1 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 146 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, November 21, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 21, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 146 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 146 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 146 (Version officielle) 147 146 21 11 2014 2014/11/21 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers Government Orders Government Orders (1005) [ Translation ] Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act Bill C-26. Second reading The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-26,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . To begin, I would like to thank the hon. member for Gatineau , the official opposition's justice critic, as well as the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île , who is the deputy justice critic, for the important work they have done on this bill and for all the work they do as part of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Many people know that I am a young mother with a 19-month-old baby.

Anything that has to do with sexual abuse of children affects me deeply as a parent. It really is a pleasure to speak to this bill and have the opportunity to do so, so that I can share my opinion on what is before us today. On this side of the House, we have a zero tolerance policy on sexual offences against children. We also respect the principles of jurisprudence and the fundamental laws of our country. We cannot have one without the other. It is very important to mention that. That is why the NDP will be happy to examine this bill very carefully.

As we know, with this Conservative government, the devil is often in the details, and we definitely want experts to let us know whether the measures set out in Bill C-26 will be effective. I also sincerely hope that the government will not move a time allocation motion on such an important subject as child sexual abuse. That is extremely important. Why? First, we are in Parliament and we have already had a lot of time allocation motions on important bills. Unfortunately, my colleagues do not often have the opportunity to share their opinions or those of their constituents.

However, as parliamentarians, it is our duty to rise in the House and assert those rights. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House who are members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are able to take all the time they need to examine Bill C-26 in order to make it the best bill possible and to hear from all of the experts who have an interest in this bill.

It is very important to have a debate and share our opinions here in the House so that we end up with a better bill, which will include suggestions directly related to Bill C-26 from the various experts who are invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I hope that all my colleagues in the House will be able to work together to stop the sexual abuse of children. Regardless of which side of the House we are on, no one approves of the sexual abuse of children. I do not know of any reasonable person in this Parliament who would approve of that.

We must address it and we must do it together in order to make sure that we end up with the best bill possible. As the deputy critic for public safety, I work hard to understand our prison system. I do a lot of work with our partners, including the members of UCCO-SACC, the people who work directly for Correctional Service Canada in the field or in a management role. I am thinking of our correctional officers in prisons across the country who are going through really disruptive changes right now. At the same time, they are trying to do pretty incredible work with the resources they have.

When I think of those workers, I also think of the various bills that the Conservatives have introduced in the House, many of which have had a very negative impact on our prison system, unfortunately. In my riding, in Laval, there are now two federal prisons. There used to be three. Unfortunately, the Leclerc Institute was closed following a back-of-the-napkin decision by the Conservatives. The population of that prison, which is now provincial, is growing because of the Conservatives' laws.

There is also the Montée Saint-François Institution, a minimum security institution that specializes in handling sexual predators. The third prison in our riding is the Federal Training Institution. It used to be a medium security institution, but since the Conservatives' reforms of a few months ago, it has become a medium and maximum security facility. New cells were built, and more and more federal prisoners are being sent there. The Montée Saint-François Institution is also accommodating more inmates, and new units have been built there too.

I am saying this because a lot of money has been invested so that more prisoners can be sent to Laval. Even so, the government decided to dispose of the Leclerc Institute, which is an institution in Laval and one of the nicest federal penal institutions in the country. The provincial government got to take over the facility, but unfortunately, data suggest that the institute's population could grow considerably in coming years because of the government's laws. The sad thing is that the workers still are not getting more resources because cuts to public safety have affected the correctional service.

Workers' rights are under attack. I am thinking about the definition of the word “danger” in the Labour Code. What is more, the government is not investing in the reintegration of inmates, which is very unfortunate. Experts in the prison system and inmate reintegration agree that this is extremely important. The last thing we want, as parents and citizens, is for an inmate to reoffend after serving his sentence, especially when we are talking about sexual abuse against children. We must make sure that we have extremely solid reintegration programs, instead of punitive laws only.

I am not against punitive measures, on the contrary, but we must not have one without the other. As soon as a person is incarcerated, we must initiate the reintegration process and ensure that the person is surrounded by social support. That person has to have the right tools once he has completed his sentence to ensure that he does not reoffend. We must examine this bill closely and listen to the experts. Are these the right measures? Will they provide solutions to an extremely serious problem in our society? What will this change within our prison system? Will there be more resources?

Will prisoners be forced to double-bunk in shared prison cells? What will this change for our correctional officers? What will this change for the people who work on reintegrating inmates? Will they have the resources to ensure that reintegration is done properly? Many questions currently remain unanswered. I hope the government across the way is giving serious consideration to these concerns regarding the sexual abuse of children. There are some very good programs in Laval, but unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer resources for reintegration.

In closing, I would like to remind the members opposite that we will be sure to study all the details of this bill. We hope to have the time we need to do so. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance for all sex crimes in this country. Let us work together to ensure that we have the best law possible. (1010) [ English ] Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, one of the things we need to keep front of mind when dealing with matters of a criminal nature and the rehabilitation of criminals and the protection of children is the unilateral federal responsibility for the protection of Canada's indigenous peoples. As the member has pointed out, the government has made many cuts to programs intended to support aboriginal communities in developing social services, housing, and protection for their children.

We have seen the commission on residential schools begging the government to continue funding to support the people who suffered through the abuse in the residential schools. The member speaks of the cuts and speaks of this loss. I am wondering if she thinks the bill and the government's programs reflect its responsibilities in dealing with those important matters for the protection of indigenous Canadians. (1015) [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona for her extremely important question.

I am happy that she mentioned the specific situation facing first nations communities. I agree that the government is unfortunately neglecting many files. With regard to the schools she mentioned, the government is completely neglecting its duty and is not honouring the treaties it has signed with first nations. It is so sad to see this. I truly hope that this will get the attention it deserves and that it will be included in the bill, because often the reality facing isolated first nations communities is forgotten. This brings me to a parallel I would like to draw with the bill we voted on.

I introduced Bill C-608 in the House of Commons. It passed second reading. Members voted unanimously in favour of a bill to establish a national day of the midwife. That bill is very important to first nations in particular, because the whole birth experience has been altered among first nations. Women often have to fly out of their communities for weeks, if not two or three months, in order to give birth to their child, when instead we could simply sit down with first nations communities and look at what they need for women to be able to deliver their babies in their own communities.

This bill is along the same lines. We need to make sure that we work in partnership with first nations and that the government has an open dialogue with those communities. Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her comments. Everyone in this chamber agrees that sexual crimes are among the most horrible crimes in our society and that we definitely have to tackle this problem. The government is constantly telling us that we also have to protect victims' rights.

We all agree on that point, but I would like to ask my colleague if she discovered any measures in this bill that focus on victims' rights. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie for his question. The government does often speak about victims' rights and singles them out when introducing bills. However, it seldom does so appropriately. I can cite an example for my colleague. The Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime often appears before the Standing Committee on Public Safety.

She has repeatedly told us in committee that when this type of bill is introduced we must not forget that victims' rights are automatically tied to social reintegration. It is extremely important that we not forget that. It is sad to see that the government opposite often forgets this notion in the bills it introduces, especially when people like Sue O'Sullivan tell us over and over that we must not forget that there are very important aspects of victims' rights that are often ignored by the Conservative government. When bills are introduced, we must ensure that all aspects of victims' rights are addressed.

There are many and, unfortunately, the government often plays politics with this issue, and that is very sad. We need to listen to what the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has to say and include her recommendations in bills such as this one.

(1020) Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-26,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . The NDP thinks that this bill should be sent to committee to be studied. There are many proposed measures, and we want to ensure that these measures are good ones, that they are constitutional and that they will prevent such incidents. We want to have an in-depth study. We hope to have this discussion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Our NDP justice critics, our colleagues from Gatineau and La Pointe-de-l'Île , will ensure that this bill is properly studied in committee. This is an extremely important issue. Great care must be taken with bills on topics as important as protecting our children. The committee is equipped to do this and to ensure that we create the best legislation we can to counter this threat. I truly hope that the committee is helpful and that its report shows how effective this bill is. The NDP is carefully examining the proposals in this bill.

We must focus on creating laws that will provide clear ways to protect our children. This means working with experts on the ground and with public safety professionals. I want to point out that we cannot play politics with this kind of bill. Crimes against children are the most heinous of crimes. I think that all members of the House would agree on that. Sex crimes are obviously all heinous, and we are moved by these issues. We want to create good laws to combat these crimes, especially against children, who are some of the most vulnerable members of society. We need to protect them because they are our future.

Unfortunately, crimes against children are not decreasing. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Minister of Justice himself pointed out that sexual offences against children had increased by 6% over the past two years. That is very concerning. There has been an increase despite the many tough-on-crime measures that the Conservatives have implemented since 2006. For example, they changed the age of consent, forced Internet service providers to report child pornography, increased sentences for dangerous offenders, and so on. This clearly resonates with this government.

Despite all that has been done, there has been an increase in these kinds of crimes, as the Minister of Justice himself said. It begs the question as to whether stiffer sentences actually prevent these types of crimes. The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan pointed out that what is needed is not just sentences, but also rehabilitation.

(1025) How can Parliament, the government, lawmakers as it were, make that happen? We have to make sure that the necessary resources are being provided to the RCMP and for mental health, rehabilitation and reintegration. For example, we know that our communities need more resources to fight sexual abuse of children. Obviously, harsher prison sentences are not good enough when police resources and aid organization budgets are being cut. We will have to emphasize that when the committee studies this bill. I also want to bring up what Steve Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, said.

