9815 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 149 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, November 26, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 26, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 149 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 149 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 149 (Version officielle) 147 149 26 11 2014 2014/11/26 14:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers Statements by Members (1405) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre . [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ Translation ] Oil Industry Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, on November 18, the Canada Council for the Arts announced that Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois had won the 2014 Governor General’s Literary Award and $25,000 in prize money for his book titled Tenir tête .

The Bloc Québécois wishes to sincerely congratulate him. What is even more worthy of our congratulations is the fact that the author decided to donate his winnings to the “Coule pas chez nous” campaign, run by a group of citizens who are standing up to the oil companies that are threatening to turn Quebec into a highway for oil from the oil sands. Since November 18, Quebeckers have donated more than $300,000 to this cause. Why? Because Quebec civil society cannot count on the House to protect its interests. Quebeckers know that if they cannot count on their governments' support, they can count on one another.

The people of Quebec have been clear about what they want, but I will say it again: we do not want your oil from the oil sands if it is at our own risk and peril.

[ English ] David Blenkarn Spirit Award Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my constituent from Barrie, Ontario, Rayner McCullough, has been named as this year's recipient of the David Blenkarn Spirit Award. Rayner is a long-time supporter of the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre, which hands out this annual award. The award is given to people who impact the hospital and whose actions inspire others. Rayner most recently established a special trust for the education of RVH staff, patients, and family members who look after youth and adolescents with mental health and addictions issues.

The creation of a child and youth mental health program is a priority for RVH as no such service exists in the region. Rayner is a past chairperson of the hospital and foundation boards and was a force behind building the new hospital in the late 1990s. Mr. McCullough is a very worthy recipient of this honour. His words about why he volunteers at his local hospital encapsulate the spirit of this wonderful man. Rayner says, “For me, volunteerism is the rent we pay for the space we use while we’re here [at RVH].”

[ Translation ] White Ribbon Campaign Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, since 1981, the white ribbon campaign has given us an opportunity to stand together to end violence in our society. The campaign reminds us that men must stand with women to condemn violence against them. [ English ] People have approached me in the past few weeks wondering why victims of sexual harassment do not share their identities or stories with the general public.

I tell them that women still continue to be blamed for their actions; slut shaming and victim shaming are still prevalent in our culture, and this must stop. We need an open dialogue to heal. Sharing our stories, anonymously or not, allows us this healing. [ Translation ] I hope that in 2015, we will continue to work together to build a future marked by greater gender equality, a future in which women are free to make their own choices. [ English ] It is a woman's decision to choose.

It is her decision. [ Translation ] The best way we have to end the violence is to reassert our commitment to human rights. [ English ] Let us use this as an inspiration for the coming year. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience, and should act toward one another in a spirit of togetherness.

Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Mr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East, I am proud to support our government's efforts on maternal, newborn and child health. For over four years, our government has identified this as Canada's flagship development priority. By 2015, our government will have provided $2.85 billion in funding since 2010.

This year, we announced Canada's continuing commitment of $3.5 billion to improve the health of mothers and children for the period of 2015 to 2020, supporting the global efforts to end the preventable deaths of mothers and newborns, and children under the age of five. I commend the efforts of Senator Asha Seth who has proposed a motion to establish an international maternal, newborn and child health week each year during the second week of May, in Mother's Day week. I look forward to the support of all members in the House for this initiative.

Royal Canadian Legion Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, November is a month to reflect on those who have given their lives and to honour all those who have served. Over 50 years ago, the Royal Canadian Legion launched a poster and literary contest open to all Canadian students to foster the tradition of remembrance among young people. This year, two people from my riding won first place in the junior literary contest for students in grades four, five and six. Roman Javorek of Kentville, a student at Northeast Kings Education Centre, won in the poem division for his poem, “I Hold Your Hope”.

Lauren Gatto of Elmsdale, a student at Elmsdale District School, won in the essay division for her essay, “The History of Remembrance Day”. I congratulate Roman and Lauren on their incredible success in this national contest. Next year, their work will be displayed in the Canadian War Museum with the other winning entries and they will enjoy a trip to Ottawa for the Remembrance Day ceremony. I want to thank the Royal Canadian Legion for its efforts to foster the tradition of remembrance among young Canadians.

(1410) Saskatoon Pregnancy Options Centre Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, founded 18 years ago, Saskatoon Pregnancy Options Centre is a community outreach that provides free pregnancy tests, counselling, material assistance and references for prenatal medical care and legal services. Led by director Marilyn Jackson, Saskatoon Pregnancy Options Centre assists Saskatoon area women and families dealing with unplanned pregnancies. It provides emotional and physical support to women who are going through an uncertain time of life. It is for many women a safe, caring place to talk and share.

Hands-on support is not neglected. Maternity clothes, baby clothes and formula are provided to new and soon to be new moms who need a loving hand. Parenting classes and educational assistance are a growing part of its outreach to the community. Supported by donations and led by a volunteer board, it has made a real contribution to many lives in Saskatoon. I am sure many members of the House will want to join me in congratulating the centre on its fine work. Life, what a beautiful choice.

Halifax Central Library Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, they are tweeting about it, posting sneak-peak photos, they are peering through the fence trying to get a glimpse. Everyone is talking about it in Halifax. On December 13, people will actually be able to go inside and see for themselves. It is the new Halifax Central Library, an incredible civic landmark for the community. This building is so much more than a library. It is an example of what can be achieved through federal, provincial and municipal collaboration. It is a building for our future that reimagines what a library can be.

This library will blend the best of traditional library services with new and innovative spaces, making it a vital centre for learning and culture in the heart of the community. It is a public building for all of us, an adaptable and flexible space that will meet the changing needs of the community. Congratulations to everyone who participated in making this dream a reality. Please join me. I am going to grab a coffee, a nice book and I will see everyone in Halifax's new living room.

Infrastructure Mrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this week at the Collider Centre in my great city of London, Ontario, the Prime Minister announced $5.8 billion in new infrastructure that would go toward modernizing and repairing various infrastructure assets that would provide employment opportunities across the country, including the National Research Council in my riding, which will be expanding. Many Londoners, including incoming London Mayor Matt Brown, heralded this announcement as good news for London.

He said of the funding, “an investment of this nature is just fantastic news for our community, is fantastic news for our region.” While the NDP member for London—Fanshawe continues to paint our community with doom and gloom after this great announcement, our government is busy taking action to put forward measures that will lead to job growth and a stronger economy. I am proud to be a Londoner.

Sergeant-at-Arms Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there is in this chamber a gentle giant. Appointed to his post by our Prime Minister , this titan took office in September 2006.

Knowing that he only had a limited time to remain incognito, he worked his first week wearing the green uniform of a maintenance worker, shining brass railings, mopping the marble floor, studying human nature. [ Translation ] One week later, I was seated in the Speaker's chair when I noticed the same man wearing a different uniform and sitting at the other end of the chamber. [ English ] As a rookie, I could not help but think, “Boy, they promote quickly here.” Kevin Vickers is the ninth sergeant-at-arms in our history. In the last eight years, we witnessed that he is a man who is gentle, yet firm.

Today, I wanted to share with members that his strength also comes from his personal modesty. Therefore, the ovation that we gave him last month was well deserved, even if it embarrassed him. (1415) [ Translation ] By paying tribute to him today, I am also thanking him for his whole team's professionalism.

[ English ] Immigration Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been watching with deep concern the tragic events in Ferguson, Missouri. They remind us that racism and intolerance still exist and that we must be vigilant in our quest for a society of equality and justice. Unfortunately, Canada is not immune to these negative forces. In Richmond, British Columbia, an organization called Immigration Watch Canada recently put up a sign at a major intersection that said “Fight Gridlock: Cut Immigration”.

Worse, this group's spokesperson stated that there were “too many immigrants living in Richmond who are making it unbearable for the existing European residents”. With thinly veiled prejudice, he is calling for Canada to slash immigration levels by 90% and threatening further provocative actions. Canada is a nation of immigrants from all over the world, and our country was and is built on the contributions of us all. We are also a society who prizes acceptance, equality and respect for every resident, regardless of origin.

I ask all members of the House to join me in condemning this racist group and its unacceptable behaviour.

Ukraine Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government remains steadfast in its support for a free and sovereign Ukraine. Last August, the Canadian Armed Forces transported a large amount of military supplies to the Ukrainian armed forces. Today we are adding to that commitment. The Canadian Armed Forces will be donating 30,000 winter coats and winter pants, 70,000 pairs of Gore-Tex boots and 4,500 pairs of gloves. The first delivery will be made by a C-17 Globemaster heavy-lift aircraft before the end of this month.

Our government is also coordinating the purchase of even further military equipment for Ukraine. This includes: tactical communications systems, explosive ordinance disposal equipment, tactical medical kits, a field hospital and night goggles. President Poroshenko has said that such shipments are saving Ukrainian lives. As the Prime Minister said: Whether it takes five months or 50 years to liberate it, we will never, ever recognize the illegal Russian occupation of any Ukrainian territory.

[ Translation ] Luce Lamarche and Germano Pillarella Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, two extraordinary women from my riding passed away this fall. Luce Lamarche, a distinguished member of the Cavelier-de-LaSalle historical society, wrote a column called Les carnets de Luce in the weekly newspaper Le Messager for more than 52 years. As a member of Parliament, I read her column religiously to find out what was going on in the community and learn about local history. [ English ] Mrs.

Germano Pillarella, a teacher at LaSalle Catholic High for many years, was the director of PICAI's Italian school until the age of 85. She contributed immensely to tell the stories of Italians in Ville-Émard and was also very active on social media having thousands of friends on Facebook. [ Translation ] I salute the memory of these two women from my riding who contributed so much to the wealth and culture of our community thanks to their enthusiasm, which never diminished, even in their senior years.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, no government in Canadian history has a better record of putting money back into the pockets of Canadians than this Conservative government. Under the strong leadership of our Prime Minister , we have cut taxes not once, not twice, but a whopping 180 times. Under our new family tax cut, 100% of Canadian families with children will benefit with an average benefit of $1,100. That includes low-income parents and single parents.

