OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 122 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, October 3, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 3, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 122 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 122 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 122 (Version officielle) 147 122 03 10 2014 2014/10/03 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1005) [ English ] Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) moved that Bill C-36,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-36. Third reading

Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, I am pleased to say that we are in third reading on Bill C-36 , one of the most important bills this country has ever had in this Parliament. I will tell you why. It is because so many innocent victims are being lured into the sex trade under human trafficking. We have numerous cases all across this country. Last Christmas, Canadians got a Christmas present.

While they were busy packaging their presents, while they were busy doing things around the house, getting ready for Christmas preparations, the Supreme Court of Canada deemed all the laws around prostitution unconstitutional. What happened after that? One wise thing the Supreme Court did was to give the government a year, until December 20 this year, to respond to that proclamation. Having done that, our government has put together Bill C-36 . It is the first of its kind that Canada has ever seen. For the first time in Canadian history, those who buy sex will be brought to justice.

It will be against the law to do that. Second, the thing that is so unique about Bill C-36 is that there is help for the victims of human trafficking. Many in this Parliament do not understand human trafficking. They talk about prostitutes, the rights of others to set up shop and control a bunch of women, and young men now, in Canada, control and force them into the sex trade. It is the most devious, under-the-surface kind of crime that people now, finally, are starting to understand. In this country right now it has been accepted that the buying of sex is just fine, because that is what women do.

However, women do not want to service up to 40 men a night. Women do not want to be coerced into the sex trade. Women do not want to give their money to people who beat them if they do not. This is not what women want. What women want in this country is to be safe. They want to be able to grow up. They want to be able to have a life they can be proud of, and grow and prosper like anybody else. In this House, I have heard so many speeches, but what I need to tell my colleagues is that Bill C-36 has to be supported. It has to be supported because all of Canada is watching what is going on in this country right now.

All of Canada, Canadians all across this country, have sent numerous emails to me, numerous petitions, numerous postcards, and what they have said is that they want their children to be safe. The majority of trafficked victims are underage, and we are finding that now. We know that now. If members put human trafficking in a Google search, they would see how many human trafficking cases have come to the forefront, from coast to coast to coast across this country. I have to tell my colleagues in the House what I have done with all those petitions, all those postcards and all those emails. I have categorized them.

I know every single part of what is happening in this country, because of all the compilation we have done over 10 years. I know what the people are saying in each of the constituencies across this country. I am going to be making sure that trafficked victims and their parents are very well aware in every constituency of what all the parliamentarians are saying and doing as far as it relates to Bill C-36 . There is no reason now to do archaic thinking. There is no reason now to say, “I am confused.” Quite frankly, that is a very stupid comment.

It does not matter who they are or on what side of the House, right now, in this country, Bill C-36 is a bill that parliamentarians from all sides of the House should embrace.

(1010) As I said, for the first time in Canadian history, the buying of sex will be illegal. For the first time in Canadian history, there is significant money being put in to help the victims of human trafficking. For the first time in Canadian history, the advertising of sex, those big ads for fresh Asian girls, any size, any age, anything people want, will be illegal. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that it is not the girls putting that kind of advertisement in the newspaper. It is predators who are making between $260,000 to $280,000 per year, per victim.

In this Parliament, a mom, who members would know but I cannot name right now, came to see me because her 16-year-old daughter was trafficked. When I met her, she was a typical staffer, a typical person, well-dressed, well-educated, well-respected. She sat on my couch in my office with tears rolling down her face when she said, “Why don't the parliamentarians in this country stand up for the victims of human trafficking?” I have heard some of the speeches in the House. They are all in Hansard and everyone knows what members are saying.

Parliamentarians ought to know more than the average citizen about human trafficking. It is the right of every single young person to be safe in this country. I heard a speech the other day by a member who talked about how we are taking away the rights of a person to set up a brothel. Basically what the member said was that it is a woman's right to exploit other women. Meanwhile right in her riding there is a trafficking ring going through to the U.S. It has not hit the papers yet, but it will.

However, I am going to take that speech and I will personally put my feet in that constituency and get the parents and the trafficked victims together and tell them what their MP said and ask them what they think about that. In Parliament it seems that all of us think that we are wonderful, learned people. We are here for one thing. We are here to serve the people of Canada. We are here to listen to what is going on in our country and everyone here knows about human trafficking. Some members on all sides of the House have really taken up the torch.

There are members from the NDP, the Liberals and from our side who have taken up the torch. Unfortunately, many members and leaders have suppressed the voices of members who want to support Bill C-36 . Today is the last time I will have a chance to speak to the bill. Over summer, we came to Parliament to sit on the justice committee and we brought in the most dynamic people, the survivors. I say survivors, not victims, because these victims now have a voice. They have become the survivors and they are listening to everything that is happening in Parliament.

Members should choose their words carefully and choose their vote carefully because their voices will go across. The voices of parents, grandparents, victims and organizations that take care of victims, my dear colleagues, are far stronger than anyone else who has a vested interest. When we hear people saying this is a right to legalize prostitution; it is an industry. Members should shake their heads. It is not an industry and it is not what the elected people in this Parliament of Canada should be professing. They should not do that.

If they dare to do it, I promise I am going to make sure I will go to every city, every town, every constituency and I will let their constituents know. They can decide whether they want to elect them to the Parliament of Canada with that kind of attitude.

(1015) We have to do something in this Parliament to suppress the human trafficking that is happening across this country. All we have to do is talk about the victims. All we have to do is talk about what happens to them. Predators come on as the victim's friend to get their confidence and lure them. It can even be a family member. It can be a friend. It can be a woman. It is not just men. I had one case very recently where a boyfriend said to this young girl, “We'll get married. I love you”. He was her knight in shining armour.

What she did not know was that behind the scenes he was part of a little gang that were targeting young girls, getting their confidence, taking away all their support systems through their families, their schools, their churches, all their supports, my beloved colleagues, and he sold her. She serviced up to 40 men a night before we got her out of that ring. This is something we cannot be silent about. This kind of crime has been below the radar screen for so many years here in Canada. Everybody talks about every other country but Canada.

In Canada, predators are making between $250,000 to $280,000 a year off their victims. That is tax-free money. That is why they do it. Mostly, it is because they follow the cash. Unfortunately, in this country, we have had films like Pretty Woman . We have had films glorifying prostitution. It is not prostitution; it is human trafficking. This is where people do not have a choice, where they are being targeted and are mostly underage victims. What happens is that these victims just give up after a while. They get post-traumatic stress.

They sort of look to their predators because that is where they get their one meal a day. That is where they have some semblance of security. This is how they look at it. It is a very sick kind of crime in our nation. If we look at the trafficking cases in Vancouver Island, the Nanaimo newspaper and the people who work with the trafficking victims say that this ring has been undisturbed for years. We know that. In Ottawa, 10 minutes from Parliament Hill, we have had trafficking cases. What is happening in this country, now, is that police officers are beginning to become schooled in human trafficking.

Some police officers who used to think it was just part of a daily occurrence that they did not need to pay attention to, are starting to understand now that behind those young women and young boys on the street is a very sad story where they are being brutalized on a daily basis and huge money is being made off them. In the country right now “herds of girls”, as they call them, are actually tattooed by the person who owns them. Years ago, long before the Speaker and I came to Parliament, Wilberforce said that once you know, “you can never again say you did not know”.

The other part of that is: what are you going to do about it? Every parliamentarian in this Parliament knows that human trafficking is happening. Every parliamentarian knows that it is basically our young people. This is not about politics. This is about doing the right thing. This is about representing our constituencies so that our children, our young people, are safe and they are not targeted, because this trafficking has grown to epidemic proportions at this point in time. We had a nanny in Ottawa who was caught up in human trafficking.

They are people who are often in a position of trust, a position where they can have access.

(1020) It happens everywhere. It happens in our communities, in our schools, in our churches—everywhere—and the victims have been silent. They are silent no longer, and they will not be silent during the next election, no matter what happens on any side of the House. Bill C-36 is one of the most important bills we have ever put through Parliament. It makes a statement about our country. When the bill goes through, parliamentarians, on all sides of this House, can say that we will not allow our children to be bought and sold in this country.

When one talks about the pornography and everything around human trafficking, that is a conditioning of a society. A 10-year-old boy wrote to me about being addicted to porn. I was interviewed at the National Post , and the next day the National Post stated that this parliamentarian did not know a 10-year-old who was addicted to porn. The parents read this and called the National Post , and said, “We're the parents. I'll tell you about what happened”. They came to visit me in Ottawa.

I met the little boy, and we found out that a whole school division, and other school divisions all across this country, had porn popping up on their computers. It was not because they wanted it, but because the system is set up in a way that porn inadvertently pops up at random. It has happened on everybody's computer. It is a type of conditioning, a type of acceptance. We should not accept, in any way, shape, or form, the exploitation of our youth. We should not do that. However, let us be careful.

The world is watching what we are doing as parliamentarians here in the Parliament of Canada, on all sides of the House. They all know. It is not a partisan thing. We have talked about human trafficking, and I have to commend you, Mr. Speaker. You are a man of great honour and you have given much support for this human trafficking. You stood by me a long time ago, when I first introduced Bill C-268 . I honour the set of standards you have for what you feel is good for Canada.

There are people on all sides of the House who have done that, but there are too many today who are resisting Bill C-36 and are making statements in this Parliament that they will live to regret. I have been in Montreal a great deal. I have worked with the head of the vice squad there, Dominic Monchamp. I have worked with and rescued victims of trafficking around that area. I do not speak French. Two of my children speak French very well. I wish I did. I try. I love French. However, I have not had the time to speak it eloquently, like most of the people do here.

However, I have done a lot of work, and it does not matter what language we have, people know. Some of the most courageous people have come from Montreal, in terms of the human trafficking initiative. They are amazing people. I want each parliamentarian here to be able to leave this place knowing that their lives made a difference in the life of someone who has no voice. I look forward to the speeches, and I would implore members to get behind Bill C-36 . It is the right thing to do. If they have anything to say, they will hear it again in the subsequent months.