He said that the federal government recently announced plans to eliminate the meagre funds provided by Correctional Service Canada. The funds that CoSAs receive from the National Crime Prevention Centre will also dry up this fall. The total annual cost of the program is $2.2 million. Like most community-based victims' services, the CoSA program is not very costly. It has 700 volunteers across the country who meet with offenders after their release and help them find a job and a place to stay. They meet for coffee and help offenders rebuild their lives and avoid reoffending.

They help them develop a sense of accountability. It is important to ensure accountability and reintegration so that once offenders have gone through the correctional system and are released from prison, they are able to return to society and not reoffend. Furthermore, it is important to know that there is now a publicly available list of offenders who are returning to the community. It is not that simple, though. Most people alleged to have committed a sexual offence against a child or minor are known to the victim.

Indeed, the alleged offender was known to the victim in 44% of cases, and even a family member in 38% of cases. It is important to keep that in mind. It is not just a question of protecting our communities from strangers. Too often, it is someone the victim knows. We must therefore also ensure accountability and protection, which have to do with prevention. To ensure prevention, we need to make sure that police forces, communities and mental health services have the resources they need. I would also like to talk about the work done by Circles of Support and Accountability, whose budgets have been cut.

The mission of these organizations is to make communities safer and reduce the number of victims of crime by supporting and helping people who have committed crimes, as well as holding them accountable, so they can begin to lead responsible, productive lives. They do so in partnership with correctional and police services, in order to make communities safer and help offenders reintegrate into their communities. It is crucial to point out that, according to studies, the rate of sexual recidivism is 70% lower among those who take

part in a Circle of Support and Accountability. According to another study, these kinds of support groups help reduce the rate of recidivism by 83%. What we need, more than this bill, is resources in the community to really protect our children and our communities in the future, as the government claims it wants to do. We will examine this in committee and see what comes out of that.

(1030) Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. There was one part that she unfortunately did not have time to talk about. By increasing sentences and thus inmates' incarceration, the government will do what the Quebec justice minister deplores: they will incarcerate these individuals in provincial rather than federal prisons. That has been criticized in Quebec and probably also in other provinces.

The government is going to offload onto the provinces the additional cost of these prison terms, which are sometimes pointless, as my colleague mentioned, while prevention and rehabilitation are probably the best solutions. Once again, the federal government is going to wash its hands of the financial implications for the provinces. These federal decisions are going to increase the financial burden on the provinces. What does my colleague think of that? Ms. Mylène Freeman : Mr. Speaker, these are very serious crimes. We have a duty to protect our children and prevent this type of crime in the long term.

It is not enough to pass a bill that will incarcerate more people, because it does not provide the resources. By incarcerating more people in provincial institutions the government is giving more responsibilities to the provinces, but not more resources. The same thing applies to federal prisons. The government is making cuts to Correctional Service Canada. As my colleague from Alfred-Pellan pointed out, a federal prison was transferred to the province. The government is making cuts to the prison system without providing the necessary resources. It is also making cuts to prevention and rehabilitation.

Thus, this bill is very worrisome because all it does is increase sentences. There are no long-term prevention or rehabilitation measures. [ English ] Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, parents know that at some point, actually at many points, they have to give their kids over to the care of other people, whether it is for sports, education, just plain care, whatever the case may be. It becomes obvious that prevention is an important part of all of this. I appreciated that in my colleague's speech, she referenced concern with the issue of prevention.

I also appreciated what she talked about as the specific social circumstances in which sexual abuse crimes occur against children, and it is often by people they trust, being friends, neighbours, et cetera. Is there anything in this bill that addresses those circumstances? The minister cited the 6% increase in sexual crimes against children, and yet I did not read anything in the bill that addresses the specific social circumstances in which these crimes often take place. Ms. Mylène Freeman : Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely good point. Indeed, this bill does not address those circumstances at all.

There will be a database of previous offenders, but how would that help with reintegration? That would not seem to do anything to make sure that those people do not reoffend. It is essentially just a warning for the community; it does not address that problem. All of the other things are just stricter penalties, minimums, and raising the maximum sentence.

Those things are meant as deterrents, but when we consider the specific social circumstance of the offenders being people that children know in their social circles and sometimes in their families, there is absolutely nothing to prevent these kinds of situations from happening. That is extremely unfortunate, and it is why we need to make sure that there is good funding for organizations, mental health, and society as well.

(1035) Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-26 and its very

long title. It is a bill that touches on a number of different pieces of legislation, including the Criminal Code and Canada Evidence Act. It would enact a high-risk child sex offender database act as well, and there would be consequential amendments to other acts. We are at second reading here and it seems that we might as well support this bill's passage to committee so that we can hear from some experts on this subject. As suggested by its title, this act seeks to do a number of things. It would increase the maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders, and peace bonds.

It would increase existing mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for certain sexual offences against children. It would clarify and codify rules regarding the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences. It would require courts to impose, in certain cases, consecutive sentences on offenders who commit sexual offences against children. It would ensure that spouses of the accused are considered competent and compellable witnesses for the prosecution in child pornography cases.

As well, it would increase reporting obligations on sex offenders who travel outside Canada and would establish a high-risk child sex offender database act and other things. It is a far-reaching bill. What we note about this long list of acts and amendments to existing legislation is that it is more of what the current government has done in the past, more of a turning of the screws in the same direction.

We note that the Conservative government in this and previous Parliaments has already implemented new mandatory minimums for assaults where victims are under 16 years of age; it has identified grooming activities as a criminal offence; it has made the use of computers and other telecommunications devices for the purpose of making arrangements to commit a sexual offence against a child an offence; it has amended the sex offender registry already; it has increased the age at which a person can consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16; it has required Internet service providers to report child pornography; and it has increased sentencing and monitoring of dangerous offenders.

Apart from the wisdom of any of this, the problem presented by this bill is that the Minister of Justice has provided information that sexual offences have increased by 6% over the last two years. That statistic is offered by the minister in support of further action in support of this bill. However, at least equally if not more so, that statistic calls into question the approach taken by the current government to date. It seems to suggest that mandatory minimums, longer maximums, increased scrutiny and surveillance via a sex registry and so on may not be effective responses to this issue.

This is worrying because of the particular nature of this issue of child sexual assault or child sexual abuse. It is so incredibly harmful and hurtful, leaving lasting emotional and psychological scars on its victims, things that victims have to live with and cope with for the rest of their lives if they can or do in fact live out their lives with the hurt caused. I am the son of two teachers. When I grew up, chat around the dinner table was always about education and teaching and what was going on in the classroom.

However, I married a criminal lawyer who did criminal defence work for 14 years before moving over to the crown side, where she has been for six years. There have been lots of stories brought home about crimes that she has had to be engaged with, either on the defence or prosecution side. They are not happy stories, and for the most part not stories to be talked about around the dinner table.

(1040) However, there is a story that I would like to tell that is not related to the many stories I have heard through my wife, but through my own experience as a kid. I had the great fortune of growing up in a lovely, picturesque, and historic Canadian town with a particularly a beautiful downtown in which to live. It is an older and largely more affluent part of the city, filled with old limestone houses, occupied mainly by professionals, doctors, lawyers, professors. As it turns out, it was also the hunting ground of a child sex predator, the choirmaster at one of the local cathedrals.

He was a much trusted, highly respected person in the community. He taught music not only through the cathedral but to other kids in town as well. I happened to be a member of one of his non-secular choirs for a very brief time, because I do not have much of a voice. Things started to come undone for the choirmaster in 1990 when two families in the congregation alleged publicly, in stories in the local paper, that the choirmaster had sexually molested their sons and that the abuse was directly linked to their sons' suicides.

Both boys had hanged themselves, one as a teenager and the other as a young man working on his doctorate at an ivy league university. I played tennis with one of those boys as a kid, and I went to nursery school with the other one. It is a small town. Ultimately the choirmaster plead guilty to charges involving 13 boys over a 12-year period. Over time more victims came forward, making this story much longer and an ever more complicated one. In retelling the story there may be wounds that get reopened, but I want to use the story to the complicated social facts that surround such matters.

The fact that it is a long and complicated story ought to give us all cause to pause and think through carefully our response to this issue. How does someone like this win the trust of both kids and parents? How does a predator like this find support, even from some of his victims? How does he retain the loyalty and support of a significant portion of the congregation? How did he get pardoned, at one point in time? How does he win the support of a new community and congregation? These are all questions that in the abstract need to be addressed if we are to protect kids from this kind of predatory behaviour.

We need to understand better how these things work, because most of this story is about the pain and harm caused to the kids, harm that includes the suicides of two young men full of great promise. It would seem useful to take this bill to committee so that we can have that discussion and call before the committee witnesses who, based on their expertise and experience, can speak to some of the issues raised in a case like one I referred to today.

Perhaps some parts of this bill will be considered useful by those who testify at committee, but the statistic offered by the minister in support of Bill C-26 , that there has been of a 6% increase in sexual offences against children, suggests to me that we ought to be discussing at committee other types of resources to counter the sexual abuse of children, other methods of prevention, other precautions to take, other forms or opportunities for education for both parents and kids.

In the 2011 budget, the Conservatives announced $250,000 in funding over two years as part of the federal victims strategy for programs to protect children. Budget 2012 included $7 million over five years to fund child advocacy centres, as well as limited funding for victims services organizations. This seems paltry in light of the scope and seriousness of the problem. Can the government tell us whether any of this was effective? We know by way of Steve Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for the victims of crime, that the circles of support and accountability program was very effective.

That is being cut through cuts to Corrections Canada and national crime prevention centres.

