OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 098 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, June 6, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 6, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 098 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 098 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 098 (Version officielle) 147 098 06 06 2014 2014/06/06 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act Bill C-24. Report Stage The House resumed from June 4 consideration of Bill C-24,

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , as reported without amendment from the committee.

(1005) [ English ] Speaker’s Ruling The Speaker : There are 13 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-24 . Motions Nos. 1 to 13 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. [ Translation ] I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 13 to the House.

Motions in Amendment Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) moved: Motions Nos. 1 to 13 Motion No. 1 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 1. Motion No. 2 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 3. Motion No. 3 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 7. Motion No. 4 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 8. Motion No. 5 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 9. Motion No. 6 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 11. Motion No. 7 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 12. Motion No. 8 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 9 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 15. Motion No. 10 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 16. Motion No. 11 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 19. Motion No. 12 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 20. Motion No. 13 That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 38. She said: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-24 at report stage. This bill was introduced at first reading on February 6 and was debated for the first hour on February 27. According to the minister, the bill is very important, but it sort of got forgotten after February 27.

We read about it in newspapers, but it was not debated again until May 29. The government did not put Bill C-24 back on the House's agenda for many months, and we have no idea why. Another irregularity is the fact that the committee began studying the bill before the end of second reading. This is a citizenship reform bill that has been needed for nearly 30 years. This 50-page bill, which was touted and heralded, did not even go through normal House procedures.

We debated it for one hour, then it was shelved and then, all of a sudden, we were forced to study it at committee before second reading had even finished. For those who are not familiar with parliamentary process, this means that experts and civil society are unable to react to or contribute to the bill by appearing before committee. Many people have asked me what is happening with Bill C-24 and how they can contribute by sharing their expertise in committee. I had to tell them that it was too late because the usual procedures were not followed.

Experts and civil society did not hear much about the bill because committee rushed to study it and because it was not debated in the House as it should have been. Moreover, the committee stage was too short. The NDP asked to hear from more witnesses, but that idea was rejected. After all that, it came back to the House for debate, and here we are less than a week later at report stage. The committee rushed its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-24 . It did not do a thorough study following the usual procedures, and as a result, we have before us a bill that was not amended at all by the committee.

The NDP wants several clauses removed from the bill because both experts and lay people have raised a number of concerns and because the government rejected all of the amendments proposed not only by the experts who appeared before the committee, but also by the opposition. Bill C-24 was much anticipated, and the NDP supports many aspects of it. We are not against the bill overall. Many parts of it are good and are actually things the NDP has been urging the government to do for a long time. One of these is addressing the issue of the lost Canadians, Canadians who lost their citizenship.

Many people are affected by a range of unjust situations related to that issue. This bill does not solve all of those problems, but it is a step in the right direction. In addition, the NDP is happy to support a number of measures, including harsher penalties in cases of citizenship fraud, clarification of the rules governing the number of days needed to get citizenship and acceleration of the citizenship process for permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Forces.

Unfortunately this 50-page bill with 46 clauses has not been amended in any way despite the fact that experts unanimously agreed that it needed major changes. Therefore, the NDP has no choice but to ask that certain clauses be removed from this bill. For example, clause 3 of Bill C-24 deals with a large number of things. The NDP agrees with many of them, but we still must ask that this clause be removed because it contains some basic elements that are very worrisome.

(1010) For example, the declaration of intent to reside in Canada is a problem that I will talk about briefly. A large number of experts are concerned about this declaration of intent to reside in Canada, which consists of asking people to declare that they intend to live here after obtaining their citizenship. They have to make this declaration as part of the citizenship process. We know that someone who is convicted of making false declarations or committing fraud to obtain citizenship can have that citizenship revoked in the future.

That worries the experts who are saying that this is a dangerous door that is being opened. A person might have to leave Canada after obtaining their citizenship because they cannot find a job here, for example. They may have to accept a job abroad or a job that will require them to live outside Canada for a year or two. They may also have to leave the country to take care of a sick parent. They could not foresee these circumstances when they made the declaration of intent to reside in Canada. In short, that creates a lot of concerns for new citizens.

Could the government take away the citizenship of people who leave the country after they have declared their intent to reside here? Legal experts say that it can, but the minister is saying that, no, he does not intend to do that and that he does not want to use the intent to reside to take away people's right to citizenship. Good for him. The minister has good intentions. However, we cannot rely solely on his intentions. We also have to rely on the wording of the bill.

Legal experts are saying that the way the bill is worded poses a risk for new Canadians who want to temporarily leave the country as a result of unforeseen circumstances. Speaking of experts, I would like to list a few who believe that this aspect of the bill, as it now stands, is extremely problematic. The Canadian Council for Refugees submitted a written brief to the committee. There is also the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants; Ms. Macklin from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers; the Inter Clinic Immigration Working Group; and Parkdale Community Legal Services.

I could go on for quite a while; I have a whole page full of names. It seems experts have a lot to say on this topic. Another aspect of clause 3 that is really problematic is the time of residence. There has been a lot of backlash from foreign students over the fact that their time of residence in Canada will, unfortunately, no longer count toward their application for citizenship and permanent residence.

When they arrived, they were told that they would contribute to society as students, workers and taxpayers and that the time they spent in the country as foreign students could count toward their application for citizenship. Today, this bill changes the rules right under their noses and throws a wrench into their life plans in a number of ways. They will have to wait one or two more years before they can apply for citizenship. That is not fair, and I want to point out the work of this group in particular, whose time in the country before they become permanent residents counts.

They are smart, engaged, involved and well aware of the value of Canadian citizenship. This provision of the bill is basically a slap in the face to foreign students. We also want to remove clause 8 of the bill on the revocation of citizenship, which did not exist before. Bill C-24 gives the minister the discretionary power to revoke people's citizenship without giving them the right to appeal. That is extremely worrisome. Again, experts are unanimous on this. There are major problems with this aspect of the bill. Ms.

Macklin, the representative of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and a professor at the University of Toronto, had this to say: I would remove citizenship revocation. It's unconstitutional. I think our criminal justice system is perfectly adequate to handle crimes, criminal offences, and it does so just fine.

(1015) I will close by saying that when the minister says that the Canadian Bar Association should be ashamed of itself for opposing Bill C-24 , he is showing his true partisan colours and illustrating how completely out of touch he is. A great many people are concerned. This cannot go on. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, one of the ironies with this piece of legislation is the fact that the government is trying to give the impression, by passing this proposed legislation, that it would be speeding up the process for citizenship once a person qualifies.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration himself is saying that he hopes, through this legislation, to be able to get the processing of citizenship in just under a year. Well, it is very interesting to find out that prior to the Conservatives taking office, that was what the processing time was; it was right around that one-year mark. It is interesting that the Conservatives created a crisis so that today the processing time is well in excess of one year, at about 28 months. In certain situations, I would guesstimate that about 20% could go as long as four or five years in order to process citizenship.

My question for the member is this: if the government was sincere in wanting to speed up the processing of citizenship, was legislative change actually necessary or would it have needed more of a political goodwill on behalf of the government? Even though it is nice to see that it is in the legislation, political goodwill is what was really necessary. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe : Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of what my colleague just said. The Conservatives have allowed citizenship application processing times to increase substantially.

Processing times have more than doubled in the past few years. If the Conservatives truly wanted to resolve this problem, they would have put measures in place much sooner instead of giving us Bill C-24 , which will supposedly resolve the problems with the application processing times, and with a time allocation motion to boot. This is one of the major problems with our citizenship system right now, and Bill C-24 contains no solutions. The Conservatives would have us believe that this bill will address the problem with the times.

In fact, they are actually preventing many people who were prepared to apply for citizenship from doing so. The Conservatives are asking them to apply in a year or two because the rules have just changed. The only thing that will do is temporarily reduce citizenship applications for a year. This will help the Conservatives get good statistics in time for the election, but there is nothing in Bill C-24 that will truly fix the problem in the long term. This shows a complete lack of respect for people who would have and should have the right to citizenship.

(1020) Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the work of my colleague, the NDP critic on citizenship and immigration. I know how seriously she studied this bill and proposed amendments during what little work could be done in committee. I wonder if she could elaborate on the Conservatives' lack of respect for the work that would have resulted in an in-depth study of the bill before us. Perhaps she could also tell us how, as a member of Parliament, she was deprived of her right to such a study. Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. As I mentioned earlier, we did a pre-study. It was not a real study of the bill. This is a lack of respect for standard procedures. In fact, they put a time limit on debate. We were denied the opportunity to hear more witnesses, very credible witnesses such as Amnesty International or UNICEF, for example.These organizations could not appear before the committee because, again, of the insufficient time provided by the Conservatives.

What is even more frustrating is that the government did not even listen to the witnesses that we were able to hear during the very limited time allowed by the government. It is one thing to invite witnesses and ask them to speak, but it is too easy to then wash one's hands of whole thing and say there was consultation. Was that consultation serious? We heard witnesses, but did we really listen to them? Did we take them seriously? They all had important recommendations to make to improve the bill. They were concerned about human rights and the constitutionality of the bill.

However, the Conservatives did not even listen to them, and that is very frustrating. [ English ] Mr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity to highlight our government's commitments to protecting the integrity of Canada's citizenship system and add my voice in support of Bill C-24 . This important piece of legislation would deliver on our Conservative government's promise in the recent Speech from the Throne to strengthen and protect the value of Canadian citizenship.

On this side of the House we recognize the important role immigration has played in building our country. Since 2006, our Conservative government has welcomed the highest sustained level of immigration in Canada's history. Each year we have welcomed an average of almost 260,000 newcomers who contribute to the economic, political, and social fabric of our country as permanent residents. Moreover, Canada remains a world leader in naturalization, with more than 85% of eligible permanent residents going on to become Canadian citizens. We are proud of this enviable high rate of uptake in citizenship.

