OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 179 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, February 25, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 25, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 179 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 179 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 179 (Version officielle) 147 179 25 02 2015 2015/02/25 14:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 2 p.m. Prayers

Statements by Members (1405) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem, led by the hon. member for Oshawa . [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] 2015 Scotties Tournament of Hearts Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to congratulate Jennifer Jones, Jill Officer, Kaitlyn Lawes, Dawn McEwan, Jennifer Clark-Rouire, and coach Wendy Morgan on their successful drive to five at the Scotties Tournament of Hearts.

Once again, much to the chagrin of my colleagues from across the country, Manitoba has proven itself the curling capital of Canada. I know that Jennifer and her rink will proudly represent Canada at the World Women's Curling Championship next month in Sapporo, Japan. As we all remember, almost a year ago to the day, Jennifer and her rink won gold at the Sochi Winter Olympics. Now as they head to the world championship, the entire nation will be cheering them on, and regardless of the time difference in Japan, we will be glued to our televisions.

On behalf of all members of the Parliament of Canada, I wish Jennifer and her rink all the best as she wears the maple leaf and continues to inspire the next generation of curlers. Go Canada go!

[ Translation ] Pink Shirt Day Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I am very proud to rise in honour of Pink Shirt Day, a day of action against bullying. [ English ] I am very proud to stand on behalf of all my NDP colleagues to raise awareness of this pink shirt movement. [ Translation ] This day got started in 2007 when two Nova Scotia students wanted to help a teen who was being bullied at school. In Canada, one in three children are victims of bullying. I myself was a victim of bullying when I was in high school. People said and wrote horrible things about me.

I was even spat on. Nobody should be subjected to that kind of treatment. One day, a teacher saw me crying, listened to me and really helped me a lot. What I want to say today is that we have to tune in to the young people around us. Together, we have to talk about this to get rid of the taboos around bullying. We know that bullying can be motivated by, among other things, homophobia, racism and sexism. [ English ] I consider that the federal government has a leading role to play. The NDP thinks that it is time for a national bullying prevention strategy, and we must act now.

Bulgaria National Day Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute today to the Canadians of Bulgarian descent on the 137th anniversary of the national day of Bulgaria. It is a day that commemorates the struggle of the Bulgarian people to regain independence and sovereignty. Regaining its real sovereignty after the collapse of the communists, Bulgaria made a spectacular journey to democracy, embracing the rule of law and respect for human rights. Canada and Bulgaria are allies in NATO.

They were together in fighting the terror in Afghanistan and they share the responsibility of contributing to solving conflicts in the world and major issues in international development. A sizeable Bulgarian community lives in Canada today, and it is successfully integrated into the Canadian way of life. It is a respectable and outstanding group within Canadian society, noteworthy for its prosperity and contribution to Canadian society. The community is also a very important bridge between Canada and Bulgaria. I invite all hon. members to join me in congratulating Bulgaria on its national day.

God bless Canada and Bulgaria.

Pink Shirt Day Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today is the eighth annual Pink Shirt Day, the international anti-bullying campaign begun in Nova Scotia when a young man was bullied for wearing a pink shirt to school. Two fellow students, David Shepherd and Travis Price, began distributing pink shirts to protest this bullying and to stand up for their fellow student. Everyone has been touched by bullying in some form, and unfortunately, far too many people have seen the devastating effects it can have.

Whether it is at school, in the workplace, or online, bullying cannot and must not be tolerated in our society. Statistics show that when bystanders intervene, 50% of bullying can end within 10 seconds. On behalf of the Liberal Party, I want to invite all Canadians across the country to join our schools, workplaces, and communities and wear pink shirts today to help raise awareness and put a stop to the harmful act of bullying.

North Bay Community Leader Mr. Jay Aspin (Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this February, our government celebrated the 50th anniversary of our flag by recognizing 50 outstanding individuals and organizations for their tremendous contribution to Canada. I had the privilege of recognizing one of my own constituents, Bruce Goulet, who was included in that prestigious group. Bruce Goulet has led a remarkable life as a World War II veteran, an entrepreneur, a Rotarian, and a civic leader. He has devoted much of his strength, integrity, and passion to his community and his country.

He served as mayor, president of the Chamber of Commerce, and director of the Rotary Club. In his visionary leadership, he helped the North Bay waterfront develop into what it is today. He continues to believe in the power of one individual to make a difference. He is a powerful inspiration and a role model for Canadians. Colleagues, please join me in recognizing our Bruce Goulet as an extraordinary community worker and a great Canadian.

International Women's Day Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, March 8 marks the tenth International Women's Day I will celebrating as a member of Parliament, except that it is not much of a celebration. Instead of eradicating barriers to women's full economic, social, and political participation, the Conservatives have been erecting them.

They have actively undermined many of the advancements essential for the security of women by backtracking on pay equity; eliminating funding for the court challenges program; failing to create a national child care strategy; decreasing support for international gender-equality projects; failing to address violence against women; attempting to restrict women's reproductive rights; failing to improve the lives of aboriginal women; lacking strategies to address the specific challenges faced by women of colour, women from the LGBTQ community, and women with disabilities; reneging on the commitment to bring in gender-based analysis across ministries; failing to improve women's pension rights; closing three-quarters of all Status of Women offices; and eliminating even the mention of gender equality from the mandate of Status of Women.

It is a daunting list, but New Democrats will not give up the fight. We know that Canadian women deserve fairness, affordability, opportunity, equal pay for work of equal value, a decent standard of living, and the freedom to live without fear. We will never stop in our efforts to ensure the full and equal rights of all women.

(1410) Okotoks Legion 291 Mr. John Barlow (Macleod, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Legions in my riding of Macleod , as I am sure they are in many other areas of Canada, are vital to the success of our rural communities. Not only are they responding to the needs of veterans, which is critical, but they are supporting essential community programs. I am proud to say that the legions in my riding are renowned across the country. For example, Turner Valley Branch 78 spearheaded the establishment of Birth of a Nation Day, and Crowsnest Pass is home to three of Alberta's oldest legions.

Now I am honoured to say that Macleod is also home to one of Canada's newest legions. In October, the Royal Canadian Legion Okotoks Branch 291 earned its charter, celebrating the rebirth of the legion in Okotoks after more than a 20-year absence. The Okotoks legion already boasts more than 150 members, many of whom have served in the Canadian and British armed forces. The establishment of a new legion is something I think we should all be celebrating. I would like to congratulate the organizers on their success and the beginning of what I hope will be a long legion tradition in Okotoks.

Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my riding of Winnipeg South Centre has a number of world leaders in the field of maternal, newborn, and child health. Dr. Allan Ronald has led the way for many with his groundbreaking work and research in Africa, and that has now made a difference for many who follow. I am very grateful that Dr. Ronald, Dr. Meghan Azad, Dr. Allan Becker, Dr. James Blanchard, and Dr. Terry Klassen have been recognized by the Prime Minister as he hosts Bill Gates today.

Their groundbreaking work, which is being done on many continents, has already attracted the support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Through the leadership of our Prime Minister, and in partnership with important organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, the Mennonite Central Committee, Red River College, and the Children's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba, millions of women and children are receiving the help they need to give their children the best possible start in life.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago, Canada Post tried to close the Chicoutimi-Nord post office; however, it stayed open thanks to strong, vocal opposition from the public. Despite this clear message from the people, Canada Post refuses to listen, and last month it again threatened to close that post office. I rise in the House today to condemn Canada Post's stubbornness and lack of transparency.

If I may, I would like to quote the Canadian Postal Service Charter: At least one month before deciding to permanently close, move or amalgamate corporate post offices, Canada Post will meet with affected customers and communities to jointly explore options and find practical solutions that address customer concerns.

Canada Post officials refused to travel to meet with the local population on two separate occasions, so the evaluation committee will have some explaining to do if it decides to ignore the 2,537 letters expressing opposition to the closure of the Chicoutimi-Nord post office that the people have signed and sent to Ottawa. Any time Canadians join forces to assert their right to speak, that commands respect. Canada Post needs to respect the people of Chicoutimi-Nord and keep their post office open.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the tax-free savings account is another example of our Conservative government fulfilling our promises to keep taxes low. We are proud that 11 million Canadians of all ages and income levels have opened an account, allowing them to safe tax-free, including my 24-year-old daughter. The vast majority of accounts belong to low- and middle-income earners. It is a way for Canadians to save for retirement, for their kids' education, or for a down payment on a house. The TFSA is helping Canadians, but the opposition wants to take it away.

The NDP actually voted against the tax-free savings account, and the Liberal leader wants Canadians to pay more taxes, saying he will implement a carbon tax that will kill jobs and raise the price on everything. Perhaps he does not understand that ordinary Canadians cannot rely on a wealthy trust fund. The facts are clear. Only our Conservative government can be trusted to keep taxes low.

