from. First, it is important to clarify the premise, which is that under the system we are talking about, there would be no appointing by party leaders of the MPs. Each party would have an internal process that would have to be transparently revealed to Canadians as to how they ended up with a list of MPs from which people could go to Parliament. Under the system we would advocate, individual voters could actually go into the list and say, “That is the order the party set, but I do not prefer that order.

I prefer this person to move up in the order.” It is very important to note that there would not be an appointment system. It would depend on how each party set up its list so voters could determine how that would influence their vote. On the second point, absolutely, the idea that the whole question of a direct appointment by a single leader of any MP, let alone all these MPs, is anti-democratic. I would actually say that our current system does not actually have an appointment power; it has a power requirement, under the Canada Elections Act, to sign off on local nominations. It is not quite the same thing. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the member has it all figured out. What the NDP is suggesting today is something that was debated and voted on in P.E.I and in Ontario, where both populations said no to it. I even understand that there were a number of New Democratic MPPs in Ontario who actually campaigned against this particular proposal. A bit of a surprise is that a lot of people, including me, favour electoral reform. However, what is a bit hard to understand is why the NDP has taken such a narrow approach to electoral reform to the degree that it has endorsed one plan.

I do not think Fair Vote and other organizations would want to see that. They would like to see a more open approach to dealing with electoral reform. Mr. Craig Scott : Mr. Speaker, it is called leadership. It is also the case that the hon. member should not be invoking Fair Vote, knowing full well that his party does not support proportional representation, which is the mandate of Fair Vote. That is the second point. The third point is that MMP, mixed-member proportional representation, is a proven system in three healthy democracies.

It is also confirmed by eight out of nine commissions or government-initiated processes in this country. This is where the consensus is. We are taking a leadership role in this and saying, “This is the system. We will implement the system. We are inviting you to join us. Now is the time. Now is the chance.” This could amount to pre-electoral co-operation on behalf of parties that truly believe in electoral reform. That includes proportional representation. Alternative vote, or preferential balloting, standing on its own, is a regressive reform. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : We are going to resuming debate. It seems that there will be considerable interest in the questions and comments portion this afternoon, so I would ask members to keep most of their questions and comments and responses as brief as they possibly can so more members can participate. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. [ Translation ] Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to begin my speech by thanking my colleague from Toronto—Danforth from the bottom of my heart for moving this motion and for bringing this extremely important debate to us today. As I have said many times as the official opposition deputy critic for democratic reform, it is absolutely essential to have a debate on our electoral system and on the way we elect MPs, the representatives of the people. I understand that people may not necessarily be interested in this idea, or that it is not necessarily one of their priorities.

However, I think it is extremely important to talk about our electoral system and the way we choose who will lead our country because everything else flows from there. If the power is in the hands of an individual who does not share the values of the majority of the population, then it is in everyone's best interest to have the most representative and most democratic system possible. It is no secret that voter turnout in Canada has declined and that cynicism continues to grow. People have little confidence in politicians and we cannot really blame them. The current system has failed us many times.

This broken system is a relic of days gone by and not well suited to the reality of the 21st century. Our first-past-the-post system gives all the power to a majority government even though it does not have the support of the majority of the people. What we are proposing is to implement a mixed member proportional system, whereby some members would be directly elected to represent a certain area of Canada—which is presently the case—and other members would be elected on the basis of the proportion of votes received by their party in the election.

My colleague from Toronto—Danforth had started to explain this in more detail. The idea is that we would vote twice on one ballot. People would first vote for the person they want to represent their riding. Then they would vote for a candidate on a list who belongs to the party they prefer. The person chosen would represent the voters and also the party in Parliament. Thus, no one who goes to vote will be able to say that his vote will not count. That is the very basis of voter participation. I can even give a very concrete and personal example.

In 2006, voter turnout in the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent, which I represent, was approximately 60%. The member who represented the riding before me often got elected by a strong majority of over 50%, and so in 2006 and 2008, voter turnout in my riding remained stagnant at 60%. When I campaigned in 2008, many people told me that there was no point in voting because they knew that my predecessor was going to win. They said that it would not change anything if they voted for another party. Voting was not important to them because they did not believe that it would change the outcome of the election.