Our important bill, the strengthening the Canadian Citizenship Act, would not only reduce citizenship backlogs and improve processing times for applicants, but it would strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. Canadians have no tolerance for the cheats and fraudsters who do not play by the rules and who de-value the integrity of Canadian citizenship. Most of us have heard anecdotal stories or read newspaper reports about police investigations into individuals who lie to become citizens of our great country.

They concoct schemes to make it appear as if they are living in Canada when in fact they are not and nor do they have any intentions of planting roots here. Rather, they consider Canadian citizenship as nothing more than a passport of convenience, a revolving door or gateway to generous taxpayer-funded economic and social benefits available at their disposal as needed. Canadians rightfully expect our Conservative government to put a stop to this selfish niche to protect Canadian citizenship, which truly is a privilege.

It is shameful that the opposition does not understand why it is so important to protect the value of Canadian citizenship and why it should support this important legislation. Our Conservative government has listened to Canadians across the country and has committed to put an end to this abuse most recently in our last throne speech. Our government not only listened but acted to deliver on this key promise by introducing Bill C-24 . We are committed to protecting the value of our citizenship and taking action against those who seek to cheapen it.

Our proposed reforms would strengthen the value of citizenship by helping to prevent citizenship fraud and by increasing the penalties for those who gain citizenship fraudulently. First, our reforms would bring the penalty of committing citizenship fraud in line with that of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by increasing the penalty to a maximum fine of $100,000 or up to five years in prison, or both. The proposed legislation would also add a provision to refuse an applicant of material facts and bar applicants who misrepresent such facts from reapplying for citizenship for five years.

That is a serious way to deter citizenship fraud. In contrast, existing penalties in the Citizenship Act have not increased since 1977 and are ineffective in deterring fraudsters. Our proposed increase in fines and significant jail terms would deter both applicants and crooked citizenship consultants from trying to undermine Canadian citizenship. With respect to crooked consultants, our government successfully passed the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act in an effort to protect those in need of assistance from an immigration representative.

That bill created a regulatory body to oversee immigration consultants and ensure compliance with the law. Bill C-24 would give the government similar legal authority to designate a body to regulate citizenship consultants. Proposed amendments would increase penalties for citizenship fraud to a maximum fine of $100,000 or up to two years in prison, or both. I am proud to stand before the House today to address these important reforms that our government has introduced as a means to crack down on fraud and to preserve the integrity of Canadian citizenship and citizenship programs.

This leads to my last point, which focuses on our government's promised amendment to streamline the process to revoke citizenship from those who have lied or cheated on their citizenship application. As members are likely aware, our Conservative government has taken action to revoke citizenship from those who obtained it through fraudulent means. More than 11,000 cases of fraud have been discovered and we are investigating each and every one. However, the current revocation process is extremely lengthy and cumbersome.

Shamefully, it has taken Canada years, often decades, to revoke the citizenship of fraudsters, including despicable war criminals who never should have obtained it in the first place.

(1025) One this side of the House, we are serious about cracking down on those who undermine the value of our citizenship. It is important, to achieve such an important objective, that we put our government in a position to be able to revoke the citizenship in a timely manner. Under proposed changes to the new revocation process, it should facilitate the government's ability to revoke citizenships in a timely manner for those convicted of residency fraud.

In these cases, the minister of citizenship and immigration, or his or her delegate, would oversee the revocation, but the decision would still be subject to review by court, as is the case for all immigration decisions. This streamlined revocation process would result in faster decision-making and faster removal, while still ensuring fairness. Individuals who have had their citizenship revoked would also be barred from reapplying for 10 years, up from the current bar of 5 years. Our government believes that this is entirely reasonable.

Canadian citizenship is a unique privilege and is highly coveted around the globe. However, citizenship is a privilege that comes with responsibilities. It means that we share the commitment to uphold our common values that our brave men and women in uniform have fought to preserve and champion. These are values that include freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have Canadian citizenship share in all of the great advantages it confers. However, it is important to remember that citizenship is far more than just the right to carry a passport or to vote.

It defines us as a people. As such, it is essential that we work to maintain the value of Canadian citizenship. I have heard from many of my constituents on this issue. All of them agree that we must crack down on criminals and fraudsters who cheapen the value of one of our most precious commodities. It is shameful, however, that opposition members do not listen to Canadians and do not support this important bill. Indeed, the measures in Bill C-24 represent the first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act in more than a generation.

They are necessary to strengthen the value and protect the integrity of Canadian citizenship for today and for the future. With this bill, our Conservative government is sending a crystal clear message: we will not turn a blind eye from those who commit fraud or help others to obtain Canadian citizenship by fraud. If opposition members prefer to continue with their shameful tactics to oppose and delay passage of the bill, they will have to answer to the Canadian public, a public who is, thankfully, recognizing the necessary and common sense changes we are making.

(1030) Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, many lawyers, such as members of the Canadian Bar Association and others working in this field, have been concerned about the concentration of power, in this bill, in the hands of the minister. In particular, when a minister, or delegated staffer, concludes on a balance of probabilities that a person has obtained citizenship by fraud, currently he or she has the ability to move that person on their own. The United Sates has a court process that could attend such an event, where naturalization is to be forfeited.

That has been the practice in Canada in the past. Does the hon. member share the concerns of so many lawyers and constitutional experts about the constitutionality of that and the propriety in a democracy of concentrating so much power in one individual? Mr. Joe Daniel : Mr. Speaker, before these decisions are made by the minister or any of his staff, they do have to go through a court process, so there is a process in place ahead of time for that to happen. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, most of the member's speech emphasized how happy he is that the minister is going to have the power to get rid of a person's citizenship. One of the concerns that I have, and I have had the opportunity to express this on several occasions, is the significant increase in processing times for citizenship, to the degree that it is almost three years long. It is about 28 months, or two and a half years. That is up, well over 100%, in terms of time for processing citizenship applications since the government took office.

For the people who happen to be part of that percentage of, some would estimate, about 20% of applicants, it will take up to four or five years in order to be processed. The government is bringing forward this legislation in the hope that it will reduce the time. No doubt the government will want to claim that it reduced the times of processing for citizenship, and will try to take credit for a reduction of times for processing in this crisis that it created. Why is having decent processing times for people applying for citizenship been such a low priority? Mr. Joe Daniel : Mr.

Speaker, clearly the number of citizenship applications and the volume we have taken on since we have come into power has significantly increased from what it was prior to that. There are some 260,000 people who are immigrating, and 85% of them are applying for citizenship. This has created a backlog that was much bigger than was expected. Hopefully this bill will have some reforms that will reduce that time to approximately a year.

(1035) Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberals had 13 long and comfortable years to reform the Citizenship Act, but it did not. That is why our government has set out to make the first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act in 35 years. In economic action plan 2013, investments were made to reduce processing times. Could my hon. colleague tell this House how Bill C-24 will complement the investments that the government has already made to strengthening citizenship, so that those who deserve it get it fast, and those who lie and hide their heinous crimes do not? Mr.

Joe Daniel : Mr. Speaker, the way it is going to change is by the following: increasing the efficiency of the citizenship program to improve application processing; reinforcing the value of citizenship by strengthening the requirements and deterring citizenships of convenience; improving the tools we have to maintain program integrity and combat fraud; and protecting and promoting Canada's interests and values by honouring those who serve Canada, by revoking citizenships of dual citizens who are members of armed forces or recognized armed groups engaged in conflict with Canada. Hon.

Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-24 , the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. While I support the objective of clarifying the test for residency and also the approach with regard to the retroactive restoration of citizenship for additional lost Canadians, I have serious concerns with respect to the bill's principles and policies as a whole. I submit it will not strengthen, but in fact prejudice, Canadian citizenship, and in particular undermine the fundamental principles of Canadian law and policy that have long underpinned our citizenship regime.

There are too many problematic and constitutionally suspect aspects of this bill to address all of them in my allotted time. Accordingly, I would invite members who are considering voting in support of this legislation to consult, among other resources, the comprehensive and persuasive briefs of the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, submissions of constitutional experts, and others, who have identified the serious flaws in this bill while making the case for its rejection.

I will focus primarily on those proposed yet seriously problematic reforms to the Citizenship Act that would fundamentally alter the concept of Canadian citizenship, ultimately resulting in the creation of two unequal classes of Canadians. Indeed, Bill C-24 marks the unprecedented introduction of citizenship tiers for the first time in Canadian history. Not only would this bill make it more difficult to obtain citizenship, it would make it easier for the government to revoke it. Specifically, Bill C-24 provides that an applicant seeking citizenship must intend to reside in Canada upon obtaining citizenship.

This provision would ultimately empower the minister to revoke citizenship from naturalized Canadians based on a finding that they initially misrepresented their intent to reside in Canada.

As a result, naturalized Canadians who, for example, engage in extensive international travel for legitimate reasons, such as to visit family or engage in work abroad, would be left in a state of standing uncertainty as to whether their international travel would provide the government with the basis for citizenship revocation on the grounds that they misrepresented their intent when making their initial citizenship applications. Simply put, it is both wrong and unconstitutional to place this heightened and unequal burden on naturalized Canadians.

Indeed, whether this threat is acted upon, the result would be a chilling effect on the mobility rights of naturalized Canadians, thereby creating two unequal classes of citizens under the law: naturalized Canadians for whom international travel may provide a basis for citizenship revocation, and Canadian-born citizens who may travel freely. New immigrants to Canada are active members of our society. They pay taxes and contribute positively to our nation's economy.