(1415) [ Translation ] Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a round table on the Canada-wide tragedy of murdered and missing aboriginal women will be held this Friday in Ottawa. The Prime Minister has no intention of attending. Some 1,200 Canadian women are missing; Canada has forsaken even the memory of these young, magnificent women who have gone missing or been murdered.

The victims' families have the right to expect that the federal government protect all citizens equally. [ English ] Canadians have a right to know what sort of evil is lurking in the night. We need to understand who is committing these horrors, why and how. [ Translation ] There is a glaring inconsistency here.

The Conservative government keeps going on about protecting victims, but it seems that aboriginal women do not count. [ English ] I wish to ask forgiveness from all my aboriginal sisters, forgiveness for the government that has abandoned them and that, by inaction, is complicit with these crimes. [ Translation ] As a woman, I urge the Prime Minister to act like a national leader and protect all women in Canada.

[ English ] Taxation Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our Conservative government with clear instructions to keep taxes low. I hear that every time I am out door knocking in Calgary Centre. We have delivered on that: promise made, promise kept. As the member for Burlington just said, 11 million Canadians have actually opened an account so they can save money tax free for really important things for them, such as saving for their child's education, or buying a house or putting it toward their retirement.

Yet we still have the Liberals putting forward this high tax high debt agenda. I have no idea why, because that will hurt Canadian jobs and it will hurt Canadian families. They would raise taxes and take away benefits that we have put in place to help Canadian families. Then we have the New Democrats who are always pursuing their risky high tax agenda, like a carbon tax that would kill Canadian jobs and hurt our Canadian economy. Canadians know that the only party that be counted on for a low— The Speaker : The hon. member for Beauséjour.

[ Translation ] Marc Chouinard Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday Acadia lost a giant in the arts and culture with the death of Marc Chouinard, who left us far too early at the age of 62. Over the decades, his engagement in the arts and culture, often as a volunteer, was crucial to the development and promotion of our Acadian culture.

More recently, as the manager of Moncton's Capitol Theatre, Marc made a tremendous contribution to the cultural and economic vitality of his province and helped open doors for many young artists. [ English ] Though passionate for the arts, Marc also believed in the importance of social and economic development, which he often discussed, sometimes late into the night, with Premier Gallant as well as my colleague from Papineau .

I am lucky to have spent so much time with Marc and to consider him a friend. [ Translation ] I would like to extend my condolences to his mother, his sister Carole, who took such wonderful care of him, and to the other members of his family.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Lawrence Toet (Elmwood—Transcona, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, under this Conservative government, we have said that we would stand up for Canadian families, and that is what we are doing. Our new family tax cut will give 100% of families with kids an average of more than $1,100 per year to spend on their priorities. The majority of these benefits flow to low and middle-income families. Our government understands that parents know what is best for their family. However, both the Liberal Party and the NDP are against putting money back into the pockets of hard-working families.

In fact, they would reverse our tax cuts. On this side of the House, we will not hike taxes and take benefits away from families like the Liberals and the New Democrats would do. We are proud to stand up for moms and dads across Canada, and we will continue to do so.

[ Translation ] Liberal Party of Canada Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader, who promised open and transparent nominations, could not hide his enthusiasm yesterday for Mélanie Joly's nomination bid. The Liberal candidates in the running have cause for concern. Party apparatchiks have offered support to the former Montreal mayoral candidate. The woman who promised real change quickly fell into the Liberals' bad habits by contradicting her previous statements. Last September she was still saying that she did not want to get involved in politics in the short term.

Now, five months later, she is jumping into federal politics, claiming that it is her new passion. The problem is that she said the same thing about municipal politics just a few months ago, right before she turned her back on the party that she herself founded. She also claims that she wants to make Montreal a priority in Ottawa again. What does that say about her leader, who was elected in a Montreal-area riding? The people of Ahuntsic—Cartierville deserve much better. They deserve an NDP member of Parliament.

(1420) [ English ] Taxation Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, 100% of families with children in Orléans and across Canada will be better off thanks to the new family tax cut. [ Translation ] We expanded and increased the enhanced universal child care benefit so that every family in Canada can benefit. [ English ] The official opposition and the third party would reverse our tax cuts and force every Canadian to pay more, all the while putting more money into the pockets of big bureaucracies. [ Translation ] While they dream of holding Canadians by one hand and at the same time, have their other hand digging in Canadians' pockets, we believe citizens are in a much better position to know how to manage their own family budget. [ English ] The third party leader has already said that he would reverse our tax cuts and would impose more taxes, like a job-killing carbon tax. [ Translation ] Canadians are right to increasingly trust this government to put into their pockets more of the money that they have earned through their hard work.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] Public Safety Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary committee that will examine and analyze Bill C-51 has the delicate task of protecting both the security and the rights and freedoms of Canadians. After imposing a gag order on the debate in the House, the government now also seems to want to limit the debate in committee. That does not make any sense. This is a complex law and it is imperative that we hear from experts, legal minds and community leaders, as the Edmonton city police said today.

Will the government give the parliamentary committee time to do its work properly for once? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the committee will be diligent and professional in examining this bill, which is so important to Canadians, in order to protect them from the terrorist threat. I hope that delay tactics will not be used to stop the committee from examining this important bill since that would prevent Canadians from benefiting from the excellent additional measures found in Bill C-51 . [ English ] Hon.

Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is not telling that yesterday the Prime Minister was putting the emphasis on getting the committee to study the bill as quickly as possible, not as thoroughly as possible. We are talking about the most significant changes to security legislation in our country since 2001, a bill where critical flaws are being revealed by security experts across the country every day. It is simply reckless and irresponsible to try to ram it through without a full and proper study. Canadians deserve better.

Is the Prime Minister simply trying to hide his bill from proper scrutiny? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve better than an opposition leader who attacks the credibility of those who are there to protect us. Let us face reality. For 30 years, those men and women at CSIS, working at protecting Canadians, have worked within the law. I invite the member to apologize for pretending that they have broken the law, because that is not the case. This is in the report. They are complying with the law.

Let us move this bill forward so we can better protect Canadians. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Barn burnings, Maher Arar, there is a history, Mr. Speaker, and we stand up in favour of the rights and freedoms of Canadians. However, it is not just security experts who understand that Bill C-51 goes too far. First nations are raising the alarm.

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs is clear: —Bill C-51 directly violates the ability of all Indigenous Peoples to exercise, assert and defend their constitutionally-protected and judicially-recognized Indigenous Title and Rights to their respective territories. Again, Bill C-51 goes well beyond terrorism and will impact constitutionally-protected dissent and protest. Why is the Prime Minister afraid to hear from first nations themselves?

(1425) Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to read page 3 of the bill, which clearly states activity that does not undermine the security of Canada. It says, “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”. The member should read the bill and then we can have a real debate.

[ Translation ] Quebec Bridge Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, he is a regular Don Rickles. Today the Prime Minister is meeting a major CN shareholder. CN owns the Quebec Bridge. The Quebec Bridge is an important piece of federal infrastructure. It is even a national historic site of Canada. Will the Prime Minister talk to Bill Gates about the Quebec Bridge as Mayor Labeaume has asked? It is high time the Prime Minister stopped misleading the public and started getting that bridge painted. Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the government has committed to spending $75 million to repaint the Quebec Bridge. Together, all three levels of government have committed to spending $100 million on this major project. We are asking CN to come to the table and contribute the additional funding needed to make it happen.

Marine Transportation Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, since CN is saying it wants to be left out of this, the government will have to listen to Mayor Labeaume and ask Bill Gates to put pressure on CN; Bill Gates is one of the main shareholders. [ English ] The main estimates tabled yesterday by the President of the Treasury Board show a shocking drop in funding for Marine Atlantic. There will be an 85% drop in funding, which includes $97 million in reductions for its operational budget.

Marine Atlantic represents the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people in Atlantic Canada and it is constitutionally mandated. Is the government proposing either higher fees for Marine Atlantic, reduced services or both? Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. Leader of the Opposition should speak to somebody in his caucus because this morning, indeed, a member of the NDP did call Marine Atlantic's CEO to get an explanation. The CEO explained it as follows.

It is returning to the base level of funding because this government has provided to it an incredible amount of funding for revitalization of Marine Atlantic. We have built new facilities. We have entered into new charter agreements. We have invested in Marine Atlantic, so that it will continue to offer the service that we are so proud to offer here in Canada.

[ Translation ] Physician-Assisted Death Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court handed down its decision two weeks ago now. Despite a full day of discussion yesterday, we still do not know this government's plan. In fact, there is even more confusion. Can the government give us a clear indication of what it intends to do about the important issue of physician-assisted death? Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, dying with dignity is a non-partisan issue. It is also an extremely emotionally charged issue.