I will ensure that happens in each constituency that each one of us lives in. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her work on human trafficking. I encourage her to visit my riding. I could translate what she is saying because most people in my riding speak French. As an MP, I spend time with my constituents to make sure I am on the right track. I have a few questions for my colleague opposite. She began her speech by saying that, for the first time in Canadian history, it will be against the law to buy sexual services.

First, I would like her to tell me what is meant by sexual services, since no one—not the minister nor the committee members—will tell me. Second, how does the member explain the fact that her government refused to also make the sale of sexual services illegal? There is a dichotomy in the Conservative rhetoric. Even my colleague from Ahuntsic , who was probably one of the biggest Conservative government supporters when it came to Bill C-36 , said that she could not support the bill after the committee had finished its work.

She introduced an amendment to make prostitution completely illegal because that is what this government wanted to do. How does the member explain this dichotomy? In this context, why object to removing the criminal records of the victims, the survivors of prostitution? (1025) [ English ] Mrs. Joy Smith : Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. People are now discovering that when people in prostitution rings get arrested—I call them the victims—they are revictimized. I will take the member to the case of Samantha. She was trafficked by her boyfriend and was arrested and re-arrested.

In fact, statistics tell us that 60% of the women are arrested, as opposed to the johns who actually purchase sex, because the law has not passed yet. She was revictimized. She had two children at home. It did her no good. Through Bill C-36 , as it is right now, she would be counselled. She would be helped out of that dilemma, which is like a black hole in which the women lose everything. They lose their dignity, their confidence. They lose everything. That is why we should not be arresting the victims. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that all members of the House are opposed to human trafficking, the exploitation of any Canadian, the exploitation of women. We are all pro-victim. We are not anti-victim, as the government likes to say. The member alleged that an opposition member of Parliament in the House, who holds a different opinion from the member on some of this legislation, has a human trafficking ring in her riding, that I believe the member said is funnelling women to the U.S. She has alleged this.

She also said that she intended, once this became public, to go to the member's riding to seek political advantage against the member as a result of this human trafficking ring that she alleges is occurring. I would urge the member, if she is aware of this kind of criminal activity in anyone's riding, to report it to the police. I would urge that she approach the member to whom she referred to discuss this issue in a constructive way.

If she cares about victims, which I am certain she does based on her long-standing work in the House on this issue, she should not try to seek political advantage on the backs of victims in this case. That is what she said in her own words that she intended to do. I would suggest that she try to help with the situation and work with the other members of the House, as opposed to trying to seize political advantage in some member's riding.

(1030) Mrs. Joy Smith : Mr. Speaker, I have to say categorically that it is the member opposite who is trying to twist the words. I know of many cases of human trafficking, and I have worked with the police. Nothing can be said publicly until they have all of the evidence and it comes to fruition. When I came to Parliament, in 2004, we did not hear about human trafficking. Now we have cases all over the place. How does that happen? I heard a very good comment from the member on TV last night, and I admired him. He was admonishing a reporter who made an inappropriate comment.

The member mentioned that he had twin daughters. I think we are all victim oriented, in a way, but we have to put our feet to the ground and support Bill C-36 . Everyone will know the outcome of what every parliamentarian says about this bill. [ Translation ] Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to my colleague, the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul . I have a great deal of respect for her because she is a passionate woman who tells it like it is.

Because of her, I discovered something that I did not believe existed in Canada and that is modern slavery or human trafficking. Perhaps the hon. member does not speak French, but a few years ago, she went to Quebec to speak out against human trafficking and make Quebeckers aware of this issue. I had an opportunity to be there with her. Today, I am very proud of that because I have seen her introduce a number of bills that would punish those who victimize the most vulnerable members of our society. Because of that, I have great respect for my colleague.

What she is doing goes beyond party lines and has great historical significance for our country. I had the opportunity to meet with groups that help victims of prostitution. I heard some heart-wrenching stories from young aboriginal people. Unfortunately, this is happening on our streets. That is why it is important to develop strategies to help victims of prostitution and human trafficking, who are exploited and stripped of their dignity. They need help breaking the cycle of dependence and constant violation of their dignity. My question is very simple.

Governments may put measures in place and organizations may be there to help, but as long as society feels it is acceptable to exploit people by choosing to ignore these issues, there will be a problem. This is then my question: [ English ] Does the member believe we can bring about a change of mentality, a paradigm shift, to raise awareness and make it criminal? It would be criminal to buy sex in this country, if this law is adopted. However, socially it is totally unacceptable to purchase sex from victims of exploitation. How does she feel with respect to that?

As a society, we were successful at making impaired driving socially unacceptable. Can we do something about the purchasers of sex who are luring young victims? Mrs. Joy Smith : Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to my colleague who has been supportive of this issue. Parliamentarians must take leadership in making this socially unacceptable. I will help any member on any side of the House who has it in their heart to support Bill C-36 for the good of Canada and the good of our children. We have to stop being partisan. There are good people on all sides of this House. This bill is very important.

We cannot mess around with it. I am paying attention and will move forward if I see other things happening. I know the victims. I know the police officers who work with them. I know the families who have to endure the aftermath of human trafficking. Parliamentarians on all sides of this House can rise up, in a non-partisan manner, to stop this terrible crime. (1035) [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the debate surrounding Bill C-36 is really not that simple. Nevertheless, we can and should make it simpler, by focusing carefully.

With that in mind, I would like to start by making certain things very clear. Bill C-36 does not address the issue of human trafficking. The Bedford decision, handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in December 2013, focused on three specific provisions of the Criminal Code, namely sections 210, 212 and 213. Those three sections of the Criminal Code are found in

part VII, titled “Disorderly Houses, Gaming and Betting”. Human trafficking is not even covered in

part VIII, titled “Offences Against the Person and Reputation”. I wholeheartedly agree with the member for Kildonan—St. Paul when it comes to the issues regarding sexual exploitation and human trafficking. I even supported legislation in this area when it was being studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, since I was actually a member of that committee. However, it is important to not confuse the issue. Yes, people—especially people who want to abolish prostitution in Canada—sometimes call on us to prohibit the purchase of such services. There is a certain logic behind that.

I see where the government is headed. However, it is also important that they stop trying to fool us and stop pretending that they are fixing every problem on the planet. The government is following a certain logic by saying that if we prevent the sale of such services by making it an offence, then there will be no sexual exploitation or prostitution. I would like to come back to the Bedford decision, which is important, because the Conservatives are claiming that Bill C-36 responds to the concerns raised in that case. Bill C-36 is

an act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The Bedford case was about three prostitutes, or former prostitutes, who argued that the three provisions I mentioned earlier should be struck down. Those provisions were in

part VII of the Criminal Code, under “Disorderly Houses, Gaming and Betting”, which criminalizes various prostitution-related activities. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Ms. Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I respected my colleague and listened when she was speaking. I do not mind if my colleagues wish to have their conversations elsewhere, but we are under a gag order, so we have very little time to say our piece. [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. Could I ask all members, if carrying on conversations, to move outside the chamber. The hon. member for Gatineau. [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr.

Speaker, the three prostitutes, or former prostitutes, were seeking a ruling declaring that three Criminal Code provisions—provisions that criminalize various prostitution-related activities—infringe on the rights guaranteed under

section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 210 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to keep a common bawdy-house or being found in one.

Section 212(1)(

j) makes it an offence to live wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person. Finally,

section 213(1)(

c) makes it an offence to communicate in public for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. The three people involved argued that these restrictions on prostitution put the safety and lives of prostitutes at risk by preventing them from implementing certain safety measures that could protect them from violence, including hiring security guards or screening potential clients. They also alleged that

section 213 (1)(

c) infringes on the freedom of expression guaranteed under

section 2(

b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that none of the provisions are saved under

section 1. They won. The Supreme Court ruled in their favour. Do not think that the Canadian government sat back and did nothing. It was quite the case and it took more than a year to hear it, present it, prove it, and so on and so forth. There was social evidence to consider. The Supreme Court focused specifically on the subjects in question. At the end of the day, it found that the act of driving this activity underground put the lives of these people at risk. All those who support Bill C-36 call these people victims. In this context, the risk could not be justified by the clauses in question.

The Supreme Court therefore decided to strike them down. The Supreme Court found that this compromised the right guaranteed under

section 7 of the charter. The court ruled that the restrictions increased all the risks to which the claimants expose themselves when they engage in prostitution, an activity that in and of itself is legal. My heart ached when I heard the stories shared by some victims of human trafficking, which is covered by

section 279 and subsequent sections in the Criminal Code. Police officers came to testify in committee and I asked them questions. Absolutely nothing prevented them from conducting the necessary investigations, finding the traffickers, arresting them and prosecuting them to the full extent of the Criminal Code. If we need longer sentences for human trafficking, then that is something to work on. In fact, that is being done with some of the bills introduced by the member opposite, which I fully support. That is the real problem.

Street prostitution, which is what we are discussing, perhaps started with human trafficking. We need to give resources to police officers. Instead, the government is choosing to lecture everyone. It is making cuts to police forces and border services, and it is asking the various police forces to reduce their budget, but this comes at a high cost to our country. The government is not making any sense. All of the police officers told me that the tools were there. The only tool they thought they could use was the power to give an exemption. That is what they do. We cannot be blind or stupid here.

They stopped short of saying what constitutes prostitution as a whole. Even I do not know what it means. Are we talking about the sale of sexual services? Is it the act itself? Does it include escort agencies? Strip clubs? I have so many questions that they did not want to answer. I heard the member opposite say that she took note of what we were saying. I am taking note of what the government is or is not doing. I am taking note of the fact that statistics were hidden from us for months.

The government did not want to tell us what Canadians thought about this issue, even though Canadians themselves paid for the survey. I am taking note of the fact that, according to the minister, a consultation was conducted on the Internet. However, we do not know how many people responded. A hundred? Two hundred? I am also taking note of the fact that most of the people the minister had more personal consultations with felt the same way he did.