In a hopeful moment, a moment in anticipation of a good faith response by the Conservative government, it seems to me that it would be useful to put this bill and other thoughts and ideas before committee for the purpose of looking not only at the bill specifically, but also at the issue more broadly with a view to thinking through what we can do as members of Parliament to prevent further stories like that of the sexual predator I told today, and to prevent the harm that predators like him do to kids, to prevent the kind of pain that would cause two young men to take their own lives.

(1045) Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very heart-rending speech. Obviously, personal experience is what this bill is attempting to address. The member clearly supported the need for criminal provisions where we can deal with those who are detected. However, as I understand it, he and other colleagues mentioned the fact that we sadly have a rising rate of sexual offences against children.

I wonder if the member could expand a bit more on whether or not there is a need for the government to also bring forward a compliance strategy when we have reforms to the Criminal Code so that we can also talk about resources and new programs to prevent these kinds of offences. He seems to feel that it is equally as important as punishment after the fact. Mr. Matthew Kellway : Mr. Speaker, that is a great question.

While I support this bill moving forward to committee for review and study, I am happy that I managed to convey in my speech that this bill is clearly missing an entire response to the issue of child sexual abuse. Clearly, prevention is the critical piece in all of this. It is what one would hope for and think of as any response to criminal activity. First and foremost, this fundamentally has to be be about preventing these things from happening and harming and hurting people.

The story I told is a story about irrecoverable loss, not just for the boy and young man who ended up committing suicide, but for all of the victims, and there were many in this set of circumstances. These are things that people have to live with for the rest of their lives. They have to live with the pain and hurt.

To the extent that we, as members of Parliament, can focus our attention on ensuring that young people in this country never have to experience these things and that kind of pain and hurt, and not have to live with that for the rest of the lives, surely we must put our minds to doing just that. [ Translation ] Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin my speech on Bill C-26,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . The Conservative government does not have a very good record to start with. We can look at Bill C-10 , a piece of legislation that substantially amended the Criminal Code. When that bill passed, the Barreau du Québec said, “Canadian justice is in mourning [and the passage of Bill C-10] is a setback for Canadian criminal law.” Such is the Conservatives' record on changes to the Criminal Code.

If we look at this from a financial perspective, as I was saying earlier, the Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs announced two days ago that the cost of incarcerating offenders has increased by 11%. That expense was passed on to Quebec without the federal government assuming any of the additional cost, which ultimately was created by criminalizing certain elements that were not criminal before and likely could have been resolved either through prevention or by providing support to the people concerned, to ensure that they did not reoffend.

Finally, we have a different vision of the fundamentals of society than the Conservatives do. We want to live in a safer society, with less crime, and we want to be able to prevent crime before it happens. That is not the case for the Conservatives, who always adopt repressive policies and think that imposing longer prison sentences will resolve the problems associated with crime in Canada. That brings to mind something that the member for Gatineau often says.

When an offender is about to commit a crime, he does not bring the Criminal Code with him to read up on what the maximum penalty will be, whether there is a mandatory minimum sentence and whether the trial judge will be able to have him serve his sentence in the community or not. That way of thinking is is completely absurd and out of touch with reality. The crime rate is dropping as a result of a number of factors, including demographics. The population is aging so crime is dropping, which makes sense in any society.

If we want to reduce crime, we need to invest in prevention and in rehabilitation when a crime has been committed. However, the ideal would be not to have criminals or crime. With this bill, the Conservatives are falling into the same repetitive cycle of behaviour that they always fall into, which involves a simplistic and very election-minded approach.

This approach consists of convincing Canadians that they are going to do away with crime by imposing longer sentences, criminalizing activities that were not crimes before and imposing minimum sentences, or in other words, by not putting any faith in the justice system. One of the methods used by the Conservatives involves playing on the public's frustration. It is true that we are all sometimes frustrated when criminal convictions are not in line with what we personally think they should be. We may be angry about verdicts that we think are too soft considering the seriousness of the offence.

However, the Conservatives always play on people's emotions and hope that they will not have any faith in the justice system.

(1050) Along the same lines as imposing mandatory minimum sentences or increasing existing minimums, the Conservatives also discredit the judiciary and undermine judges' ability to evaluate criminals' personal situation and ability to reintegrate into society. They play on people's sense of fear, as they do with other issues, especially safety-related issues. We will clearly support this bill at second reading, because it contains a number of worthwhile provisions that should be studied. My colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice will examine the validity of each of these provisions.

However, we still need to remember that our objective should be prevention and that the federal government, which is responsible for enforcing and developing the Criminal Code, should also assume the financial costs associated with creating these new crimes. One recent example was Bill C-36 . Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to speak to that bill because the Conservative government yet again limited the time allocated for members of the House to debate this bill. It was the same thing.

Bill C-36 created a criminal offence that had never before existed in Canada's history, in order to give the public the impression that the government was fixing a criminal problem. The problem was one that had never existed before. This bill takes us to the next step in the criminalization of society. The government invented a criminal offence that did not exist before. In a few days, in December, we will see whether police forces enforce this new provision of the Criminal Code that now criminalizes activities that were not crimes previously. Bill C-36 was one specific example.

However, we are seeing the same behavioural pattern here. As was the case with Bill C-36, the government is using children to get the public on board. Of course, the NDP has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to crimes against children. That is a no-brainer, and I think that any Canadian in their right mind would condemn crimes against children. That is a no-brainer. Everyone agrees, and no one opposes virtue. However, the Conservatives always use sensitive issues and bring children into the mix so that their bills will pass.

After a more detailed study in committee, the hon. member for Gatineau will tell us whether these provisions are constitutional or not. I leave that to the experts. What I have seen, as someone who is not an expert, is that the Conservative government always wants to criminalize and increase prison sentences instead of focusing on prevention and rehabilitation. Above all, it does not want to assume the related costs. I will end there and leave it to the experts. It is important that Canadians realize that the government cannot always use children as the justification for getting bills passed.

These bills are smoke and mirrors, not a real amendment to the Criminal Code that has been deemed necessary by experts and people who work on these issues.

(1055) The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments when debate on this bill resumes.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Suicide Prevention Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today, on Survivors of Suicide Loss Day, I am honoured to rise to pay tribute to a friend, an advocate, and a hero: Tana Nash. Tana was honoured this week with the president's award from the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention, Canada's national collaborative to prevent suicide. Tana is executive director of the Waterloo Region Suicide Prevention Council and has worked for years to save the lives of vulnerable people in our community.

While many credit me with introducing the federal framework for suicide prevention, I have always credited our mental health community for providing the template and the motivation. Tana was at the forefront of that. When she shared with me that three local students, in the space of just one week, had died by suicide in unrelated incidents, that was the tipping point for me. Tana is one of Waterloo region's gems, and I know I speak for the whole community when I say how proud we all are of her and how grateful we are for her efforts. Tana, God bless.

(1100) Regional Economic Development Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the CEO of Cliffs Natural Resources, which owns the rights to most of the Ring of Fire mining project in northern Ontario, said that he had “zero hope” and that the project was “beyond the point of no return.” The people of northern Ontario are fed up with having to listen to the Conservative Minister of Natural Resources make endless excuses about why he cannot get this $50-billion mining project, located in his own riding, off the ground.

Likewise, they are tired of hearing the Ontario Liberals return the favour. It is like listening to the Keystone Kops: he said, she said. The people of northern Ontario are good and honest people, and they know when they are being sold a false bill of goods. They are tired, and they want action on the Ring of Fire, not excuses. They know that our NDP leader is a man of action. Just a few weeks ago, he appointed Howard Hampton to be his special adviser on the Ring of Fire. In the end, Conservatives and Liberals fiddle while the Ring of Fire burns.

The good people of northern Ontario know they can count on Canada's NDP to get the job done.

B. C. Municipal Elections Mr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, a little over one week ago, local government elections were held across the great province of British Columbia. In my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, of the six mayors I meet with frequently, only one is returning. The other five are new to the job. We also have a large number of new councillors, many who are younger than their predecessors. I would like to take a moment to thank the many mayors and councillors who did not stand for re-election.

Local government service in small communities is demanding and important and often thankless. I am certain that all members of this place will join me in thanking our former outgoing local government elected officials and in wishing all the best to those recently elected. We will work together and help build a stronger Canada.

Hockey Hall of Fame Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, on frozen ponds and backyard rinks, thousands of young Canadians across the country grow up dreaming of their name on the back of an NHL jersey, etched on the side of the Stanley Cup, or resting with the legends who came before them in the Hockey Hall of Fame. Guelph's Bill McCreary is no exception. Growing up, he played junior hockey, but his path to the NHL took a different route. He was approached to become an official.

After spending some time in the Ontario Hockey Association, the Central Hockey League, and the American Hockey League, Bill was signed to an NHL contract and worked his first game 30 years ago on November 3, 1984. Over the course of a distinguished career, Bill would go on to officiate at 1,737 regular season and 297 playoff games and at the Winter Olympics, international tournaments, and an all-star game, always with his signature puck flip at the faceoff. This weekend, Bill becomes the 16th NHL official named to the Hockey Hall of Fame, and the second from Guelph, and we congratulate him on an exemplary career.

Oshawa Santa Claus Parade Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the Christmas season is almost upon us, my home riding of Oshawa is having its annual Santa's Parade of Lights tomorrow evening. The parade is a great opportunity for families and children of all ages to come and see old Saint Nick and all his little helpers as they leave the Oshawa Centre and travel down King and Bond Streets spreading Christmas cheer to all children throughout Oshawa. Now I know that there are some people who say that it is too early to talk about Christmas, but I disagree.