Indeed, I am extremely proud to be able to represent one of the most ethnically diverse ridings in the country, the rainbow riding, or comté arc-en-ciel de Mont-Royal. I myself have been witness to how a reasonable and respectful immigration system treats new Canadians as full and equal Canadians, and contributes positively to the community and the perception of Canadian society as constituting a multicultural mosaic. Indeed,

section 27 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms refers to multiculturalism as a constitutional norm. Simply put, there is no societal or governmental interest achieved in creating an arbitrary distinction and disparate impact and burden on mobility rights between birthright Canadians and new immigrants who have come here lawfully to better their own lives, and who in turn strengthen the fabric of our nation. Indeed, approaching immigration and integration in such a derisive and discriminatory matter is at odds with Canada's long history of being a welcoming and inclusive nation.

Critics such as the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers have argued that the “intent to reside” requirement will provide “broad discretion to a citizenship officer to speculate on the future intentions of a citizenship applicant and deny citizenship based on an alleged lack” of future intent to reside. While the government certainly has the right to restrict immigration, it should do so directly and with clear and express justification, and not based on fear, stigma, speculation, or prejudice.

(1040) Apart from the discriminatory effect of this bill that I have described, the legislation is also objectionable on the grounds that it would make Canadian citizenship impractical, if not entirely inaccessible, for many who would otherwise contribute positively to our country, and in particular to our economy.

Moreover, not only would this bill negatively impact permanent residents and naturalized Canadians, it would also establish new grounds for revoking citizenship for all Canadians, including those born here, subject only to a vaguely worded requirement that revocation not conflict “with any international human rights instrument regarding statelessness to which Canada is signatory”. As the Canadian Bar Association explains: Citizens who may be subject to citizenship revocation include those born in Canada who are presumed to be able to claim citizenship in another state through one of their parents....

Not only would this approach raise a whole set of interpretative challenges for the courts, it would enable the government to change the substance of this restriction by unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty without consulting Parliament. All of this, of course, ignores the glaring constitutional questions posed by this bill in general, and this specific flawed provision in particular. I will remind the House of the wording of one of the foundational sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subsection 6(1).

It says: [ Translation ] Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. [ English ] There is no exception in the charter. subsection 6(1) does not distinguish between naturalized, dual, or Canadian-born citizens, as would Bill C-24 .

While I regret the seeming presumptiveness of reading from the charter to hon. members in this place when we all have obligation to uphold, protect, and defend it, given the bill we are debating and the interventions in debate thus far, it does seem possible that some members in this place may not be as familiar as they should be with this and other charter provisions. Indeed, one must wonder how it is possible that this bill is before us at all with no report of its charter non-compliance, given the requirements of

section 4(1) of the Department of Justice Act that the minister review government bills for consistency with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and table a report of inconsistency, if such is found. Entrenched charter rights, in particular mobility rights under

section 6, due process rights under

section 7, and equality rights under

section 15, are engaged by this bill and would likely be infringed. Similarly, cases could be made that provisions of Bill C-24 would also infringe on sections 11 and 12 charter rights as well, let alone

section 27, to which I have otherwise referred. This is but a brief snapshot of why these charter rights are engaged and infringed.

Whereas principles of fundamental justice include the basic entitlement to procedural fairness, the punishment of exile as it would be applied to Canadian citizens in this legislation could also infringe

section 7 of the charter. In another example, the new grounds for revocation, which would apply only to a class of Canadians deemed to be dual citizens under this bill, would violate the principle of equal citizenship and draw an impermissible distinction based on the enumerated ground of national origin, under

section 15 of the charter. Time will prohibit me from elaborating further in this regard. It is clear that this legislation should have been rejected, even by the government's own alleged standards of review as set forth in its court documents to the effect that the government considers a bill as being charter compliant unless its likelihood of withstanding a charter-based challenge is only 5% or less. It does not take a constitutional expert to see that this bill is seriously constitutionally suspect, even allowing for the government's particularly low threshold.

Therefore, I must take this opportunity to ask why, in light of the government's recent legislative record of constitutionally suspect provisions, it would today seek to pass yet another bill that would trigger expensive, time-consuming, and foreseeable litigation, which would ultimately be struck down in part, if not full. Even more troubling perhaps, it would put the Canadian citizenship regime in a state of flux and uncertainty. I have only touched on the particulars of this fundamentally flawed and constitutionally suspect legislation.

I wish to emphasize that tiered citizenship as contemplated by this bill is both unethical and unconstitutional. I see no reason why the government should be seeking to restrict immigration to Canada. I would therefore put the question directly to the members to this place. Is there any reason, let alone a compelling one, to make it more difficult for law-abiding applicants to achieve citizenship? Is it the case that we have decided that diversity no longer represents a societal virtue and Canadian value? Is it the case that multiculturalism is no longer a constitutional norm?

(1045) The government has yet to justify the primary legislative changes accomplished through the bill in any compelling, let alone constitutional, manner, and its advancement will only continue to create stigma and prejudicial fallout for new immigrants. For these reasons, I would urge all members to join me in affirming respect for Canadians, respect for the charter, respect for the foundational principle of equality, and respect for multiculturalism, and to therefore oppose Bill C-24 and uphold the rule of law. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. I know he has been campaigning for years for human rights and for the rights of refugees and newcomers to Canada. I am also aware of his deep respect for all these Canadians, for these newcomers who continue to build today's Canada. I wonder whether the hon. member could elaborate on very contentious issues such as the revocation of Canadian citizenship, which would be put in the hands of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Hon. Irwin Cotler : Mr. Speaker, this is one of the clauses that could lead to an abuse of discretionary power.

It is one of the many abuses mentioned in my presentation. What concerns me—and it must be pointed out—is the problem of constitutional issues. In this bill, many clauses are basically unconstitutional and make it possible to abuse the rule of law, the fundamental principle of equality before the law, and the principles of right of mobility and multiculturalism, which are enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are fundamental and constitutional principles. For this reason, and for all the other reasons, we must reject the bill. [ English ] Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for a wonderful few minutes of explanation about the bill so that all Canadians can get a better understanding of just how these kinds of changes in bill C-24 would impact future Canadians. I would like to hear more from my colleague. Every new Canadian I speak to is very anxious to get citizenship. Would Bill C-24 make that more difficult for newcomers to Canada?

(1050) Hon. Irwin Cotler : Mr. Speaker, not only would it make it more difficult to access citizenship, it would make it more difficult to keep citizenship. I am unable to understand how such a piece of legislation that is so seriously constitutionally flawed could have been introduced to this chamber to begin with. I cannot understand how the legislative advice the minister received with regard to the requirements of constitutional compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding any proposed legislation could have passed constitutional muster. Perhaps I should not be surprised.

There is a record of introducing legislation that has been not only constitutionally suspect but constitutionally challenged. Again and again the courts in this country have pronounced the legislation unconstitutional. Effectively, it should not have been introduced to begin with.

The government should not be introducing yet another constitutionally flawed bill, imposing litigation, in effect, at taxpayers' expense, which at the end of the day will result, yet again, in another court pronouncement that this legislation is unconstitutional, putting our whole citizenship legislation in flux and uncertainty. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-24,

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . I would first like to speak about LaSalle—Émard, the riding that I have the privilege and honour of representing. My riding is located in the southwest region of the Island of Montreal and it is quite diverse. Each year it becomes home to approximately 1,000 new citizens. Once a year for the past three years, I have organized an evening event to welcome new citizens. The event this year was held on May 22, and slightly more than 350 people attended.

They attended along with their friends and family and they happily thanked me for welcoming them to Canada. They told me they chose to come to Canada because it was a democratic country with a good standard of living where people can freely express their views and work. These were the sentiments conveyed to me by these new citizens on this occasion held in their honour. I would like to thank them from the bottom of my heart for helping me to appreciate once again how fortunate and privileged we are to live in Canada, a country that throughout its history has welcomed newcomers with open arms.

In 2017 we will be marking 150 years of Confederation, but well before then, Canada welcomed French explorers and Anglo-Saxon settlers to its shores. Later on, Ukrainians settled in Saskatchewan. I had an opportunity to visit the Ukrainian Museum of Canada during a stop in Saskatoon. Year after year, my riding welcomes newcomers and refugees who come to Canada because of its highly democratic values and its tradition of welcoming people from every country in the world. However, the bill now before us would slam the door in their faces.

Since the Conservatives came to power, it has become increasingly difficult for people to come to this country. While I did welcome some new citizens to my riding, I have to mention the over 350 cases of people who sought the assistance of my riding office. These people are upset with the lengthy delays they have encountered. They are waiting to be reunited with their spouses and families. There is good reason to be seriously concerned about this state of affairs.

Since March 2008, over 25 major changes have been made to immigration practices, rules, laws, and regulations, adding even more confusion to the situation and making things even more difficult for refugees and applicants. The government wants to make waiting times even longer.

(1055) Since the Conservatives have had a majority government, there has been a moratorium on sponsorship of parents and grandparents. The number of family reunifications has declined. Vulnerable refugees are being penalized, while the number of temporary foreign workers, who have no rights and no chance of settling permanently in Canada, has increased. They are brought here to work and then sent home. One would have thought that a bill to amend the Citizenship Act and make consequential amendments to other acts might have addressed all of these issues and all of the system’s inherent problems.

Alas, the bill is silent on this score. As my colleague, the official opposition critic for immigration and citizenship, so aptly said, some provisions of the bill do address important issues and will bring about certain improvements. On the one hand, some effort has been made to resolve long-standing problems. However, as has been noted in the speeches made in this House, some of the bill’s provisions do raise extremely important questions and very legitimate concerns.