(1040) That is understandable; however, we are talking about the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and an unequivocal decision by the Supreme Court that clearly explains the situation and what it entails. Parliament was not given carte blanche and told that it had a year to introduce Bill C-36 or the court would do it for us. That is not at all what the Supreme Court said. The court stated that the government had a year to introduce a bill, if it so wished, but that the bill must comply with the decision that was handed down.

In other words, if the life of even one person were endangered, that would be enough to conclude that the proposed provisions are illegal. Numerous experts told us that there was a problem. The minister himself came to tell us that he expected his bill would be brought before the Supreme Court. I have lost count of the number of times I asked the minister if it would not make more sense to refer Bill C-36 to the Supreme Court. Given what even the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul said, we cannot risk making a mistake and then realizing, a few years down the road, that we have created a quagmire.

The Manitoba minister came to tell us that he would not enforce the legislation this way. We create laws, but it is the provinces and territories and the police that then enforce them. How will they do that? A whole variety of people came to talk to us. There were members of feminist groups and police officers. They came from all walks of life. Their problems are different, and that is understandable. Time and again we heard about the Nordic model, and I thought it would be discussed here. I think that most of the groups I spoke to before Bill C-36 was introduced expected that the Nordic model would be proposed.

Many think that it is the solution to the issue of prostitution and that it has an impact on human trafficking. I want to believe that. That is what everyone was telling us. It was unanimous. However, we cannot forget that the government is aiming to completely eradicate prostitution one day. While I hope that does happen, I also wish the government good luck. If that is what the government wants to do, I would suggest that it put its money where its mouth is.

In other words, the government is going to have to put some money toward this because it has been proven, even by those who support Bill C-36 , that there are two main reasons why people enter this profession. I agree with my colleague that more than three-quarters of these people, the vast majority, do not enter it willingly and do not really consent to it. The two main problems are poverty and drug addiction. It is inconceivable that a person starving on the streets is going to jump for joy and say she is getting out of prostitution because of Bill C-36 . She is not going to do that.

She will not even know that the bill exists. Only the Conservatives believe that a criminal commits a crime with the Criminal Code close at hand. For goodness' sake, that is not what happens. I am saying that the Conservatives do not have the courage of their convictions. I would like to trust them, but they voted against an amendment that would have made all prostitution illegal and a criminal offence. I told my colleague from Ahuntsic that she was wasting her time because they really do not believe in it. The Conservatives want to pass moral judgment on consenting people.

Even my colleague opposite said that a small percentage of people are in the profession voluntarily. She and I may have difficulty understanding this—in fact we may not understand it at all—but if there is consent, it is none of our business. However, we have put these people at risk. There could be court challenges to Bill C-36 . We proposed more than a dozen serious amendments to improve this bill. We constantly heard the word “victim”.

(1045) The Conservatives are smart; I will give them that. They realized that they cannot criminalize victims, since one cannot be both a criminal and a victim at the same time. I therefore introduced an amendment that I thought made sense, based on the premise that all these individuals are victims, and that was to have all their criminal records erased. A victim should not have a criminal record for something she did while she was being victimized. However, when the time came to walk the walk, the Conservatives voted against it.

When you believe in what you are doing and you really want to eliminate prostitution, you do not vote against an amendment that calls on the minister, who is proposing a tiny investment of $20 million over five years, to report back to the House. The Manitoba justice minister told us in committee that that was peanuts for his province. It is not enough to get people out of poverty and give them any hope of getting out of that despicable human trafficking situation. Nor is it enough to solve the problems of substance abuse.

The vast majority of people working in this industry, including aboriginal women, are not there because they want to be. Those issues need to be resolved. For anyone who believed in the Nordic model, an expert from Sweden appeared before the committee and said that that model could not be implemented without a huge financial investment. Opinions varied widely on that. This is not the easiest file I have ever had to deal with as the justice critic for the official opposition. Everyone, however, whether they were for or against Bill C-36 , said that $20 million was a ridiculously low amount.

This makes me wonder whether the government truly believes in what it is doing. The Conservatives' speeches on Bill C-36 , which is supposed to be the response to Bedford, are not the legal speeches they should be. Our Conservative colleagues are not talking about the fact that under Bedford, the Criminal Code sections in question will be declared completely unconstitutional in December. These are awful, heartbreaking stories of human trafficking. It is a scourge around the world. My colleague across the way is going on a crusade, but that is okay. I will open the doors to Gatineau for her.

I talked to the people of Gatineau about this. When people find out that Criminal Code provisions on sexual exploitation, including

section 279 of the Criminal Code, exist without Bill C-36 , that changes things. We do not want to put the lives of sex trade workers at risk. Everyone sees eye to eye on that, and I doubt the Conservatives are any different. If someone says it is not serious, then I have a problem with that. We have to be realistic and logical and strengthen the laws, as my colleague across the way has done with a number of bills that address human trafficking. That is what we have to focus on. We must also give our police officers the tools they need. Do we want them to arrest the woman on Murray Street in Ottawa?

Do we want them to investigate the cases my colleague mentioned without naming the riding? I hope it is not my riding. It was as though she was telling us in a roundabout way to be careful what we say.

(1050) I am speaking off the cuff, like it or not, but I am weighing my words carefully. This comes from the heart, with great feeling. I worked for months on this file while trying to remain as neutral as possible. There were good arguments on both sides. Feminist groups were saying that prostitution should not be criminalized under any circumstances because it is a form of exploitation. Other groups, such as Maggie's, Stella, the Pivot Legal Society and POWER, told me that many women are in positions of control in this industry and that this was a choice they had made.

They were asking who we were to impose something else on them. From my perspective, the role of the police is to ensure that this consent is real. They need to have the means to do that, and they do under the Criminal Code. Beyond that, this is none of our business. We certainly should not change the fact that people can, according to what they say, voluntarily choose to work in this trade and do so in safety. Now, under Bill C-36 , there will be no exceptions. The purchase of sexual services will always be a criminal offence. There are serious problems associated with this issue.

The government is using sound bites and shocking stories about human trafficking, which are true, by the way, to try to tell us that Bill C-36 addresses that. However, this bill does not respond to the ruling in Bedford, and that is unfortunate. (1055) [ English ] Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend talked about the courage of convictions of parties with respect to the issue of prostitution and referred to the Supreme Court decision in the Bedford case.

She will know that the Chief Justice said that it will be for Parliament, should it choose to do so, to devise a new approach reflecting different elements of the existing regime. Our government is taking a courageous stand. For the first time in Canadian history, we are saying that prostitution victimizes people. It victimizes vulnerable women and girls and young men, it drives the demand for human trafficking, and for the first time, we are making the purchase of the sexual services of another person illegal. That is a courageous stand.

When that hon. member last stood in this House to speak to Bill C-36 , I asked her very specifically what the NDP would do if the NDP were in our shoes and had the opportunity to bring in a bill in response to the Bedford decision. How would it address the Chief Justice's request that Parliament do something that is within its purview? How would New Democrats be courageous in helping to reduce the scourge of prostitution that victimizes people in our country? Ms. Françoise Boivin : Two things, Mr. Speaker, because there are two elements in the question from my esteemed colleague.

The first one is about the Supreme Court of Canada. [ Translation ] I would like to clarify something, because the Conservatives always fail to mention it. When the Conservatives talk about how the Supreme Court found that “[c]oncluding that each of the challenged provisions violates the Charter does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted”, they always fail to mention that this is true “as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes”. That is clear.

The Conservatives have asked me twice what the NDP would do in these circumstances. We will spell it out when we form the government. Hopefully that will happen soon because we are tired of listening to this type of rhetoric. What I can say is that we will not hide important statistics on such a major issue as prostitution. We will not hold bogus consultations and we will not hide crucial information about such an important issue. When a government makes decisions like that, claiming they are in people's best interests, it loses all credibility.

When you do something in people's best interests, you do not have to hide things from them. Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to say more about the mixed messages the minister is sending. He introduced a bill in the House of Commons and said that his legal experts studied the bill and everything was fine. However, a number of experts appeared before the committee and said that there were constitutional issues and that the bill failed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

The minister is saying, in essence, that the bill may not comply with the ruling and may be unconstitutional. My colleague spoke about that. Was the bill constitutional or not, and why was the minister unable to give a clear answer? The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member for Gatineau has one minute to answer the question. Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer who will be celebrating 30 years of legal practice in November, I would venture that we cannot say that it is completely unconstitutional or completely constitutional.

The minister says that he is convinced that this will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. I got a minor amendment passed. I do not really boast about it because I find that ridiculous. Once again, the Conservatives do not want to be clear and transparent. We asked the minister to report on prostitution and human trafficking two years after the passage of the bill. They amended my amendment to increase the time period to five years. With Bill C-13 , they increased it to seven years. We all know that this will be before the courts well before that.

I would like to reiterate that this is a health and safety issue. We must not put the lives of people who work in a very dangerous environment at risk. This is very serious.

(1100) The Deputy Speaker : When we resume debate, the member will have approximately five minutes for questions and comments.

Statements by Members Statements by Members [ English ] Richmond Hill Mr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada has named Richmond Hill as one of Canada's most desirable places in which to live. Leadership and innovation, a strong local economy, a highly educated workforce and a high quality of life all contributed to Richmond Hill being ranked one of the top six communities chosen by Canada's mobile populations.

As the member of Parliament for Richmond Hill, I can say first hand that there is no friendlier or more welcoming community that is also the third most diverse in Canada. The secret to its success is respecting, embracing and celebrating our history, heritage and diversity. Well-attended events, such as the Royal Canadian Legion's annual Remembrance Day parade, the Santa Claus parade, the mayor's annual Nowruz, Eid and Chinese new year's galas, as well as the Tastes of the Hill multicultural festival and Heritage Village festival allow everyone to share and experience Richmond Hill's rich culture and history.

I am proud of the residents who have chosen Richmond Hill as their home, and I congratulate Mayor Dave Barrow and council for a job well done.

[ Translation ] World Teachers' Day Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we will never forget the excellent teachers we had, from kindergarten through university. I come from a family of five teachers, so it is an honour for me to talk about World Teachers' Day. We all know that teachers play a very important role in our education system, helping our children become educated, responsible adults. Good educators listen to our children, respect them and help them make life and career choices so that they can become members of society.