It is never too early to embrace the love and cheer the Christmas season provides. It is never too early to embrace peace, love, charity, and good will toward men. It is never too early to spend time with friends and loved ones and share in the joy of the season. I encourage everyone in Oshawa to come down and take

part in Santa's Parade of Lights tomorrow evening, which starts at 6 p.m. Even the Grinch is invited. I would like to wish everyone in Oshawa, all my colleagues in the House, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast a merry Christmas. Ho, ho, ho!

Ukraine Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Ukraine has marked today, the first anniversary of the commencement of the historic gatherings of Ukrainians in the Euromaidan, as Freedom and Dignity Day. It began with protesting university students and evolved into an outpouring of Ukrainians of all ages and from all walks of life, following savage beatings and later shooting of peaceful protestors. Tens of thousands flooded the public square calling for an end to corruption and abuse of power.

Many attributed this monumental event as a protest of the government's refusal to sign an association agreement with the EU, yet the major impetus for taking to the streets was far more profound. It was a revolution of dignity. Frustrated by decades of corruption and injustice, people took a public stand for a better future. The more violent the response, the larger the demonstrations grew. These were followed by elections of a new president and a new parliament, and the end of the Soviet presence. Many now proudly flourish Ukrainian symbols in a more public way.

Many young Ukrainians have been inspired to play a more active role in governance. At this critical juncture, it is important Canadians support their efforts to forge a strong democracy. Slava Ukraini.

(1105) Canadian Race Relations Foundation Mr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Canadian Race Relations Foundation for hosting a successful symposium in Ottawa this week titled “Our Canada: Building on Citizenship, Building for Citizenship”. This year, the CRRF tackled some important issues facing our country. Over three days, an impressive group of presenters from across the country spoke to over 200 delegates about challenges such as integration, extremism, imported conflicts, and barbaric cultural practices in an open and honest way.

The foundation also presented its report on Canadian values to help us understand how Canadians across the country perceived issues related to multiculturalism and Canadian identity. I congratulate the CRRF board and staff on contributing to an important dialogue that not only celebrates the successes of multiculturalism in our country, but also looks practically at how we must work to preserve our peaceful pluralism into the future.

Heart and Stroke Foundation Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the work of the Heart and Stroke Foundation in tackling the growing burden of heart disease and stroke on Canadians and our families. Currently, 1.6 million Canadians are living with heart disease or the effects of stroke. Every seven minutes in Canada someone dies from heart disease or stroke. These issues are the biggest drivers of prescription drug use, and they cost the Canadian economy more than $20.9 billion every year.

An aging population, combined with poor diets, physical inactivity, and high obesity and diabetes rates will stall, if not reverse, the progress we have made against heart disease and stroke. It is with the intention to curb this phenomenon that I started our national health and fitness day initiative, one that has received strong support from the foundation. In fact, it is with thanks to the efforts of people like CEO Bobbe Wood, Chris Gray, Zaylin Lalji, Ev Glasser, Kate Chidester, Jackie Zalnasky, Lisa Baldwin and others that a growing number of cities have joined the movement to proclaim the day.

Please join me in thanking the Heart and Stroke Foundation as we work together to improve the health of Canadians, leading to fuller, longer lives.

[ Translation ] Hockey Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, like many northern Ontarians, I have been a Montreal Canadiens fan my whole life. Watching our “Glorieux” on French TV is part of our religion. We had Richard, Béliveau, and Geoffrion, and now we have Price, Subban, and Desharnais. Just imagine how mad people got this fall when they found out that the new contract prohibited television coverage on RDS and that the National Hockey League declared that northern Ontario was part of the Toronto market. That is misconduct, Mr. Bettman.

Getting a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey on Christmas morning—what a dumb idea. Lots of people called and emailed me about this, so I called the National Hockey League, RDS, the CRTC, Eastlink, and other cable networks. I am very proud to say that we now have an agreement with Rogers, Bell, Eastlink and the National Hockey League. Regional French broadcasting of Habs games is back. The people of Sturgeon Falls and the rest of Ontario are very grateful. Montreal Canadiens fans are passionate. We shoot, we score.

Taxation Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has cut taxes not once, not twice, but 180 times. We are now in a position to deliver even more tax relief to Canadian families. Thanks to our tax cuts for families, every Canadian family with a child or children will be better off. We have increased and expanded the universal child care benefit, now worth nearly $2,000 a year for each child under the age of six and $720 a year for each child aged six to 17.

The Liberal leader is proposing a high-tax, high-debt program, whether by imposing a job-killing carbon tax or by clawing back the tax breaks put in place by our Conservative government to help Canadian families. Canadians can trust our Conservative government to lower their taxes and help them keep their hard-earned money in their pockets.

(1110) Jean-Michel Pépin Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Montreal's south shore region received a number of honours during the annual Baseball Québec conference last weekend. Among the recipients was Jean-Michel Pépin, a resident of Delson, who won the Louis-Phillippe Grenier award for volunteer of the year on the south shore. Mr. Pépin has been the president of the Saint Constant/Delson little league baseball association since 2009. He breathed new life into this organization, which saw its roster quadruple from 92 five years ago to 362 players today. That is quite the feat.

Mr. Pépin also deserves recognition for encouraging more girls to play baseball. This summer, for the first time in Quebec, an all-girl provincial tournament was held in Saint Constant. It goes without saying that this tournament was a great success. Congratulations, Mr. Pépin. Long live the Saint Constant/Delson little league baseball association.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, now that the “Cars and TVs” campaign is in full swing, we are seeing what we can expect from Liberals in the coming year. The Liberal candidate from Banff—Airdrie even said that we should not give money to Canadians because they might spend it on TVs or cars. What is more, the Liberal candidate in Ottawa Centre endorsed prioritizing money in hands of Ottawa bureaucrats, not Canadian families with children.

Only our Conservative government knows that parents, whether they work inside or outside of the home, can be trusted to make the right choices for their families. Thanks to the family tax cut and the enhanced universal child care benefit, 100% of families with children will have more money in their pockets and the freedom to spend it the way they want. We are proud that over four million families will benefit from this measure.

Children's Rights Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday was National Children's Day and the 25th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It also marked the anniversary of the motion of the House of Commons to eliminate child poverty by 2000. Fourteen years later, conditions remain unacceptable for Canada's children. On poverty, Canada ranks 24th of 35 industrialized countries, with one in every seven Canadian children still struggling to have his or her basic needs met, 36% of food bank users being children, and 40% of all indigenous children living in poverty.

We all share the desire for the well-being of our children, the most universally cherished aspiration of humankind. Every child has the right to survive, develop, be protected from all forms of violence, and be protected from adverse economic conditions. How will the government champion children's rights domestically and internationally, and keep the promise made to our children 25 years ago?

Ukraine Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, one year ago on this day, Ukrainians took to the streets to speak out against Yanukovych's decision to reverse Ukraine's path toward European integration. Thousands of Ukrainians gathered in Maidan to express their desire for a free and democratic Ukraine. This demonstration became known as the “Maidan protest”. We witnessed the bravery of the Ukrainian people as they stood up against the oppressive Yanukovych regime.

Our government continues to stand with those Ukrainians who believe in freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. We have provided funds and technical provisions to help Ukraine with economic reforms and to promote democratic, judicial, and social development. Moreover, we have contributed over 300 election observers to monitor the recent parliamentary elections. Our government will continue to support the people of Ukraine in their aspirations for a free and democratic Ukraine.

[ Translation ] Liberal Party of Canada Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, what is nice about our Liberal friends is that they are unpredictable. We never know what to expect from them. Their leader said that all his candidates have to be pro-choice, but now they do not. He is accepting everyone. The Liberals initially said they supported reforming the Board of Internal Economy and then rejected this proposal in committee. They are against a combat mission in Iraq, but they support it as well.

The Liberal leader is preparing to meet with his Quebec youth wing in Montreal and will have to explain the latest Liberal notion: supporting the Conservatives and imposing a toll on the new Champlain Bridge. Even though the member for Papineau said he was opposed to the toll, we know very well what that means: it does not mean anything. When Montrealers go to the polls next time, the choice will be clear: a toll on the new Champlain Bridge with the Conservatives; perhaps a toll, or perhaps not, with the Liberals; or no toll on the new Champlain Bridge with the NDP.

(1115) [ English ] Ukraine Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the website for the member for Halifax is promoting an event that describes NATO's Ukrainian assurance measures as “schemes to use Ukraine as a battering ram and platform on which to foster major aggression against Russia.” I am shocked that a member of the House would promote such an event. It is clear that the NDP is not a mature party and is not suited to lead a G7 country.

It is absolutely shameful that the NDP would give voice to those who accuse NATO of aggression against Russia, after Vladimir Putin annexed sovereign Ukrainian territory. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister , Canada is standing up to Putin. As the PM stated, “whether it takes five months or fifty years, we’re not going to drop the subject until Ukrainian territory is returned to Ukrainians.” The member for Halifax and the NDP need to explain why this event is being publicized on her website.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] Veterans Affairs Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a number of veterans' groups, including the Royal Canadian Legion, want to know why the Conservatives have withdrawn so much funding earmarked for veterans. More than $1 billion was taken away from veterans and put into the treasury. That is disgusting. That money was promised to veterans. Do the Conservatives have an explanation for our former soldiers who are still waiting for the services they need? [ English ] Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the assertion made in that question is absolutely false. All governments always ensure that statutory funding is fully funded to ensure that there is no shortfall. This is a completely normal practice. Veterans Affairs' expenditures have increased from $2.7 billion when the Liberals were in government to $3.5 billion last year. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Conservatives suggested that lapsed funding would simply be carried forward.