Specifically, there is the fact that Bill C-24 gives the minister many new powers, including the power to grant or revoke citizenship in the case of persons with dual citizenship. Some witnesses said that they are very concerned about this new provision, because people will not have access to the proper recourse. This provision is indeed cause for some concern. Furthermore, as I said, the bill offers no real solution when it comes to reducing wait times, which continue to grow, and citizenship application processing times.

Another provision mentioned earlier is the requirement to state one’s intention of residing in the country. Under Bill C-24 , a person who is granted citizenship by the minister must intend to reside in Canada after being granted citizenship. This raises the question as to whether— The Speaker : Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard because we must proceed to statements by members. However, the good news is that she will have two minutes to continue her speech after oral question period. We will now proceed with statements by members. The hon. member for York Centre.

Statements by Members Statements by Members (1100) [ English ] Filipino Canadians Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Mabuhay . On June 12, Canadians of Filipino origin will be celebrating 116 years of independence. Marked by Filipinos around the world as the country's national day, it is the time to commemorate the sacrifices made by such heroes of the Philippines as José Rizal and Andres Bonifacio. The first Filipinos came to Canada in 1930, and since then, Filipino Canadians have made tremendous contributions to our country's social and cultural fabric, to our economy, and to our nation's history.

This year's national day is particularly poignant as we also pause to remember those lives lost and uprooted due to Hurricane Yolanda. Canada's response to this tragedy was swift, decisive, and substantive. This showed Filipino Canadians that as members of the Canadian family, we stand together. I am proud to say that York Centre has one of the largest number of Filipino Canadians of any riding in Canada, and I look forward to celebrating national day with them. For all Filipino Canadians, I take great pride in saying, Araw ng Kalayaan .

[ Translation ] Optimist Clubs Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Optimist Clubs are an approach to life. Members do volunteer work to help improve the lives of their fellow citizens, youth, adults, and seniors. It is about breaking isolation by organizing social and community activities.

In my riding, that includes parent-teen meetings like the ones at Beauharnois-Maple Grove; celebrating Earth Day, and keeping kids safe on Halloween, as they do in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield; organizing a corn festival like the one in Saint-Anicet; or hosting running events to get back in shape, like they do in Saint-Michel. Optimist Clubs across the country are helping improve and revitalize our communities. All these activities express a fundamental value: solidarity and helping others.

To honour the wonderful work being done by Optimist Clubs, perhaps we should make the first Thursday in February “Canadian Optimist Day”. That is my proposal to the House, and I committed to working on this issue so that Parliament passes legislation that will raise awareness about the values being promoted by members of Optimist Clubs. I am sure that every member will vote in favour of this bill. Let us be optimistic.

[ English ] Iran Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs has said: Despite the electoral promises made by President Hassan Rouhani to improve people’s lives, Iranians continue to live in fear of arbitrary imprisonment, torture and execution by the clerical regime. Even more recently, the minister said: All of us, who have long despaired about the Iranian regime, want to believe that Iran is genuinely committed to positive change.

But we do not have the luxury of being naive, nor do the Iranian people, who have suffered for far too long under the regime’s nuclear ambitions. Human rights, particularly executions, are actually getting worse under his watch and at the hands of Iran’s so-called “Minister of Murder”. I am equally concerned about the safety and security of approximately 3,000 Iranian dissidents in Camp Liberty in Iraq, who are under constant threats of annihilation, missile attacks, and inhumane medical siege.

Our Minister of Foreign Affairs has said: Canada deplores Iran’s continued disregard for due process and human rights violations against its people. The Iranian people deserve the dignity, respect and freedom that they have been denied for too long.

Birthday Congratulations Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Frances Peddle, from Stephenville Crossing, who turned 108 years old on May 29 and is the oldest resident in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mrs. Peddle left her home in Green's Harbour, Trinity Bay, when she was age 15 to go to work, including travelling to Montreal. She returned to the province, where she married and raised six children. When her first husband passed away, she later remarried and was stepmother to eight other children. Mrs.

Peddle has also been blessed with 60 grandchildren, 92 great-grandchildren, 57 great-great grandchildren and four great-great-great grandchildren. Mrs. Peddle always made time to volunteer, which she continued doing until the age of 90. She was an active Legionnaire, a member of the Fishermen's Lodge, the Ladies Orange Benevolent Association, and the Anglican Church Women's Group. For the past 26 years, she has lived with her daughter Margaret and son-in-law Ivan Bennett, who welcomed me to their home when I visited Mrs. Peddle.

I ask all members to join with me in recognizing this remarkable woman who, at 108 years old, is healthy, alert and credits her ripe old age to hard work.

Battle of Normandy Mr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this week our Prime Minister and a contingent of Canadian veterans have travelled a great distance to Normandy. There they will reflect and honour the loss of so many lives and the many brave Canadian soldiers who did not return. One of those veterans is Mr. Denis Hubber, from my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. Mr. Hubber will turn 91 this year. He served with the Royal Navy from 1941 to 1946 and later with the Royal Canadian Air Force. This journey has great meaning for Mr. Hubber, and I ask that all members of the House join with me in recognition of the many brave Canadians who served at Normandy. Lest we Forget.

(1105) [ Translation ] Battle of Normandy Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago on the morning of June 6, 14,000 brave and fearless Canadian soldiers landed on Juno Beach in Normandy. The Royal Canadian Navy supplied the ships for the landing, and our planes flew over the ancient dunes, preparing the terrain for shelling. Of the 14,000 who chose to crowd into those boats, over 1,000 were killed or wounded freeing Europe from the Nazi scourge. Every member here is proud to pay tribute today to those who were willing to sacrifice their lives for our freedom. I speak for us all when I say, “Lest we forget”.

[ English ] Canada-Africa Leadership Intern Program Mr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East, I rise to congratulate the trainees of the first Canada-Africa leadership intern program that was recently completed in Ottawa. The participants represented the Kingdom of Lesotho, the United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda, and the Republic of Zambia. This leadership program was a resounding success, and the participants enjoyed their experience, including the snow that they had never seen before.

I thank all those who helped make this program a success, including the Library of Parliament; ITTS; Parliament clerks; table officers and committee clerks; Senate and Senate staff; Office of the Black Rod; human resources; commissioners; Sergeant-at-Arms; and all the staff and assistants. I thank them all for their help on this program. I also thank High Commissioner Tsepa from Lesotho, First Secretary Joseph Sokoine from Tanzania, former high commissioner Margaret Kyogire from Uganda, and High Commissioner Bobby Samakai from Zambia for their support and help in facilitating this program.

I look forward to initiating further programs and the inclusion of more African countries.

70th Anniversary of D-Day Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago, dawn broke over Normandy with the silhouette of war painted across the horizon. D-Day had arrived to tranquil shores, bearing witness to history's largest invasion, 1,000 ships of Allied might prepared to strike the heart of Nazi tyranny, to free Europe from its grasp. More than 100,000 stormed ashore, earning their place in history under horrific enemy fire. Many did not reach the beach, slipping beneath the channel's cold water.

Fathers and sons were driven from peaceful pasts to take up arms for their God, King and country, testing the mettle of their fortitude and soul. Canada's soldiers truly triumphed on D-Day, a crucial day on the road to victory and to a free world. The price of peace in Canada today has been the high cost of lives lost in the wars of the past. Lest we forget.

[ Translation ] Normandy Landing Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago today, more than 14,000 Canadian soldiers were getting ready for the largest Allied offensive in Normandy. The Royal Canadian Navy would send 109 ships and 10,000 sailors to join the massive armada of 7,000 Allied ships that took to the sea on D-Day. Those soldiers came from across Canada. Most of them were young and had never taken

part in a combat mission before. Thanks to their courage and tenacity, they were able to push back the German troops and pave the way for the liberation of Europe. More than 5,000 of our soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice and are buried far from their loved ones and their homeland. Those who returned home suffered physical and psychological injuries, which they are still dealing with today. The cost of freedom and democracy can be a steep price to pay. Let us remember those who sacrificed their lives for the protection of these ideals. Let us remember those who sacrificed their present for the sake of our future. We will remember them. Lest we forget.

[ English ] Battle of Normandy Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago today, Canada and our Allies dared to attempt the seemingly impossible. They bravely landed on the heavily defended shores of Normandy and, with great vision and perseverance, forever changed the course of history. Canada's courageous troops were among the first into action and, against terrible odds, they fought their way onto Juno Beach. The success achieved in Normandy was a turning point in the Second World War, paving the way to victory in Europe. As a nation, we remember those who sacrificed for democracy, justice, and peace, and we pay tribute to the fallen. Lest we forget.

(1110) [ Translation ] Laval—Les Îles Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as this will be the last time I rise before the end of the session, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents for their support and their significant involvement in political life. In the past few months alone, thousands of people have shared their disgust with the decision to end home mail delivery. They also support the NDP position to reduce ATM transaction fees and the NDP's environmental policies.

I would like to thank all the people of Laval for their support, and I want to reassure them that I will continue to fight to protect their rights and defend their interests here in Ottawa. In closing, I would like to invite my constituents to meet with me at my office or at one of the events that will take place this summer in our lovely city, especially our national holiday, Canada Day, and some of the festivities in western Laval or the Greek and Armenian festivals. I look forward to seeing them there.

[ English ] The Economy Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, thanks to our government's determined direction, Canada's economy is a model among developed nations. The World Economic Forum has rated our banking system as the most sound in the world for the past six years. Forbes has rated Canada the best country in the G20 in which to do business. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister , we continue to open new markets for Canadian businesses, supporting them as they compete in the global marketplace.

The anti-trade NDP, au contraire , wants to implement risky schemes to raise taxes, while the Liberal leader thinks that budgets balance themselves. Every middle-class family knows that it takes discipline to balance the chequebook, but only our Conservative government is focused on the priorities of Canadians: jobs, growth and economic prosperity. We are keeping taxes low, we are on track to balance the budget and we are getting the job done for hard-working Canadians.