Canadians have diverse viewpoints on this, and our plan is to engage all Canadians in a consultation process that will take into consideration the diverse viewpoints of all Canadians in order to reach a conclusion that is acceptable to everyone.

[ English ] Natural Resources Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, one of the big things the Prime Minister needs to get right is getting our resources to market. With President Obama's veto of the Keystone XL pipeline, the Prime Minister has not fulfilled that responsibility. To build the public trust that we need to grow our exports, will he at long last work with the provinces to put a price on carbon? Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we know this member's position: budgets balance themselves and energy projects get to market by themselves. That said, with respect to Keystone, this is a debate between Canada and the United States, a debate between the president and the American people, the majority of whom are supportive of this project. Keystone XL would create jobs, strengthen energy security for North America, and the state department was clear that it can be environmentally, sustainably done through Keystone XL. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when this project will be approved.

We will continue to be a strong advocate for responsible resource management.

(1430) Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there is no international relationship more important to Canada than that between the U.S. president and the Canadian prime minister. A diplomatic failure of this magnitude was unthinkable between Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan or between Jean Chrétien and Bill Clinton. When will the Prime Minister take personal responsibility for this diplomatic failure? Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, in the last year alone, in full co-operation with the secretary for the department of energy, we have made significant progress in a number of key files related to energy. Indeed, we have a relationship worth $140 billion a year in energy trade. We have the most advanced power and gas and oil grids, and pipeline systems known the world over. We move forward in energy terms as full partners. We are aligned with the United States on reducing emissions and lead the way, for example, in phasing-out traditional coal powered plants on which the president followed our lead.

[ Translation ] Justice Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is also the Attorney General of Canada. It is his responsibility to assess whether bills introduced here, in Parliament, are legally valid. Experts are already questioning the constitutionality of certain aspects of Bill C-51 . Did the Minister of Justice do his homework and obtain a legal opinion on whether Bill C-51 is constitutional, and will he undertake to submit it to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which is responsible for studying the bill? Hon.

Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows very well that the government makes sure that all the bills it introduces are constitutional. The bill will protect Canadians' rights. It contains several provisions that increase the powers of the attorney general of Canada and of judges, especially when it comes to legal considerations surrounding the activities that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service might undertake to protect Canadians.

I look forward to debating this bill in committee, and I hope that we can count on the co-operation of the opposition. [ English ] Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to square that answer with the government's impressive record for passing unconstitutional legislation. Instead of real scrutiny at committee, what the Conservatives seem to prefer is rubber stamp approval. However, it is precisely because the minister has been unwilling or unable to answer critical questions about this sweeping bill in the House, that Bill C-51 needs full study at committee.

Why is the government always seeking to shut down debate instead of allowing a serious review of sweeping and dangerous legislation like Bill C-51. Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we believe that security and liberty go hand in hand. [ Translation ] In order for liberty to flourish, we need security. That is why parliamentarians must give our security and intelligence forces the tools they need to protect Canadians. These are services that most other democratic countries have.

However, we will ensure that there is judicial oversight. I look forward to discussing these issues in committee.

[ English ] Privacy Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, once again, it is difficult to square that answer with the budget cuts to CSIS and the RCMP. There are new reports today that the Communications Security Establishment is collecting millions of emails from Canadians to government agencies and storing associated metadata for months or even years. Yet, only four emails a day are considered serious threats.

Open-ended surveillance and maintenance of these records is concerning for Canadians, especially given the weak oversight of security agencies like the Communications Security Establishment. Could the minister explain why this data is being held for so long? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, every communication with the Government of Canada network is monitored for malware and viruses. The only information that is used, retained or shared is information from malicious actors attempting to harm the Government of Canada network.

The independent CSE Commissioner constantly and thoroughly scrutinizes CSE's activities. The CSE Commissioner has never found CSE to have acted unlawfully and has noted CSE's respect for the privacy of all Canadians.

(1435) [ Translation ] Public Safety Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' haste clearly shows that Canadians have reason to be distrustful of them. A real study involving multiple meetings and key witnesses is necessary to ensure that we do not pass a bad bill. The consequences are too serious here. The minister is not even capable of explaining his bill to the House. Why then is he trying to prevent us from thoroughly reviewing it in committee? What does he have to hide? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the measures set out in Bill C-51 are designed to protect Canadians. It is a no-brainer to share information, prevent terrorists from boarding our planes and allow intelligence officers to dissuade people from falling prey to radicalization. Bill C-51 contains measures to prevent radicalization and it is consistent with Canadian laws. What are the New Democrats afraid of? For years, they have consistently opposed all of the measures that we have put in place to protect Canadians from the terrorist threat. Why? Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Conservatives' lack of credibility can also be attributed to their doublespeak on the subject. They say that they are concerned about Canadians' safety, but again yesterday, we learned that the law enforcement budget set out in the estimates was reduced by 25%. Moreover, $1.5 billion that was allocated to the RCMP was diverted for other purposes. Rather than engaging in more rhetoric, why does the minister not invest where it counts when it comes time to keep Canadians safe? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we have increased the budget for intelligence services and the RCMP seven times, despite a lack of support from the opposition. It is important to remember the measures that we have introduced, such as the legislation to combat terrorism, revoke passports and revoke the dual citizenship of individuals found guilty of terrorism, as well as Bill C-51 , which is before us now. Why do the New Democrats oppose the measures that we are putting in place to protect Canadians? Let us send this bill to committee, examine the issue and, most importantly, take action. Canadians expect us to do something about this.

Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the Conservatives prepare to give the Canadian Security Intelligence Service considerable powers, the body responsible for reviewing this service will only get an extra $10,000 this year. That is ridiculous. The body has a limited budget, its members sit part time, and it has a limited mandate to ask questions after the fact, so how can the Conservatives claim that the Security Intelligence Review Committee can truly provide oversight of CSIS's activities? [ English ] Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the premise of this question is false. The member opposite fails to understand how SIRC operates and, actually, how the main estimates function. We provide funding that is necessary, both for SIRC and CSIS to operate. Regarding the need, SIRC, as we know, investigates complaints and reviews specific CSIS investigations and activities. We are proud to stand by SIRC, ensuring that it has the resources and the authority to fully, in an independent way not with partisan politics, review the activities of our intelligence community.

The Environment Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, speaking of main estimates, Environment Canada's funding for climate change and clean air has been slashed by 20%. That is $32 million less for clean air. To make things worse, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency was cut by a whopping 44%, scrapping support for aboriginal consultation on resource projects. The environmental assessment process was bad enough and Canadians do not trust the government on the environment as it is, so why is it pursuing these cuts? Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is well-known that the main estimates are exactly that, estimates, and do not represent the entire budget for the department. Our government will remain committed to strong environmental assessments. In fact, we have increased funding and opportunities for aboriginal consultation and public participation in the environmental assessment process.

(1440) Marine Transportation Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the main estimates show that Marine Atlantic has taken a $97 million hit in its operating budget. That is an 85% cut to the critical transportation link for Newfoundland and Labrador ferry services that the people and the economy cannot live without. The government has an obligation to protect this ferry service under our terms of union. People are worried. I spoke with Marine Atlantic today about those funding cuts, and it said, “Wait for the budget”. What is the deal? Will services be cut? Yes or no? Hon.

Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have an opportunity to read into the record exactly what the CEO of Marine Atlantic told him on the telephone. It was a little bit more than that. The reason I know is because we have had a conversation with Marine Atlantic to ensure the fact that it is comfortable going forward with the amounts that are in the main estimates. We will continue to work with it in its budgeting to ensure that it provides the service that we have so well invested in, in the past five years.

Government Expenditures Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows every word of that of conversation, it must have been one of those three-way calls set up for her. It has been said that we cannot judge a book by its cover, so let us look through the actual main estimates to find out what Conservative priorities really are. The devil is in the details. Let us see here. There are cuts to affordable housing, cuts to consular services, cuts to first nations health, cuts to fishery protection, and Conservative cuts to disease prevention.

But wait, while cutting these essential services that Canadians need, Conservatives did find extra money for, wait for it, ministerial salaries and their chauffeur budgets. How can Conservative priorities be so out of whack and offline with what Canadians actually need and deserve? Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it feels like Groundhog Day. Every year, this government tables the estimates and every year, we get the righteous indignation of the opposition party. Every year, we table a budget which is good news for Canadians and every year the opposition votes against it.

National Defence Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked about armed forces member Robyn Young's misdiagnosis by a military doctor which caused her considerable harm. The minister responded that the Defence Department is continuing to cover these costs, but that was disingenuous. It only started to cover them recently and has not reimbursed the tens of thousands of dollars she has already spent. In fact, Robyn's family has had to resort to community fundraising to help pay her health bills. When will Ms. Young finally get full and fair compensation from the government? Mr.