They are the pillars of our education system. I want to thank the teachers in my riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, at all schools and grade levels, for their excellent work. I also want to take this opportunity to mention the Chabot school in Charlesbourg, which is educating students about politics and democracy. This public school offers an international education program, and students learn about the workings of our political institutions. Without our hard-working teachers, these kinds of initiatives would never be possible. Thank you to all teachers across the country.

[ English ] Hong Kong Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Canadians, can trace their roots back to Hong Kong, my family included, and more Canadians live in Hong Kong than live in Prince Edward island, some 300,000 citizens. The ties that bind Canada and Hong Kong are broad and deep, and we have a duty to those Canadian citizens in Hong Kong and an interest in the future of that great city.

In 1997, Canada endorsed the one country, two systems formula because it protected Hong Kong's independent judiciary, affirmed the rule of law, secured personal liberties and provided a path to universal suffrage. Protests in Hong Kong recently have demonstrated that many have concerns about the continuing independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press and the upcoming 2017 elections. I urge all parties to this dispute to resolve their differences peacefully. I also urge all parties to uphold the letter and spirit of an independent judiciary, rule of law, personal liberties and democratic elections.

James McConnell Memorial Library Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to tour the largest library in my riding, which was built back in 1960. The James McConnell Memorial Library is the feeder library to 11 other outlets and 2 book mobiles. Over 500 people visit the Sydney library every day. My first visit to a library was when the bookmobile came to our community of Millville. It is a great service for all ages in rural areas. Some people say that libraries are passé, but the need for these facilities has only grown over the years.

The service we receive from our libraries is invaluable. Many people use the library as a place to study, research assignments and meet for group projects. Whether it is preschool children or those needing public access to computers, libraries are important. Our library in Sydney is indeed ready for a new chapter; the other libraries in Cape Breton cannot survive without it. The community and other levels of government are stepping up to the plate and I encourage the federal government to also come forward.

I would like to remind all members of the House to visit their local libraries and see the great things that happen there.

(1105) Community Service Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize two individuals from northeastern British Columbia in my riding, Ernie and Mary. Mary came from a small town, Dawson Creek, in northeastern B.C. She was born and raised in Dawson Creek, came off a farm and continued to work in the area. She worked with seniors all her life, and recently retired. Ernie came from northern Manitoba. He came to northeastern British Columbia and worked as a carpenter all his life. He still works as a carpenter to this day, and he is 80 years old.

I would also like to recognize their service to our community. Both have served in many capacities in our local church for the last 50 years. They still serve in various capacities with Gideons, distributing bibles. Mary serves in the local museum, volunteering her time on a weekly basis to serve our constituents. These people, Ernie and Mary, happen to be my mom and dad. They are with us today. I would like to recognize my mom and dad for their contributions to Canada. The Deputy Speaker : It is my responsibility to point out that we are not supposed to do that, but under the circumstances, it is well deserved.

Yom Kippur Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, tonight members of the Jewish faith in Canada and around the world will gather to observe Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. I would like to recognize the Jewish people of my riding of Parkdale—High Park and all Jewish Canadians celebrating Yom Kippur beginning at sundown today. Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year, focuses on atonement and repentance. It is also a time for families to come together, to reconnect and reflect on the past year and the year to come. It is a time for prayer, for reflection and for family.

As Jewish families observe this solemn holiday, let us all commit to working together to build a better future. Tzom Kal .

Property Rights Mr. Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, property rights should be included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unfortunately any attempts to amend the Constitution through the general amending formula have failed. However, the fight for property rights is still a fight worth fighting. More important, it is still a fight worth winning. I have taken on the giant of constitutionally protecting property rights by means of the smooth stone of

section 43, which requires only the approval of a single province if the amendment applies only to that province. That is why on June 11, I introduced Motion No. 520 to Parliament, a resolution that would add property rights to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Alberta. I am working closely with Alberta MLAs on this Alberta-led initiative. I have consulted with property rights and constitutional experts who agree that this approach is constitutionally valid and would be a major victory for the cause of property rights in Alberta and lead the way for the rest of Canada.

Eksperimenta Mr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada will be taking

part in the 2014 edition of Eksperimenta, which is gearing up to host 11 countries from around the world and which will be showcasing artworks created by youth between the ages of 16 and 23. The Canadian exhibition in Eksperimenta 2014 will consist of approximately 50 works of art representing 10 high schools from across Canada, from British Columbia to Nova Scotia. These artworks range in media, including digital photography, video animation, mixed media and a virtual reality environment. Manitoba teacher Ann Donald and Brock University's Dr.

Peter Vietgen will be travelling to Estonia during the week of October 20 to 25 to install the Canadian exhibition of youth art and deliver presentations about teaching contemporary art in high schools. I would like to commend Dr. Vietgen for his work and congratulate St. Catharine's students Briun Pol, Tim Williamson and Jasmine Singleton who have been selected to exhibit their art to the word in Estonia.

Eid al-Adha Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, starting tomorrow, over one billion Muslims worldwide will begin to celebrate Eid al-Adha. This special holiday is a reminder to Muslims of Abraham's sacrifice of his son as

an act of devotion to God. It is about giving of what is best of oneself, giving that which is most precious of oneself, to God. It is a celebration of generosity and charity. Eid al-Adha also marks the end of the annual holy pilgrimage to Mecca. We welcome back all those who are returning from the Hajj and thank them for their deep commitment to the values of unity and peace. These values of peace, charity, family and friendship are dear to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and they reinforce our common bonds of humanity. They speak to our shared belief in fundamental social justice.

As Muslims come together in the days ahead to pray, feast and give back to their communities, I want to wish them a joyful celebration among family and friends. On behalf of the entire NDP caucus, I want to thank Canada's Muslim community for its contribution and commitment toward creating a stronger fabric of respect and understanding in our country. In the spirit of peace and friendship, Eid Mubarak .

(1110) Yom Kippur Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this evening at sunset, the Jewish community across Canada and around the world will gather together to observe Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement. Yom Kippur is the most sacred and solemn day in the Jewish calendar. Those observing seek to atone for their wrongdoings of the past year through fasting, prayer and repentance, they seek forgiveness for the sins they have committed toward their fellow man and against God.

On this sacred day, the Jewish community comes together to reflect on the year that has passed and to look ahead with hope and optimism at the year to come, seeking this as an opportunity to start with a clean slate. On behalf of the Prime Minister and the Canadian government, I would like to extend my sincere wishes to all those in Canada and around the world observing this most holy day to have an easy and meaningful fast, and may they be inscribed in the book of life. G'mar Chatimah Tova .

[ Translation ] Canada Post Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on September 21, I held a public meeting in my riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île about the cuts to Canada Post. Over 100 people attended the meeting and several thousand have signed the petition to date. It is therefore imperative that the government listen to reason and cancel the cuts to home mail delivery. We are talking about a service that is vital to seniors, people with reduced mobility and community organizations in my riding. It is a service that helps make their daily lives a little bit easier.

We are also talking about thousands of quality jobs that contribute to our economy. Mail delivery is not a privilege. It is a service that our government has an obligation to provide. We will be the only G7 country that no longer provides home mail delivery. Once again, the Conservatives are showing their contempt for the most vulnerable members of our society. They do not deserve to be in power. I sincerely hope that, in 2015, Canadians will show the Conservatives how dissatisfied they are.

[ English ] National Cyber Security Awareness Month Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, during National Cyber Security Awareness Month, held every October in Canada and in the United States, Canadians are reminded how to protect themselves against cyber threats. [ Translation ] Central to that effort is the Get Cyber Safe initiative, a national cybersecurity awareness campaign and a key component of Canada's cybersecurity strategy. [ English ] Almost half of all Canadian adults have been a victim of cybercrime and nearly one in five Canadian youth do not know how to use the privacy settings on their social media accounts. [ Translation ] We all have a role to play in cybersecurity in Canada.

That is exactly what we are doing in Orléans with VENUS Cybersecurity. [ English ] Therefore, it is with pleasure and urgency that I encourage everyone to visit “getcybersafe.ca” to ensure that they are as safe in the virtual world as they are in their communities.

Eid al-Adha Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish Eid Mubarak to all Muslims across Canada and throughout the world celebrating the end of Eid al-Adha. I have the honour of hosting this year's Eid dinner on Parliament Hill with the Association of Progressive Muslims, organized by the tireless efforts of Mobeen Khaja. As one of the oldest Islamic celebrations, Eid al-Adha commemorates not only the end of the Hajj, but it also commemorates the great trials of faith and triumph in the life of the prophet Abraham.

Eid al-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice, is also a time of forgiveness and compassion when Muslims in Canada and around the world take time to consider the most disadvantaged members of society, to donate to the poor and share a meal with less advantaged members. Eid al-Adha is also an occasion for Canadians of different backgrounds to see first hand the rich cultural and religious mosaic of Canada, which is one of its defining features. On this blessed occasion, I wish each member peace, happiness, prosperity and a happy Eid.

International Trade Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, no government in Canada's history has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers and their families. Last month was the most successful month for trade and investment in Canadian history. We saw the release of the complete text of the Canada-EU trade agreement and the signing of the Canada-Korea free trade agreement. However, the Minister of International Trade is not done yet.

In just a few weeks, the minister will be leading a trade and investment mission to India, where he will continue to advance Canada's economic interests. The Liberal record of neglecting trade, however, is just shameful. In 13 long years, it signed agreements with a measly three countries. That is shameful.

(1115) [ Translation ] Conservative and Liberal Parties of Canada Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, seeing what the Conservatives are doing to the environment, the economy, employment insurance, justice and foreign policy only reinforces our belief that we need to replace this tired old government in 2015 and change course. However, we cannot just switch lanes, we need to make a U-turn.

When we take a closer look at the issues championed by the Conservatives, it is clear that there is no real difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals: for the Keystone pipeline, the Conservatives got Liberal support; for the 30-day mission in Iraq, the Conservatives got Liberal support; for invading Canadians' privacy with Bill C-13 , the Conservatives got Liberal support; and for destroying the belugas' breeding grounds at Cacouna, the Conservatives got Liberal support.