70th Anniversary of D-Day Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, on this the 70th anniversary of D-Day, all Canadians remember the enormous sacrifice of those who fought and died to defeat the embodiment of evil. We honour the profound courage of those Canadians who landed on Juno Beach under heavy fire to establish a crucial foothold for the liberation of Europe. My dad landed through Juno Beach five days after the initial wave, and went on to help hold the bridge at Nijmegen in Holland.

Dad rarely spoke of the war, but he said that he hoped our sons—that no one's sons—would have to face the horrors of war. [ Translation ] Peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of social justice. [ English ] We have much more work to do to honour those who fought for peace and those who in uniform continue to put their lives in harm's way to protect us.

Battle of Normandy Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, under overcast skies 70 years ago this very day, thousands of brave Canadians battled on land, at sea and in the skies over occupied Europe, when Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy and began the march to victory in the Second World War. However, the Canadian triumph on D-Day and during the Battle of Normandy was purchased with much sacrifice, blood, and loss. Of the more than 90,000 Canadians who served in the Battle of Normandy, more than 5,000 would give their lives.

Today, we remember those who served, and we reflect on the legacy that they have given into our care: the precious gift of freedom. Lest we forget.

[ Translation ] Shootings in Moncton Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this morning, I would like to acknowledge the courage of three RCMP officers who gave their lives to protect the people of Moncton. Constable Fabrice Georges Gevaudan, Constable David Joseph Ross and Constable Douglas James Larche are three heroes whom people in Moncton, the Atlantic region, and all of Canada will remember. Our thoughts are with their families, loved ones, and colleagues.

We are eternally grateful for their service and their sacrifice. (1115) [ English ] On behalf of all of my colleagues, I offer our sincerest and most profound condolences to the families of the fallen members. [ Translation ] Yesterday, the people of Moncton showed grace under pressure. [ English ] Today we shall stand together and mourn the deaths in the line of duty of these brave officers. [ Translation ] These events will remain etched in our memories forever. [ English ] We shall not forget them.

Shootings in Moncton Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this morning at 12:10 a.m., after a long, arduous, and dangerous manhunt, the RCMP apprehended the suspect in the recent horrific shooting in Moncton. Monctonians can rest assured that the safety and security of their community has been restored. All Canadians can be proud of the resiliency shown by the community of Moncton and how the people have come together in this very difficult time. Front-line law enforcement officers have shown tremendous bravery in apprehending this deranged individual.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of Constable Fabrice Gevaudan, Constable David Ross, and Constable Douglas James Larche, who all gave the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. We will be forever grateful for their service.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Justice Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's Bedford decision was about ensuring the safety of vulnerable women, but the Conservatives' legislation is raising concerns across the country. It has provisions that most likely do not respect the charter and do not appear to respect the Supreme Court's ruling. This will be dragged through the courts for years. Will the government do the sensible thing and refer this legislation to the Supreme Court before proceeding further? Hon.

Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member insofar as we have made genuine efforts to address the inherent dangers of prostitution. More than just the legislation, we have put in place significant resources to help prostitutes exit this life and find a better, safer, healthier path. That is what is happening in addition to the legislation. With regard to a Supreme Court reference, it was just six months ago that we received the Bedford decision.

It is the role and the responsibility of parliamentarians to examine legislation and bring forward laws we feel are good for Canadians. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, several analysts have concluded that Bill C-36 does not do an adequate job of protecting prostitutes as required by the Supreme Court in Bedford. A number of experts and sex workers believe that Bill C-36 will force prostitution further underground and expose people to more violence.

Will the government disclose the legal opinions it received and refer its bill to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible to ensure that it is charter compliant and in line with the Bedford ruling? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, our government has no intention of compromising the authority and responsibility of Parliament. [ English ] With respect to the concerns around prostitution and the inherent dangers, clearly that was reflected in the bill itself.

What we are attempting to do is protect Canadians, protect those who are most vulnerable, and protect communities as well, including children, from the exposure to prostitution. This is a complex issue. To suggest that there is an answer that is going to solve all of these issues overnight is simply not realistic. I would encourage the member to examine the bill.

[ Translation ] Public Works and Government Services Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, apparently the government has a report recommending the purchase of 65 F-35s without a bidding process. Members may recall that in 2012, a damning Auditor General report accused the Conservatives of failing to do due diligence for a $25 billion contract. Will the minister table that report before the House adjourns? Can she also tell us why she is still refusing to launch a bidding process?

(1120) Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made about replacing the fleet of CF-18 fighter jets. When we developed the seven-point plan to replace the CF-18s, we undertook the most independent and transparent review ever in Canadian history. A panel of independent experts ensured that the Royal Canadian Air Force evaluated the options both rigorously and impartially. We will take a very careful look at a number of reports to make a decision about replacing Canada's existing fleet of CF-18 fighter jets.

We will make sure that the Canadian Forces have the equipment they need to do their job. [ English ] Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, reruns are a sure sign that summer is here. We have seen this F-35 show before. The story where we do not need an open competition to get the best price. The story where we can buy 65 jets for $9 billion. There are never credible story lines and it is never credibly performed. Here we are again with the Conservatives rejecting open competition in favour of sole-sourced procurement for the F-35s.

Could the minister at least tell us if the Canadian companies are guaranteed work? Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will repeat for the member opposite because he did not seem to listen to my previous answer. No decision has been made on the replacement for the CF-18 fighter jet fleet. Our government will finish a number of reports related to defence capabilities, industrial benefits, costs, and other factors with a view to replacing our CF-18 fleet.

I can assure the member that we remain committed to ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the equipment they need to perform their duties. We will reveal that information to the House in due course. Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I did listen to the answer, but the thing is, I have heard that answer many times, in fact, years ago. The parliamentary secretary had to blow the dust off his paperwork. The results of the Canadian government's study have already been reported in Washington. Government and industry officials have been leaking their version of events here in Canada.

If Conservative spinners are willing to leak the report to the media and industry, why are Conservative ministers not willing to answer questions here, to stand by their decisions, to stand to account to Canadians here in the House? Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as part of our seven-point plan, the Royal Canadian Air Force has conducted a rigorous examination of the ability of available fighter aircraft to carry out the missions outlined in the Canada First defence strategy.

An independent panel of experts--external to government, I should add--ensured that the valuation of options being conducted by the RCAF was both rigorous and impartial. Our government will be carefully reviewing a number of reports related to defence capabilities, industrial benefits, and costs to make sure we have an adequate replacement of our CF-18 fleet. Once we have reviewed all of these reports, we will make a decision and we will announce it.

[ Translation ] Employment Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, every day Canadians continue to watch as full-time jobs are replaced by part-time jobs. Canadians' paid hours of work have not changed over the past year. All the new jobs created are part-time jobs that pay less and provide fewer benefits. Will the Conservatives admit that there is a problem and finally introduce real measures to create jobs? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, even though the global economy remains fragile, our economic policies have kept Canada's economy strong.

Since coming to office in 2006, Canada has had the strongest job growth of any in the G7 countries, that is, the most industrial countries in the world. Since coming to power, the Conservative Party and this government have led all other G7 countries in economic growth. Over one million net new jobs have been created since the deepest part of the recession. By far, the overwhelming number of these jobs are full-time jobs in the private sector. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are watching their full-time jobs be replaced by part-time work.

According to the latest jobs report, Canada is actually down 27,000 full-time jobs compared with last year. TD Economics reports that the Canadian job market remains disappointing. All net new jobs have been part-time. These jobs pay less and they have fewer benefits. Instead of repeating these old, out-of-date, Conservative talking points, will the Conservatives actually admit there is a problem and introduce a real jobs plan to create full-time work across Canada?

(1125) Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we know that the job numbers can be volatile from month to month, but let me say this. The IMF and the OECD have confidence in Canada's economy. These international bodies believe that Canada has one of the strongest growth records as far as jobs are concerned and also as far as our economies are concerned in years going ahead. It is quite rich for the Liberal Party to be criticizing our government's job creation legislation and efforts. The Liberals voted against every job creation measure that this government has brought forward.

Whether it is freezing the EI rates or tax cuts for the manufacturing sector, every time the Liberals will vote against it. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, those talking points are out of date and the Conservatives are out of touch with the reality that you cannot support a full-time family with part-time work. Since last year, Canada has lost 27,000 full-time jobs. Wages are stagnant and families are falling behind. We can change this.

Smart investments in infrastructure can create good full-time jobs across Canada, but the Conservatives have actually cut planned infrastructure spending by 90%. Will the Conservatives reverse these cuts, invest in infrastructure, and help create good full-time jobs across Canada? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, across this land Canadians are seeing construction projects unfold in their communities this spring with jobs being created as a result.

Across this land municipalities are identifying infrastructure project priorities and submitting them to the new Building Canada plan. Across this land the Liberals continue to spread misinformation.

[ Translation ] Privacy Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this government is knowingly violating people's privacy. We learned this week that the Government Operations Centre, which falls under the Department of Public Safety, keeps a registry of protests and spies on the people who participate in them. Freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly are fundamental rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How do the Conservatives justify transforming the Government Operations Centre into a super spy agency? [ English ] Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I actually answered this question I think four times yesterday, but I will provide a little more information to the NDP. I do not think they get it. Protests and rallies are public events. Protests that create blockades on highways, railroads, international ports of entry, and bridges have a significant impact on Canadian interests and pose potential security threats.

Every Canadian watching today must recognize and appreciate that it is our government that is making sure that those things are looked after. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, they should be a little more specific. In fact, according to the email obtained by the media, the Government Operations Centre keeps a list of all the protests that take place across the country, and it shares the information with its partners. Police forces, Canadian intelligence services and the department involved come to mind immediately.