However, we know that if given the chance, both opposition parties would take back these benefits and force every Canadian to pay more tax. The Liberal leader does not want Canadians to be able to choose how to spend their money because he believes he knows better. Canadian families know that they are better off under our Conservative government.

Navy Appreciation Day Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to Navy Appreciation Day held yesterday on Parliament Hill. This event is an all-party celebration to recognize and thank members of the Royal Canadian Navy for their important work and their exemplary service to Canada. It is also an occasion to recognize navy heroes. I was struck by the extraordinary professionalism and leadership of the six heroes who received certificates at the ceremony in the Senate chambers with Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

Canadians are also very well-served by the Navy League of Canada and its thousands of volunteers who support maritime issues and all youth through the Navy League Cadets and the Canadian Sea Cadets. A special thanks goes out to Mme Louise Mercier, national president, and her team for making the day and the well-attended evening reception a huge success, and for their work throughout the year. Canadians can justifiably be very proud of the invaluable contributions of the members of the Royal Canadian Navy and, indeed, of all of our Canadian Forces. We thank them.

(1420) [ Translation ] Taxation Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader has already said he could convince Canadians to accept new tax hikes and has promised to reverse our tax relief. Our government believes that Canadian families ought to be trusted to spend their hard-earned money as they deem necessary. The family tax cut will help 100% of families with children by putting more money in their pockets and giving families the freedom to spend it as they want.

Moreover, with the enhanced universal child care benefit parents can expect to receive almost $2,000 per year for every child under 6 and $720 per year for every child between 6 and 17. We are proud that over 4 million families will benefit by an average of over $1,100 per year. Our Conservative government delivers on our promises, and we are proud to be the only party that stands up for and trusts hard-working Canadian families.

CBC/Radio-Canada Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion calling on the federal government to provide Radio-Canada with the funding it needs to carry out its mandate. Quebec elected officials are affirming once again the relevance of having a strong francophone public broadcaster and the importance of regional news. CBC/Radio-Canada is at the heart of Quebec and Canadian culture.

The Conservative government cannot ignore this unanimous resolution or the motion moved at the committee yesterday to study the liquidation of Radio-Canada assets such as the contents of its costume department and the tower in Montreal. On Sunday, November 16, members of the public marched in the streets, and now the entire National Assembly is standing up to show its support. Any heritage minister would be overjoyed to see such love for our public broadcaster. Instead, the member for Saint Boniface continues to think that she is still the parliamentary secretary for finance. That is a real shame.

I am calling on the Minister of Canadian Heritage to get on her feet and support CBC/Radio-Canada.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is the only party that believes in putting more money back into the pockets of Canadians. Our historic family tax cut will benefit 100% of Canadian families with children. The average benefit is $1,100 and the majority of benefits will flow to low and middle-income families. For instance, a single mother with two children, earning $30,000, will benefit by a whopping $1,500 per year. Both the Liberals and the NDP would take this money away.

Perhaps the Liberal leader should explain why he thinks the spending schemes of the Liberal Party are more important than the priorities of Canadian families.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] Northern Development Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Auditor General revealed that the government provides $3,200 in subsidies to families with two children living in northern Canada, where it can cost up to 10 times more to buy fresh food. However, yesterday, the Conservatives admitted that only $110 of that money went to the families. My question for the Prime Minister is very simple. Families received only $110 of the $3,200. Where did the rest of the money go? Who pocketed the other $3,000? Right Hon.

Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the federal government is spending over $60 million a year to help people in northern Canada deal with the cost of buying nutritious food. [ English ] As a consequence of this funding that we have given to Nutrition North, we have seen a 25% increase in the delivery of healthy foods to the north and a decrease of some 6%, about $100 a month, in food costs for families. The Auditor General has observed that there could be better information gathering on this program. The department has accepted those recommendations.

(1425) Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : That is what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, gather information. For a family with two children, it costs $3,200. Of that, $110 went to the family. Who received the other $3,000? That was the question. Those are the government's own figures. That is abysmal management. Worse, yesterday, as the Prime Minister's minister laughed here in the House, as he has a want to do even now, families in Rankin Inlet were foraging for food in the town dump. APTN reports that a lack of affordable food has some families in the north scavenging in landfills.

Does the Prime Minister not feel any shame that families in the north are getting their food in the town dump? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Seriously, Mr. Speaker, the only thing shameful here is that the government has provided massive funding to provide support for nutritious food in the north and that has been opposed every step of the way by the New Democratic Party. The reality, as I have said repeatedly, is that we have put additional monies into this program. We have seen a significant increase in fresh food going to the north, as has been acknowledged.

It has also been acknowledged that the costs of that are declining. The government and the department will accept the recommendations for improvements in the program that are in the Auditor General's report.

Veterans Affairs

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in January, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to make mental health for our vets a personal priority. Now that the Auditor General has exposed the gaping holes in mental health services for our vets, will the Prime Minister finally take action? Will the Prime Minister make a personal commitment, do right by our military and fix mental health services for our vets once and for all? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the Auditor General observed in his report yesterday that it is this government that has put in place most of the mental health services for our vets. He admits that these are very important support services that the government continues to expand. He examined two programs in particular: the rehabilitation program, in which timely access is being held; on the disability benefits program, he observed that although 94% of eligible recipients are getting benefits, the process is cumbersome and complex. The government and the department have accepted the recommendations to improve that.

[ Translation ] National Defence Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, according to the so-called universality of service rule, soldiers who disclose that they are suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, for example, can be dismissed outright from the army. I have even personally met some soldiers who were dismissed just a few weeks before they qualified for their pension. How does the Prime Minister expect our soldiers to get help if they can end up losing their job or their pension? That is a contradiction and he knows it. Why not take action?

People are losing their pension just a few weeks before their 10 years are up. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Auditor General said. The Auditor General noted that this government has put in place significant mental health support services for our vets and employees of the armed forces. We are very proud of the support we are giving our armed forces.

[ English ] Health Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that 250 Afghan vets were medically discharged before qualifying for their pension? Is he proud of that? There are 95 victims of thalidomide living in Canada. They struggle every day with tasks that most of us would take for granted, because of disabilities inflicted upon them by a drug approved and recommended in the past by the Canadian government. Other countries are already providing compensation to those affected by thalidomide.

Will the Prime Minister bring together all parties in this House and support ongoing compensation for thalidomide victims in Canada? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the government has already said and as the minister has said, this is a terrible series of events that those of us who were raised in the 1960s remember very well. There was a settlement in the 1990s, but we understand that there are ongoing needs. The department and the minister have been in discussions with the victims association. We look forward to moving forward on this matter.

[ Translation ] Public Safety Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Polytechnique tragedy, we are debating Bill C-42 , which would allow dangerous weapons to be freely transported in a trunk of a car. Imagine if that car were broken into. The bill also takes classification decisions on guns away from police and puts them in the hands of politicians. Does the Prime Minister recognize how dangerous those clauses of the bill are?

(1430) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the statements made by the leader of the Liberal Party are completely false. The bill does not authorize the carrying of concealed weapons. [ English ] On the contrary, there is no “conceal and carry” in this legislation. The fact of the matter is that arms can only be transported between specific locations, and they must be taken by the most direct route. The firearms must be in a trunk, in a locked case, and must be unloaded. Those are the facts. Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, Bill C-42 would allow handguns and assault weapons to be freely transported in a trunk anywhere within a province, even left parked outside a Canadian Tire or local hockey arena. Imagine if the car carrying these weapons were broken into or stolen. The bill also takes classification decisions on guns away from police, and puts them in the hands of politicians. Both of these provisions threaten Canadians' safety. Will the government remove them from Bill C-42 ? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I just said and I will repeat, the statements the Liberal Party leader has made are recklessly irresponsible and false. The fact of the matter is that under the current law and this proposed law, firearms can only be transported between specific locations. They must be in a locked case, they must be in a trunk, and they must be unloaded. Those are the facts, but we expect this kind of distortion from the party that brought in the long gun registry and is itching to bring it back.

[ Translation ] Veterans Affairs Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Auditor General told us that veterans deserve better services. We were all touched by the story of Jenifer Migneault, which we heard yesterday. It makes no sense that there is no financial support for people who, like her, have to quit their job to support their spouse. Will the Prime Minister finally commit to helping our veterans, particularly those who are dealing with mental illness? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the Auditor General looked at the veterans' mental health programs put in place, for the first time, by our government. He looked at two programs. In terms of the rehabilitation program, he said that the department had implemented important mental health assistance mechanisms and that it was responding to veterans' requests under this program in a timely manner. As for the disability benefits program, he said that 94% of veterans are eligible for benefits, but that the process is cumbersome and complex. The department will uphold those recommendations. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, distress levels among our veterans are a problem. According to the ombudsman, their suicide rate is 45% higher than in the general population. Alarm bells are going off, but the government is dragging its feet. The Auditor General says that a quarter of veterans have to wait over eight months before receiving mental health care. That is unacceptable. Why is the minister trying to save $1 billion at our veterans' expense? [ English ] Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the Auditor General for recognizing that Veterans Affairs does indeed have a robust mental health strategy in place, that we have put in place mental health support, that we provide rehabilitation to veterans in a timely manner, and that we are working to improve the consultation process with our veterans. Again, it was our government that asked the Auditor General to review the services we are providing to veterans, so we can be better informed and ultimately make the process better.