I have a page from this year's public accounts right here, and of the $167 million that was lapsed last year, zero, zilch, not a penny of that money, can be carried forward. The Conservatives misled veterans. How despicable. The Royal Canadian Legion and Canada's veterans deserve honest answers. Will Conservatives explain why they slashed services and closed offices, and why they pulled away over $1 billion from our nation's veterans? Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the assertion made in that question is absolutely false.

All governments always ensure that statutory funding is fully funded to ensure that there is no shortfall. This is a completely normal practice. As was approved in the last year of the Liberal government, Veterans Affairs lapsed $111 million, which is $111 million in one year from a much smaller budget. It is a simple fact that Veterans Affairs' expenditures have increased under our government. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker. The fact is, the Conservatives are slashing services for veterans.

The fact is, there are fewer mental health professionals helping Canadian Forces members and veterans. The fact is, Conservatives shut down eight regional offices: “Find some help online”, they say to our nation's vets. The fact is, they denied disability benefits to half of our country's disabled veterans. However, they did increase one thing: $11 million on media monitoring for Conservatives while our veterans live in poverty. When will the Conservatives apologize to those who have served our country, and when will they restore the services they have cut to our nation's veterans? Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has a strong record when it comes to standing up for Canada's veterans. Our government has spent over $30 billion since taking office in 2006. That is $5 billion more in additional new dollars. We will continue to stand up for Canada's veterans.

International Development Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, while Conservatives boast about their spending, the fact is that they are hiding the truth. Almost one-sixth of their foreign aid has been returned to the Department of Finance untouched. Will they now admit to Canadians that their so-called “surplus” has been done on the backs of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people?

(1120) Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. There was no cut at all. As the member knows, there were unprecedented disasters last year. International Development moved money from the budget for low-income countries to the budget for fragile countries in crisis-affected communities, in order to assist those most in need. We can think about the Philippines, Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic.

We spent additional money for these countries in the amount of $175 million, as well as the $188 million from our partner organizations, to assist people in need in those crisis areas. This resulted in extra spending of $240 million for people most in need. We call that effectiveness and pragmatism. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance went to boast about balancing his budget to the financial elite in Toronto. What he did not say is that the budget would be balanced on the backs of the least fortunate. This includes the unemployed, the ill, and our veterans.

The Conservatives even diverted $125 million earmarked for international assistance, as though there was no need in Iraq, Syria, and West Africa. Why is the government trying to save money at the expense of the least fortunate, here in Canada and abroad? Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is completely false. The member is presenting facts that are incomplete and untrue.

As I explained, there are places in the world experiencing unprecedented disasters, such as the Philippines, Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic. We have established budgets for low-income countries, which were sent to the vulnerable affected countries. This resulted in extra spending of $240 million to help these people. We call that effectiveness and pragmatism. People want us to help others who are truly in urgent need of assistance.

Infrastructure Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not understand the priorities of middle-class families. They have spent $750 million on partisan ads to improve their chances of getting elected. Even Advertising Standards Canada said that these ads are misleading. Rather than spending that money to mislead Canadians, why does the government not invest it in infrastructure--in bridges, public transportation and sewage treatment plants, which are things that are important to Canadian families? [ English ] Hon.

Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have actually tripled the investment for infrastructure, and even recently made announcements regarding art infrastructure projects. When it comes to the priorities of families, it is this government and this government alone that trusts families. We have heard what the Liberals have said previously about families having money in their pockets. We have heard what they have said even recently.

We believe that when we give Canadians the money that they deserve, it is their money, and they will spend it on their priorities: their children, their families, and raising their families. That is a good investment. That is what we are committed to. The Liberals would take that away. Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, investments in public transit reduce commute times and help families to spend more time together. They reduce gridlock, enhance productivity, and drive up business efficiency.

Instead, the Conservatives are touting a $2-billion income-splitting plan, all from borrowed money that excludes 85% of Canadian households. They do not hesitate to spend $750 million on self-serving advertising. Why all of this, instead of investing in critical infrastructure that creates jobs, drives growth, and benefits all Canadians? Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we promised Canadians that we would give them the family tax cut. That income splitting will help almost two million families, half of the families in Canada.

Combined with the increase and expansion of our universal child care benefit, every single family with children in Canada will benefit. What we do know is that the Liberals would take that away, not only from families, but they said they would take income splitting away from seniors and pensioners. Canadians know this: Liberals will take money out of their pockets. We will continue to put that money back into their pockets.

Regional Economic Development Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, according to Ontario's Lieutenant Governor, the Ring of Fire is the most promising mining opportunity in Canada in a century. Here is what the Conservatives are putting at risk: 5,500 full-time jobs, $60 billion of mineral reserves, $25 billion in economic activity, and $6.7 billion in government revenues. When will the Prime Minister meet with Ontario's Premier to help secure this enormous opportunity for Canada?

(1125) Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government supports the development of the Ring of Fire, a project that can provide significant economic benefit to northern Ontario. We have been clear that the new Building Canada plan provides significant infrastructure funding for this kind of legacy resource development. It is up to the Province of Ontario to request that funding be allocated to this project. We will continue to work with first nations, other levels of government, business, and industry leaders to see this project come to fruition.

Veterans Affairs Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government can claim that the money will be carried forward, but that simply is not the case. It is gone. The Conservatives spent it on VIP jets for European trade negotiators and tax cuts for their corporate friends. Now the Conservatives claim that they had to make a $5.3 million cut to close veterans offices, but they had already frittered away $1.1 billion. What is the explanation, and why do veterans in Thunder Bay now have to drive for hours to get to another Veterans Affairs office? Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, the assertion made in that question is absolutely false. All governments always ensure that statutory funding is fully funded to ensure there is no shortfall. This is a completely normal practice. Veterans Affairs expenditures have increased from $2.7 billion when the Liberals were in government to $3.5 billion last year. [ Translation ] Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the public accounts show that the money that was meant for veterans was diverted.

Money that should have been spent on programs to help our veterans was returned to the public treasury. That is scandalous. As if that were not bad enough, the Conservatives are cutting services for veterans and reducing the staff responsible for helping them. When will this government stop trying to save money at our veterans' expense? [ English ] Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is the same question, and it is the same answer. The assertion made in that question is absolutely false.

All governments always ensure that statutory funding is fully funded to ensure there is no shortfall. This is a completely normal practice, as was proven in the last year that the Liberal government was in power, when $111 million was lapsed from a much smaller budget.

[ Translation ] Passport Canada Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, passports are the Conservatives' new cash cow. Canadians paid more than $460 million in passport fees last year, but we have learned that it cost the government less than $257 million to produce those passports. Canadians are basically paying a $200 million tax just to be able to travel. When will the Conservatives stop taxing travellers? [ English ] Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our government introduced a 10-year Canadian e-passport, which is more secure and gives Canadians more value for their money. Canadians purchasing the new 10-year passport will save money. They are paying $160 for the 10-year passport, compared to $174 in the previous system for two five-year passports. When revenues exceed expenditures in the passport program, they are kept in the reserve fund for years when revenues do not cover expenditures. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is not a new problem.

In 2008, the Auditor General said that the government was charging significantly more for consular fees on passports than it was spending on these services. In six years, this has not changed. Will the minister tell Canadians how much was spent on actual consular services from the consular fees on passports last year, and where the rest was spent? Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the take-up on passports by Canadians has been very strong in recent years.

However, for far too long the costs of delivering the program were greater than the fees collected. The new 10-year Canadian passport is more secure and gives Canadians more value for their money. When revenues exceed expenditures in the passport program, as I previously said, the funds are kept in reserve for years for when revenues do not cover expenditures.

(1130) [ Translation ] Ethics Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages is trying to get off the hook and suggesting that she did not know that her team was approaching lobbyists who do business with her department. That is a fine excuse. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner clearly said that the minister should have given her staff proper training.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages think it is ethical to solicit donations from organizations that get funding from her department? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, the commissioner found that there was no wrongdoing by the minister. The minister herself referred the matter to the commissioner when she discovered that there could be something that was inappropriate. However, as I said, the commissioner has found no wrongdoing by the minister. Ms.

Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it was obvious to the ethics commissioner, as it was to everyone else, that this fundraiser was totally inappropriate. The minister is claiming ignorance, saying that she did not know what her fundraisers were doing. Why is it that in scandal after scandal, the Conservatives refuse to take these problems seriously, and do not even bother to explain the rules to their fundraisers--until they get caught, that is? When will the minister take personal responsibility and apologize? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it was the minister herself who referred this matter to the ethics commissioner, and the ethics commissioner has indicated that there was no wrongdoing on the minister's part. That is unlike the NDP, which has been found guilty of using funds of this House for partisan political purposes and supporting offices in places where it has no members of Parliament. In addition, the NDP was found guilty of using some $300,000 of union donations for partisan political purposes, which is against the law.

When it comes to ethics, it is this side of the House that takes it very seriously. As I said, the minister herself referred this matter, and the commissioner has found that the minister acted appropriately. Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I guess I will take that as a no. The minister will not be taking any responsibility for this. Do the Conservatives really have no problem with the minister's riding association approaching the very people who rely on her department for funding and hitting them up for cash in return for a chance to talk to her?

Clearly it is time for the rules to change. When will the President of the Treasury Board bring forward legislation to fix this egregious loophole? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, unlike the NDP, this minister did the right thing. The minister herself actually referred this matter to the commissioner.