James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we sympathize with this individual and her family for everything they have gone through. The Canadian Forces Health Services group is conducting a full review of this case and all the medical decisions that were involved. This is a priority for the Canadian Armed Forces. While this review is going on, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are continuing to cover her medical costs and meet her medical needs related to her present condition.

I can assure the House that the minister and our government are committed to doing everything possible to help Captain Young.

Natural Resources Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, President Obama's veto of Keystone XL marks the Prime Minister 's latest failure to advance Canada's economic interests. Brian Mulroney would have gotten Keystone XL approved with Ronald Reagan. Jean Chrétien would have gotten it done with Bill Clinton. Does the Prime Minister recognize that his failure to build relationships is costing Canadian jobs, and does he not understand that a personal relationship with the leader of our biggest trading partner is, in his own words, a no-brainer? Hon.

Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we will take no lessons from the party that talks about carbon taxes and energy magically getting to new markets, cherry-picking pipelines. This is a debate between the American people and the President of the United States, and the majority of people are supportive of this project. Keystone XL would create jobs on both sides of the border. It is a matter of energy security for North America. This is not a question of if; it is a question of when.

On the science and the business case for this project, it will go forward, and we will continue to be a strong advocate for this job-creating project and our approach to responsible resource development.

(1445) Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : That is the arrogance, Mr. Speaker, that got us a veto from Obama on Keystone XL. To get projects approved, we need to work with others, but this is the Prime Minister who will not meet with premiers or first nations' leaders, who calls environmentalists eco-terrorists, and the Prime Minister who cancelled the three amigos conference with Mexico and the U.S. In the words of Brian Mulroney, “...the top foreign policy priority of the prime minister” should be to have a personal relationship with the U.S. president.

Why does the Prime Minister not take Mulroney's advice and build the relationships we need to defend Canadian jobs? Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, to get Canadian projects moving forward, we do need to work together. That is why the Prime Minister was in British Columbia last week working with the Province of British Columbia, announcing accelerated capital cost allowances, to make sure that we are in the most competitive position possible when it comes to tax policies so that LNG projects can go forward.

It has been estimated that of the 19 proposals for LNG projects in the province of British Columbia, if five of them are approved, it would create over 100,000 jobs in the province, and that will be realized only because we have a Conservative government with a Conservative Prime Minister who is working with others to make sure that our projects get to world markets.

National Defence Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, universality of service continues to be a policy that haunts the Canadian Armed Forces. It has been condemned not just by soldiers but by the National Defence and the Veterans Ombudsmen. An internal report by DND shows that 70% of Afghan war veterans will be involuntarily released by the CAF within 10 years of deployment. This policy of discharge for those who face mental health challenges must be changed. When will the minister finally do the right thing, the fair thing, and fix this harsh and arbitrary policy? Mr.

James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, ill and severely injured personnel who are no longer able to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces are provided with up to three years to prepare for the transition to civilian life. The armed forces can also transfer members, if they wish, to cadet organizations, administration and training, or even to the Canadian Rangers, where they remain eligible for promotion. As always, the military provides comprehensive health care and career transition support, including job placement assistance.

It is our government that made these policy changes because we recognize that the sacrifices made by our serving men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces deserve to be handled correctly. [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Armed Forces health services examined the files of 30,000 soldiers who served in Afghanistan, but we have learned that 70% of these soldiers will be released as a result of the universality of service principle. This means that veterans struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression will be shown the door.

When will this government stop trying to save money at our soldiers' expense? [ English ] Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Nothing is further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. It was our government who amended the universality of service policy to allow for a transition period of up to three years for members of the Canadian Armed Forces to prepare for civilian life. Members of the Armed Forces will have access to health services, integrated personal support centres, and they can go to the Department of Veterans Affairs and other places as required.

We will work with our soldiers to build an individualized transition plan. It was our government that increased the annual mental health budget for the Armed Forces by over 20%, allowing us to do more than double the amount of full-time mental health workers in the Armed Forces

[ Translation ] Veterans Affairs Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, to avoid hearing complaints from veterans, the Conservatives simply eliminated the satisfaction survey of the department's clients. In 2010, the satisfaction rate dropped drastically in response to the cuts, so the Conservatives just stopped surveying veterans. That is ridiculous. Instead of ignoring veterans' needs, will the minister reinstate the service quality survey and, more importantly, improve the services provided to veterans? [ English ] Hon. Erin O'Toole (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am very proud to be part of a government that in 2010 worked with Statistics Canada to create the Life After Service Studies, which allow us to focus specifically on thousands who are transitioning and leaving the Canadian Armed Forces and becoming veterans. It is not just a client satisfaction survey, but an in-depth study. I have already directed the department to increase its focus on medically released veterans so that we can provide a better outcome for all of them after they leave their service to Canada.

(1450) National Defence Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the reason the Conservatives do not do the survey is that they do not want to hear stories like that of Robyn Young, one of the bravest young women I have ever met in my life as a member of Parliament. This woman has gone through pure hell with the Department of National Defence, and so has her mother. All they are asking for is basic dignity and basic responsibility from the department to ensure that they get all the help and services they both need to get their lives back to normal.

DND should not be reviewing this itself; rather, the minister should be reviewing it. Will he stand up and tell the family they will get all the benefits they need so they can get back to living their lives in a normal way? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank Captain Young for her service to this country. She is a brave young woman. I can say that we are very sympathetic about her situation and want to help her. The minister has said that he will do everything and commit everything to helping her through this crisis.

I would remind everyone that if she has outstanding medical claims, she should submit them and the Armed Forces will reimburse her. Since this is a health-related matter, it would be a breach of patient confidentiality and the Privacy Act regulations to discuss this matter further. Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, ISIL remains a threat to regional and international security. It has declared war on Canada and called for brutal attacks against Canadians.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence please update the House on Canada's continued mission to fight the savage ISIL death cult in Iraq? Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Pickering—Scarborough East for his services to Canada as one of our Armed Forces veterans. I am pleased to inform the House today that while taking

part in coalition operations yesterday in support of the Iraqi security forces, our CF-18 Hornets successfully struck three ISIL fighting positions north of Mosul using precision-guided munitions. We are continuing to face this threat head on. ISIL has suffered a number of tactical setbacks and is pressed on multiple fronts. ISIL is struggling to sustain its military efforts in Iraq. We are tremendously proud of the work being done by the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces in Operation Impact to stop this jihadist terrorist cult.

Aboriginal Affairs Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, tomorrow families of the over 1,200 indigenous women and girls who have gone missing or have been murdered in Canada will come together in preparation for Friday's national round table to offer their testimony, to find answers and solutions to end violence. Families will also be looking to the current government to finally change its rhetoric and come together with its provincial and territorial counterparts to act upon coordinated solutions and finally call for a national public inquiry.

Will the government listen to their plea? Hon. K. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in the House, the Government of Canada will have a representative at the round table. However, I want to be very clear: we do not support a national inquiry. There have been more than 40 studies. Now is actually the time for action, and that is what families have asked for. We all need to support the police to catch those responsible for these heinous crimes and to make sure that they are held accountable and punished. That is what families are looking for.

They are looking for strong action. We tabled an action plan in the House in September 2014. The opposition members do not support that. They do not support actions for families. Whether it be matrimonial property rights or the Victims Bill of Rights, the— The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[ Translation ] Status of Women Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, gender equality has yet to be achieved here in Canada and around the world. In a week and a half, the UN Commission on the Status of Women will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Beijing platform for action on gender equality. International support is quite widespread, and many countries have already reaffirmed their commitment. Will Canada be one of those countries and immediately reaffirm its commitment to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action? [ English ] Hon. K.

Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, we have been focused on and reviewing the Beijing accord. Our intention is to attend the international event that is taking place, which celebrates all women and the opportunities they have in the future. The Government of Canada has been very focused on International Women's Week.

I encourage the opposition to please support what we are doing through that week, March 2 to 8, to ensure that women are provided opportunities in Canada to excel and achieve what they absolutely can achieve through the great commitment to Canada.

(1455) [ Translation ] Taxation Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there are fewer and fewer volunteers to help Canadians with their taxes. The Conservatives are adding to the red tape burden and reducing training opportunities for volunteers. Also, believe it or not, in 2016 the Conservative are even going to make these volunteers submit to fingerprinting. It seems the Conservatives are doing everything they can to complicate the lives of honest citizens. Will the minister give the volunteers what they need to help Canadian families prepare their tax returns? [ English ] Hon.

Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the premise of that question is entirely false. In fact, I was just in Brampton on Monday of this week announcing that CRA has put an additional $1 million into funding our volunteer program. We enlist about 16,000 volunteers across Canada every year, who help some 600,000 low-income new Canadians, aboriginals, and others to fill out their tax forms and get their benefits.