(1435) Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Speaking of the mental health strategy, Mr. Speaker, in 2009 the government committed to develop performance measures to assess if the mental health strategy was meeting the mental health needs of veterans. The Auditor General has now confirmed that the minister never followed up on that commitment. He did not even bother to collect data that would be helpful to make this eventual assessment. Can the minister explain to Canadians why he refused to fulfill this commitment and ensure that veterans receive the mental health services they need? Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on Sunday our government announced additional mental health support for Canadian Armed Forces personnel, veterans, and their families. We are investing in a major new operational stress injury clinic in Halifax. We are also opening new satellite locations across the country, while expanding the current facility in the greater Toronto area. Our government is committed to our veterans, armed forces members, and their families, and we will continue to work on their behalf.

National Defence Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : If it is so committed, then it needs to actually act, Mr. Speaker. The universality of service rule has been called arbitrary and unfair by the Canadian Forces Ombudsman, yet the Conservatives insist on keeping a policy in place that discriminates against those suffering, leads to more dismissals, and robs Canadian Forces members of their pensions. Given the outcry from members and veterans, will the Conservatives show some sense of compassion, and will they remove universality of service? Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : In fact, Mr.

Speaker, the Canadian Armed Forces work with ill and severely injured personnel who are no longer able to serve. They are provided up to three years to prepare for the transition to civilian life. The armed forces members can also transfer, if they wish, to cadet organizations administration and training. I should point out to the hon. member that we have invested nearly $30 billion in delivering benefits, programs, and supports. None of this had the support of the opposition, but we will continue to support veterans and members of the armed forces. [ Translation ] Mr.

Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, they want us to agree that they are standing up for veterans. That is the difference. The Conservatives are not doing anything to ensure that soldiers and veterans in distress have access to mental health services. Our soldiers have to serve for 10 years to be entitled to a full pension, but if they talk about their mental health issues, they risk being kicked out of the forces and losing their pension. They lose everything. The Conservatives are forcing soldiers to keep quiet or risk losing everything.

Will the minister finally change this policy so that soldiers can get help? [ English ] Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is a complete mischaracterization of what takes places in the armed forces. They work with these individuals, as I indicated, and they work with them for up to three years to facilitate their transfer to civilian life, or if they wish, they can transfer to cadet organizations administration and training. That being said, the hon. member spoke about mental health.

He may have missed this, but we now have 25 operational stress injury clinics with front-line health care professionals and experts, right across this country, to work with our veterans. New Democrats may have missed that, because they vote against all these measures.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : What we did not miss was that the Conservatives closed nine service offices across the country, Mr. Speaker. Conservatives have shown no sense of compassion for veterans, just shallow talking points, more hollow boasting, and childish attacks on the opposition. Can we have some sense of shame from Conservatives about their failure to meet the basic needs of veterans? Will the Prime Minister now admit to veterans that their closing of regional offices, their court battles with veterans, and their denial of benefits have been wrong?

When will they finally take responsibility and apologize to our nation's veterans? Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, we announced additional mental health support for Canada's veterans, armed forces personnel, and family members. There will now be 25 operational stress injury clinics across our country. We are providing the benefits and services that our veterans so dearly need.

When it comes to standing up for Canada's veterans, our government has a strong record, even though the opposition continues to vote against these measures.

Canada Revenue Agency Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have shown over and over again that they just cannot be trusted to safeguard our personal information. This week, there was yet another privacy breach at the Canada Revenue Agency. This time, private financial information on hundreds of Canadians just got sent to the media. The minister has a legal duty to safeguard this information, but time and time again at the CRA, there are misplaced laptops, unprotected websites, snooping employees, and the latest excuse, human error. When will the minister take real action to stop this endless loop of privacy breaches in her department?

(1440) Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this privacy breach is completely unacceptable. I said that in the House before, and I say it again. We are taking it extremely seriously. The Privacy Commissioner was notified of the breach, and at my direction, the CRA has launched an internal investigation into the breach, with a review of security protocols. Following that internal investigation, appropriate remedial steps will be taken, including disciplinary action. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, speaking of remedial steps, this minister has had some spectacular bloopers when it comes to losing the personal data of Canadians. Help me understand this one. Her department gathers the personal financial information and home addresses of key Canadians, like former war crimes tribunal Justice Louise Arbour and diplomat Allan Gotlieb, tosses it in the mail and sends it to the media, and no alarm bells go off? How about a little accountability here? Will she tell us this?

Did she take any concrete steps after the last breach, because how is it possible that the information of these Canadians was so casually put at risk under her watch? Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has a flair for taking disparate things and trying to put them into one question. Having said that, this privacy breach is very serious. We do take it seriously. We are very proud of our record at the CRA overall. We have 129 million pieces of correspondence every year. We deal with millions of taxpayers and their personal information.

On this particular matter, I have directed an internal investigation. We are taking steps. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in 2010, a Revenue Canada employee lost a laptop containing the tax information of 2,500 Canadians. In 2011, a Revenue Canada employee secretly snooped through the personal files of hundreds of Canadians. Earlier this year, 900 people had their personal information stolen because of the Heartbleed bug. Most recently, private information about a hundred or so prominent Canadians was accidentally sent to CBC.

How many breaches will it take for the Conservatives to get serious about Canadians' privacy? Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this breach of privacy is completely unacceptable. We are taking this situation very seriously. On my orders, the Canada Revenue Agency has begun an internal investigation into this breach of privacy and the agency's security protocols. [ English ] Following that internal investigation, as I have said, appropriate remedial steps will be taken, including disciplinary action. We are on top of this matter. [ Translation ] Ms.

Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in just four months, there have been a hundred privacy-related breaches in various government departments. The Conservatives can no longer pretend that this is not a systemic problem. That is nearly one breach a day. This is serious. The personal information that was leaked this week is merely a drop in the Conservative bucket. Instead of treating this leak like an isolated case, why are the Conservatives not redoubling their efforts to stop this massive hemorrhaging? [ English ] Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I have said, we are proud of our record at the Canada Revenue Agency overall in the handling of sensitive taxpayer information. We understand that it is our number one priority, and we take it very seriously when a breach does occur. On this particular matter, we have an internal investigation that I have directed. When we determine the outcome of that, we will take both remedial steps and disciplinary action.

[ Translation ] Veterans Affairs Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report outlines the serious problems that affect the disability benefits paid to injured veterans. Claude Rainville's wife, Jenifer Migneault, was desperately trying to speak to the Minister of Veterans Affairs earlier this year. He ran away from her. Jenifer was forced to quit her job to take care of her husband. Why is this government dragging its feet when it comes to taking care of people like Jenifer and her husband? (1445) [ English ] Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has a strong record when it comes to providing benefits and services for Canada's veterans, which is precisely why we have spent over $30 billion since taking office. That is $5 billion more than what the Liberals would have spent in additional dollars. We will take no lessons from the Liberals over there. Canadians still remember that it was under the Liberal government that our men and women in uniform suffered a decade of darkness. Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, 15,000 veterans applied for disability benefits for mental health services since 2006. Nearly one-quarter were denied. One-third appealed, and 65% of them received the benefits they deserve. What of those frustrated and hurting who did not appeal, veterans who fought for our country and did not expect to have to fight against it to get help? What is the government doing to help those frustrated thousands the Auditor General identified who gave up, even though many were entitled to the mental health benefits they were denied? Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our commitments in the Veterans Affairs' mental health action plan are very clear. We are improving the disability benefit application process to reduce barriers to a timely access to benefits. We are strengthening our outreach effort to better inform the reserve forces of mental health care services, as well as reaching out to families and family physicians. We will measure and report on the effectiveness of our mental health strategy. Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, Gregory Matters was a long-serving member suffering from PTSD and released from the forces in 2009. In 2012, he was shot and killed by the RCMP in Prince George while he was acting erratically. That very same day, Veterans Affairs had called Greg, saying that his claim for PTSD was finally approved but that he that still faced more hoops to jump through before any payment would flow, and this was after literally years without help or compensation. In fact, Greg had been treated by a psychiatrist, but on his own dime.

Why will the Conservatives not stop pretending everything is okay and fix this tragic mess? Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has consistently increased its support for Canadian veterans. Last week, we announced an additional $200 million investment to strengthen mental health services for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans, and their families. Our veterans' mental health is something our government takes very seriously, and we will continue to improve upon those services.

Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, thousands of Labrador Inuit experienced the trauma of residential schools. They deserve an apology and compensation, like other survivors. However, despite promising reconciliation with indigenous peoples, Conservatives are now saying the residential schools in Newfoundland and Labrador technically do not count. Why does the current government always fight indigenous peoples every step of the way through the courts? Why not sit down with them in good faith and provide survivors with the settlement and the reconciliation that they deserve?

Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the record is clear. Our government has demonstrated its commitment to addressing the legacy of the Indian residential schools. That is why the Prime Minister made a historic apology on behalf of all Canadians. We have provided nearly 4.2 million documents to the truth and reconciliation commission. We are abiding by the agreement that has been reached by all parties, and we will continue in that vein. [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, nearly 100,000 boxes are waiting to be archived, and in some cases, they have been waiting for over 10 years. This massive boondoggle is preventing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada from carrying out its mandate. It cannot shed light on the injustices committed against aboriginal people because no one can find the necessary documents. Conservative incompetence is preventing families from turning the page and getting closure. How could the minister have allowed such a mess to occur? Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the fact is that our government has provided the commission with $1.6 million to do research at Library and Archives Canada so that key documents will continue to be uncovered. Several million documents have been found, and we will continue to discharge the responsibilities that Canada has taken on under the agreement that was reached between all parties.

(1450) Northern Development Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, frankly, the Auditor General confirmed our worst fears: the Nutrition North Canada program is a failure. Despite a $60 million contribution, prices are not going down in the north. APTN reports that families in Nunavut are picking through garbage for food because they do not have enough money to buy groceries. That is happening here in Canada, in 2014.