If the Liberals believe that hope and hard work mean giving the Conservatives a blank cheque and making off-colour jokes about a potential war, they are sadly mistaken. The NDP will continue to demand accountability. We will provide a real alternative in 2015, and we will put an end to the status quo.

The Economy Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand the importance of living within their means, and they expect the government to do the same thing. That is why we are working so hard to spend taxpayers' money responsibly and to balance the budget in 2015. Yesterday the Prime Minister announced that our approach is working. In fact, is it working so well that the deficit for the most recent fiscal year was just a little over $5 billion, which is much lower than the forecasted amount. This is good news for Canadians and for the economy.

Balanced budgets allow us to cut taxes and still guarantee long-term sustainable government services for Canadians. While the NDP and the Liberals continue to call for reckless spending, the Conservative government remains committed to ensuring that every taxpayer dollar is spent effectively. Unlike the leader of the Liberal Party, we know that budgets do not balance themselves.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Health Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canada has the most promising vaccine for Ebola in the world, but despite government promises two months ago, it is not getting to scientists and patients. Yesterday the parliamentary secretary said “consent needs to be provided”, but whose consent did she mean? We know that the World Health Organization is not the problem, so whose consent is she referring to? Is it the pharmaceutical company the Conservatives gave the licensing rights to? Ms.

Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have been very clear in the chamber and on a number of panels with this critic, the vaccines have been donated to the World Health Organization. Canada owns these vaccines. We have 1,500 doses. We have donated up to 1,000 to the World Health Organization. It is up to the World Health Organization to deploy these vaccines as efficiently, ethically, and quickly as possible. Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and the government have not been clear at all.

They keep passing the buck to the WHO, which is not the problem. The American pharmaceutical company NewLink Genetics said it wants to “be in control” of clinical trials. Because of the deal the Conservatives signed with the company in 2010, now the lawyers are holding it up. The situation is very dire, and Canada's vaccine could help now. Will the government tell NewLink Genetics to allow this vaccine to move, or will it cancel the deal today so that we can get this lifesaving vaccine to where it is needed? Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the opposition is confusing issues. Let me very clear about this. Canada owns the doses. We own the intellectual property rights to these doses. We have fully and completely donated up to 1,000 of these doses to the World Health Organization. It is up to it to manage the logistics and to dispense them as quickly and as efficiently as possible. (1120) [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Africa has been hard hit by the Ebola crisis. In Liberia alone, 2,000 people have died from the virus.

The President of Liberia is urging Canada and the international community to do more to stop this terrible disease. She is making a plea for skilled people, screening centres and trainers for health care workers. In short, the country is in need of everything, and fast. When will the minister provide assistance to truly help in this crisis? [ English ] Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada has been at the forefront of responding to the Ebola crisis. We have been there since day one.

We have offered $35 million to leading international humanitarian groups such as the Red Cross, the World Health Organization, and Médecins Sans Frontières. We are dispensing equipment, we are dispensing much-needed expertise, and we have the scientific lab on the ground where we have scientists rotating in and out. Canada has always shown extreme compassion, and we are ready to help those who are affected.

[ Translation ] National Defence Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' 30-day mission in Iraq, supported by the Liberals, ends tomorrow. Now the Conservatives want to increase Canada's military involvement, but we still have not received an account of the first 30 days, and many questions remain unanswered. Why do the Conservatives want to send Canada into a new war in Iraq when they cannot even account for what has happened in the past 30 days? [ English ] Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we have been forthright about what has happened in these last 30 days. We have said that we have been on the ground to provide strategic and tactical advice, but the NDP does not get it. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday mumbled something about nobody being there until September 26, which was completely wrong. Right from the start, the Canadian military has been on the ground and assisting in giving advice. What is the problem with the NDP? [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, while only 26 of the 69 soldiers that we promised were needed, humanitarian aid is not forthcoming. In other words, what we are offering is not needed and what is needed is not being offered. While the Conservatives are getting ready to send Canada into the third war in Iraq in 20 years, what account have they given of the first 30 days of the mission and how does that justify significantly increasing our military involvement? [ English ] Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, ISIL poses a terrible threat to regional security and to the security of this country.

The NDP should not need a briefing to know what a terrible organization this has been and the horrors that it has perpetrated on the people there. We have been forthright. We have told New Democrats this and we have indicated that we are putting people on the ground to provide advice to the Iraqis. I know they do not get it, but again I would urge her to listen to what the Prime Minister has to say after question period today. [ Translation ] Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister will be moving his motion on a combat mission in Iraq.

According to news reports, the Prime Minister wants to limit debate on his combat mission in Iraq to five hours. Does the Prime Minister really think that five hours is enough time to debate sending our Canadian Forces to war? [ English ] Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I understand that these issues are being discussed among House leaders, but again I point out to the hon. member that under the Liberals there was no discussion on these things—no debate, no votes, no nothing. We have been very clear that any matter of this nature will be put to a vote in Parliament.

Again, I am looking forward to the Prime Minister 's comments. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to have forgotten that we did not go into Iraq, thanks to a Liberal prime minister. The Prime Minister will put forward a motion on a combat mission in Iraq today. Media reports indicate that the Prime Minister wants to limit debate on his combat mission to a mere five hours on Monday. Does the Prime Minister really believe that five hours is sufficient time to debate sending the Canadian Armed Forces to war? Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the changes this government has brought in so that any type of military mission will be subject to a discussion and a vote in Parliament. Again, I never agreed with the approach of the Liberals when we went into Afghanistan that there would be no discussion, no votes, no nothing. We will never go back to the way things were with the Liberals. This is a step in the right direction.

(1125) Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there are a range of issues that need to be debated. Will the government do more on humanitarian aid and protection? Are CF-18s really the most appropriate military contribution that Canada can make? What alternatives could be considered, including signals intelligence, reconnaissance, airlift capacity, medical support, training? Canadians deserve to have their voices heard and respected in such a very important set of questions. Will the Prime Minister listen to the alternatives, or will the debate on Monday simply be window dressing? Hon.

Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I think most people are just trying to figure out where the Liberal Party stands on all these issues. I said yesterday that I think they had about three positions. One of my colleagues said that he thinks it is four. I do not want to get into that debate. That said, we are doing those functions, as we always do. We are reaching out with humanitarian aid. Again I would encourage the member to listen very carefully to what the Prime Minister has to say today.

[ Translation ] Foreign Affairs Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are asking Canadians to just trust them on a combat mission in Iraq, except that in return they are incapable of being transparent and honest about their plan. They are rushing things and dragging us into a mission that could go on indefinitely. It seems that they are forgetting the real victims: the people who have suffered the atrocities committed by the Islamic State armed group. What about the humanitarian aid so desperately needed by the civilians affected by this violence? [ English ] Hon.

Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, assisting the people who are the victims of ISIL is exactly what this government has been doing. We have been consistent in that. This is what our 30-day operation was a part of. Again, it is coming to a conclusion, and we were very helpful in providing that advice because we want to assist the people of that area. It is the right thing to do. I encourage the member to listen to the Prime Minister . Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canada's involvement in Iraq is not combat or nothing. We can take steps to save lives right now.

The minister knows this because he saw, alongside me, the desperate need for humanitarian assistance for displaced people in Iraq. We met children in refugee camps in Erbil who are looking urgently for Canada's help to survive this coming winter. They are still waiting. The question is, why has the government failed to step up with new aid so that we can provide support for these kids, these families, right now? Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, nothing is further from the truth.

Canada is the seventh-largest donor assisting people in need during this crisis. Our contribution will allow for those most desperately in need to receive food, hygiene kits, cooking materials, blankets, tents, medical supplies, and other essential supplies, as well as making emergency repairs to essential water and sanitation facilities. This is being implemented right now. We will continue to work closely with our allies to make sure that we can continue to support the needs of Iraqi civilians, particularly religious minorities. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, make no mistake.

No one disagrees about the threat of ISIL and what it poses. It is the civilians in Iraq and Syria who are suffering the most. When the minister came to committee a month ago, I asked him the following questions: Will they support immediate steps to support the set-up of refugee camps? Will they support the protection of minorities? Will they support victims of sexual violence and help for investigating and prosecuting war crimes? The minister said yes to all four asks. The problem is that nearly a month later there has been no action on these four asks. Why? Hon.

Christian Paradis (Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is not true. The member is not correct in saying that. Canada is very active on the ground. As I said, we are the seventh-largest donor. We have an approach to ensure we can reach people in need. There is capacity there, and this why we work with credible organizations like Red Cross, Save the Children, Mercy Corps, and Development and Peace, because they help us to reach the people in need. This is action. This is exactly what we are doing right now.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this week the Minister of Veterans Affairs tabled a response to a unanimous committee report on a review of the veterans charter. The minister's response is extremely disappointing. His answers were vague. There is no new money and the government says it needs more time to study the problem. The committee heard heartbreaking testimony about the challenges veterans and their families face. Why is the minister dragging his heels instead of urgently addressing the needs of Canadian veterans?

(1130) Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action. First and foremost, I would like to thank that member and all opposition members for working in a very non-partisan way to come up with a unanimous report. Let us not forget all sides agree that the new veterans charter is a great foundation upon which Canadian veterans can be supported, while the benefits and investments for veterans are being increased by more than $4.7 billion since 2006.

Our government agrees with the vast majority of the recommendations, both in spirit and intent. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we have seen study after study identifying ways to improve the veterans charter, from the parliamentary committee, from the Veterans Ombudsman and from many veterans organizations. The studies are done. Now is the time for action to assist veterans and their families who need help. Our veterans should not have to fight to receive benefits. How much longer will Canadian veterans and their families have to wait for the current government to take real action? Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would encourage that member to get his facts in order. Let me just read a quote from Tim Laidler, who is an Afghanistan war veteran and executive director of the Veterans Transition Network. He said, “It is a step in the right direction.... Veterans...need the changes [the minister] is bringing in”. [ Translation ] Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government's response to the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is disappointing to say the least.