What happened? In 2011, people saw that things were changing and that there was a new movement. They realized that their vote could make a difference this time. There was a 10% increase in voter turnout in my riding alone. Voter turnout increased from 60% to 70%, one of the highest rates in Canada. That is huge and that is a very real example.

(1545) When people realize that their vote can make a difference and that they can influence what their government and Parliament look like, they will vote. In the system we are proposing, people will vote for the person that represents their geographic area. Meanwhile, their other vote will count because every vote will add up and the percentage of people who voted for a given party will change the makeup of the House. The example that is often given is the Green Party. Many people across Canada support that party.

However, when it comes time to vote in each riding, the party receives only small pockets of support across the country. Why are the people who voted for this party not able to be represented in the House of Commons? Why is it problematic for every vote to be reflected in our Parliament? In my opinion, that is the best way to do it. In September 2013, I had the opportunity to participate in a very interesting conference in Orillia called “Make your vote count”.

I was joined by the leader of the Green Party as well as a representative from the Liberal Party, and we had a wonderful multi-party discussion on how to make very vote count in Canada. There were all kinds of workshops and discussions over the weekend on how to help Canadians regain their faith in our political system. We kept coming back to one idea: if we truly want Canadians to think that their vote counts and if we truly want them to go out to vote on election day because they believe it will make a difference, we need to introduce proportionality into our electoral system. We have no choice.

When we look at the makeup of the House of Commons, which is meant to reflect the Canadian public, since we are here as representatives of the people, it is clear that women and young people are under-represented. Although the NDP is one of the youngest caucuses in the history of Canada, young people are still under-represented here. People everywhere are amazed at the fact that NDP MPs are so young, but the Canadian population has a greater proportion of young people than our caucus does. That goes to show that the 308 MPs are not yet representative enough.

Implementing mixed proportional representation could help in terms of representation of women, young people, cultural groups and sexual minorities—so many things. I do not see why anyone would oppose this other than for partisan reasons. Some people might think that it is easier for a party to get a majority and hold power without trying to collaborate with others or to think of ways to encourage people to go out and vote and participate in our democracy as much as possible, instead of scaring them and telling them to stay home. Our voting process has not changed since the 19th century. Our position is clear.

The NDP is committed to integrating proportional representation into our system to renew people's interest. The NDP wants to make Canada a truly 21st-century country, a country where the democratic discussion will ensure representation, stability and effectiveness. That is our firm commitment. What can Canadians expect from the two old parties? Nothing but schemes and excuses. The old parties seem to think they are the state. They have been telling us for ages that they—not anyone else—are the state. New Democrats are citizens first.

We are people of our time who care much more about Canadian democracy than our political party. We want to act on behalf of the fairer and more representative Canada of the future. It is not just our duty; it is the duty of us all. (1550) [ English ] Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and I serve on committee together. I admire her work and how hard she works as a member of Parliament. However, I think she just put me in a class of old guys. I may fit, but I do not like it. I have a bit of a problem.

I love her dearly, but I do not like the solution she offers. If proportional representation means we have to appoint people off a list of party hacks to fill a role, after other people have gone out and worked very hard, as I have done four times, to win a seat, to come here because they are a favourite of a leader, or a party official and they are on a list, just makes it wrong. Who represents the constituent back home? Is it the fellow or the woman who worked very hard to become the constituent politician, or the person appointed off the party list, the party hack? (1555) [ Translation ] Ms.

Alexandrine Latendresse : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. He does a fine job as committee chair, and it is always a pleasure working with him. I would like to explain more clearly how the system works. First, Canadians will always be able to vote for an MP to represent their area of the country. Closed lists are not the only option. What we are proposing is an open list that would allow people to vote directly for the candidates they prefer. We have to trust that the public is capable of choosing the best candidates to represent them. [ English ] Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina, I am proud to represent the only provincial district in Ontario that voted for proportional representation in 2007. We had to fight the NDP very hard to get that put in place. However, the prevailing thought of the province was not to go in this direction because of the vagaries of the system. I just listened to the presentation made by the hon. member and I understand there are more details to the proportional representation proposal than are currently in the motion in front of us. For example, there is the list of 100 people.