If the Conservative program is not lowering the prices and does not cover every isolated or remote community, can someone then explain to us what the point of the program is? Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government wants northern residents to have access to nutritious and high-quality food, just as other Canadians do. That is why we created the Nutrition North Canada program. As I said yesterday, the results are very clear.

Through this program, 25% more healthy food was shipped to the communities during the first two years and, in fact, the cost of a food basket for a family of four went down by more than $110 a month. The hon. member cannot deny that. [ English ] Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite the minister to come to Lutsel K’e or Fort Good Hope in my riding and repeat what he just said here. Anyone trying to feed their families in remote communities will say that Nutrition North is not meeting their needs. Why has the minister ignored them for so long?

Why did the NDP have to get the Auditor General to publicly embarrass him before he would agree to act? Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, the fact is that Nutrition North has resulted in an approximately 25% increase in the average annual volume of healthy food being shipped to northern and remote communities. A food basket for a family of four has gone down by $110 a month, and this is only in the first two years.

If that does not count, the further investments we just announced last week will see an increase of $11 million a year, so that in the next two years we will spend $130 million for subsidies.

The Economy Mr. Lawrence Toet (Elmwood—Transcona, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the OECD reaffirmed that Canada has a sound fiscal footing under the leadership of our Prime Minister . Our economy is envied around the world, thanks to our Conservative government's low-tax plan, and over 1.2 million net new jobs have been created. However, the global economy remains fragile, and the constituents of my riding of Elmwood—Transcona know that we must stay the course with our low-tax plan for jobs and growth. Can the Minister of Finance please update this House on what the world is saying about Canada's economy? Hon.

Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the International Monetary Fund's mission to Canada applauded our Conservative government for the progress we have made in eliminating deficits and for our actions to reduce taxes for hard-working Canadian families. The IMF also said that our measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of the housing market were effective. The report is further evidence that our economic action plan is doing very well. Canadians can be proud.

(1455) Government Accountability Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance is no longer benched. [ Translation ] The Conservatives refuse to be accountable to Canadians about the assistance given to GM. The Auditor General informed us that out of the $4 billion given to GM, $1 billion ended up in the United States. Neither Industry Canada nor Export Development Canada had any records documenting the use of these funds, according to the Auditor General. Can the minister tell us what that money was used for? Hon.

James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what the Auditor General said. [ English ] My colleague is clearly asking the question, what was the purpose of the investment and what did it do? Well, it secured almost 500,000 jobs in Canada's auto sector. That is what it did. For the auto sector, and directly for these two firms, Chrysler and GM, it protected 52,000 jobs in Canada. That is what this investment did. The Auditor General has put forward four recommendations. We have already implemented two of the four. We are going to follow through on the other two.

Let there be no doubt: we are very proud of the work that we have done to protect and build Canada's auto sector. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we are talking about $1 billion that was not accounted for here and that went to the U.S. Maybe the minister should show some sense that he realizes this is a problem. Even after rejecting Chrysler and GM's initial plans, the Conservatives never bothered to follow up and look at the automakers' final restructuring. There was a troubling lack of transparency, the kind the Auditor General has flagged again and again.

Can the minister even admit that there are problems? Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague, when she was out of politics a couple of years ago, worked at the Canadian Auto Workers. When she was working at the Canadian Auto Workers, the Canadian Auto Workers commended the federal government for its commitment to the Canadian auto industry, saying “This will ensure that the Canadian industry is protected. ... This is a very sound decision....”, meaning the investment the member just chastised.

That is what she said just two years ago when she worked at the Canadian Auto Workers Union. That is what they said in praising our government, and we are proud to stand with Canadian auto workers.

International Trade Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, with $1 billion missing, one would think the government would have at least a little humility and show some contrition to Canadians. Prince Rupert is a beautiful coastal British Columbia community with proud, hard-working Canadians. We can understand their surprise and total frustration that a ferry terminal upgrade at their port will be subject to Buy America policies on a Canadian port on Canadian federal crown land, where no Canadian steel or iron will be used.

This is a direct result of Conservative failure to stand up for Canada. Why will the Conservatives not, for once, defend our interests here in Canada? Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned by this attempt to apply Buy America restrictions to a project at the port of Prince Rupert. This is another example of how illogical and counterproductive it is to try to segregate our highly integrated economies. We have consistently opposed, and will continue to oppose, protectionist measures such as the Buy America restrictions.

We are exploring all options to address this absurd situation. Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have never fought to protect Canadian workers from Buy America policies, and companies are tired of being shut out. Now they are even being shut out of projects in Canada on federally owned lands. Because of Buy America policies, steel for a northern B.C. ferry terminal must be bought from the U.S., excluding Canadian steel companies from places such as Hamilton from even bidding. How did the Conservatives let it get this far? What are they doing to fix the situation?

When will they stand up for Canadian jobs? Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I repeat, we are deeply concerned about this situation. We are weighing our options and we will respond appropriately. However, it is odd to hear that question come from the NDP. It was the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster who, in 2009, called Buy America a perfectly logical policy. I repeat, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster said that Buy America was a perfectly logical policy. On this side of the floor, we believe that Buy America is an illogical policy.

We will continue to stand up for Canadians.

(1500) Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister clearly fell down on doing this job. He is fully aware of the fact that this B.C. ferry terminal was going to end up in the hands of Buy America policies, but what did he do? Why was he not faster on the job to prevent this from happening and to protect Canada's jobs, rather than standing back and abandoning Canada's jobs and Canada's industry? When did you know? What did you do? What are you going to do about it now? The Speaker : Order.

I just need to remind the hon. member for York West that questions have to be put through the Chair and not directly. I think the hon. minister may be in a better position to answer the question, so I will give him the floor. Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that we are deeply concerned about attempts to apply buy-American policies here in Canada. This is another example of how illogical, how counterproductive, these kinds of policies are. I would also point out the appalling Liberal record on trade and promoting Canada's trade interests.

For 13 long, dark years, they failed Canadians: 3 trade agreements over 13 years. This government, over 8 short years, has 38 new trade agreements. We are very proud of that record.

Infrastructure Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, last week local leaders from across the country were on Parliament Hill asking all of us to make hometowns proud. The request of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was dead simple. It needs funding for housing, for transit, and for water systems. There is a $400 billion infrastructure deficit in this country, and what has this government done?

It has announced a cobbled-together group of plans that essentially are scheduled state of good repair budgets for federal assets, with nothing for cities and municipalities and towns across this country—nothing. In fact, all they get is a 90% cut to their budgets this year. When is the government going to make its hometowns proud? When is it going to make hometowns built perfectly again and fixed again? Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the premise of this question is completely wrong. We already invested a lot last year in municipalities, and we will continue to do so. It is under the leadership of this Prime Minister that, finally, municipalities of this country have received money. It was not received when the Liberals were in government. We are doing our job.

National Defence Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence implied that the minister would finally reveal the cost of the Iraq mission at yesterday's defence committee meeting, but yesterday the minister was mum. Either his parliamentary secretary was misleading Canadians or the minister got cold feet. This is not a state secret we are talking about. The Americans have shared their costs with the American people, and the Australians have shared their costs with the Australian people.

The minister has been given these costs by the Chief of the Defence Staff, so when will the minister share the costs of the Iraq mission with Canadians? Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the mission is not over. We are only into it a little over a month. We have indicated that we will report the costs in the appropriate way, through the parliamentary mechanisms. I know there is one thing we can all agree on, which is that even spending $1 fighting the atrocities of ISIL will not have the support of the NDP. At least we have that in common. [ Translation ] Ms.

Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is not true that we are going to give them a blank cheque. The minister told us that he would inform us of the costs of the mission, and I quote, “when they are fully known”. The problem is that he knows how much the mission is going to cost. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Tom Lawson, says that he has already forwarded a cost assessment to the minister. The cost of the U.S. mission is $7.5 million a day; for the Australians, it is $500 million a year.

Why do we know how much our allies spend, but not how much the mission will cost Canadians? [ English ] Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the no-defence party over there does not want to spend anything fighting the atrocities of ISIL. One of the things it might just want to focus on for just a little is the human cost of doing nothing, which is what it has been advocating. We will stand up against the atrocities committed by ISIL with or without the support of the NDP.

(1505) Mr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to supporting the people of Ukraine as they fight for a democracy they have sacrificed so dearly for, all in the face of the Putin regime's military aggression. As our Prime Minister has said, whether it takes five months or 50 years, we will not drop the subject and we will always stand stalwart along the side of the Ukrainian people. With winter fast approaching, can the Minister of National Defence please update the House on the support that Canada is providing to the people of Ukraine? Hon.

Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce today that Canada will be making another delivery of non-lethal aid to Ukraine. There are 30,000 coats and pants, 70,000 pairs of Gore-Tex boots, and 4,500 pairs of gloves deemed surplus by the Canadian Armed Forces that will be shipped out starting at the end of this month. The government is also coordinating the purchase and later shipment of equipment, including tactical communication systems, explosive ordinance disposal equipment, tactical medical kits, and both night and thermal vision goggles.

President Poroshenko has said that shipments like this have saved Canadian lives. We remain steadfast in our support for a free and— The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Ethics Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, one week ago, in an attempt to defend the government's income-splitting plan, the Minister of Employment and Social Development stood in question period and read what he claimed was a quote from Marlo Raynolds, the Liberal candidate in Banff-Airdrie. Sun News has since retracted its story and has apologized to Mr. Raynolds for claiming he said something that he did not say. Surely the minister's standards of decency are as high as those of Sun News. Will he please get up, withdraw his misquote, and apologize for misleading the House? Hon.

Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that Liberal candidate, that Liberal member, and every Liberal member opposes tax fairness for families. The Liberals opposed the child care benefit. They opposed $3,800 in benefits for single moms with two kids under the age of six. They opposed tax cuts for families. They voted against the ways and means motion recently. They want to take these benefits away from families, and they do so because they believe that Liberal politicians know better how to spend money than moms and dads.