The minister has postponed the implementation of major recommendations to help veterans. Yesterday, the Veterans Ombudsman said that he, too, was very concerned about the timeline for implementing the recommendations. Will the minister quickly find the money to address the plight of veterans or would he rather save a few dollars at veterans' expense? [ English ] Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action. It has a strong record when it comes to providing benefits and services for Canada's veterans.

Let me read another quote from Tom Eagles, dominion president of the Royal Canadian Legion. He said, “we appreciate that these issues are complex and require considerable time, effort and financial resources to implement”. I would encourage the member opposite to stop playing political games when it comes to Canada's veterans, get on board with the government and support us if he really cares about them.

[ Translation ] Health Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, despite what the parliamentary secretary said yesterday, and despite what we heard earlier today, it is not true that the World Health Organization is blocking the shipment of vaccines to Africa. In fact, the WHO said yesterday: Given the public health need...WHO regards the expedited evaluation of all Ebola vaccines...as a high priority. The WHO says that the Canadian vaccine is one of the most promising. Why is the Conservative government still dragging its feet? [ English ] Ms.

Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are particularly proud of this very promising vaccine. That is why since day one Canada has been at the forefront of responding to the Ebola crisis. Not only are we contributing $35 million to assist those on the ground, to assist them on general humanitarian grounds, to assist them with nutrition and to provide them with treatment, we are also contributing, of the 1,500 doses that we fully own, up to 1,000 doses to the World Health Organization.

It is up to the World Health Organization to decide how it thinks it can best use these doses. Whether it is going to trials or whether it is directly dispensing them, the World Health Organization is in the driver's seat when it comes to those doses. Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of Liberia urged Canada to do more as the Ebola outbreak continues to devastate her country. She said there is an urgent need for highly skilled health workers, testing centres and training. The WHO cites that the situation in Liberia in particular continues to deteriorate.

Liberia needs strong international support to bring the outbreak under control. Will the Canadian government respond to the plea from the Liberian president?

(1135) Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this is a very serious international health crisis and Canada has been showing international leadership. We have contributed $35 million in equipment, direct food and expertise. We have scientific labs on the ground and scientists that rotate through. It is very difficult to put a financial value to that type of humanitarian assistance, and it is very needed.

Canada is one of the top 10 contributors throughout the entire crisis to the Ebola response in West Africa and we will continue to show international leadership. Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the whole country is very proud of our national microbiology lab in Winnipeg, most recently because of the role that it is playing in the Ebola outbreak. It is a world-class centre for excellence and scientific research, due largely in part to the outstanding performance and directorship of the outgoing national director, Dr. Frank Plummer. However, that was in March.

Can the minister tell us why it is taking so long to fill this important position in this important institution and why the job posting looks like the government is contemplating hiring a mid-level bureaucrat instead of a top-notch scientist like Dr. Plummer? Ms. Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the work that is being conducted there at the lab. The job has been posted and as soon as I have an update for the House, members will be hearing about it.

National Defence Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, its various important missions have extracted a large toll from the financial and human resources of the Canadian Forces. Some senior military commanders have argued for a pause in the tempo of deployments. The budget has been cut and procurements have been postponed. Even ammunition is in short supply. In dollars and in personnel, what will Canada's maximum exposure be in Iraq over the next five years? Will there be a new and extra appropriation in this fall's fiscal update? Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, first of all, the mission that has just been completed was included as part of the estimate process. Again, we will use existing mechanisms to report on all these matters to Parliament. I would like the Liberals to concentrate on the human cost of what is taking place in that part of the world. This is a huge tragedy and Canada will respond. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, complexities in the Middle East are daunting. We could soon be bombing people in Libya who we were trying to defend not long ago. Even some misguided Canadians who have run amok could soon be among our enemies.

In Turkey, which is a NATO ally, there is a long-running fight with the Kurds, but the Kurds are currently a major source of local resistance against ISIL. Has this conundrum been carefully explored with the Turkish government? Is it clear who is on what side in the combat Canadians are about to get into in Iraq? Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as an analysis of who is onside, the member will find that all of our main allies are onside and are joining this coalition to resist what is taking place in that part of the world.

Again, even within Europe, liberal and social democratic parties across Europe are supportive of taking action against ISIL. It would be nice if the Liberals could unequivocally come on side with that. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there are, of course, many different ways in which Canada can do its

part in rooting out the evil that is ISIL. How then has the government weighed all of the alternatives, the costs, benefits and effectiveness, for example, of strategic airlift or training, signals intelligence, reconnaissance, medical support, critical infrastructure engineering, all in addition to massive humanitarian relief and all to do our part against ISIL? How has the government calculated that the highest and best use of limited Canadian resources are air strikes, potentially crowding out all of the rest? Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I do not agree, obviously, with the analysis of the hon. member. The mission that we are a part of right now is to provide strategic and tactical advice to the Iraqis at this particular time. This is in co-operation with our other allies. I would urge the hon. member to keep an open mind and listen carefully to what the Prime Minister has to say today.

(1140) [ Translation ] Citizenship and Immigration Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the role of the government is to guarantee fair treatment for everyone who lives in Canada. However, this Conservative government does not think that refugees are worthy of being treated humanely. That is shameful. The Federal Court ruled that refugees, and in particular children, were being subjected to cruel and unusual treatment by being denied access to health care. True to form, the Conservative government is appealing this decision to try to save some money at refugees' expense.

Will the government finally act humanely and withdraw its appeal of that decision? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be ashamed of suggesting that a single refugee in Canada is not benefiting from generous health care programs, because that is the truth. We believe that the Federal Court ruling was flawed, which is why we will appeal it. We announced our intention to do so, and in the meantime we will continue to protect refugees and Canadian taxpayers. Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, because of the Conservatives, refugees no longer have access to health care. That is an inhumane decision that has an impact on the health of the least fortunate. What will happen to pregnant women, sick children and seniors who cannot pay for the care they need? Why does the government not admit its mistake? Why does it not withdraw its appeal of the decision? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. member is misleading the House. There is not a single refugee in Canada who does not benefit from generous health care programs.

Even the Federal Court ruling did not say that there were no refugees receiving health care. This is about other categories of asylum seekers. We will appeal the decision, and we will continue to protect the interests of refugees and Canadian taxpayers. [ English ] Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, he should actually talk to some refugees, like people on this side of the House do. It fell to the Federal Court to defend Canadian values, and the court found the Conservatives' policy with respect to refugees “cruel and unusual”.

Instead of respecting our shared values and instead of showing compassion for refugees, the government is appealing the decision. It is unbelievable. The result of the government's intransigence is that desperate parents will put off help for their kids until they are very sick. Pregnant women will go without prenatal care. Why will the government not show some humanity and drop the appeal? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member should know better. Refugees in this country continue to benefit from very generous health care programs.

This was a flawed decision. We are appealing it. We are standing up for refugees. We are standing up for taxpayers. One way that all members of the House could stand up for refugees in Iraq and elsewhere is agreeing to do more to face down the menace of ISIL. Why does the NDP refuse to consider the revocation of passports and the revocation of citizenship for those who take up arms against refugees and kill innocent minorities in cold blood? Why does it exclude all military options to help to protect— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park . Ms.

Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, back to the topic at hand, we already know that the consequence of their appeal will be more kids being hospitalized for serious illnesses. The Federal Court said that the impact of the government's policy on vulnerable and innocent children “shocks the conscience and outrages [Canadian] standards of decency”. Yet, the Conservatives have the gall to stand there and say it is about saving money. No Canadian parent thinks that saving money by making children suffer is a good thing. Will the Conservatives instead do the right thing and withdraw their appeal? Hon.

Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is a flawed decision. We are going to appeal it. I am not going to comment in any detail any further on matters that are before a court. However, what I will comment on is that Canada has opened its doors to 18,500 Iraqi refugees since 2009. They are benefiting from health care. They are benefiting from Canada's generosity.

They come from areas where people want the international community to act with humanitarian action, with military action to end the menace ISIL, which has created one of the biggest displacements of humanity and humanitarian crises in our lifetime. Why does the NDP refuse to do anything to help millions of people in Iraq—

(1145) The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Employment Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, like their comrades in the NDP, the Liberals continue to aimlessly attack the government's overhaul of the temporary foreign worker program, which includes tougher penalties for abusers and reduces the use of the program. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development update this House on why the government overhauled the program and how this position differs from the Liberals'? Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we have overhauled the program to ensure that employers have to give Canadians first crack at all available jobs. We have had a consistent position on this. That is not the case for the Liberal Party. Yesterday, the Liberal candidate in Edmonton Centre publicly asked for a regional relaxation of the rules so they could bring more temporary foreign workers into Canada. Yet, in the Toronto Star , the Liberal leader argued that the temporary foreign worker program needs to be scaled back dramatically. Which way do they want it?

The Liberals are shamelessly saying one thing in western Canada and the exact opposite in eastern Canada. Our position is consistent: Canadians must always come first, for every available job.

[ Translation ] Rail Transportation Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, there have been three other major rail explosions in the United States. That proves that when it comes to rail safety, we can always do better. Yesterday, the president of Canadian Pacific said that the Lac-Mégantic accident was one person's fault and that additional regulations were unnecessary. Does the Minister of Transport agree with that, or does she intend to improve safety measures? [ English ] Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Mr. Harrison's comments that the government somehow overreacted are disappointing. Of course, our government disagrees with them. We take the health and safety of Canadians as a top priority. That is why we have taken a number of very important measures to strengthen rail safety since 2006, especially with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods.

We have information sharing with municipalities, which is a first; tough action on DOT-111 tankers; improving regulations on testing and classification; hiring more inspectors for the oversight; a $100-million investment over the last number of years in rail safety; stiff penalities for those who break the rules, and if they break the rules, we will not hesitate to enforce them. Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, freight trains roll through my riding of Nickel Belt day and night. Residents want to know that their safety is put first when it comes to the shipment of hazardous materials.

The Transportation Safety Board's report condemns the Conservatives' failure to monitor and enforce safety practices of railway companies. How will the minister fix these serious gaps and ensure the safety of northern Ontario residents? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what the Transportation Safety Board in fact concluded is that the rules were not followed.