Infrastructure Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' failure to fund infrastructure is taking an environmental and economic toll on our cities. At a community meeting in my riding last night, people raised serious concerns that the planned electrification of the Union Pearson rail link in Toronto could be in jeopardy. Diesel service is unacceptable and has been banned in places like New York City for over a century, so federal support is badly needed. Cities are crying out for infrastructure funding and clean trains. Why is the federal government failing to act? 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, we have been ready for business since April 1 of last year to receive projects from provinces and municipalities. In the provincial-territorial component of the building Canada plan, we need to receive the support and the prioritization by the provinces for projects that we have been waiting for since April 1. Lately, we have received some information from the Province of Ontario, and we are working on that.

However, we need them and the municipalities on board.

Rail Transportation Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, about a month ago I asked the Minister of Transport about new data on grain shipments being published weekly by the AG Transport Coalition. The latest figures say that the railways have supplied on time only 44% of the grain cars ordered by their customers. In total, they are nearly 20,000 cars behind; shipments to the U.S. are especially poor; but CN is doing better than CP. Does the minister agree that these figures are accurate? If so, do they represent, in her opinion, suitable and adequate accommodation for grain shippers? Hon.

Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm someone else's data. What I can say is that the data we do receive indicate that the order in council and act that we put in place are working for grain farmers here in Canada, that indeed the grain is moving to the port and that it is indeed happening in the framework that we expected it would. We will continue to work with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We will continue to work with the grain farmers in this country to ensure that they receive the service needed to get our grain to market.

Marine Transportation Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Marine Atlantic is a vital transportation link between Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of Canada, so vital to our economy and well-being that it is constitutionally protected under the Terms of Union. Included in the cut to Marine Atlantic in the estimates is $97 million in operating funding. An earlier cut of $16.3 million to Marine Atlantic's operating budget resulted in fare increases in 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Can the minister guarantee that this cut to operational funding to Marine Atlantic will not result in further fare increases and cuts to service? Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question because it gives me the opportunity to reiterate what the Minister of the Environment said. The main estimates are really that. They are estimates and they do not reflect the total budget that will be allocated to any individual part of our department at any given time.

It is important to make sure that we are aware that the government is supporting Marine Atlantic, both in terms of capital and in operating funds, and we will continue to live up to that obligation.

Northern Development Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there is a food crisis in northern Canada, and the Conservatives misled Canadians about fixing it. Just before the Auditor General's report, the Conservatives claimed there would be an extra $11 million in the nutrition north program. Including that money, the yearly total is what they have been spending since the program started. Why did the Conservatives mislead Canadians and northerners about the money in this program, and where is the $7 million extra needed for the 50 communities that are not included in the program?

(1500) Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member cares to look at the estimates, which are estimates, he will see that there is increased funding for nutrition north, as was announced earlier, and we are going to continue our campaign to engage with northerners to continue to improve that program.

Taxation Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, communities in the far north of Ontario are already dealing with underfunded and overstretched health services. In the case of emergency services, we often have to rely on the brave medevac crews, who sometimes fly in brutal conditions to get patients to hospitals in the south. It is a very expensive but essential service. Will the Minister of National Revenue explain why she has decided to apply the HST to vital medical flights that have already been approved by the Ontario ministry of health?

Would her time not be better spent going after offshore tax havens than shaking down our vital medical services of the north? Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take that comment under advisement, but as far as international tax evasion goes, we have zero tolerance for that in this government. The CRA has an excellent record of combatting international tax evasion through over 8,600 cases identifying over $5.6 billion in additional taxes.

Our voluntary disclosure program is at its highest level ever and is exponentially increasing because of our efforts.

International Development Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, improving the health of mothers, newborns, and children around the world is Canada's top international development priority. Thanks to the leadership of our Prime Minister and our government's partnerships with many organizations, progress is being made. In over 125 countries, maternal death rates have declined sharply in the past five years. Could the parliamentary secretary please update the House on Canada's important work on this file? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today we are pleased to welcome to Ottawa one of our closest partners in the efforts to improve maternal, newborn, and child health, Bill Gates. We are proud of the work our government has done with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to keep these critical issues at the forefront of the global agenda and to put an end to the tragedy of women and children dying needlessly from causes that we know we can prevent.

Work by our government and the Gates foundation has contributed to the immunization of 26 million children in 46 countries since 2011 and will avert 500,000 future deaths. Our Government of Canada will continue to lead in saving the lives of mothers and children.

National Defence Ms. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, a recent audit from the Department of National Defence confirmed that despite the government's repeated public announcements about creating a squadron of long-range drones based at 5 Wing Goose Bay, DND rather indefinitely delayed the program due to a lack of oversight, a lack of information, and unclear objectives. I ask the Minister of National Defence why the government is making repeated public announcements for programs at 5 Wing Goose Bay with no real intention of delivering on those commitments. Mr.

James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is constantly reviewing, as are our Canadian Armed Forces, all of our services and all of the ways we can enhance the way we defend and protect our country. I would like to remind the member that it is our government that has been able to purchase a number of additional pieces of equipment, including new Leopard tanks, new C-17 tactical lift aircraft, and new Hercs. We have the national shipbuilding program and the Harry DeWolf Arctic offshore patrol vessels that are going to be built.

All this is going to enhance the security of our nation and provide the resources that are needed by the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

[ Translation ] Employment Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Ferme aux Champêtreries, a social economy enterprise in Haut-Saint-François, creates jobs for young adults between the ages of 18 and 30 who need help. The Ferme aux Champêtreries applied for a training subsidy as part of the skills link program in April 2013. It is now February 2015 and they still do not have an answer. Why is the government dragging its feet on this file? Is it pinching pennies to balance the budget at the expense of young people? Unbelievable.

(1505) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we provide funding to businesses to train young workers in all sectors, and hundreds of thousands of young people have already benefited. However, I can assure my hon. colleague that tax hike plans like those put forward by his party and the Liberal Party will hurt not only workers, but also the small and medium-sized businesses that hire them. We are cutting taxes for small and medium-sized businesses to create jobs and hope.

[ English ] Natural Resources Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to providing the right conditions so that industry and business can succeed and compete in the global economy. Canada benefits from large reserves of natural gas but has limited capacity to supply it to emerging international and domestic markets, where demand is growing. That is why our government recently announced the plan to support jobs and growth in the emerging liquified natural gas, or LNG, industry in British Columbia.

Could the hard-working Minister of Industry please update the House on what our government is doing to attract business investment in British Columbia? Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kelowna for this very important question. Equally, I would like to thank the B.C. caucus chair, our friend from Prince George—Peace River, for being a persistent advocate on the importance of standing up for the LNG industry in our home province of British Columbia.

British Columbia is home to 2.9 million cubic feet of natural gas, and there are currently 19 LNG projects in British Columbia. Ten of them have received export permits from the National Energy Board, and, as I have said, if five of them were to move forward, it would create over 100,000 full-time, well-paying jobs in the province of British Columbia. However, for British Columbia and Canada to move forward to get our products to world markets and get world prices, we have to make sure that we are competitive.

That is why our Prime Minister was in British Columbia, working with the Premier of British Columbia and working as well in co-operation with all of the coastal first nations and with first nations across British Columbia on these key projects to make sure we all benefit from them.

Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a letter from 120 businesses, scientists, lawyers, and citizens is begging the Prime Minister to rethink dangerous changes to the aquaculture regulations. The minister wants to sidestep the Fisheries Act, which now prohibits releasing toxic substances into fish-bearing waters. After gutting the Fisheries Act, the Conservatives are putting up more challenges to habitat protection. Will the government listen to these concerns and withdraw these damaging changes? Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, aquaculture creates jobs and economic growth in many rural and coastal communities in Atlantic Canada and on the west coast as well. That is precisely why our government is committed to responsible aquaculture development. If the member had actually read the regulations, he would know that they would actually increase environmental oversight for this industry. On this side of the House, we believe science and common sense should prevail.

[ Translation ] Air Transportation Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, airports are public assets that play a major strategic role in the economy. The Institute for Governance of Private and Public Organizations issued a damning assessment of the governance and accountability of Canada's airports. Aéroports de Montréal is a good example. Not only is it not audited by the Auditor General, but once appointed, its directors do not have to be accountable to the public when it comes to awarding contracts, overall management of the airport, or even soundscape management.

The reality is that ADM has total control and Transport Canada is asleep at the switch. This is the 21st century, and it is high time that the government imposed a transparent and accountable mode of management on our airports, through either scrutiny by the Auditor General or the creation of a review committee— The Speaker : Order. The hon. Minister of Transport . [ English ] Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the question, because it allows me to talk about the Canada Transportation Act review, which this government has embarked on early in order to deal with issues outstanding with respect to the transportation of grain in the country. As well, it will allow the chair of the committee to take a look at governance at our institutions, including airports in the country. I look forward to the advice from the chair of the committee.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business [ English ] Reform Act, 2014 The House resumed from February 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-586,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (candidacy and caucus reforms) , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-586. Third reading The Speaker : It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, February 23, 2015, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-586 under private members' business. Call in the members.