We profoundly disagree on this side.

[ Translation ] Quebec Bridge Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the consensus and mobilization of the people in the Quebec City area is beginning to bear fruit. The Minister of Infrastructure is beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, or at the end of the bridge in this case. He finally decided to pick up the phone and talk to his provincial and municipal counterparts in order to find a solution. Now he has to find the paint brush that Jean Lapierre and the Liberals lost.

Will the minister keep the Prime Minister 's promise and ensure that the Quebec Bridge restoration is completed? Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as we have already said, a legal process is under way and a ruling was recently handed down. We will continue to have discussions with the different partners in this matter. The New Democrats believe that just because they think it is going to snow this winter, they can take credit for it.

They definitely cannot take the credit for the current talks being held.

[ English ] International Trade Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in an increasingly globalized world, it is vital that Canadian businesses have access to dynamic and fast-growing markets in order to create jobs and long-term prosperity for hard-working Canadians and their families. Our Conservative government has a proven track record of opening new markets for Canadian exporters. As we recently heard from the Minister of International Trade , our government has signed free trade agreements with 38 countries.

Can the tireless and hard-working Minister of International Trade please update Canadians on our government's latest efforts to create jobs and prosperity through trade? Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Canada–Korea free trade agreement passed third reading in the Senate. Canadian companies will soon have preferential access to South Korea, which will become a strategic gateway for Canadian businesses into Asia. This agreement will increase Canadian exports to South Korea by 32% and boost our economy by almost $2 billion annually.

Exporters from across our country asked us to support them as they compete in the global marketplace, and once again we are delivering.

(1510) Rail Transportation Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, for over 40 years my constituents in Castlegar, Blueberry, Genelle, and Rivervale have been able to sleep without being disturbed by trains at night. However, now CP has begun to run night trains without prior warning. The community has made its opposition very clear at two public meetings. Letters have been written, people are upset, lives have been severely disrupted. Right now, there is no incentive for CP to find a solution or to work with the local community to find a compromise.

Will the minister work with me to help convince CP Rail that a workable solution is possible and would benefit all? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, obviously, in the minister's place right now, I will not commit her to a specific action, but I will take this matter under advisement to her. Of course, in all of these circumstances we encourage railway companies to speak directly with municipalities and work on these issues.

[ Translation ] Natural Resources Mr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, FD) : Mr. Speaker, the truth behind TransCanada's energy east project is that the pipeline would have a serious impact on fragile natural environments and the people living around them. All across Quebec and in Lanaudière, farmers are concerned about their land, peat bogs and the sensitive ecosystems that are at risk. As the project continues to take shape, more and more people are speaking out against the idea of more than a million barrels of oil crossing that land every day.

Will the Minister of Natural Resources acknowledge the opposition to the energy east project and stop claiming, as the leader of the NDP has done, that a pipeline next to the St. Lawrence River is a reasonable option? Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, unlike the opposition, we will not take a position before the examination is complete. The National Energy Board is tasked with hearing directly from the people concerned, who have relevant information or expertise in the field.

We rely on science and facts to make decisions. We have been clear. The projects will be studied only if they are safe for Canadians and pose no risks to the environment.

[ English ] Presence in Gallery

The Speaker : I would like draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Randy Delorey, Minister of Environment and Minister of Gaelic Affairs for the Province of Nova Scotia. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Points of Order Oral Questions Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order regarding question period. The leader of the Liberal Party made reckless, inaccurate and false comments on an important safety and security issue, therefore misleading the House. The member is wrong about the common sense firearms licensing act and the facts— The Speaker : Order, please. That seems like debate more than a point of order. The minister is free to make those points in a future question period perhaps or when the bill is debated.

I see the hon. member for Papineau rising. I am suspicious that this may not be a point of order either, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : It is a response, Mr. Speaker. If that is not appropriate, I will sit down. The Speaker : I do think this could create a great deal of disorder if we extend question period. It is already well past 3 o'clock. We will get back to that point of order. I do have notice of a point of order from the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour . [ Translation ] Mr. Louis Plamondon : Mr.

Speaker, on November 9, in a symbolic vote, more than 80% of voters—2.2 million Catalans—voted on the independence of Catalonia. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move this short motion: that the House of Commons recognize the right of the people of Catalonia to hold a referendum on its political future. [ English ] The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No.

(1515) Mr. Sean Casey : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the amendment to the second reading motion of Bill C-583 ,

an act to amend the Criminal Code (fetal alcohol spectrum disorder), be deemed to have been withdrawn, that the bill be deemed to have been read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House for this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. Mr. James Bezan : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In question period the member for St. John's East suggested that I had committed the Minister of National Defence to provide cost estimates at the meeting of national defence committee.

He took me out of context and— The Speaker : We have 45 minutes every day for members to make these kinds of points. When question period ends, then so too does the debate on these issues and we move on to normally routine proceedings or orders of the day, and that is where we are at today. If the member feels compelled to make that point, I am sure the subject matter will come up again tomorrow and he will be free to do so then. This is not a point of order.

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 38(6) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.

Canada Revenue Agency Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table, in both official languages, the Canada Revenue Agency's updated underground economy strategy entitled “Reducing Participation in the Underground Economy”.

Committees of the House Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Rodney Weston (Saint John, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in relation to Bill C-555,

An Act respecting the Marine Mammal Regulations (seal fishery observation licence) . The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

National Defence Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on National Defence in relation to the supplementary estimates (B), 2014-15.

Canadian Heritage Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B) 2014-15”.

Natural Resources Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B) 2014-15”. It includes votes 1b under Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, vote 1b under National Energy Board, and votes 1b, 5b and 10b under Natural Resources.

Business of Supply Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, consistent with folks rising and not quite exactly on point, and further to last Thursday's statement, I am rising to confirm that Wednesday, December 3, shall be the seventh allotted day. It is not exactly a motion, but it is an important piece of information for the House.

Petitions Sex Selection Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions, this being the second day of 16 days of standing against violence against women and girls. The three deadliest words in the world are “It's a girl.” Over 200 million girls are missing worldwide through the practice of sex selection. Gynaecologists of Canada believe that this is very wrong and stand against it. A poll shows that 92% of Canadians believe that sex selection is wrong. The petitioners call on Parliament to condemn this discriminative practice against girls.

(1520) Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition highlights that Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers, called Families for Justice, believes that the current impaired driving laws are much too lenient. The petitioners call for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Gaza Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions here, signed by constituents in my riding of Newton—North Delta. The petitioners are very concerned about the state of the infrastructure in Gaza. They urge the government to support Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish's proposal to bring injured Palestinian children from Gaza to Canada for treatment. They have a firm belief that in order to achieve peace, we must refuse to hate. Only in that spirit can we hope to bring people together to forge a just, secure and lasting peace.

Multiple Sclerosis Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is five years since a program aired highlighting a new theory that the venous system might play a role in multiple sclerosis. Five years on, Canadians are still waiting on the science. The petitioners urge the Minister of Health to proceed with phase 3 clinical trials.

Pensions Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table a petition with hundreds of signatures that were collected by the Hamilton

chapter of CURC, the Congress of Union Retirees of Canada. The petitioners are profoundly worried about the government's plan to allow the conversion of defined benefit pension plans to target benefit or so-called shared risk plans. Such a conversion would allow the government to strip pension benefits of legal protections and permit employers to reduce all benefits, including those earned through past service.

The petitioners call on the government to abandon this ill-conceived scheme and to focus its energy instead on improving the retirement security of the 62% of Canadian workers without any workplace pension plan by expanding the CPP. While the rules of the House do not allow me to endorse a petition, I firmly believe pensions are deferred wages and employers cannot be allowed to break their promise to deliver those benefits to retirees. It is our job to ensure that this solemn promise is kept.

Sex Selection Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians. The petitioners ask Parliament to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

Youth Employment Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there is a youth employment crisis in Canada right now. The rate of unemployed youth is twice the national average. Oftentimes, what young people are finding from employment is short-term contracts and part-time jobs. Some young people are working for free. Currently, there is a patchwork of rules that govern and oversee unpaid internships across the country. The people who have signed this petition call on the government to enact a national urban worker strategy.

They call for, among other things, increasing enforcement and strengthening labour standards to prevent the exploitation of workers, including young workers and unpaid interns.

Firearms Act Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition which is signed by a number of people from Kootenay—Columbia. The petitioners call upon the government to pass the common sense firearms licensing act.

[ Translation ] The Environment Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition signed by over 100 people from the Richelieu valley who are concerned about the government's lack of action on climate change. Obviously, they support the climate change accountability bill, which I would like to remind hon. members was passed by the House after being introduced first by the late Jack Layton and then again by the hon. member for Beaches—East York . The petitioners are asking the government to support this bill.

[ English ] Genetically Modified Organisms Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first petition is from residents throughout my riding as well as from Manitoba and parts of Ontario. The petitioners call for the mandatory labelling of genetically modified organisms.

Senior Poverty Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands. The petitioners call for actions to address senior poverty, particularly to increase the guaranteed income supplement to assist seniors living in poverty.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Motions for Papers Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

(1525) The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ Translation ] Privilege Time Allocation Motion—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 15, 2014, by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding the use of time allocation. I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this matter, as well as the hon.

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House leader of the official opposition for their interventions. [ English ] In raising this matter, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands contended that the limitation of debate occasioned by the government’s frequent use of time allocation deprived members of the ability to debate issues adequately, thereby impairing their fundamental right and indisputable privilege, if not obligation, to hold the government to account.

She claimed that this undermined and obstructed members’ ability to perform their parliamentary duties and that this consequence was disproportionately felt by members of smaller parties and independent members. The government house leader replied that, as the rules of the House had been properly followed in the application of time allocation, the privileges of members had not been offended, nor did the Chair have the authority to intervene unilaterally with regard to the use of this procedure.