Immediately following this tragedy, though, our government took additional actions, decisive actions, to ensure the safety and integrity of Canada's rail system, and it will implement every recommendation made by the Transportation Safety Board.

Seniors Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, more than 260,000 seniors across the country are living below the poverty line. As more Canadians retire, that number will rise, but the government seems to content to sit back and watch. New Democrats are calling for action. We have proposed a workable and effective national seniors strategy, a plan that calls for government investment in affordable housing so that all seniors can age in dignity. Will the minister support our intelligent plan? Mr.

Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, no government in the history of this country has done more for seniors in Canada than the Conservative Party of Canada. We have introduced income splitting. We have doubled the pension income credit. We have increased the maximum GIS earnings exemption to $3,500; automatic GIS renewal when the filed annual income tax was 96% last year. We have increased the age credit twice. There have been tax savings of $2.2 million. There are many other things that we have done.

We stand behind the seniors in this country.

(1150) [ Translation ] Housing Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, he did not answer the question. Shame. The fact that the federal government has announced that it will be pulling out of and no longer investing in social housing means that low-income households will have less access to this type of housing. In some cases, rent can go up by as much as $200 to $500. Much like the NDP, the Association de promotion et d'éducation en logement de Saint-Eustache is calling for renewed subsidies. Housing is a right.

Why is the government turning its back on those with inadequate housing? [ English ] Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in terms of housing, we have initiated a new program: housing first. This is an evidenced-based program, which delivers for low-income Canadians who need housing. Just think how difficult it must be to try to apply for a job when an individual has no address that they can fill in on the form. Housing first gives someone a place to live that allows them to participate in employment and get a job.

That is what we are doing. It is evidenced-based. It is working. The opposition should get behind it.

Infrastructure Ms. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, an IMF report this week confirms what Liberals have been saying for months, “in countries with infrastructure needs, the time is right for an infrastructure push”. My constituents in Toronto Centre do not need the IMF to tell them that Canada has an urgent infrastructure deficit. The good news is that IMF has confirmed that thanks to our low interest rates, infrastructure investments are an excellent way to deliver growth without “increasing the debt-to-GDP ratio”.

When will the government take this sound advice and invest more in infrastructure? [ Translation ] Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since we came to power, we have tripled investments in infrastructure. The new building Canada plan, with an envelope of $53 billion over 10 years, is operational. Numerous projects have been announced, and we are working with the provinces and territories on their priorities.

[ English ] Health Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Ebola outbreak ravaging West Africa is the most severe and acute public health emergency in modern times. Never in recent history has such a dangerous pathogen infected so many people so quickly over such a wide geographical area for so long. With Ebola cases and deaths tripling since August, West Africa needs personal protective equipment urgently, but Canada has failed to fulfill its September pledge. I will ask again: What is the minister doing to ensure that the promised supplies get to where they are needed now? Ms.

Eve Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are examining our options to get the protective gear there as efficiently as possible. As I have indicated, Canada has been showing international leadership when it comes to helping the West African countries deal with this mass Ebola crisis. We have invested $35 million to help on general humanitarian assistance, provide nutrition, provide resources on the ground, and to provide much-needed expertise. Canada is showing international leadership.

[ Translation ] Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Cap-des-Rosiers lighthouse, the tallest in Canada, was designated as a national historic site in 1974. In addition, the government implemented the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act in 2010. Now, the government is neglecting it. We cannot let such a gem slip away. The lighthouse desperately needs repairs. Water is seeping in through the cracks. What is the government going to do to preserve the Cap-des-Rosiers lighthouse? [ English ] Mr.

Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course, the member will know that under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, there was a process in place for local groups to take over the ownership and maintenance of lighthouses that are surplus to the needs of the Canadian Coast Guard. I assume that is what is happening in this situation. Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, invasive carp pose a threat to the ecological and economic health of the Great Lakes and inland waters.

If they are allowed to get a foothold, the effects will be irreversible. That is why I introduced a bill to ban the import of live invasive carp into Canada and to give the powers and tools to the CBSA officers to keep these fish out. Will the Conservatives recognize the seriousness of the invasive carp threat and commit to passing my bill?

(1155) Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his interest in this issue. He might recall that in May 2012 our government made an investment of $17.5 million in the Asian carp program. Also in 2012, we made changes to the Fisheries Act that allowed our department to work with the provinces and territories to develop a regulatory framework to include prohibitions against import, transport, and possession of specific invasive species. In fact, we are working on that now. I do wish the member had voted for both of those initiatives.

Intergovernmental Affairs Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada's north is a fundamental part of our heritage, our future, and our identity as a country. Our government is taking action to ensure that the north realizes its full potential, and there has been significant progress made. The Yukon Territory has had the capability of managing its land and resources for over 11 years now, and just this spring the Northwest Territories realized its devolution agreement by the signing of that with the Government of Canada.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development please update the House on the progress we are making to make sure the north realizes its full potential by administering its own fate and its own future? Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to providing the people of Nunavut with more control over their economic and political future, including negotiating the transfer of land and resource management responsibilities.

That is why today our government was pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Brian Dominique as the chief federal negotiator, to begin working on a devolution agreement in principle. This clearly demonstrates our commitment to Canada's north. With devolution comes the power for the people of Nunavut to make their own decisions in the area of resource management, to reach out and take control of their own destiny, and to build a strong and prosperous territory for future generations.

Aboriginal Affairs Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Canadians from coast to coast to coast will attend vigils for missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and stand in solidarity with their families. The premiers, indigenous leadership, and the international community all understand the need to deal with the sociological root causes. They have demanded a national inquiry. Could the Prime Minister finally admit that he was wrong, get on the right side of history, and call a national public inquiry now? Hon. K.

Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has acted. We have moved forward with a national action plan to make sure that these victims of crime are being supported, protected, and we are putting in place preventive measures. Unlike the Liberals who vote against matrimonial property rights and those unique things that aid these women, we are focused on making sure that these victims of crimes are supported. We encourage the Liberals to do exactly that and get on board with our action plan right now.

The Environment Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories has experienced the worst forest fire season in memory, destroying 3.5 million hectares of boreal forest. In comparison, the average area of burn per year in all of Canada over the last 10 years was 2 million hectares. Northerners know that this disaster is directly related to climate change. Will the Conservatives finally admit the reality of climate change and take action?

Will the government be helping the people of the Northwest Territories deal with the overwhelming costs of this year's forest fire season? Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government's record is clear. We have taken decisive action on the environment while protecting our economy. Everyone internationally has to do their fair share, and Canada is doing its part. We emit only 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Building on that record, the Minister of the Environment announced a number of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from vehicles a couple of weeks ago. We have announced our intent to regulate HFCs, one of the fastest growing greenhouse gases in the world. We are accomplishing this without a job-killing carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything.

Public Safety Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, two men were convicted on six counts of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the October 2007 killings of six men at an apartment building in Surrey, B.C. These so-called Surrey six killings were part of a violent gang war that included multiple drive-by shootings and assassinations in the Vancouver area over several years.

Could the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness please tell the House what our Conservative government is doing to keep Canadians safe from violent gang turf wars? (1200) [ Translation ] Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, Canadians absolutely refuse to be held hostage in their own communities by thugs and criminals who are members of street gangs. [ English ] While I cannot comment on this specific case, our government is moving along with making murders committed for organized crime an automatic first-degree murder charge and eliminating the sentencing discount for multiple murders, which will allow for longer parole ineligibility. We will bring forward legislation to make life sentences truly mean life behind bars. The people of Surrey and across Canada can count our government to make our streets safe.

[ Translation ] Foreign Affairs Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is about to announce details about Canada's involvement in Iraq. While military intervention to fight terrorism may be necessary, that alone is never enough if it is not combined with sufficient humanitarian aid, as we saw during the war against Saddam Hussein's regime, which is what gave rise to the fanaticism we are fighting today.

What concrete action does the Prime Minister plan to take to address the root causes of the conflict, such as the lack of democracy and the extreme poverty that are fertile ground for terrorism and fanaticism to grow, as we have seen recently? [ English ] Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have always been clear. In that part of the world, we are one of the leaders in providing humanitarian assistance. Certainly, that will continue as we conclude our 30-day mission and have a look at that.

I think all of us are waiting in anticipation and eagerness for the words of the Prime Minister .

National Defence Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, brutality and atrocities of all sorts of religious extremists and sectarian violence offend every Canadian and are deeply troubling to every citizen. However, we have seen five million killed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We have seen Boko Haram kidnap schoolgirls. Are we particularly motivated to send fighter bombers because ISIL puts its barbaric acts on YouTube? Will we ask ourselves why do they do that? Are we falling into a trip in which these religious extremists want the U.S. and Canada to bomb?

Would we not be better off to work with allies, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and potentially even Iran— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The hon. Minister of Defence. Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in fact, we are working with our allies. The number of allies that are engaged in this process is growing on a daily basis. I would just point out for the hon. member that the brutality and extremism that is experienced by the people in that part of the world is also a direct threat to Canada. Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr.

Speaker, our Prime Minister is about to send Canadian soldiers to war in Iraq. He will give us just one day to debate a motion that would put the lives of Canadians at risk. This decision could engage Canada in a costly and unwinnable war with no end in sight. Will our Prime Minister allow the House to have a full debate? Will he agree to not limit debate? Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have been very supportive of the actions this government has taken when combat military missions have been undertaken. We put this matter before Parliament. We have been forthcoming.

Again, we are committed to doing something in this area. I would urge the hon. member to keep an open mind. I would remind him again that we will not go back to the ways of the Liberals, implementing these things with no discussion in Parliament.

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings [ English ] Telefilm Canada Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, and for referral to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Telefilm Canada's 2013-14 annual report, as per

section 23(2) of the Telefilm Canada Act. In 2013-14, the success of the Canadian audiovisual industry radiated beyond our borders into new markets. Telefilm Canada, along with an array of partners, ensured that Canadian talent was front and centre, gaining new fans throughout the world.