(1515) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 341) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Welland) Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Anders Anderson Angus Armstrong Ashton Aspin Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Barlow Bateman Bélanger Bellavance Benoit Benskin Bergen Bevington Bezan Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Blaney Block Boivin Borg Boughen Boutin-Sweet Braid Breitkreuz Brison Brosseau Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Bruinooge Butt Byrne Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Caron Carrie Casey Chicoine Chisholm Chisu Chong Choquette Christopherson Clarke Cleary Clement Comartin Côté Cotler Crockatt Crowder Cullen Cuzner Daniel Davidson Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Day Dechert Devolin Dewar Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dreeshen Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Dykstra Easter Eglinski Eyking Falk Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Foote Freeland Freeman Galipeau Gallant Garrison Genest Giguère Gill Glover Godin Goguen Goodale Goodyear Gosal Gourde Gravelle Grewal Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder Hsu Hughes Jones Julian Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret'

s) Kellway Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse Lauzon Laverdière Lebel LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leef Leitch Lemieux Leslie Leung Liu Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacAulay MacKenzie Maguire Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen Mayes McCallum McColeman McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mourani Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nicholson Norlock Nunez-Melo Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Pacetti Papillon Patry Péclet Perkins Perreault Pilon Plamondon Poilievre Preston Quach Rafferty Raitt Rajotte Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Rousseau Sandhu Saxton Scarpaleggia Schellenberger Scott Seeback Sellah Shea Shipley Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Strahl Sullivan Sweet Tilson Toet Toone Trost Trottier Trudeau Truppe Turmel Uppal Valcourt Valeriote Van Kesteren Van Loan Vaughan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 260 NAYS Members Bennett Brahmi Charlton Davies (Vancouver East) Dion Fry Garneau Goldring Hayes Hyer James May Michaud Payne Rathgeber Sgro Wilks -- 17 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried. (Bill read the third time and passed) The Speaker: Because of the deferred recorded division, government orders will be extended by nine minutes.

Royal Assent Royal Assent [ English ] The Speaker : I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows: Rideau Hall February 25, 2015 Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the

Schedule to this letter on the 25th day of February, 2015, at 10:02 a.m. Yours sincerely, Stephen Wallace, Secretary to the Governor General The

schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S-221,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against public transit operators) —Chapter 1, and Bill C-18,

An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food —Chapter 2. Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings (1520) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 24 petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, respecting its participation to the 36th interparliamentary meeting with the European Parliament's delegation responsible for the relations with Canada and its parliamentary mission to the country that will hold the next rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union held in Brussels, Belgium, Berlin, Germany and Riga, Latvia, from November 10 to November 20, 2014.

Committees of the House

Citizenship and Immigration Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled “Strengthening the Protection of Women in our Immigration System”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to point out that the report is accompanied by a supplementary report from the official opposition, the NDP. The report on protecting women in our immigration system is interesting, but it completely ignores some important details that practically all of the witnesses agreed on. For example, the concept of conditional permanent residence should be eliminated, because it makes women more vulnerable.

Our report also calls on the government to make it easier for newcomer women to connect with organizations on the ground that provide front line services, including, for example, assistance in situations of spousal violence and information concerning their rights.

[ English ] Environment and Sustainable Development Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, entitled “Management of Municipal Solid Waste and Industrial Materials”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests the government to table a comprehensive response to this report. [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP members want to thank the witnesses who contributed to this study on municipal waste.

However, the report is missing some important information, which can be found in the NDP's dissenting report, including for instance, the fact that, according to the Conference Board of Canada's annual report, in 2014 Canada ranked last among 16 OECD countries regarding waste management. Furthermore, experts are calling on the federal government to show some leadership by harmonizing programs concerning extended producer responsibility.

Lastly, the witnesses also talked about the need to balance market forces so that low-carbon-emission technologies can be developed in the area of waste management and businesses can invest in those technologies.

(1525) [ English ] Criminal Code Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) Bill C-655. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-655,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (interference with hunting, trapping, fishing or sport shooting) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private member's bill that would amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence to interfere with lawful hunting, fishing, trapping or sport shooting in Canada. These outdoor heritage activities have played an integral role in shaping Canada's social and cultural heritage, and make a significant contribution to the national economy.

Hunters, anglers, trappers and sport shooters have made important contributions to the understanding, conservation restoration and management of Canada's vital fish and wildlife resources. While there is a patchwork of legislation at the provincial and territorial levels, the bill seeks to harmonize and clarify across Canada the protection of persons pursuing all of these outdoor heritage activities by placing these offences within the Criminal Code of Canada. Finally, I want to bring fairer representation for Canadian anglers, hunters, trappers and sport shooters to Parliament.

Animal rights groups would rather have us end our passion for these outdoor heritage activities. Well, I am convinced that these activities are just as important now as they ever were, and I want to ensure that those who enjoy these outdoors activities get the protection they deserve. I believe this legislation will do just that. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Anti-Semitism Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: Motion That, in the opinion of the House:

a) there has been, in the words of the Joint Statement issued following the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on January 22, 2015, “an alarming increase in Antisemitism worldwide,” including the firebombing of synagogues and community centres, the vandalizing of Jewish memorials and cemeteries, incendiary calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, and anti-Jewish terror;

b) this global anti-Semitism constitutes not only a threat to Jews but an assault on our shared democratic values and our common humanity; Therefore the House:

a) declares its categorical condemnation of anti-Semitism;

b) reaffirms the importance of the Ottawa Protocol on Combating anti-Semitism as a model for domestic and international implementation;

c) reaffirms, in the words of the Ottawa Protocol, that, “Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium - let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction - is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest;” And the House further calls upon the government to:

a) continue advancing the combating of anti-Semitism as a domestic and international priority;

b) expand engagement with civil society, community groups, educators, and other levels of government to combat anti-Semitism and to promote respect, tolerance, and mutual understanding. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Agriculture Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present to the House a petition, which is hereby certified as correct as to form and content. [ Translation ] This is a petition to the House of Commons calling on the government to respect the rights of small family farms to store, trade and use seed.

[ English ] Dementia Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that I would like to present today. The first petition has signatories from Kitchener, Ontario, and Yorkton, Saskatchewan. They call on the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to pass my bill, Bill C-356 ,

an act respecting a national dementia strategy.

(1530) Agriculture Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from communities in Nickel Belt, including Azilda, Chelmsford, Val Caron, Capreol, and Sudbury. The petitioners want the government to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use, and freely exchange seeds.

Autism Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions regarding autism spectrum disorders, which are characterized by social and communication challenges and a pattern of repetitive behaviours and interests. They are lifelong, affect development and life experiences, and exert emotional and financial pressures on families. The petitioners call on the government to work with the provinces, territories, and stakeholders to develop a pan-Canadian strategy for autism spectrum disorders.

Democratic Reform Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to ensure that Canadians have a fair electoral system. This petition is signed by roughly 160 people from Kitchener-Waterloo and southwestern Ontario.

They are calling on the House of Commons to immediately undertake public consultations across Canada to amend the Canada Elections Act to ensure that voters can cast an equal and effective vote, to be represented fairly in Parliament regardless of political belief or place of residence, are governed by a fairly elected Parliament with a share of seats held by each political party that closely reflects the popular vote, and live under legitimate laws approved by a majority of elected parliamentarians representing the majority of voters.

[ Translation ] Agriculture Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present in the House today a petition signed by almost 300 people in my riding. They are calling on the Government of Canada to adopt international aid policies that support small farmers, and especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty, while ensuring that these policies respect the right of small family farms to store, trade and use their seed.

[ English ] Sex Selection Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first petition calls upon the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy terminations, which gives rise to a variety of factors, including creating a global gender imbalance.

Impaired Driving Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with impaired driving; in other words, drunk drivers. The petitioners call upon the House to pass tougher laws, so that new mandatory minimum sentences are available for people convicted of impaired driving causing death, and redefining the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter. Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the citizens of Fleetwood—Port Kells to present a petition signed by dozens of local residents who are outraged by the unnecessary death of a young woman killed by a drunk driver. The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact tougher laws, including mandatory sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. The petitioners also ask that the offence of impaired driving causing death be redefined as vehicular manslaughter.

Justice Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first petition is in relation to mandatory minimums. The petitioners are all constituents from my own riding, from North Saanich and Saltspring Island, and elsewhere in Saanich—Gulf Islands. They oppose the use of mandatory minimums as they are offensive to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and lead to the construction of new prisons.