Furthermore, he argued that the government’s use of time allocation was merely a “tool for the orderly and predictable management of the legislative agenda.” He also referred to my ruling of April 23, 2013, to point out that catching the Speaker’s eye to be recognized to speak during any proceeding remained the ultimate and individual right of each member. [ Translation ] For his part, the House leader of the official opposition supported the views expressed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that the present use of the time allocation procedure violated the rights of MPs to speak and represent their constituents.

As early as 1993, Speaker Fraser spoke of the limits of the Speaker’s authority in relation to the use by the government of Standing Order 78. On page 17861 of the Debates of March 31, 1993, he said: I have to advise the House that the rule is clear. It is within the government’s discretion to use it. I cannot find any lawful way that I can exercise a discretion which would unilaterally break a very specific rule. [ English ] On March 1, 2001, Speaker Milliken confirmed that

interpretation, stating at page 1415 of the Debates : The rules and practices of the House established by this House with respect to time allocation leave the Speaker with no alternative in this matter. Members of the House are also aware that it is not for the Speaker to judge whether an issue has been sufficiently debated.

As recently as June 12 of this year, on page 6717 of the Debates , I stated: With respect to the amount of debate a bill must receive before notice of a time allocation motion can be given, the Chair is being asked to render a decision on a matter over which there are no explicit procedural rules or practices and, thus, over which it has no authority. Rather, it is the House that retains that authority and, therefore, must continue to make that determination as to when and if a bill has received adequate consideration. The body of precedents available to me all point in the same direction.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, succinctly sums up the jurisprudence on the matter when it states, at page 648: [ Translation ] When asked to determine the acceptability of a motion to limit debate, the Speaker does not judge the importance of the issue in question or whether a reasonable time has been allowed for debate, but strictly addresses the acceptability of the procedure followed.

Speakers have therefore ruled that a procedurally acceptable motion to limit the ability of Members to speak on a given motion before the House does not constitute prima facie a breach of parliamentary privilege. [ English ] As the Chair can find no evidence that the ability of members, even the independent members, to perform their parliamentary functions has been compromised, I cannot find that this matter constitutes a prima facie case of privilege.

That said, the Chair does, however, intend to return to the House at a later date with a separate statement to address other elements raised by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands . I thank the House for its attention.

Government Orders Government Orders [ Translation ] Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) moved that Bill C-42,

An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-42. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to start debate on Bill C-42 , concerning common sense firearms licensing. Today is an important day because this is the first time in nearly 20 years that improvements have been made to our firearms licensing system. They are long overdue.

This bill is designed to simplify and clarify the firearms licensing regime while maintaining the system's reliability. The main goal is to protect the safety of Canadians. I would now like to describe how this bill will improve our licensing system. Currently, there are two types of firearm licences: possession only licences—POLs—and possession and acquisition licences. The POL is the only licence available to new firearm owners. That is the licence I have held since January, and I took a course. After that, I went through various administrative processes to get the possession and acquisition licence, the PAL.

As the name suggests, this licence allows people to possess and acquire a firearm. The other licence, the POL, the possession only licence, was created over 20 years ago by the previous Liberal government. At the time, it was a transitional step for firearm owners who wanted to avoid the new licensing system. The average age of these licence holders is almost 60. They are all experienced and competent. These are people who know how to use these firearms, who use them and who can also borrow them and buy ammunition.

All we want to do with this bill is simplify the system and combine the two types of permits, which would give 600,000 law-abiding firearm owners the right to acquire a firearm. Naturally, after 20 years, it might be time for people to update their firearm. People may remember that at the time, this initiative was put forward by the late Jack Layton, former leader of the New Democratic Party. (1530) [ English ] Second, we are addressing a serious issue that impacts every firearm owner.

Currently, if individuals make a paperwork error and do not renew their licence on time, they are liable to face a minimum sentence of three years in prison. Some people may be deployed or travelling abroad. They can be under medical treatment and be turned into a criminal overnight because they have not renewed their firearm licence on time. That is why the bill puts in place a six-month grace period at the end of a five-year licence. [ Translation ] I want to make it clear that people will not be allowed to buy new firearms or ammunition or to use firearms during this grace period.

The grace period will simply protect people from being turned into criminals just because of an administrative delay in renewing their permit. [ English ] Continuing in the area of licensing, this legislation would improve the way the authorization to transport system works. I certainly invite the leader of the second opposition to read the bill, so he would not attempt to mislead the House as he has tried to do today. Currently, an authorization to transport is required to take any restricted firearm between the owner's home and another location— Hon. Wayne Easter : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The member accused the leader of the third party of misleading the House. Let me spell out to the minister that during the briefing with staff from his office, we received confirmation that easing the transportation regulations means that transport between locations other than those—

(1535) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please. I was waiting to hear if the hon. member for Malpeque was going on some procedural question there. What I heard was that the hon. minister mentioned that there was “an attempt to”. That can be taken any number of different ways, but I think it is sufficiently opaque that we would not suggest that there was any direct suggestion of any unparliamentary language in that case. I do not think we have a point of order in front of us. The member for Malpeque may be able to bring up those other points he mentioned in the course of debate on a question.

I will ask the minister to continue. Hon. Steven Blaney : Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your decision. I understand that the time will not be taken from the time we have to debate this important bill. While I am on my feet, let me clearly reiterate that, in no way, would the way to transport a restricted firearm in this country be impacted by the bill. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the leader of the second opposition has pretended. However, as was mentioned, the truth will prevail and that is exactly what is happening right here as I am presenting the bill.

Let us move on to the bill and we will let our little Liberal friend yell over there and he will have his time to debate as well. I was explaining that there would be a grace period for law-abiding citizens who, after five years, are willing to renew their licence. That is one improvement of the bill. As I was interrupted, I was also indicating that we would be improving the authorization to transport. I would invite the member to listen because maybe then there will not be any more attempts to mislead the House.

As I was saying, currently, an authorization to transport is required to take any restricted firearm between the owner's home and another location. Each and every new location requires a separate form and application. Are we changing the way to transport a restricted firearm in the country? No. Are we cutting red tape for law-abiding citizens? Yes. This is exactly what we are doing. Let us have an honest debate here. Let us talk about the truth, about the facts and about the fact that it is very important to keep our country safe, and to keep the measures this government is applying to keep Canadians safe.

Members have to know this red tape, those papers are not even shared with law enforcement. They are useless. This is a good example of red tape without any added value. I hope the Liberals will clearly understand what the bill is all about, and then we can have an open and frank discussion This information, as I just mentioned, not only is not shared with law enforcement but is second only to the registration of long guns. This process is the clearest example of needless red tape and burdensome paperwork brought in by the former Liberal government.

My question would be, at this point in time, what does the Liberal Party have against law-abiding citizens? This is the question I hope the hon. member will be answering as he will be given the opportunity to speak to the bill, which would be cutting red tape while increasing the safety of Canadians. The bill would eliminate the need to apply for new authorization, new red tape, to transport a firearm for any lawful activity within the province where the firearm owner resides. What are we talking about? We are talking about going to a shooting range.

We are talking about going to a gunsmith to have a firearm repaired. We are talking, in some cases, about going to an exhibition where people can exchange and share their views, and their passion for their activity. [ Translation ] It is important to remind everyone that all restricted firearms must be unloaded, locked and in a locked carrying case while being transported. It is also recommended that they always be transported in the trunk of a vehicle. [ English ] Once again, we have an opportunity here to educate my hon. colleagues on the other side.

Maybe the leader of the second opposition has a need to refresh his knowledge on the way in which one is to carry a restricted firearm in this country. Let me be clear, this firearm has to be unloaded. It must be trigger locked. It must be in a locked case and, preferably, in the trunk of the car driven by the owner of a valid restricted firearm. We will keep this because we feel that it is important. However, while doing this, we also feel it is important to cut red tape for those law-abiding citizens.

That is why we are bringing those changes forward. (1540) [ Translation ] Accordingly, anyone who is transporting a restricted firearm must take the most direct route to his or her destination. That provision already exists in the law. Those rules are not changing, because they are safe and they make sense. This is just common sense. [ English ] This is the common sense firearms licensing act. What will be eliminated is the needless paperwork that law-abiding sports shooters were previously required to complete in order to engage in their hobby.

While the crux of the common sense firearms licensing act is, as its name suggests, the licensing of firearms, there are two other important measures tackled by this bill. This is a federal law under the Criminal Code. Therefore, is it not logical that this law be applied the same way across the land? This is what this bill would accomplish. Second, law enforcers would apply the law and legislators would set the rules.

That is how we would ensure that the authority of the chief of firearms officers is clearly defined in law, so that it is applied in a standardized way and that there are no discrepancies from one region to another. After all, we are in the same country, and this is the same law and the same Criminal Code. [ Translation ] The gun laws are Canadian laws. I therefore firmly believe that there should be a Canada-wide standard for enforcing these laws, some degree of standardization. That is exactly what this bill aims to do.

It aims to simplify and standardize how the firearms registry is enforced. [ English ] Earlier in my comments today, I alluded to decisions that created criminals out of law-abiding citizens overnight. Many Canadians were shocked to realize that some owners of legal firearms for years or decades were turned into criminals overnight. This is not acceptable. That is why we are addressing this issue in the bill.

The common sense firearms licensing act would end the ability of the Canadian firearms program to make a final decision on the reclassification of firearms without the oversight of an elected member of Parliament. We are doing this because the owners of the Swiss Arms and the CZ firearms are law-abiding citizens and should not be treated as criminals. This is why we are bringing this legislation forward for that specific part. Therefore, the government would have an oversight mechanism for decisions on the classification of firearms.