Can the minister tell us if any personally identifiable information about the participants is collected and if this information is also shared with foreign intelligence services? [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I guess I am answering the question for the sixth time. The Government Operations Centre needs to be prepared to respond to any potential event to ensure confidence in government and continuity of federal services. Canadians expect nothing less.

As I mentioned yesterday as well, peaceful protests can suddenly turn violent, just as law-abiding citizens can suddenly create a crime. Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the only way the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety could pretend to justify Conservatives spying on Canadians was to bizarrely imply that if a peaceful protest turned unpeaceful, the NDP would call on the government to take action. Let us be clear about what we are talking about. This is about the ministry of public safety maintaining a registry of demonstrations to spy on Canadians who protest.

How can the minister justify turning the ministry of public safety into a spy agency that keeps tabs on peaceful protesters?

(1130) Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we of course respect the right of all Canadians to peaceful protest. However, Canadians also expect that local law enforcement will ensure that the laws are respected. In order to do that, the Government Operations Centre monitors any event that may pose a risk to public safety. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are only now starting to see the full extent of government demands for our personal information.

Rogers Communications, one of Canada's largest Internet providers, said that just last year they received over 170,000 requests for customer information. This follows previous statistics showing that telecom companies received more than 1.2 million data requests in 2011. We all know that there are not 1.2 million terrorists. What possible reason could the government have for collecting so much of our personal information? Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me be clear.

Our government takes the privacy of law-abiding Canadians very seriously, and we expect all telecommunications companies to comply with the law and play by the rules when handling Canadians' information. Let me be clear. An individual's private information is protected under the charter and cannot be released without a warrant. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, no wonder the government hand-picked the new Privacy Commissioner, who specialized in defending the government against the previous Privacy Commissioner.

Privacy experts all recognize that the Conservatives' arguments on this file are bizarre and unbelievable. Warrantless searches go far beyond general scrutiny, and while some companies are releasing the number of requests they are getting, Canadians still have no idea how far this collection of their private data is going. Will the government finally explain what it is really doing with the private information of more than one million Canadians? Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I can say it twice to make sure it is very, very clear, because I think it is important that the member understand. I was very familiar with PIPEDA, when it first came into play, as an employer. Let me be clear that the rules governing these types of voluntary disclosures have been clearly defined in

section 7 of the PIPEDA rules. Telecommunications companies have already said as well that they will release only 411-style information. More importantly, we expect that telecommunications companies will comply absolutely with the law and play by the rules when handling Canadians' private information. [ Translation ] Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, how can the Conservatives, who are supposed to be the champions of freedom, justify asking telecoms for personal information about 100,000 Canadians?

If the Conservatives want to scrutinize Canadians' information and actions, they just have to watch the French program Occupation double . In the meantime, we are talking about ordinary citizens who are sharing their personal information with the government without even knowing it. Can the Conservative government tell us what kind of information the telecoms are asked for? [ English ] Hon. Ed Holder (Minister of State (Science and Technology), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, thank you for the chance to say something very important that gives confidence to Canadians.

I am talking about the privacy of law-abiding Canadians to be well respected, something this government takes absolutely seriously. As I said, and I will say it again, a person's private information is protected under the charter and cannot be released without a warrant.

[ Translation ] Public Works and Government Services Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in 2012 the government was forced to cancel the F-35 program because it was poorly managed and lacked transparency. Reports by the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General were devastating and categorical. In addition, Parliament was not even informed of the details of the project. Will the Conservatives change their approach, show some transparency and tell us, for example, if the operational requirement has been modified so that every fighter jet manufacturer can be considered? Mr.

Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, a panel of independent experts ensured that the evaluation of options was rigorous and impartial and that the results to be made public are comprehensive and understandable. As we have said repeatedly, in due course we will be sharing unclassified and non-confidential business information from the evaluation of options. [ English ] We will not take lectures from the NDP, or the Liberals for that matter, on military procurement.

When it comes to providing equipment for the military, we have delivered. [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want Parliament to sign over a $9 billion cheque immediately, no questions asked. That is ridiculous. The Auditor General said that the total cost of the project is $25 billion. It seems to me that with a bill like that, a competitive process is clearly necessary. What killed the F-35 program in 2012 was the government's lack of transparency and inability to justify the need for this purchase.

It seemed like the government was far more interested in defending Lockheed Martin's interests than those of Canadians. Will the minister disclose the details of the Canadian F-35 procurement program by the time the House adjourns? (1135) [ English ] Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will repeat, for the benefit of the opposition, that we are currently conducting an evaluation following the seven-point plan. Many of those reports are actually available on the website.

The reports are being scrubbed for commercially sensitive information as well as for making sure that there is no classified information that goes out. Once the evaluation of those options is complete, we will be announcing a decision to the Canadian public in due course. Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, it looks as though the same comedy of errors is playing itself out again on this F-35 file. The Minister of National Defence at the time used to claim, “Yes, we have seen the competition.

We did a competition for the F-35s.” It turned out that no, actually, the Conservatives did not. The Americans did it for them in 2001, and they just accepted it. Can the Conservatives tell us if they actually conducted a real competition this time, and that it has taken place, and whether, yet again, Canadians, having no guaranteed contract for Canadian companies, really believe it is a great deal for the Canadian public across this country? Mr. Bernard Trottier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, let me repeat once again, no decision has been made on the CF-18 replacement. In the evaluation of the different options, we are looking at defence capabilities. Of course we are looking at industrial benefits, and we are looking at the best value for Canadian taxpayers. Once that evaluation is complete, we will be making sure that the information is revealed to Canadians in due course.

Infrastructure Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the C.D. Howe Institute estimates that traffic gridlock costs Toronto's economy up to $11 billion each and every year. Commute times in ridings like Trinity--Spadina and Scarborough--Agincourt are getting longer and longer, reducing the valuable time workers can spend with their families. Meanwhile, the Conservatives refuse to commit to a national transit strategy and have virtually turned off the tap to the Building Canada fund until, of course, the election cycle starts again.

Why is the government continuing to turn its back on our important cities? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in fact, our Conservative government is making record investments in infrastructure, the longest and the largest infrastructure plan in Canada's history, of over $53 billion over the next 10 years. Already our government has invested over $7 billion specifically in public transit. With respect to a national transit plan, we very much believe in empowering the municipalities to identify their own transit priorities.

We do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach. Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the money will arrive in 2019. Over the past 12 months, the government has not created a single net full-time job, and the so-called jobs minister seems proud that middle-class salaries are barely keeping pace with inflation. Infrastructure investments not only create large amounts of economic activity but actually improve productivity, raise standards of living, and increase quality of life.

Instead of making excuses and heckling in the House for their own economic failures, why do the Conservatives not actually do something for a change to help working families? For starters, why do they not reverse the 90% cut to the infrastructure fund? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, that is simply incorrect. We are making record investments in infrastructure. In addition to those record investments, over the next decade we will spend within our means. Within the year, we will balance the budget.

Our new Building Canada plan is open for business. Applications are already being received. One transit project in Edmonton has already been approved. I will take that to the bank any day. [ Translation ] Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the government is reducing its investments in new infrastructure by roughly 90% just to give itself bragging rights during the next election for having balanced the budget. However, it is aggravating the infrastructure deficit.

According to the Conservatives, we do not need new public transit systems, nor do we need to adapt our infrastructure to the devastating effects of climate change. Why does the government keep putting its partisan interests ahead of the country's interests? (1140) [ English ] Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the new Building Canada plan is open for business.

What I would recommend to our colleagues from the Liberal Party over in the far corner is that instead of playing politics with respect to infrastructure and with respect to not spreading misinformation about the plan, they should work with their municipalities to identify infrastructure project priorities so we can get down to work. I know that it is what we are doing on this side of the House.

[ Translation ] Veterans Affairs Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 40,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces have come back from the mission in Afghanistan, and many of them are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Again this morning, Jenifer Migneault and Marie-Andrée Mallette, two spouses of soldiers who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, are criticizing the lack of support available for caregivers.

Will the Conservatives finally recognize the essential work these spouses do and give them all the support they are calling for and deserve? [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is exactly because of the tremendous sacrifices made by members of the Canadian Forces and their families that we have made record investments across the board, not only in giving equipment and support for serving members but also by investing an additional $4.7 billion over the course of eight budgets.

It is interesting to hear the member opposite, who continually, as part of the NDP plan, tries to politicize this issue, particularly on a day like today. I would note that all of that investment was opposed by members of the NDP. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Jenifer Migneault, the wife of a veteran Canadian soldier, spoke to the NDP caucus this week. What she told us was that caregivers can make the difference between life and death, but many spouses of veterans caring for their loved ones are struggling themselves. They need more training. They need more support.

As we mark today's historic day, the historic D-Day landings, will the government commit to improving support for families and their caregivers and not just recite numbers? Give Jenifer Migneault some hope at least. Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, indeed we do. These are not statistics. We offer the operational stress injury social support program for families. We, in fact, give assessment and treatment for mental health conditions if veterans need it, as well as counselling, within the operational stress clinics.

We have case management, rehabilitation services, financial benefits, group health insurance, the veterans independence program, education assistance, pastoral outreach, an emergency fund, and a hotline. We have introduced a new program to give veterans access to operational support through dogs, as a comfort. We have ongoing program support. The members opposite, the NDP, opposed these programs.

International Trade Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Jenifer does not need a dog. She needs actual support for her to carry on. This week, the Prime Minister met with the President of the European Commission to discuss trade negotiations in Europe. These are the same negotiations that supposedly were done eight months ago. A good European trade deal is crucial for Canada, but good trade deals are built on trust. How can Canadians trust Conservatives when all we get is posturing, rhetoric, and stunts? Will the minister inform the House about the outstanding issues that are holding up this deal?