CBC/Radio-Canada Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition has over 500 signatures from across Canada, including from my riding. The petitioners are calling for stable, predictable funding for our national public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada.

Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I sadly present this petition to inform the House that Bryan McCron, a 49-year-old single dad, was tragically killed by a drunk driver. As he lay dying along the side of the freeway with his son holding him, the drunk driver came over and started beating up on both of them. Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient.

They want the crime to be called vehicular homicide, which is in Bill C-52 , and they also want the government to introduce legislation that would require mandatory sentencing for those who have killed somebody while driving drunk.

Dementia Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present in the House a petition signed by nearly 100 residents from the constituency I represent, Burnaby—New Westminster, as well as residents from Delta and Surrey, British Columbia. The petitioners call upon the government to address the deplorable fact that we do not have a national strategy for dementia. They call upon the House of Commons to pass Bill C-356 , which was introduced by the NDP MP for Nickel Belt .

The strategy would require the Minister of Health to initiate discussions within 30 days of the bill coming into effect, develop national objectives, provide an annual report, and also ensure that there is greater investment in research, discovery and development of treatments for dementia and dementia-related diseases that would prevent, help or reverse all of those dementia-related diseases.

(1535) 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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Motions for Papers

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

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act Bill C-26. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-26,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , as reported (with amendment) from the committee. Hon. Joe Oliver (for the Minister of Justice) Motion for concurrence moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to) The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton): When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now? Some hon. members: Agreed. Hon. Joe Oliver (for the Minister of Justice) moved that bill be read the third time and passed. Bill C-26. Third reading He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to voice my support for Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act, during third reading debate. This is critical legislation that addresses concerns that I believe we all share.

Bill C-26 reflects the ongoing efforts by this government to combat all forms of child sexual exploitation and denounce the grave and reprehensible nature of such heinous crimes. The bill is another concrete example of our commitment to protect Canadian families, communities and, above all, to protect the most vulnerable and valuable members of our society, our children. We know that children are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation, and are far more likely to be victims of sexual crimes than are adults. Our violent crime rates are trending downward in Canada.

It is very worrisome that the number of child sexual offences reported to police continues to rise. In 2013, police reported some 4,200 incidents of sexual violations against children, a 6% increase in the rate from the previous year. As noted by Statistics Canada, in its report on police reported crime released in July 2014, sexual offences against children was one of the few categories of violent crimes to increase in Canada in 2013. I think we can all agree that these numbers are a cause for concern.

Let me assure the House that the troubling reality behind those numbers is exactly what the tougher penalties for child predators act aims to address. (1540) [ Translation ] One of the amendments to criminal law proposed in Bill C-26 seeks to deter people from committing such horrific crimes by ensuring that offenders are liable for the harm they cause children and by improving our capacity to monitor these offenders and prevent recidivism. More specifically, Bill C-26 proposes increasing mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for many sexual offences against children.

For example, Bill C-26 will ensure that anyone who commits any hybrid offence involving sexual contact is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day when the person is found guilty on

summary conviction and a term of 14 years when the person is found guilty on indictment. [ English ] Bill C-26 also proposes to increase the penalties for making and distributing child pornography and to make these offences strictly indictable to better reflect their seriousness. Child pornography offences can have long-lasting and devastating impacts on victims, particularly when images and videos are posted on the Internet. Once on the web, child pornographic images can quickly be disseminated around the world and might be accessed indefinitely, with the result of re-victimizing the child victim at every click.

This bill would also ensure that committing a child sexual offence while on a conditional sentence order, parole, or statutory release would be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes to assist in preventing future offences by convicted child sexual offenders. Bill C-26 proposes to increase maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders, and peace bonds. Canadians are rightly concerned about the mobility and conduct of known child sexual predators once they are released into the community.

Stricter measures are needed to ensure that supervision orders are observed and that breaches of conditions result in appropriate consequences. These conditions, which may include refraining from being in contact with a victim or staying away from a specific household or prohibitions around the use of weapons, alcohol, or drugs, are imposed to protect the children. A breach of these conditions generally means that there is an increased risk that the offender may commit further sexual offences.

Therefore, Bill C-26 would increase the maximum penalties for breaches of conditions of any of these orders, from six to 18 months if preceded by

summary conviction, and from two to four years if preceded by indictment. Bill C-26 not only sends a strong signal that the protection of children is a paramount value of Canadian society but also communicates the important message that every victim matters. The reforms in Bill C-26 would also amend the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of individuals accused of child pornographic offences would be compellable witnesses for the crown.

The testimony of an accused spouse may be required to facilitate the prosecution of a child pornography offence when the pornographic material is found on a home computer, for example. [ Translation ] However, the amendments set out in Bill C-26 do not stop there.

In order to further address the risk that sex offenders pose to children, Bill C-26 proposes amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act that would require sex offenders to notify authorities of any absences of seven days or more for any trip within Canada or abroad, as well as the dates of their travel and the locations where they will be staying.

It is important to note that child sex offenders will be expected to meet these obligations regardless of the duration of their trip. (1545) [ English ] The proposed amendments would also increase our knowledge of sexual offenders by authorizing the sharing of information on registered sexual offenders between National Sex Offender Registry officials and the Canada Border Services Agency. In particular, this would assist in preventing and addressing offenders who travel abroad to commit sexual offences against children.

Bill C-26 also proposes to create a national, publicly accessible database of high-risk child sexual offenders who have been the subject of a public notification in a provincial or territorial jurisdiction. A centralized database would help to ensure that law enforcement and the public had greater access to information about high-risk child sex offenders. Our government recognizes that the issue of child sexual exploitation is not one dimensional and requires a multi-pronged or holistic approach.

Although the criminal law reforms proposed in Bill C-26 are a critical part of the overall response, I am pleased that our government has dedicated over $10 million since 2010 for 21 new or enhanced child advocacy centres to address the needs of child and youth victims of crime and to assist with the recovery of victims who have suffered significant trauma as a result of those heinous crimes. The bill aims to further protect the most vulnerable members of our society, our children, from exploitation by providing measures designed to deter and denounce crimes of a sexual nature committed against them.

The sentencing amendments proposed in the bill include mandatory consecutive sentences, which would ensure that in cases of multiple crimes, including in instances where offences were committed against multiple victims, offenders would not receive what is commonly coined a “sentence discount” at the time they were sentenced. Before describing the specifics of these amendments, allow me to provide some background with respect to the existing sentencing principles that are applicable to multiple offences.

I will then focus my remarks on the proposed amendments to the sentencing regime with respect to child sexual offences. Generally, the Criminal Code provides that a court has the discretion to order that a term of imprisonment be served consecutively to any sentence the offender is already serving or to any other sentence of imprisonment the court imposes, whether it is a result of the non-payment of a fine or not. If this provision sounds confusing, it is because it represents an amalgamation of sentencing rules that pre-date Confederation.

Moreover, amendments over the years have further complicated the statement of the rules contained within the Criminal Code. In addition to these Criminal Code rules, case law offers guidance with respect to the circumstances in which consecutive or concurrent sentences are imposed on an offender. In general, courts will order that the sentence for two or more offences arising out of one continuous criminal act or single transaction, also referred to as the “same event or series of events” rule, will be served concurrently, or if members prefer, simultaneously.

In these cases, the offender will serve the longer of the sentences imposed. Offences or multiple convictions that arise out of a separate criminal transaction generally will garner consecutive sentences, which are served one after the other. The imposition of concurrent sentences for offences committed as part of the same event or series of events usually reflects the fact that the guilty mind of the accused is the same throughout the event or events, as opposed to offences arising out of separate criminal transactions.

That said, courts will be reluctant to order that offences committed as part of the same event or series of events be served concurrently when it would allow the offender to commit subsequent offences with impunity, especially where the subsequent offence is particularly serious in nature. For example, courts will order consecutive terms of imprisonment for an offence, the first offence, that is committed while fleeing from the police, the second offence. They will also order that an offence committed while on bail be served concurrently to the term of imprisonment for the predicate offence.

The determination of whether sentences are to be served concurrently or consecutively, therefore, is a fact-specific inquiry as to whether the connection between the two offences is sufficiently close to warrant concurrent sentences. It is important to outline the relevant sentencing principles at play, especially when discussing concurrent and consecutive sentences.

The Criminal Code provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing fit sentences that have one or more of the following objectives: denunciation, deterrence, separation of offenders from society, rehabilitation, reparation for harms done to victims, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders. A fit sentence is one that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the offender.