Let me once again be clear, these decisions would be made on the advice of technical experts who are knowledgeable about the workings of firearms. To that end, this is exactly what would happen to the CZ and the Swiss Arms family of rifles in order to have the original reclassification restored when the bill is proclaimed into law. [ Translation ] These important measures are meant to bring some common sense back to our firearms policies. As I said, my priority is to keep Canadians safe through common sense policies. [ English ] For too long, gun control in Canada has been about disarming all Canadians.

It was about making hunting and sport shooting so onerous, so filled with time-consuming paperwork, that no one would be interested in pursuing these Canadian heritage activities. Many members around here have grown up on a farm or have parents or grandparents who have grown up on a farm. This was part of their life. This was part of their way of living. Many of our friends and colleagues like hunting and sport shooting. They are law-abiding citizens. Why should they be ostracized because they are doing those Canadian heritage activities?

We have a common-sense firearm licensing regime to ensure that they are abiding by the law, but in the meantime we are cutting red tape. That is what this bill is all about. That is what we are seeking to achieve with this bill. (1545) [ Translation ] To ensure that all new gun owners have a basic understanding of how to safely handle a firearm, they will have to take the Canadian firearms safety course and pass the related test.

I met with many hunters and various organizations and everyone agreed that it just makes sense that anyone who wants to acquire, handle, use or possess a firearm should have to take training. That training was not mandatory in the past. This bill makes training mandatory for the possession, acquisition and use of a firearm. While cutting red tape, this measure strengthens our system of registering and possessing firearms. However, that is not all.

We are introducing another measure that allows law enforcement agencies to share information regarding investigations into illegally imported restricted and prohibited firearms. We want to make sure that the illegal weapons that are in our streets and used for criminal purposes are taken out of circulation. This is also included in the bill. Both the RCMP and CBSA will break down the barriers, the silos, that prevented the sharing of information. What is more, importers will be required to report any gun imports into Canada.

This measure will eliminate a loophole that existed before and will provide a significant tool for removing illegal handguns from our streets. [ English ] A study from British Columbia found that thousands of firearms had been diverted to the black market due to this loophole. It is time we closed that information-sharing gap exploited by criminals. I hope the opposition will consider those sound measures in the bill and will certainly be interested in bringing this bill to committee, so we can discuss those very important measures. However, that is not all.

I must say, regarding the import of illegal firearms, that this issue has been raised with me by my provincial counterparts, and I am pleased to address it in this legislation. [ Translation ] We are tackling the criminal use of firearms instead of focusing on those who practise traditional activities and obey the law. There is a third measure that I believe is important. We are going to establish orders prohibiting the possession of firearms for persons found guilty of domestic violence. In cases of serious domestic violence, those found guilty will automatically receive a prohibition order for life.

According to a 2013 report, Measuring violence against women: Statistical trends, spouses and dating partners were the most common perpetrators in violent crime against women. [ English ] Our legislation is clear. We are eliminating needless red tape while making our gun control regime make good common sense. [ Translation ] Let us be clear. From now on, a person found guilty of domestic violence on indictment will automatically lose his licence to possess a firearm. [ English ] We are putting forward safe and sensible firearms policies. That is why there is such strong support for this important legislation.

We have spoken with people from all walks of life. This afternoon, I am very proud to be here with the member for Yorkton—Melville , who was elected in 1993 and who has been a strong advocate of law-abiding citizens, while maintaining tough sentences for criminals. He is right here with us today. We as a party have abolished the ineffective long gun registry, but we need to do more. We need to take another step. We need to streamline our processes, cut into red tape, and bring some improvements in through this bill to make our country safer. This is what this bill would accomplish.

The member for Yorkton—Melville has been an incredible advocate for law-abiding firearms owners. This place will lose an excellent legislator when he retires in 2015. (1550) [ Translation ] I would also like to thank the committee members from my party, who gave me a lot of advice. We have former police officers, for example, who served with the provincial police or the RCMP. I also want to thank the members of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for providing me with valuable information and showing me the importance of handling firearms carefully and obeying the law.

I am thinking about Greg Farrant, president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Alain Cossette of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, Tony Bernardo and Bob Rich, a former police officer. These individuals helped us arrive at a balanced bill that makes our country safer and reduces red tape for law-abiding citizens. [ English ] Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am always disappointed when I hear the minister adopting the rhetoric and the language of the gun lobby. It is revealing of who he talked to before introducing the bill.

Even today, the only people he mentioned are those who have a direct interest in guns and members of his own party. My question is for the minister. Who was consulted before this bill was drafted and presented in the House? It is very clear to me that law enforcement was not consulted until afterwards. If this is such common-sense legislation, why did the minister not consult victims groups, including women's groups that work on violence against women? If it is such common-sense legislation, why has the minister not consulted groups working to reduce gun violence on the streets of Montreal and Toronto?

If it is such good legislation, why was there such narrow consultation before it came to this House? [ Translation ] Hon. Steven Blaney : Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I mentioned studies that clearly show that violence against women often occurs in the home. That is why there is a specific measure in this bill to remove firearms licences from people who have been indicted and found guilty of domestic violence. I am convinced that once the member examines the bill more closely, he will realize that it will make life easier for hunters.

What does my colleague have against hunters, fishers, farmers and people who like hunting rifles? I am wondering why we should make things more difficult for them. Does my colleague agree that the firearms importation measures will reduce the number of illegal weapons on our streets? Does he intend to support the bill, which seeks to reduce the number of gun crimes, while making things simpler for law-abiding Canadians? [ English ] Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there is certainly not much in the bill that would reduce crimes with illegal guns.

However, I listened closely to the minister's remarks, and I will say there are some things in this bill that Liberals like and there are some things that we do not. I will be talking about that later. It is interesting that the minister mentioned the member for Yorkton—Melville . I respect the member for Yorkton—Melville immensely. He worked hard here for all those years. He had an assistant by the name of Dennis Young. He recently made a statement publicly about this bill, saying that it leaves supporters of the Conservative government and gun owners feeling as if they are just used for fundraising.

I listened to the minister try to attack the NDP and the Liberals and accuse the Liberal leader of misleading the House when he was not. Is the real reason not all about this stuff and Conservative fundraising, not only Canadian twenties but American twenties, and maybe a little money from the Canadian rifle association as well? Is that not what it is about, to enliven that—

(1555) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. [ Translation ] Hon. Steven Blaney : Mr. Speaker, I think we can expect more from a former solicitor general of Canada. I would like to clarify something extremely important. Canada has very strict procedures for the transportation of restricted firearms. First, a firearms possession and acquisition licence is required. A second training course on restricted firearms is also required. The bill does not make any changes to the procedure for transporting firearms.

The firearm must be unloaded and neutralized. This can be done in several ways. Then, it must be placed in a locked container, and it is recommended that the container be placed in the trunk of the car. Nothing has changed about that. I am therefore disappointed that the leader of the second opposition party tried to mislead the House by suggesting that this bill could change this safe procedure. That is not the case. Restricted firearms will continue to be transported in the same way. Our goal is to reduce red tape, simplify procedures and cut down on bureaucracy.

The procedure for transporting restricted firearms in Canada will remain exactly the same. [ English ] Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to ask a question for my colleague, the minister. We know that originally we had the long gun registry. It was a $2 million registry, according to the Liberals, but turned out to be $2 billion-plus registry. It hurt farmers, it hurt ranchers, and it hurt sport shooters. I have a lot of friends in my riding of Medicine Hat who are passionate, safe gun owners, and this bill, I believe, would help those individuals.

I would ask the minister to comment further on how this bill would help hunters, sport shooters, farmers, and ranchers in my riding. Hon. Steven Blaney : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Medicine Hat , who is doing outstanding work in Parliament, for his question. Let me answer by explaining what is also behind this bill. We want to increase public safety in this country, and I have alluded to the measures we are putting in place, such as mandatory training and reducing domestic violence by removing firearms licences from people who have been indicted and found guilty.

It is now time that we treat hunters, farmers, sport shooters, and law-abiding citizens who posses guns with respect and dignity. It is also time to cut red tape. What would the bill do? It would cut red tape. It would simplify the procedures. We will not turn them into criminals because a decision was taken overnight. There would be scrutiny and measures to make sure that those people are treated as any other Canadian is treated in this country. Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr.

Speaker, in a few minutes we will be given the opportunity to speak on the bill, and there are of course some good things in it, but I am concerned that the minister may inadvertently be misleading the House. The minister said that the Conservatives are not changing anything in the transportation regulations. I wonder if the minister can tell us if he has talked to the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette who gave notice today of a private member's bill that he intends to introduce. The bill is entitled “an act to amend the Criminal Code, (firearms storage and transportation)”.

I am very concerned about the content of the bill that we will be seeing this week. It will be coming up in the next round of private members' bills. The minister has just assured us that the Conservatives are not changing anything. Can he assure me that he has talked to the member proposing this private member's bill and that it would not alter the transportation and storage regulations? He is a member of the minister's caucus. The minister said he had consulted the members of his caucus. Did the minister consult the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette about this attempted change to those requirements?

(1600) Hon. Steven Blaney : Mr. Speaker, one thing is certainly going to be sure at the end of the day: Bill C-42 , the common sense firearm licensing act, would keep things the same for transporting restricted firearms, just as they are today. It is the will of the government to continue that way. Let me be very clear. If one is to carry a restricted firearm, it has to be unloaded. It also has to be trigger-locked or neutralized technically. It has to be in a locked container that is safe.

If one is to travel with a firearm, it has to be in the trunk of the car and with an owner of a valid restricted firearms licence. However, the bill is not addressing this. I invite the member, when we debate the other private member's bill, to raise this issue. As he knows, these are not government bills. I hope we will have a good discussion on Bill C-42 and that it can be brought to committee so that we can vote on the bill for what it would do. It is a common sense firearms licensing act that would increase the safety of this country and reduce the paperwork for law-abiding Canadians. Mr.

Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-42 , the so-called common sense firearms licensing act. While this is not the most egregious

short title assigned by the Conservatives to a bill, even in this session, the bill might better be titled “the special interest firearms licensing act”. What we have before us is a bill that only looks like common sense when viewed from the point of view of the gun lobby. New Democrats believe that public safety must always trump politics when it comes to firearms licensing and regulation. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have been promoting the dangerous ideas of the gun lobby, a small minority of Canadians, and perhaps even a small minority among gun owners.

In particular, there is the idea that any regulations at all on firearms pit the interests of law-abiding gun owners against the government and the police, and that these regulations amount to nothing more than excessive red tape. New Democrats have a different view, one that clearly puts public safety first. The Conservatives like to pose as the only ones here who understand rural Canada, but let me say, perhaps to the shock and surprise of some, that I actually grew up on a farm.

My father and his father before him were hunters of quail, pheasant, duck, deer, and moose, and all but one of these later graced our table when I was a kid. I have to say that sometimes there would not have been much on the table without the hunting that went on in my family. I learned to shoot at a young age, an age that most now might consider inappropriately young, and yes, my grandpa always kept a shotgun behind the door for scaring away the coyotes. It must have worked because I never saw any. This was in the day before those proper storage regulations. When those came in, he changed his behaviour.

He did not see these as unnecessary red tape. He saw them as good advice for keeping his family safe, and the shotgun disappeared from behind the door and into a locked cabinet. Subsequently I lived in the Northwest Territories as a young adult. I was fresh out of university, and while there I was privileged to go hunting out on the traplines with my Dene friends. By that time I was not such a fan of doing the shooting myself. It was a great life experience I had there. None of them regarded safety regulations as red tape.

Now I represent a riding that stretches from the Victoria Harbour all the way out to the head of the West Coast Trail at Fort Renfrew, so I do know something about law-abiding gun owners and something about communities where hunting is much more than just a prop to use in arguments about gun registration and licensing. When the Conservatives abolished the gun registry, we on this side of the House warned that it would be necessary to remain vigilant on the question of gun licensing and gun regulations.

We all knew that members of the gun lobby would not be happy to stop at the abolition of the registry, that with their U.S.-influenced ideological viewpoint they would keep pushing to weaken all the other measures in Canada that place restrictions on firearms in the interest of public safety. Like his gun lobby allies, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has fallen into the habit of using U.S. rhetoric in his comments on firearms. This was never clearer than on July 23, 2014, when the minister said: To possess a firearm is a right, and it's a right that comes with responsibilities.

Here we have a minister of the crown, one of the government's chief legal ministers, directly contradicting the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1993, the Supreme Court found, in a case called Regina v. Hasselwander, that: Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited. Therefore, the minister is in direct contradiction of the Supreme Court in the rhetoric he is using around gun licensing.

The court could not have been clearer, nor could there have been any doubt about the precedent, since the Hasselwander case was precisely about the right to possess automatic weapons. The court later reiterated in the 2010 case of Regina v. Montague that in Canada there is no right to own firearms. In that case, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal against an Ontario Court of Appeal decision rejecting the existence of such a right in Canada.

Like their gun lobby colleagues, when the Conservatives are challenged on the rights question, they often switch gears and try to argue that gun ownership is somehow a property right, which I would point out is another right that is not found in the Canadian constitution. What the minister's comments last July clearly indicate, unfortunately, is that we have a government that likes to pander to the gun lobby. At least in this case, however, I would have to say that the Conservatives do so fairly transparently and in order to generate political support from their base.

(1605) When the Conservatives made their first appointments to the Firearms Advisory Committee, the committee responsible for advising the minister on firearms regulations, the appointees were drawn entirely from representatives of the gun lobby. It took until 2012 for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to prevail on the government to add three police chiefs to the nine gun advocates the government had already placed on the advisory committee.

This was only after the committee came forward with a set of extreme recommendations for the government, including such great ideas as extending the ownership licences to 10 years and, unbelievably, a proposal that the police should re-sell guns that had been seized rather than destroying them as is now the case. It is hard for me to even imagine the police running a garage sale of seized weapons. These are the kind of recommendations that came from the Firearms Advisory Committee, which was loaded with gun lobby advocates.

When it comes to the specific firearms regulations adopted by the Conservatives, the influence of the gun lobby is quite apparent. In 2011, the Department of Public Safety drafted new regulations for gun shows that would have required things that most Canadians would see as common sense. These included things like notifying the local police of gun shows to be held in their jurisdiction. That does not seem like red tape to me; that seems like common sense. It would have required the tethering of guns on display at a gun show.

Cellphones are tethered at cellphone kiosks, so why not have this important public safety measure of tethering guns at a gun show. These gun show regulations were to have been brought into force in 2012, but that did not happen. Instead, the Conservatives junked the proposed regulations altogether after complaints from the gun lobby that the new requirements were too onerous. I guess we should have seen this coming, because the Firearms Advisory Committee called for scrapping the gun show regulations in its March 2012 report.

I am worried about who was consulted, as I said in my question for the minister at the beginning of this debate. Who did he talk to? He says he talked to the hunting lobbies and to members of his caucus. He probably looked at the reports of the Firearms Advisory Committee. We see that the committee's slanted approach has influenced what the minister is already doing. Regulations were also due to come into force in December 2012 to require that each gun manufactured in Canada have an individual serial number.

It is surprising to me that it is not a requirement, as it is actually required by the international treaties to which Canada is already a party. It is something that seems like common sense when it comes to the police being able to trace guns used in crimes or in the fight to combat illegal international trade in small arms. In November 2013, for a second time, the Conservatives quietly implemented a regulation delaying the coming into force of this requirement for serial numbers on each gun manufactured in Canada.

This time they delayed it until December 2015, conveniently after the next scheduled election date. The connection to the gun lobby is not so clear in this regulation, but I have no doubt that it exists. Why else would the Conservatives have appointed a representative of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association as a member of the Canadian delegation at international arms treaty negotiations? A representative of the sports shooting association and a member of the Firearms Advisory Committee became part of the international delegation to debate the small arms trade treaty internationally.

Now, at a time when 50 other nations have signed the arms trade treaty, why has Canada failed to do so? Why are we excluding ourselves from the important discussions about how to end the illegal arms trade? The minister in his speech made reference to the important role in public safety of stopping the smuggling of illegal arms into Canada, yet we have excluded ourselves from the very process that would make that possible.

When it comes to Bill C-42 , I guess we should be glad that the government abandoned the most extreme recommendations of the Firearms Advisory Committee, the ones I mentioned a minute ago of 10-year licences and the resale of seized weapons. Now we are seeing complaints in the media from the gun lobby that Bill C-42 does not go far enough. That is why I am worried about the private member's bill that was placed on notice today, which we will see later this week, and how it will relate to this bill.

The minister can say all he likes that it is a private member's bill and that it has nothing to do with him, but we will see. We will see if it has nothing to do with this legislation. When I heard the gun lobby say that Bill C-42 should have gone further, I am concerned about the contents of this new private member's bill.

(1610) Let me turn to the contents of the bill we have in front of us. It is one that is still clearly a child of the gun lobby. I should point out, as I did in my question for the minister, that there is no evidence of broad consultations throughout the community. If this is such common sense legislation, I do not understand why such a narrow group of people were the only ones consulted on this bill. For me, despite the

short title, there is nothing common sense about the two major provisions in this bill. One of those would make the gun classification process a clearly political process. The other would remove the requirement for having a permit for the transportation of firearms in any vehicle carrying them. Neither of these provisions has any public safety purpose. Instead, they respond only to the explicit complaints from the gun lobby. All of the other things that the Conservatives want to address in this bill could be accomplished without these two provisions. Let me discuss the first change that is proposed in the way weapons are classified. Right now, recommendations on classification are under

definitions contained in law, and those recommendations are made by firearms experts in the RCMP, who both the gun lobby and the government members have referred to as “bureaucrats”. They are, in fact, the RCMP firearms experts. The minister's signature is required on any reclassification, but there is no discretion for the minister, providing the recommendations fall within the scope of the existing legislative

definitions. What Bill C-42 suggests is that the cabinet should be able to ignore the classification recommendations from the public experts and substitute its own wisdom about how weapons should be classified. The minister has already told us today that when the bill passes, he intends to use this political process to reclassify two individual types of guns. Therefore, by varying the

definitions in the legislation, Bill C-42 would go even further by allowing the cabinet to grant exemptions for guns and ammunition that would otherwise have been prohibited. Where did this perceived need for a change come from? It came from a single case of reclassification of a single weapon, the Swiss Arms PE 90, or Classic Greens, as they are sometimes called. These are military-style weapons that have been sold for nearly 20 years in Canada as semi-automatic weapons limited to firing five rounds. Before 2013, there were approximately 2,000 of these weapons in Canada, worth about $4,000 each.

So why the reclassification? What we had in Calgary in 2013 was the sudden appearance of so-called “refurbished” models of this gun, which were now operating as automatic weapons. That meant that these weapons were now easily converted to automatic weapons capable of firing a long series of shots from a single trigger pull, exactly what the “prohibited” designation was designed to keep off the streets of Canada. When there was an immediate outcry from the gun lobby, the Conservatives were quick to grant a two-year amnesty in March of 2014. It is an amnesty for which I believe legal authority is doubtful, at best.

How can the government grant an amnesty on possessing a weapon that is prohibited by law in Canada? Now the government has presented Bill C-42 as the solution, giving the Conservative cabinet the power to decide if these dangerous weapons should be allowed in Canada. Quite apart from the danger of ending up with automatic weapons on the street, there is another principle at stake here. When we make laws, we make them in public after public debate, and they stay in force until there is another public debate