(1205) [ Translation ] Canadian Military Mission in Iraq Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in recent months, the international community has almost unanimously expressed its indignation and concern over the rise of the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. [ English ] ISIL has established a self-proclaimed caliphate, at present stretching over a vast territory, roughly from Alepo to near Baghdad, from which it intends to launch a terrorist jihad not merely against the region, but on a global basis.

Indeed, it has specifically targeted Canada and Canadians, urging supporters to attack “disbelieving Canadians in any manner”, vowing that we should not feel secure, even in our homes. [ Translation ] It would be easy to downplay such statements and tell ourselves that these are merely the words of some fanatic fringe; however, this terrorist organization does more than just talk. [ English ] More shockingly, ISIL's words are matched by its actions. In the territory ISIL has occupied, it has conducted a campaign of unspeakable atrocities against the most innocent of people. It has tortured and beheaded children.

It has raped and sold women into slavery. It has slaughtered minorities, captured prisoners and innocent civilians whose only crime is being or thinking differently from ISIL.

Indeed, by late last summer, ISIL stood on the brink of committing large scale genocide in Northern Iraq. [ Translation ] This is why Canada's allies in the international community, led by President Obama, decided to intervene, and why our country, Canada, became part of that intervention. [ English ] On September 5, I announced that members of the Canadian army, in a non-combat role, would advise and assist security forces in Iraq battling the terrorists. [ Translation ] We have already begun, and the Royal Canadian Air Force is transporting weapons and equipment sent from our allies to the security forces in Northern Iraq. [ English ] We also indicated that Canada was prepared to do more.

Today, we are bringing forward a motion asking the House to confirm its confidence for a government decision to join our allies and partners, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and likely others, in launch air strikes against ISIL. [ Translation ] In addition to these air strikes, the Government of Canada, at the request of the Iraqi authorities and other allies and partners, will continue to provide assistance in other non-combat anti-terrorism roles. [ English ] We will also contribute one air-to-air refuelling aircraft, two Aurora surveillance aircraft and the necessary air crews and support personnel.

In addition, we are extending the deployment in a non-combat role of the up to 69 members of the Canadian army advising and assisting security forces in Iraq. [ Translation ] There will be no ground combat mission, which is explicitly ruled out in the resolution. [ English ] These contributions are for a period of up to six months. Let me be clear on the objectives of this intervention.

We intend to significantly degrade the capabilities of ISIL, specifically, its ability to either engage in military movements of scale, or to operate bases in the open. [ Translation ] This mission will stem the spread of ISIL in the region and will significantly degrade its ability to conduct terrorist attacks outside the region. To be clear, let us say that this intervention will not eliminate this terrorist organization or automatically guarantee that our style of governance will take its place in Iraq or Syria.

However, it will provide the opportunity for others to do so. (1210) [ English ] But again to be clear, while ISIL will not be eliminated, the risks presented from the territory in which it operates will be significantly reduced to those of other similar ungoverned spaces in the broader region. There are two other matters on which I wish to elaborate.

First, the resolution confirms the Government of Canada's intention to strike ISIL and its allies. [ Translation ] We will strike ISIL where—and only where—Canada has the clear support of the government of the country in question. [ English ] At present, this is only true in Iraq. If it were to become the case in Syria, then we will participate in air strikes against ISIL in that country also. [ Translation ] The Government of Canada will not hide its disgust at the actions of the Assad regime. What we are doing is taking

part in an anti-terrorist operation against ISIL and its allies. We do not want to wage war on any government in the region. [ English ] Second, let me assure Canadians that the government is seized with the necessity of avoiding a prolonged quagmire in this part of the world. [ Translation ] The actions we have announced are actions that will be relatively easy to end. [ English ] Indeed, we and our allies are acting now precisely to avoid a situation that was clearly headed to a wider, protracted and much more dangerous conflict.

The military measures we are taking do not in any way preclude humanitarian actions. There is no either/or here. [ Translation ] We are horrified by the human suffering and are already providing emergency shelter and emergency medical care to thousands of civilians in Iraq in support of humanitarian organizations on the ground. We are also providing substantial assistance to the Government of Iraq. [ English ] This is in addition to large scale financial assistance already being furnished to the significant number of countries in the region that have been impacted by the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria.

Let me also assure Canadians that the government will continue to be seized with the broader terrorist threats against Canada. We have strengthened laws in this country to deal with the issue of so-called Canadian foreign fighters. [ Translation ] We have broadened the grounds for revoking the passports of people who take

part in terrorist activities, and we have taken measures to revoke the citizenship of such individuals who have dual citizenship. [ English ] We will soon bring forward additional measures to strengthen the ability of our security services to monitor aspiring terrorists to, where possible, prevent their return to Canada or to, where that is not possible, give greater tools to be able to charge and prosecute. To return to the matter before us today, I urge all members to consider and to support the motion we have presented.

I do this in recognizing that in a democracy, especially one approaching an election, there is rarely political upside in supporting any kind of military action and little risk in opposing it. [ Translation ] Nonetheless, this intervention is necessary to ensure regional and global security and, of course, the security of Canadians. [ English ] The evidence of the necessity of this is none better than the fact that the mission has been launched by President Obama, the leader who had withdrawn American troops and proudly ended the war in Iraq.

Of course, one could say that while the mission is evidently necessary, we do not have to be the ones doing it because others will. But throughout our history, that has never been the Canadian way.

(1215) It has never been the Canadian way to do only the most easy and praiseworthy of actions and to leave the tough things for others. Indeed, we should be under no illusion. If Canada wants to keep its voice in the world—and we should, since so many of our challenges are global—being a free rider means not being taken seriously. [ Translation ] ISIL presents a very real threat. It is serious and explicitly directed against our country, among others. [ English ] Left unchecked, this terrorist threat can only grow, and grow quickly.

As a government, we know our ultimate responsibility is to protect Canadians and to defend our citizens from those who would do harm to us or our families. [ Translation ] We also know that our country, and it allies, share the obligation and the burden that is incumbent on all free peoples: that of rising up against global threats when it is in our power to do so. [ English ] When our allies recognize and respond to a threat that would also harm us, we Canadians do not stand on the sidelines.

We do our part. [ Translation ] On Monday, the House will debate the motion moved in favour of an air-strike campaign against ISIL. [ English ] I call on all members of the House to show their support for this mission and for the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who are now and always ready and willing to answer the call of their country. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for coming to the House of Commons today to make this important announcement.

This should be a given in a democracy such as ours, because the Prime Minister has just decided the fate of many courageous young men and women who will risk their lives serving their country. [ English ] There is no more important decision that we make in the House, no more sacred trust for a Prime Minister , than sending young Canadian women and men to fight and risk making the ultimate sacrifice in a foreign war. The Prime Minister is asking for the support of Parliament. He is asking for Canadians' support, but the Prime Minister has refused to answer their questions. Let me quote the Prime Minister.

He stated: Mr. Speaker, as you can understand, I neither have the will nor the desire to get into detailed discussions of military operations here. He said “neither the will nor the desire”. “Here” was this Parliament, and it was not just about the details: the Prime Minister has not outlined a broad strategic blueprint for the mission. He cannot even answer basic questions about the breadth or cost of Canada's military deployment. When did Canadian Forces arrive in Iraq, and how many? There was no answer. What contribution have our American allies requested? There was no answer. How much will this mission cost?

What are the rules of engagement? What is our exit strategy? There was no answer, no answer, no answer. These are not hypothetical questions. [ Translation ] Canada just completed its mission in Afghanistan. That too began as a short mission with a small contingent of soldiers but wound up being the longest war we have ever been involved in. Twelve years, $30 billion, over 40,000 veterans, 160 deaths, thousands of soldiers injured and thousands more with post-traumatic stress disorder: is that what the Conservatives consider a successful mission?

As in this case, the mission in Afghanistan started out with only a few dozen soldiers. Twenty-nine days ago, the Conservatives were adamant that Canada was getting involved in a non-combat mission for only one month with just a few dozen soldiers. The NDP had its doubts. Canadians had their doubts.

The Prime Minister 's only ally was the Liberal Party, which fully supported a mission that, without a shadow of a doubt, would lead us to where we are today. (1220) [ English ] However, now that Canadian troops are committed, Conservatives are telling us the mission will be expanded to air strikes, refuelling capabilities, and aerial surveillance, and now the Prime Minister is specifically opening the door to bombing in Syria. We have gone from mission creep to mission leap. The United States has been in this conflict for over 10 years. It has been fighting ISIS under one name or another for over 10 years.

While ISIS has renamed itself several times since 2004—al Qaeda in Iraq, the Mujahideen Shura Council and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham in Syria—it is literally the same insurgent group that U.S. forces have been battling for over a decade. Even the Minister of Foreign Affairs , in a moment of rare candour for the Conservative government, admitted that there are no quick fixes in Iraq. He called the fight against ISIS and groups like it “...the struggle of our generation”. That may well prove to be an understatement.

In one of the Prime Minister 's few real answers about this mission, he said that Canada would be in Iraq until ISIS no longer has the capability to launch attacks in Iraq, Syria, or anywhere else. Now he claims it will be only six months. It cannot be both. The defeat of the insurgency in Iraq is a goal that the United States has been trying, without success, to achieve since the wrong-headed invasion of 2003. All of the horrors unfolding before our eyes are as a result of that failed mission.

Let us remember that back in 2003, it was the current Prime Minister , at the time leader of the opposition, who went to the Americans to berate the Canadian government for not getting involved in what he considered a just and noble cause. Their nostalgia is such that during the emergency debate in this House just a few days ago, his immigration minister actually dusted off the canard of “weapons of mass destruction” to try to justify this war.

The Prime Minister insists that this mission in Iraq will not be allowed to become a quagmire, but is that not precisely what our American allies have been facing in Iraq for the last 10 years? A decade from now, will Canada still be mired in a war we wisely avoided entering a decade ago? Do we have a plan for the war? Do we have a plan for the thousands or tens of thousands of veterans for whom we have the sacred responsibility to fully support in the years afterward? [ Translation ] We hope that we will get some answers during Monday's debate and that, unlike what we see in emergency debates,