The commissioner investigated and found that the minister did not in fact contravene the act, unlike the NDP, which has been found guilty of using House of Commons resources for partisan purposes to fund partisan political offices in parts of the country where it has no members of Parliament. It has been found guilty of using some $300,000 worth of union money for partisan political purposes, in contravention of the Accountability Act. We will certainly take no lessons from New Democrats on— The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

Justice Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, most Canadians know that Louis Riel was a hero, not a traitor. Now even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acknowledges that his trial was a sham and a travesty and did not meet any of the standards of fairness, either then or now.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and her government agree with a growing number of Canadians that Parliament should reverse the conviction of Louis Riel so that our history books can accurately reflect that he was never guilty of treason and that his execution was a historic miscarriage of justice? Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we know that this member has, on a regular basis, brought this to the attention of all those in his riding and all those in the country, so we will let him have his day.

He has done it again this morning, and certainly I am sure they will appreciate it. Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the government's reluctance to deal with this issue. The Prime Minister stood right there and apologized to the survivors of residential schools because it was the right thing to do. Louis Riel was wrongfully tried, wrongfully convicted, and wrongfully executed in a case of both justice and mercy denied. What possible rationale could the government have to fail to refuse to consider the simple, symbolic gesture to remedy this long-standing historic injustice?

(1135) Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it was this Prime Minister and this government that actually moved on the residential school issue after decades of neglect and decades of not wanting to take action. It was this government that made that apology, and the member is right that it was made on the floor of the House of Commons here. Any time that member would like to support the justice system that we are working on implementing over the last nine years and for the next number of years, he is welcome to get on side with it. We would love to have his support.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, since 2006 the current government has deprived veterans of $1.13 billion, all in the name of concocting a surplus and spending $750 million in self-promoting ads. Conservatives claim that veterans got what they deserve and are entitled to nothing more. However, the Conservatives did not ask the veterans they are forcing to drive hours from Brandon because of veterans offices closures or who are fighting for proper compensation or mental health support. They could have helped. Veterans did Canada an incredible service.

Why do Conservatives just pretend to support them? Why are Conservatives making our veterans beg? Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have a strong record when it comes to standing up for Canada's veterans. The member opposite knows full well that since taking office, we have spent over $30 billion. That is over $5 billion in new, additional dollars. I would like to remind the member, if he cares about Canada's veterans, to please get on board with our government and our initiatives and help Canada's veterans. [ Translation ] Mr.

Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, our veterans had every reason to be furious when the government announced that it was closing nine service centres in order to save a few million dollars. Now we have learned that Veterans Affairs has returned over $1 billion in unspent funding to the public treasury since 2006. What is the government doing with that money? It is spending $743 million on ads to get re-elected. If the government really wants to save money, why not make cuts to propaganda instead of veterans' service centres? [ English ] Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the assertion made in that question is absolutely false. All governments always ensure statutory funding is fully funded to ensure there is no shortfall. This is a completely normal practice, as was proven in the last year the Liberal government was in power, when veterans affairs lapsed $111 million. That was $111 million of a much smaller budget for veterans affairs.

The Budget Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Kevin Page, a former senior Department of Finance official, said that he “disagree[s] vehemently with the Minister of Finance statement that Finance does not examine every new expenditure.” He went on to say, “They have to. It would be fiscally irresponsible not to.” Can the government explain why it killed Canada's long-standing policy to examine every new government expenditure? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, since the depths of the global recession, over $1.2 million net new jobs have been created in Canada. We have one of the best job creation records in the G7. Small businesses have been clear that payroll taxes are the number one killer of jobs. Our plan lowers premiums for small businesses so that they can invest in priorities and create jobs. At the same time, Canadians know that the Liberals would hurt jobs by increasing taxes with their high-tax-and-spend schemes.

[ Translation ] Science and Technology Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a new OECD report paints a pathetic picture of Canada's standing in research and development. We can really have a meaningful impact in the field of innovation, but Ottawa's commitments are disjointed and its investments are non-existent. We are falling behind in scientific and technological development. Will the government invest to make Canada a model of innovative and creative entrepreneurship? (1140) [ English ] Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, here is what the experts in Canada have to say about our investments in research. David Barnard, chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, said that budget 2014: ...recognizes that a vibrant, innovative and competitive Canadian economy needs a world-class research system. Paul Davidson, president of AUCC, said that with the investments in budget 2014: ...Canada is signalling to the leading research nations of the world that it intends to compete with the best.... [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I hardly think the OECD is not a credible source.

Let us be clear. The government's most recent science and technology strategy is from way back in 2007. A year ago, the government promised to update that strategy, but it has not come up with anything yet. The government constantly tells us that its priorities are job creation and economic development, but if it does not walk the walk, then its message is meaningless. When will the government stop making cuts to science and technology? [ English ] Hon. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the assertions the member makes are absolutely not true.

Our government launched the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, a legacy investment, to ensure Canada's post-secondary institutions remain world leaders in the next decade. We provided the largest increase to the granting councils in a decade. Again, more testament to that is that Stephen Toope, then president of UBC, said: I applaud the federal government's decision to spur greater Canadian leadership in global research and innovation.

Amit Chakma, chair of the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities, thanked the Government of Canada: ...on its 2014 budget and the significant investment of $1.5 billion....

Privacy Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner gave the government a serious warning yesterday: its cyberbullying bill's surveillance measures clash with the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Spencer. The court was clear that simple data can be used to develop very detailed profiles and deserves privacy protection. Does the minister realize that in failing to listen to the Supreme Court's decision, he risks passing a bill that will likely be struck down by the courts? Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the Supreme Court's decision in Spencer clearly stated that the Criminal Code provisions dealing with voluntary disclosure and immunity do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant, and our government has continuously said those provisions regarding voluntary disclosure and immunity do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant. We will respect the Supreme Court's decision. Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, you have to love their creative reading. [ Translation ] Like us, the Privacy Commissioner is concerned that the Conservative government is using the fight against cybercrime as an excuse to increase police powers unduly and to infringe on Canadians' privacy rights. Why is the Minister of Justice refusing to subject police officers' new powers to judicial review? Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this government will not apologize for wanting to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: children.

We kept our commitment to ensure that children are better protected from bullying, including cyberbullying, by introducing legislation to combat online crime. Bill C-13 did not create new police powers to access telecommunications data without a judicial warrant. Judicial oversight prevails and we are protecting our children.

[ English ] National Defence Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the website of the member for Halifax is promoting an event that describes NATO's Ukrainian assurance measures as “...schemes to use Ukraine as a battering ram and platform on which to foster major aggression against Russia.” Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence please provide the House with an update on what the government is doing to stand up to Vladimir Putin and for Ukrainian sovereignty? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, let me say first that everyone on this side of the House is disgusted that the NDP would give voice to those who accuse NATO of aggression against Russia after Vladimir Putin has invaded sovereign Ukrainian territory. In allowing this to appear under her name, it is clear that the member for Halifax and the NDP are not serious about standing up for the rights of Ukrainians. Our party and this Prime Minister will remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine until the day its territory is returned, whether it takes five months or 50 years.

Our government will always condemn Russian aggression against Ukraine. As our Prime Minister said to Putin, “You need to get out of Ukraine.”

(1145) Regional Economic Development Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, northern Ontarians are looking for leadership to rescue the Ring of Fire, but all the Conservative minister does is point fingers and say it is someone else's problem. Thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investments for my region are on the line, and still the Conservatives fail to act. The CEO of Cliffs Natural Resources called the Ring of Fire “beyond the point of no return.” Does the minister agree? Has he given up, or will he invest in northern Ontario to secure our economic growth? Mrs.

Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we remain committed to responsible resource development. Cliffs has made a private business decision, and our thoughts are with those who are affected by this closure. Our government remains committed to building on our successful job creation record and building the conditions for companies to succeed in Canada. According to KPMG, Canada boasts the lowest overall tax rate on business in the G7.

This has given us a distinct competitive advantage in the extractive sectors, and we will continue to build on this action. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the truth is that Cliffs Natural Resources is no longer able to do business with this Conservative government. Every investment it has made here was a disaster. The Conservatives mismanaged the situation so badly that the company is now saying that it wants to walk away. People are losing their jobs in Quebec and job opportunities are disappearing in Ontario.

Where is this government's strategy to secure and support investments and jobs? [ English ] Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we welcome the Ontario government to support the Ring of Fire. What it needs to do is to be clear that this is a priority for it. We will continue to work with first nations, other levels of government, business and industry leaders to see that this project comes to fruition.

[ Translation ] Agriculture and Agri-Food Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, because of the lack of payment protection for produce sellers, in October, agribusinesses in Canada lost their privileged access to the United States. Will the government stop hurting fruit and vegetable farmers and harmonize its policies to better protect fresh produce companies when their clients go bankrupt? Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the government is aware of how vulnerable the fresh produce industry is and how much it contributes to the economy. [ English ] That is why we introduced clear legislation to provide a single dispute resolution body that would help reduce issues of non-payment faced by the fresh produce industry. We are also consulting widely on Canada's bankruptcy and insolvency laws, and Parliament will be involved in that consultation. Our government is committed to supporting Canadian producers and exporters. We are going to continue to look at this issue. [ Translation ] Mr.

Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the fresh produce industry is extremely vulnerable to non-payment issues because of the perishable nature of the goods. When a client goes bankrupt, it is impossible for producers to take back their goods, which results in losses. That is why they need better payment protection. The Fresh Produce Alliance is therefore calling for a trust mechanism comparable to what exists in the United States. Will the government finally grant the alliance's request and help our produce growers? [ English ] Mr.

Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I just explained, the government is very aware of the contributions of the horticulture and fresh produce sector to Canada and to the Canadian economy. We are also well aware of the high-quality products they export to the United States. My colleagues and I, particularly those on the agriculture committee, just met with producers and representatives from the horticulture industry this week. We offered a number of different solutions within the discussions. We have done a number of things.

One of the things we did was to introduce clear legislation, which the opposition voted against, that would put in place a single dispute resolution body to help with payment-type problems.

Justice Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in less than two weeks Justice Louis LeBel will retire from the Supreme Court, yet Canadians remain in the dark about what, if any, process has been undertaken to replace him. As was the case with the last appointment, it appears that there will be no published protocol consultation, no selection panel, no parliamentary review, no public engagement, no transparency, and no accountability. Will the minister tell us what, if any, process has been initiated to fill the upcoming vacancy?

(1150) Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our judicial appointments are based on one criterion and one criterion only: whether an individual is qualified for the job, determined by merit and legal excellence. When making all appointments, our government conducts broad-based consultations with prominent members of the bar and the legal community. These appointments have always been made by the executive and they will continue to be so.

[ Translation ] Infrastructure Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, according to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the cultural infrastructure deficit stands at no less than $40 billion, putting this infrastructure category in the worst position by far.

Instead of wasting half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money on a so-called tax credit that will create only 800 jobs, $740 million on self-serving propaganda, and over $2 billion on tax cuts for the wealthy, why is the government not investing that money in our theatres, our cultural institutions, and our community and recreation centres, which are in a pitiful state? [ English ] Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. Since we formed government, we have tripled our investments in infrastructure.

The new Building Canada plan is the largest and the longest infrastructure investment in Canada's history. I have not even mentioned the gas tax fund, which delivers $2 billion directly to municipalities every year, and this includes arts and culture.

[ Translation ] CBC/Radio-Canada Mr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, every day I meet with people who want to talk about the cuts to CBC/Radio-Canada. People care about their local newscasts and local programming. CBC/Radio-Canada does an excellent job keeping an eye on what is happening around us and making it relevant to our everyday lives. Local content is what makes CBC/Radio-Canada our broadcaster. Why is the minister cutting our public broadcaster's budget? [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the member may be right about the uniqueness of the CBC. He is certainly completely offside and wrong about the funding for the CBC. As Hubert Lacroix said, there are “challenges of a rapidly changing media environment to which no conventional broadcaster is immune.” The CBC's viewership has declined, despite getting more than $1 billion in direct subsidies from the federal government and taxpayers. Changes at the CBC are the result of declining viewership in certain demographics and lower-than-expected advertising revenues. That is the issue, and that is what CBC is working on. [ Translation ] Mr.

Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government does not understand anything. It is because of government cuts that CBC/Radio-Canada has been unable to fulfill its mandate. There is a reason why, last Sunday, hundreds of people came out in Sherbrooke to support CBC/Radio-Canada and speak out against the dismantling of the crown corporation. Last Wednesday, Mr. Lacroix was in Sherbrooke and the employees of Radio-Canada Estrie refused an award that was to be given to them directly by Hubert T. Lacroix.

When will the minister stop attacking CBC/Radio-Canada and give it the resources it needs? [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the opposition members say that we should not interfere and then ask us to interfere. I think before they get to the end of a question, they should determine which and what it is they want. Any suggestion of political interference is completely untrue.

The CBC is solely responsible for its day-to-day operations, including decisions with respect to programming, with respect to human resource management, and with respect to the actual work it does on a daily basis on behalf of the country.

Taxation Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Liberal candidates across the country are coming out and saying that tax cuts are a bad idea because Canadians will spend the money on the wrong things, and even that bureaucrats deserve more money, not Canadian families. Would the Minister of State for Social Development update the House on what meaningful tax cuts this government is providing for Canadian families? Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are on track to balance the budget. We are also fulfilling our commitment to Canadian families.

We have expanded and increased the universal child care benefit. That means that the $100-a-month cheque for every child under six years old is expanded to $160, and we are also giving it to families with children over six years old. We know what the Liberals think. They think that if we give families money, they will waste it. The Liberals and the NDP do not trust Canadian families. Canadian families should not trust the NDP or the Liberals.

(1155) International Development Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the Conservative government announced it would freeze foreign aid for five years to balance its budget. Then in 2012, further spending cuts were announced, padding its surplus. We have now learned that the government has also deliberately underspent Canada's aid budget for poor countries by $125.9 million. Development assistance for people who need it the most is being slashed. These countries overseas have some of the highest infant mortality rates. They need our help.

Why are the Conservatives allowing this to happen to these poor people in the world who need our help? Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, we spent in total $240 million more than was planned because of unprecedented crises in Philippines, Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic, which all happened at the same time.

In these kinds of cases, instead of looking at one planned expenditure in a column of the budget like the opposition does, we just go on a pragmatic and effective basis to help the people most in need. Under this government, Canada now finally pays what it pledges and fulfills all of its international commitments.

Youth Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, at a time when youth unemployment is high and skilled trades are in demand, apprenticeships provide an important opportunity for young workers to get a good job. The Hammer Heads program connects underprivileged youth with training and jobs. In budget 2013, the Conservatives promised to support the use of apprentices in infrastructure projects receiving federal funding, but eight months later, young Canadians are still waiting.

When can we expect the minister to finally deliver on Jim Flaherty's promise to connect infrastructure spending to training more young Canadians? Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, every single measure that we have introduced to encourage and help young people with apprenticeships, the NDP has voted against. Here is what we have done when it comes to apprenticeships: the Canada summer jobs, our youth employment strategy; the apprenticeship completion grant: the apprenticeship incentive grant; the textbook tax credit; expanded RESPs; and Helmets to Hardhats.

That is a huge list of what we have done to help connect young people with available jobs. We agree that it is in skills, it is in trades. In the trades, we have introduced the Canada job grant. Every one of our initiatives that we introduced, the NDP votes against and criticizes. It is unbelievable getting a question like that from the NDP.

The Environment Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has always said that climate change is a global issue that requires a global response. [ Translation ] The green climate fund should become one of the primary sources of multilateral financial support to help the world adapt to climate change. [ English ] Would the Minister of the Environment please update the House on the action we are taking to protect the environment? Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Orléans. I know of his practical commitment to the environment where he has planted 52,000 trees. The green climate fund is expected to encourage significant private sector investments to address climate change. This fund is transparent, accountable, and results-based. Yesterday I was pleased to announce that Canada will be contributing $300 million to the green climate fund. Canada's contribution shows our continued leadership toward establishing a new international climate agreement in Paris in 2015, which will include binding obligations from all emitters.

We are proud of the concrete actions we have taken on climate change, and we have done all of this without imposing a carbon— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Montcalm.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, the drop in gas prices and the resulting devaluation of the Canadian dollar clearly show that the health of Canada's economy is closely linked to natural resource development and that Canada is unfortunately caught in a trap of circular logic and would do well to diversify its sources of revenue. That being said, how can the government ignore the proposals that would allow Canada Post to have better revenues and thereby contribute to our collective assets? [ English ] Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, Canada Post is experiencing a major transformation in its business case, not unlike postal agencies all around the world. People are changing their modes of communication, and as a result Canada Post delivered 1.2 billion fewer letters in 2013 than it did in only 2006. The result of this is a financial crisis at Canada Post, one that it is addressing with a five-point plan. I encourage the member to support Canada Post's efforts. (1200) [ Translation ] Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, Ind.) : Mr.

Speaker, we know that private companies are trying to put themselves in a favourable position to take over Canada Post's home delivery service, suggesting that this service, which the public appreciates, can be profitable. In their efforts to radically transform the government and its public services, the Conservatives will soon be leaving the people of Terrebonne and Mascouche without home mail delivery service. How is the Conservatives' market transformation of crown corporations going to benefit the general public? [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would remind the member that Canada Post is an independent, arm's-length crown corporation with a responsibility to operate in a fiscally sustainable way. It has a five-point plan, taking measures to return the corporation to a sound business case, getting its revenues back in line. While she is fighting for door-to-door delivery for one-third of Canadians, it is fighting to preserve daily mail for all Canadians.

[ Translation ] The Economy Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, in addition to not adequately diversifying our sources of revenue, the government is downloading its financial responsibilities to the provinces. Passing Bill C-10 increased the inmate population in provincial prisons by 11%. The legacy this Prime Minister 's government is leaving us is disastrous: slashed public services, devastated environment, abandoned workers—the list is long. Do the members of this tired government intend to right the ship before it is too late? [ English ] Mr.

Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, federal support for the provinces has reached historic levels of nearly $65 billion, and will continue to grow every year. Federal support for health, education, and social services has increased by over 56% since we formed government. We have also made changes to ensure that transfers grow in line with the economy, allowing the program to remain affordable and sustainable. On top of this, I am happy to say that we are on track to balance the budget and to have a surplus next year.

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings [ English ] Royal Canadian Mounted Police Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2013 annual report on the RCMP's Use of the Law Enforcement Justification Provisions.

Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions

Republic of Moldova Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move: Motion That this House reiterates Canada's continued support for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law around the world; reaffirms Canada's support for the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova and the inviolability of its borders; encourages the efforts of the Republic of Moldova to further their advancement of democratic reforms; affirms the Republic of Moldova's sovereign right to determine its own partnerships free of external coercion and pressure; notes the Republic of Moldova's signature of an Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free trade area with the European Union on June 27, 2014, and the ratification of the agreement on July 2, 2014; and welcomes the Republic of Moldova's choice to pursue the path of European integration.