However, if majority rule is the problem that prevents accurate reflection of the general population inside the House, how would a list that does not set aside specific seats for a region over a national interest, or women over men, or perhaps even a selection from our aboriginal first nations people to make ensure their voice, like in New Zealand, is protected and heard inside the House, solve that problem? The members have all these details. They have not shared the details with the House, yet they have a very prescribed way of getting to a list of 100 people and allowing the majority to choose.

How would they ensure that minorities would get a voice in the House if they are subjected to majority rule, once again, through the proposed system? [ Translation ] Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina for his question. We are not saying that this plan is completely fleshed out and set in stone. We are just saying that closed lists are not the only option. In a mixed member proportional system, there is the possibility of adjusting various parameters in order to determine what best represents Canada.

There is a way to strike a balance between regional representation and proportional representation of parties, so that each party is able to present more representative candidates. It would not be very difficult. [ English ] Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I need to correct the record. My good friend from Trinity—Spadina was in error when he said that only his riding voted in favour of a previous vote on proportional representation.

I would like to reassure him that the good citizens of Parkdale—High Park, where we have two strong NDP members provincially and federally, also voted in favour of proportional representation. My question for my colleague is the following. The hyper-partisanship of the House so often turns off Canadians to politics and leads to the dialogue of the deaf in many cases.

Would she not agree that systems of proportional representation, like MMP, the system that the NDP has proposed, which exists in Germany and has a coalition right now of social democrats and conservatives who are able to work together and find common ground, reduce partisanship and lead to better governance for citizens? [ Translation ] Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question. I want to take this opportunity to boast a bit. Maclean's named me runner-up in the most collegial MP category two weeks ago and, as such, I really do not like partisanship.

I find that, far too often, it completely poisons our debates. As my colleague said, one of the positive effects of a mixed member proportional system is that it curbs rhetoric and partisanship and forces the parties to get along, converse and try to find common ground, instead of always focusing on their differences. (1600) [ English ] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I give a special thanks to the member who raised this motion and has given us the opportunity to discuss our democracy and various ideas on how to improve it.

In order to talk about this proposal, we need to discuss the broader context of the debate. I will start with the broad strokes of Canadian democracy, recognizing that everything great that has been achieved in this country has been done through gradual, incremental improvement, starting 800 years ago with the Magna Carta, whose anniversary we will celebrate next year. I will not go through each of the 800 years, but I will state that in 1867 we actually got a country.

It was not until 1931 that we got an independent foreign policy through the Statute of Westminster, and it was not until 125 years after Confederation that we got constitutional independence with the Constitution Act of that year. There have been instances with the Statute of Westminster where the British mother country actually offered us more independence than we were prepared to accept, which really speaks to the temperamentally conservative approach that Canadians had always taken to the evolution of their democracy.

We have built on that approach by making some important incremental improvements in our democracy under the leadership of the present-day Prime Minister. For example, in this Parliament under this Conservative majority, we have passed more private members' bills than any other government since 1972. Private members' bills are proposed by backbench members of Parliament, not by the government, and they are supported by this government to pass into law. The last time as many passed was 1972, when a large number were simply for riding name changes.

In this case we are talking about substantive legislative changes that have done everything from protect vulnerable people from sex trafficking to cracking down on crime, to countless other measures that improve the daily lives of Canadian citizens. Second, we have allowed vastly more free votes than was case during previous majority governments. Free votes are when members of a given caucus can decide how they want to vote regardless of what their party leadership tells them to do.

Indeed, The Globe and Mail , along with Samara Canada, a group that studies democracy, looked at 162 individually cast votes on the floor of the House of Commons and concluded that the Conservative caucus was far more likely, during the two-year period under examination, to have members vote independently from their leadership than any other caucus in the House of Commons. The Liberals voted as a unanimous block 90% of the time. In the two-year period under examination, the NDP voted as a unanimous block 100% of the time.

In one in four votes cast in this House of Commons, the Conservatives had a member stand up and vote differently from the