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have managed to come to an agreement with the European Union on a very ambitious trade agreement, in fact, the most ambitious that Canada has entered into. It will more than double the amount of countries with which Canada enjoys free trade, and will put Canada in a position where we are the only developed economy in the world with trade agreements in place with both the United States and the European Union, the two biggest economies in the world.

If we want to make Canada the place to invest, the place to create jobs, the place to create prosperity, we will not be like the NDP; we will support that trade agreement. [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a fact is a fact. When the Conservatives arrived in 2006, we had a $26 billion trade surplus. Today we have a $62 billion trade deficit. That is a difference of $80 billion. They talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk.

Last October, they said that the agreement with Europe had been finalized, but five months later they cannot provide us with a single shred of paper. Can the minister just be honest in the House and admit that they celebrated too late? Will they admit that there are a number of details to work out and tell us—

(1145) The Speaker : Order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency . [ English ] Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as for the CETA that we have signed with the European Union, that has been tabled in the House, and the member is well aware of that. There is a copy available for him if he wants it.

When he wants to talk about the trade deficit, the reality is that the member failed to mention that March's revised trade surplus was almost $800 million, 10 times more than the trade surplus originally reported. What is more, over the first four months of this year, exports are up 8% over the same period last year. Canada's job creation record is the best in the G7, with over one million net new jobs created.

Veterans Affairs Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago brave Canadian troops valiantly fought in the Battle of Normandy, on D-Day. This was a defining moment in our nation's history. Today we and our Allies pause to remember the sacrifice and legacy of these heroic Canadians. Could the Minister of Justice please inform the House how our government is commemorating this important and historic day? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the member for New Brunswick Southwest , whose spouse, I note, is a serving member. Today the Prime Minister , the Minister of Veterans Affairs , and a number of parliamentarians are on the shores of Normandy, joining leaders from around the world, Canadian Forces members, cadets, 1,000 Canadian youth, but, most importantly, 100 Canadian veterans of D-Day and the Battle of Normandy, who have triumphantly returned 70 years later.

As Canadians, it is our responsibility and a sacred duty to honour and remember those who served so courageously for our very freedom and democracy that we enjoy today, and that we remember those who continue to defend and protect our great country at home and abroad. Lest we forget. N'oublions jamais.

[ Translation ] Consumer Protection Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, banks are imposing unfair penalties of up to $30,000 on consumers who pay back their mortgages in advance because of a change in workplace, a separation, or a death. Will the Conservative government finally put a stop to this practice and support my bill to put a cap on these unfair and excessive penalties? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Again, Mr. Speaker, we want all Canadians to keep more money in their pockets.

Through our National Consumer Agency, we have made it easier than ever for Canadians to shop around for low to no-cost banking solutions. In fact, only two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance moved forward with the banks on low to no-cost banking options. Recently we announced an agreement for more than seven million Canadians that improves low-cost options for them. We also continue to work with the provinces to ensure that these services are appropriately regulated. Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Conservatives promise to help Canadians by regulating the penalties that banks charge for prepaying mortgages, but Canadians are still being gouged. These penalties are the number one complaint to the banking ombudsman. The Conservatives are standing by while the banks rip off hard-working Canadians who are just trying to pay down their mortgage. Why will the Conservatives not regulate prepayment penalties? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we are bringing forward consumer measures that would help Canadians keep more money in their pockets, unlike the NDP, which only talks about protecting consumers. It is our Conservative government that has actually taken action. We have banned unsolicited credit card cheques, limited anti-consumer business practices, and ensured that prepaid credit cards never expire. We have also introduced rules requiring clear disclosure of terms on credit card contracts and applications. Sadly, the NDP has opposed all of our efforts to protect those Canadian consumers.

[ Translation ] The Environment Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is better not to respond at all than to spout such nonsense. The fight against climate change is a global issue, and Canada must do its part. President Obama was very clear: the United States must take real action to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the sector that is its largest polluter. Canada must follow that example and do the same. We must impose regulations on the oil and gas industry that are in keeping with our Copenhagen commitments.

Why are the Conservatives stubbornly refusing to regulate the oil and gas industry and, at the same time, weakening our trade relationship with the United States? (1150) [ 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 welcome the movement in the United States to regulate greenhouse gas emissions related to the electricity sector. Again, building on our record, we want to work with the United States on reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the oil and gas sector.

Our countries should be taking action together, not alone. This is consistent with what we are already doing, aligning with the United States on greenhouse gas emissions regulations in the transportation sector. For example, 2025 passenger vehicles and light trucks will emit about half as many greenhouse gas emissions in Canada compared to 2008. [ Translation ] Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we need to do more than just sit back and see what happens. The Conservatives' reports show that we are not going to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets they themselves set for 2020.

What is more, we learned this week that there has been a significant increase in the mercury levels around some oil sands development sites. Why are the Conservatives choosing to allow living environments and ecosystems to deteriorate like this? [ 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, our government has made responsible resource development a priority. We have worked with the Province of Alberta to launch a world-class scientific monitoring system for the oil sands.

This is a transparent public process that has some of Canada's top scientists involved. These reports show that our plan is working, and we will continue to be transparent and promote independent scientific assessment and evaluation.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in the previous budget, the government made changes to the seed potato tuber quality management program administered by the CFIA. These changes will impact the ability of Canadian seed potato growers to export to the United States. There are some 17 state seed certification agencies that are resisting these changes and maintain that without CFIA shipping point inspections on all seed exports, they will not recognize our product as seed potatoes. What assurance can the minister give us that our seed potato market will not be jeopardized?

Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this good question, but I also thank my colleagues, the members for Egmont and Tobique—Mactaquac , for working so hard to represent the concerns of the potato farmers on this important matter. Canada's seed potato certification system is effective in maintaining Canada's reputation as a supplier of quality seed potatoes.

That is why, working with the Canadian Horticultural Council, we have instructed the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to continue export-related inspections to maintain market access to the United States. Although I am answering this question today in the House, I do want farmers to know that the CFIA wrote to the Canadian Horticultural Council on this earlier in the week. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, let us turn to seed grain and where the government is also crippling farmers' ability to compete, with the withdrawal of CFIA inspection on seed grain.

Farmer Charles Murphy said, “last year, CFIA inspected...at a cost of $498.63. The new cost to inspect these same fields by the new company is $6393.35”. That is not three times the cost; it is over thirteen times the cost. When will the government roll back that reckless cost increase and that cost burden on grain producers? Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let us talk about farmers and how well they are doing in Canada with our government's policies. Crop receipts have increased to over $30.5 billion because of our initiatives.

Wheat receipts grew by 26%, which is a record. Livestock receipts have totalled $21.6 billion. If he wants to talk about seed, I would encourage this member to support our Bill C-18 , which would bring in agricultural technology to the benefit of our farmers.

(1155) [ Translation ] Housing Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians are at risk of losing their homes because of this government's indifference. As we say, “a roof, a right”, but the government seems to think that is a joke. The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the NDP are calling on the government to restore funding for social and co-operative housing. Why is the government ignoring this issue? [ English ] Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we are listening, and we are providing common-sense solutions that actually produce results. The director of CHF, Nicholas Gazzard, said about the changes that we have made to help housing co-ops, “We are very encouraged that housing co-ops will be able to use these funds to continue to provide support for vulnerable households”. While the agreements have ended because the mortgages are paid off, we have renewed our investment in affordable housing. The money goes to the provinces. We have also made common-sense changes for co-ops. All around, we are getting the job done. [ Translation ] Ms.

Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 200,000 co-operative housing units will be lost even as thousands of Canadians are adding their names to the waiting lists. The need is growing, but this government does not care. If the government does not do something before 2020, co-operative housing will no longer be affordable for low-income residents. Why is the government not helping to make access to affordable housing a priority for Canada? [ English ] Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the real question is this.

Why do the New Democrats and the Liberals vote against every one of our initiatives that set out to help Canadians with housing? For example, they voted against our providing $300 million to British Columbia for housing. In P.E.I., we signed an agreement of $15 million; in New Brunswick, $78 million; in Alberta, $202 million. Across the country, we are signing these agreements, and the New Democrats have voted against it every time. While they want to talk about helping those people who need housing, they do nothing to actually create that.

Natural Resources Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians know the importance of natural resource development. This is why they trust our government's responsible resource development plan to create jobs and grow the economy while strengthening environmental protection. The natural resources sector supports 1.8 million jobs and contributes nearly 20% to our GDP. Can the Minister of Natural Resources update this House on action our government is taking to build upon this success? Hon.

Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie . I appreciate his work for northern Ontario. Our government is taking action to ensure that our resources are developed responsibly. That is why we have introduced the energy safety and security act to strengthen protection for taxpayers in the event of an incident in the offshore and nuclear sectors.

Bill C-22 is being studied by the natural resources committee, and I look forward to further debate when it returns to this place.

Foreign Affairs Ms. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Petro Poroshenko will be inaugurated as president of Ukraine, after earning a powerful democratic mandate in last month's election. However, Ukraine continues to face extreme pressure from Russia. Crimea has been annexed, and Russian nationals, armed by Russia, are terrorizing the people and undermining the government in Donbass. When will Canada finally join our ally, the United States, in adding Igor Sechin, president of Rosneft and a member of the Kremlin inner circle, to our sanctions list? Hon.

Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister attended the swearing-in ceremony of President-elect Petro Poroshenko in Ukraine. Canada has been a leader in the global response to Russian aggression in the Ukraine. Canada has put in place sanctions against over 100 individuals and entities responsible for the crises, contributed hundreds of Canadian observers to help facilitate free, fair, and democratic elections in the Ukraine, and is providing funds this year to help Ukraine implement needed economic reforms and promote democratic and social development.

Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea and Ukraine and provocations in eastern and southern Ukraine remain a serious— The Speaker : The hon. member for Repentigny.

[ Translation ] The Budget Mr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, massive cuts and Conservative inaction have had a devastating impact on my riding. Because of Conservatives' botched, half-baked approach to fighting homelessness, La Hutte, a homeless shelter in my riding, lost 25% of its funding. The Conservatives also cut the federal contribution to the Christmas fair, which represents millions in economic spinoffs. As well, they did absolutely nothing about the closure of Electrolux, which resulted in the loss of 2,000 jobs.

Why are the Conservatives shirking their responsibility to support economic development and social protection in Repentigny? (1200) [ English ] Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there have been no cuts to our homelessness partnering strategy. In fact, we have renewed our funding over five years. We have refocused on an evidence-based model to fight homelessness called Housing First. The NDP does not like evidence-based, results-orientated policy because it is politically driven and wants to spread misinformation. We are proud of what we have done.

Louise Bradley, president and CEO of the Mental Health Commission, said that bold solutions like Housing First are the hallmark of our mandate and that the Government of Canada is right to feel incredibly proud of its investment. We do.

International Trade Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on the real priorities of Canadians: creating new jobs and new opportunities. That is why we continue to open new markets for our Canadian exporters around the world. With the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement, Canadian exporters, our service providers, and our investors will all benefit from enhanced market access, which will create new sources of prosperity for Canadian businesses of all sizes and also, of course, for their workers.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue please update the House on this important trade agreement? Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the reality in this place is that the NDP would prefer to isolate Honduras. We believe that engagement is the best way to promote Canadian values around the world. Through engagement, we are able to share with Honduras our best practices in areas such as human rights, labour rights, democracy, and the environment.

Trade is absolutely a solution, not a problem.

[ Translation ] Champlain Bridge Mr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, following the election in Quebec, senior Conservatives said that they were eager to work with the new government on major files. I would like to draw their attention to a new development in a major file. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion confirming the strong regional consensus against a toll on the new Champlain Bridge and specifically calling on the federal government to refrain from imposing a toll. This just happened. Quebec's position could not be more clear.

Was the message about working together heard? Will the Conservatives support the amendments that the Bloc Québécois is going to propose on Monday and remove the clause in the mammoth bill that seeks to impose a toll on the new Champlain Bridge? Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our position has always been clear: there will be a toll on the new Champlain Bridge. Unlike the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc, we believe in the user-pay principle.

We will not make Canadians across the country pay for local infrastructure. This is a clear choice for Canadians. The other parties want to add to our debt,

whereas we are making responsible choices. If the NDP and the Bloc are concerned about the bridges in Montreal, they should vote for the significant investments contained in the budget bill.

[ English ] Justice Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' proposed prostitution laws will criminalize sex work for both the people who sell it and the people who buy it. It will never pass muster with the courts and it will put the lives of vulnerable women and girls in danger. In New Zealand, prostitution is legal, regulated, and taxed. The safety of sex workers and women is protected. Why has the minister introduced a bill he knows will pick yet another fight with the courts? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, that is simply not true. In fact, this bill is responsive to the Supreme Court decision in Bedford, but more importantly, it is responsive to Canadians' wishes, which were to ensure that Canadians were safe and protected in their communities. Those most vulnerable and those at risk because of the inherent dangers of prostitution are also very much at the front of this bill. We have also put in place compassionate measures to help prostitutes to exit the bill, exist the dangers of prostitution. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Peter MacKay: I know they are laughing, but it is not a very funny issue at all.

It is very much about vulnerable Canadians. That is why we brought this legislation forward. I would encourage all members to actually read the bill before they get up and make uninformed statements.

(1205) [ Translation ] Public Safety Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, in accordance with its statutory authority, the RCMP ruled that semi-automatic weapons, including various models of the CZ858, are prohibited because they can quickly be transformed into automatic weapons. However, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness not only gave a two-year amnesty to the owners of these weapons, but also assured them that the RCMP's decision would be urgently reviewed.

How does the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness expect to protect Canadians if he is going to undermine the RCMP and fail to maintain effective gun control? [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada in fact does have a strong gun control system in place to protect Canadian families and our communities. In fact, it is this government that has taken real action despite the opposition from the parties opposite to strengthen our laws to stop violent crimes and illegal firearms.

In fact, we introduced and passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which actually set mandatory sentences for serious gun crime.

Points of Order Oral Questions Points of Order Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, it is literally a point of order here in this House. The hon. member for Kenora quite often heckles and catcalls. He was doing it today during my question. I would like that hon. member to consider his behaviour and apologize. Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I will never apologize for standing up for the priorities of northern Ontarians, particularly northwestern Ontarians, which this member consistently and persistently never does in this place. The Speaker : I would suggest to the minister that if he does wish to do that, he would do it when he is given the floor and not while the other member is trying to ask a question. I think that would suit the House much better.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Transitional Regulations Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have another opportunity. Thank you.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, two copies of the transitional regulations referenced in clauses 53 and 92 of Bill C-5 , our offshore safety and health legislation, namely the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Marine Installations and Structures Occupational Health and Safety Transitional Regulations; the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Marine Installations and Structures Transitional Regulations; the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area Diving Operations Safety Transitional Regulations; the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Marine Installations and Structures Occupational Health and Safety Transitional Regulations; the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Marine Installations and Structures Transitional Regulations; and, the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Area Diving Operations Safety Transitional Regulations.

Riding Name Change Act, 2014 Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) Bill C-37. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-37,

An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts and to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House Public Accounts Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the fifth report, on

Chapter 9, Offshore Banking — Canada Revenue Agency, of the Fall 2013 Report of the Auditor General of Canada; and the sixth report, on the Main Estimates 2014-15: Report on Plans and Priorities for 2014-15 and Performance Report for 2012-13 of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the fifth report only.

(1210) Criminal Code Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) Bill C-610. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-610,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and introduce this legislation, which amends the Criminal Code's provisions on animal cruelty. In particular, it creates a new offence of inadequate and negligent care of animals. The bill establishes an offence for anyone who negligently causes unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury to an animal or bird, or, being the owner, wilfully or recklessly abandons it or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, air, shelter, and care for it.

It also punishes those who negligently injure an animal or bird while it is being conveyed. As hon. members know, Canada's animal cruelty laws are woefully out of date. They have not been updated since the 1890s. In my view, this bill represents an important step toward modernizing the law, although I realize more will be done. Given the order of precedence, I realize this bill may not see debate before I leave Parliament.

I would thus invite the government to consider adopting this legislation as its own and to introduce long-overdue animal cruelty reforms so that Canada's laws respect and protect animals against actions that show disregard or contempt for their security and well-being. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Riding Name Change Act, 2014 (On the Order: Introduction of Bills) June 6, 2014--Bill C-37,

An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts and to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act --Mr. Peter Van Loan.

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a motion regarding Bill C-37 introduced earlier today. There have been extensive discussions among the parties and I anticipate you will receive unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-37,

An Act to Change the Names of Certain Electoral Districts and to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed. The Speaker : Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the 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, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported without amendment, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

Petitions Public Safety Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present, but they are bundled into three issues. The first petition is from about 680 persons from Nanaimo, across Vancouver Island, and across British Columbia. These citizens would like to draw the attention of Parliament to the murder of Kimberly Proctor. The petitioners are calling for changes to the Criminal Code dealing with young persons 16 years or older regarding trial, sentencing, and custody amendments, to be known as “Kimberly's law”.

Agriculture Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions bundled together from about 300 citizens from across my riding from Nanoose, Coombs, Errington, Parksville, and other places. The petitioners are concerned about the right to save, exchange, and sell seeds. I have another petition from citizens concerned about fair electoral representation-- The Speaker : Order. We will have to move on to the next one because the member has had the floor for over one minute now. The hon. member for Beaches--East York.

Workers' Rights Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in the House today that arises out of the collapse of Rana Plaza, a garment factory in Bangladesh. When it collapsed, it killed 1,135 workers and injured another 2,500. The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fundamental right of all workers all over the world to work without fear for their safety and their lives. Because the accord on fire and safety in Bangladesh is a critical mechanism for the safety of garment workers in Bangladesh, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to endorse the accord-- The Speaker : Order. The hon. member for York West.

Impaired Driving Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to present a petition from several citizens of Canada. The petitioners want to see tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, these petitioners from British Columbia also indicate that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient.

They want to see that changed and toughened up so we have some new mandatory minimum sentences for persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. The petitioners want the Criminal Code to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter. They have some other good suggestions in their proposal as well.

(1215) [ Translation ] Passport Canada Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition signed by more than 1,000 people, most of whom signed it at my constituency office. These people are asking for a passport point of service in the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu Service Canada centre. Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is a city of more than 100,000 people that does not have a passport point of service, while some Canadian cities with 9,000, 10,000, or 12,000 people have a passport point of service in their Service Canada offices. That is what the petitioners are asking for today.

[ English ] Public Monuments Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition from residents of my riding calling for the removal of any public monument in the name of a person who has advocated or promoted genocide as defined by the Criminal Code. In particular, the petitioners draw the attention of the House to the statue in my riding of Queen Isabella of Spain, who oversaw the iniquitous Spanish Inquisition, which included the expulsion of all Jews from Spain on pain of death and the forced conversion of those who remained, also on pain of death.

The petitioners urge the House to consider legislation preventing the memorialization of persons who have committed deplorable acts such as these and to ensure we do not glorify those responsible for dark chapters in our-- The Speaker : Order. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

Criminal Code Ms. Roxanne James (Scarborough Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from across Canada regarding tougher penalties for sexual predators. The petitioners are co