(1205) The Deputy Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. member: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Agriculture Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first is a petition from a number of constituents in and around the Kitchener area who are concerned about our foreign aid assistance, protecting small family farmers, and the exchange, preservation and use of seeds by small family farmers. The petitioners want our aid policies to be consistent with those concerns and to be developed in consultation with small family farmers.

Sex Selection Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is yet another petition from many people across Canada who call on Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination. The petitioners note that 92% of Canadians believe that it should be illegal, and that there are over 200 million girls missing worldwide.

Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions. The first petition calls on the Government of Canada to launch an independent national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women because of the more than 1,200 cases and the need for a deeper understanding of the magnitude and the systemic causes of this grievous condition.

Gaza Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the other three petitions relate to Canada's approach to Gaza. The first petition, from Albertans, calls on the Government of Canada to reinstate the development aid to Palestinians by once again contributing to UNRWA. The second petition calls on the Government of Canada to publicly revoke its one-sided, unequivocal support for Israel and to condemn the killings of civilians on both sides of the 2014 war. The third and final petition, from Albertans, calls on the Government of Canada to speak out to end Israel's blockade of Gaza.

Violence Against Women Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, violence against women is an abomination, yet in communities across Canada, women and girls of all ages face violence every day. Violence drives over 100,000 women and children out of their homes and into shelters each year. The petitioners call upon the government to work in partnership with the provinces, territories and stakeholders to develop a national strategy and action plan to end violence against women, and to hold a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada.

Prostitution Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, petitioners from Saskatchewan and Alberta note that prostitutes are forced into the sex trade and trafficked, and that we have this void in Canadian law now because the sex trade is not addressed in the Criminal Code. The petitioners request the House to legislate that it be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man, or child, and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams, and others to profit from the proceeds of the sex trade.

Asbestos Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by literally tens of thousands of Canadians. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament here assembled to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known. They point out that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational causes combined, yet asbestos is not banned in Canada.

The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to ban asbestos in all of its forms; end all government subsidies to the asbestos industry both in Canada and abroad; and stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam convention.

Sex Selection Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many residents of Ontario. The petitioners call upon members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

Local Food Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today with respect to local food, which is signed by constituents in and around my riding of Beaches—East York. The petitioners point out that buying local food cuts down on transportation and greenhouse gas emissions, that buying local foods gives Canadians access to fresh and nutritious food, and that federal departments and agencies should lead by example and support Canadian farmers by buying local food.

The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to require the Department of Public Works to develop a policy to purchase locally grown food for all federal institutions.

(1210) Impaired Driving Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by residents of Fraser Valley who believe that current impaired driving laws are too lenient and would like to see them strengthened by the implementation of minimum sentencing for those convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 742 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. The Deputy Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ] Question No. 742-- Hon. Irwin Cotler : With regard to the process for filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada that will be created by the retirement of Justice Louis Lebel: (

a) when did the government learn of Justice Lebel’s intention to retire on November 30, 2014; (

b) how did the government learn of Justice Lebel’s intention to retire on November 30, 2014; (

c) what steps has the government taken to find a replacement for Justice Lebel; (

d) when were each of the steps in (

c) taken; (

e) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments has the government consulted with regard to developing a process to find Justice Lebel’s replacement; (

f) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments has the government consulted with regard to choosing Justice Lebel’s replacement; (

g) when did the consultations in (

e) occur; (

h) when did the consultations in (

f) occur; (

i) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments will the government consult with regard to developing a process to find Justice Lebel’s replacement; (

j) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments will the government consult with regard to choosing Justice Lebel’s replacement; (

k) when will the consultations in (

i) occur; (

l) when will the consultations in (

j) occur; (

m) what date has the government set by which Justice Lebel’s replacement must be nominated; (

n) what date has the government set by which Justice Lebel’s replacement must be appointed; (

o) by what date does the government intend to nominate Justice Lebel’s replacement; (

p) by what date does the government intend to appoint Justice Lebel’s replacement; (

q) when were the dates in (

m) to (

p) set; (

r) who set the dates in (

m) to ( p ); (

s) based on what factors were the dates in (

m) to (

p) set; (

t) if no dates have been set regarding the nomination or appointment of Justice Lebel’s replacement, why have no dates been set; (

u) has the government examined the consequences, legal and otherwise, of allowing a Supreme Court seat to be vacant; (

v) what are the results of the examination in ( u ); (

w) when did the examination in (

u) begin; (

x) when did the examination in (

u) end; (

y) who carried out the examination in ( u ); (

z) if the government has not carried out the examination in ( u ), why has it not done so; ( aa ) will the government examine the consequences, legal and otherwise, of allowing a Supreme Court seat to be vacant; ( bb ) if the government will not carry out the examination in ( aa ), why will it not do so; ( cc ) based on what criteria has the government evaluated candidates to replace Justice Lebel, or, if no evaluations have occurred thus far, based on what criteria will the government evaluate candidates to replace Justice Lebel; ( dd ) how do the criteria in ( cc ) differ from those used to evaluate candidates in the appointment processes that led to the appointments of (

i) Justice Wagner, (ii) Justice Nadon, (iii) Justice Gascon; ( ee ) what materials have been sought from the candidates to replace Justice Lebel; ( ff ) what materials will be sought from the candidates to replace Justice Lebel; ( gg ) how do the materials in ( ee ) and ( ff ) differ from those sought from candidates in the processes that led to the appointments of (

i) Justice Wagner, (ii) Justice Nadon, (iii) Justice Gascon; ( hh ) if the materials in ( ee ) and ( ff ) differ from those sought from candidates in the processes that led to the appointments of Justices Wagner, Nadon, and Gascon, (

i) why were changes made, (ii) who decided to make these changes, (iii) when was that decision made; (ii) when did the “reconsideration” of the appointment process referred to in the government’s response to Q-543 begin; ( jj ) who made the decision to reconsider the Supreme Court appointment process; ( kk ) on what date was the decision in ( jj ) made; ( ll ) what has the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process entailed; ( mm ) who has been involved in the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; ( nn ) what has been the role of each of the individuals in ( mm ) in the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; ( oo ) what individuals, agencies, organizations, or other governments have been consulted as part of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; ( pp ) were parliamentarians consulted as part of the reconsideration process, and if so, whom; ( qq ) what meetings have occurred as part of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process, (

i) on what dates, (ii) with whom present, (iii) with what goals, (iv) with what outcomes; ( rr ) what documents, memos, briefing notes, or other materials have been created as part of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; ( ss ) what are the dates of creation and file or reference numbers of the materials in ( rr ); ( tt ) who developed the materials in ( rr ); ( uu ) to whom have the materials in ( rr ) been distributed; ( vv ) what research, reports, books, articles, or other reference materials has the government consulted as part of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; ( ww ) what are the objectives of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; ( xx ) when did the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process end, or if it is ongoing, when does the government intend to end it; ( yy ) if the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process is ongoing, (

i) what will the remainder of the reconsideration entail, (ii) who will be involved in the remainder of the reconisderation, (iii) what will be the role of each of the individuals, agencies, organizations, and governments involved, (iv) when will parliamentarians be consulted, (

v) in what way will parliamentarians be consulted; ( zz ) when did the government last engage in a reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; ( aaa ) in what way is the current reconsideration similar to or different from the last reconsideration; ( bbb ) what are the results of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; ( ccc ) when will the results of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process be made public; ( ddd ) what has been the cost of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process; ( eee ) what is the breakdown of the cost of the reconsideration of the Supreme Court appointment process thus far; ( fff ) if the reconsideration is ongoing, (

i) what will be the total cost of the reconsideration, (ii) what is the breakdown of the cost; ( ggg ) what process has been or will be used to evaluate candidates and make an appointment to replace Justice Lebel; ( hhh ) in what way have parliamentarians been involved, or in what way will they be involved, in the process to replace Justice Lebel; ( iii ) what goals have been served by parliamentary involvement in previous Supreme Court appointment processes; ( jjj ) how will the goals in (iii) be served in the process to replace Justice Lebel; ( kkk ) in what way have members of the legal community been involved, or in what way will they be involved, in the process to replace Justice Lebel; ( lll ) other than parliamentarians and members of the legal community, who has been or will be involved in the process to replace Justice Lebel, and in what way; (mmm) what steps has the government taken, or what steps will the government take, to ensure that Justice Lebel’s replacement is eligible to fill one of the seats reserved for Quebec pursuant to

section 6 of the Supreme Court Act; ( nnn ) who has carried out, or who will carry out, the legal analysis to ensure that Justice Lebel’s replacement is eligible to fill one of the seats reserved for Quebec pursuant to

section 6 of the Supreme Court Act; ( ooo ) when was the legal analysis in ( nnn ) carried out; ( ppp ) what has been the cost of the analysis in ( nnn ); ( qqq ) what is the breakdown of the cost of the analysis in ( nnn ); (rrr) what has been, or what will be, the cost of the process to replace Justice Lebel; ( sss ) what is the breakdown of the cost in ( rrr ); ( ttt ) in what way will the process to replace Justice Lebel be (

i) transparent, (ii) accountable, (iii) inclusive; and ( uuu ) will the process used for the appointment of Justice Lebel’s replacement be used for future appointments? (Return tabled) [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Deputy Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ Translation ] Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act Bill C-26. Second reading The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague from Saint-Jean spoke today about this bill from the Conservative government. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about my earlier comments on reintegration.

I know that he cares a lot about reintegrating offenders in this country and protecting the public and our children from any potential repeat offences. What does my colleague think about the Conservatives' cuts to public safety within our prisons? Since 2012, the government has cut millions of dollars in this area. Furthermore, more and more rehabilitation and reintegration programs are unfortun