The Criminal Code explicitly directs that a fit sentence must focus on the objectives of deterrence and denunciation. The last step a court must take before deciding whether to consider that any terms of imprisonment it imposes be served consecutively or concurrently is to consider the totality principle. Pursuant to subsection 718.2(

c) of the Criminal Code, a court that imposes consecutive sentences must determine whether the combined sentence is unduly long or harsh. In other words, the totality principle requires courts to determine whether the totality of the sentence adequately reflects the overall gravity of the offender's conduct. Where the court is of the opinion that the combined sentence is unduly long or harsh, it may order that some of the offences be served concurrently instead of consecutively.

(1550) However, where the Criminal Code prescribes mandatory consecutive sentences, a court may impose shorter sentences on some or all of the individual offences in order for the combined sentence to be a fit sentence. This will be the case for the offences of possession of explosives for a criminal organization, the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, terrorism offences, or criminal organization offences.

In these cases, the Criminal Code requires judges to order the term of imprisonment for these offences be served consecutively to terms of imprisonment imposed for other offences, whether they arise out of the same event or series of events or not. The proposed amendments clarify and codify the rules regarding the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences, which I outlined earlier in my remarks. The amendments would also require courts to order in certain cases consecutive sentences on offenders who commit certain sexual offences against children.

This would be similar to the current requirement of consecutive sentences for offences that I mentioned earlier: terrorism, criminal organization offences, the use of a firearm. Specifically, the bill proposes that sentences for child pornography offences be served consecutively to any sentence imposed at the same time for a contact child sexual offence. It also proposes that in cases of multiple victims, sentences imposed at the same time for contact child sexual offences committed against one victim be served consecutively to those imposed for contact child sexual offences against any other victim.

These amendments recognize the increasing tendency of courts to direct that a sentence for possession or making of child pornography be served consecutively to a sentence for a contact child sexual offence, in recognition of the heinous nature of sexual offending against children, especially where the child pornography material is distributed via the Internet.

Furthermore, requiring child sexual offenders to serve sentences imposed for offences committed against different victims consecutively would address the so-called “volume discounts” given to child sexual offenders sentenced at the same time for multiple child sexual offences. This direction is also valid in cases of multiple child sexual offences, especially where there is more than one victim.

These proposed amendments will reinforce the continued efforts of this government to protect children against sexual offences by ensuring that these crimes are denounced, that child predators are deterred, and that every child victim counts. In closing, I would encourage all members to support these important amendments that seek to protect our most vulnerable members of society, our young children.

(1555) Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Justice of the day, the Minister of Finance , for his speech on Bill C-26 .

Since 2006, the Conservative government has taken multiple steps to protect children, including implementing through the Safe Streets and Communities Act new mandatory prison sentences for seven existing Criminal Code sexual offences, including assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault where the child is under 16 years of age; and making it illegal for anyone to provide sexually explicit material to a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence against that child; making it illegal to use computers or other means of telecommunications to agree with or make arrangements with another person to commit a sexual offence against a child; strengthening the sex offender registry; increasing the age of protection; putting in place legislation to make the reporting of child pornography by Internet service providers mandatory; and strengthening the sentencing and monitoring of dangerous offenders.

It all sounds good, but the Minister of Justice stated at committee that sexual offences against children had increased 6% over the past two years. Is Bill C-26 an admission of failure on the part of the government to really better protect children? Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to my portfolio, which is not that of justice, but finance. As a member of the government and the cabinet, I am very supportive of this bill, as I believe members on the other side of the House are too. Irrespective of the portfolio they are the critic for, we all share the concern about this important issue.

I thank the member for detailing many of the initiatives that we have advanced to protect our children, the most vulnerable members of our society. This is a demonstration of the importance with which we take this matter and an indication that we do not just talk the talk, but walk the walk as well. Unfortunately, the nature of cyberbullying and sexual offences is such that the challenge is becoming ever greater, so we have to respond. What we have done is very positive. What we have done was needed. What we have done was right, just, and appropriate, and it is protective of children.

But it is clear that we have to do more. That is the purpose of this bill. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pose a question to the Minister of Finance on this bill. Although he may not believe it, it is probably he, more than the Minister of Justice , who has a greater capacity to contribute to the goal that we all have of there being fewer victims. I will tell the House what I mean by this. At committee, we heard from witnesses—and the academic literature is replete with the same conclusion—that mandatory minimum sentences do not work.

They do not result in fewer victims. What we heard at committee is that funding programs for rehabilitation and reintegration do work. One program that we specifically heard about at committee was circles of support and accountability, where the success rate of eliminating recurrence is 70% to 80%. My question for the minister is why does the government insist on going back to mandatory minimum sentences to address this problem when we know that they do not work, while at the same time defunding a program that has an 80% success rate?

(1600) Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, the mandatory minimum sentences and the maximum sentences are but a part of the legislation. I would invite the member to read the whole bill. He is focusing on a few sections, but it is important to read the entire bill to get a full understanding of it. Statistics are a part of the story. The facts that we have had on more sexual offences cry out for tougher sanctions and more practical steps to put tools in the hands of police officers and the courts to help protect children.

They cry for innovative solutions that would allow us to put in place a more protective perimeter around children when it comes to protecting their vulnerability. This is all part of a comprehensive approach by our government. There are some 30 justice initiatives, some of which were raised by the previous member opposite, and many of which are designed to put in jail people who offend against and sexually abuse children, and to put them in jail for a longer time. We think this is in the best interests of our most vulnerable people. Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I really want to thank the minister for all the work he has done on this important file and this bill. Why do the Liberals and the NDP have such a long legacy of focusing on the offender and not the victim? Why are they falsely telling the House that mandatory minimum sentences have no effect when, in fact, they do have a very strong effect? Can the minister address those important questions about the reasons for the misleading information from the opposition and why they have a legacy of sticking up for the offender and not the victim? Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the member for that important question, but I am actually not well placed to answer it. I have been puzzled repeatedly by the fact that no matter what bill we propose to impose fines, penalties and, potentially, prison sentences against people who break the law and commit crimes, there is opposition to that. The opposition members are there to oppose, but not to oppose, one would hope, legislation that is in the public interest. I really cannot understand why, but there is a long record of shame in that regard. Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I listened to the finance minister's speech on this particular bill. I want to share a couple of stories from my communities and to ask a question of the Minister of Finance . I have had two dangerous offenders released into the community. One of them, a sex offender, sadly ended up murdering a very young girl. The second offender who was released last month, James Conway, was actually dropped into the community with several conditions to monitor him in the community. The conditions were similar to those put onto the first sex offender I mentioned.

James Conway was arrested after nine days of roaming around the community. Thankfully, he was arrested successfully. I have heard from the community. Once these individuals are released into the community, there is a lack of funding and monitoring of them. Since we have the Minister of Finance here, I want to ask him this. Does he have additional funding to monitor these individuals? We had a program called circles of support and accountability. That funding has been cut by the current government. The government also promised more RCMP support for the communities, but that has not been delivered.

My community, my mayors, and my constituents are asking the government and Minister of Finance whether there will be additional funding for the programs that monitor these monsters in our communities.

(1605) Hon. Joe Oliver : Mr. Speaker, as I think the member opposite knows, I cannot comment on individual cases. However, we are taking action in respect to this bill, and have taken action in the past to deal with this issue of released prisoners. Of course, mandatory minimum sentences will help in that regard. Information would be shared between the national sex offender registry and the Canada Border Services Agency as a result of amendments in the bill. We will also address concerns about exploitation in respect to those who travel in Canada and abroad. This is very important.

The proposed amendments would address concerns about accountability of registered sexual offenders who travel across Canada, for example. They would be required to report all passport and driver's licence numbers and their absence for seven days or more for travel within or outside of Canada for the duration of any trips; any address or location where they are expected to stay; and actual dates that have been planned for trips outside Canada and within Canada. This information would be shared and, of course, it would be shared by law enforcement agencies. [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North , Natural Resources. Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to begin my speech in the House on Bill C-26 by pointing out the latest attempt by the member for Langley to demonize the official opposition and the second opposition party.

Any time we examine a justice bill, whether it is Bill C-26 or any other justice bill, I look carefully at what the bill says. This bill is

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . Sometimes I receive a letter from the Minister of Justice , but not always, explaining a little about the context of his bill, which I appreciate. In the case of Bill C-26 , the main objective is to deter criminals and denounce sexual offences against children. The next step is to examine the bill and see whether that is what the bill actually does.

When I hear the Conservatives say over and over again that we care more about offenders and criminals than we do about victims, I find that rather biased and I take offence to such comments, which add absolutely nothing to the debate. Obviously we are talking about criminals when we are studying a bill like this. They are the main focus of the bill. Talking about them does not mean that we like them, or support them, or that we are behind them saying, “good job, do it again”, like a bunch of cheerleaders. Not at all.

However, if the government tells me that it is denouncing sexual offences against children in order to deter criminals, then I will look at the bill to see whether that is indeed what the government is doing. It is rather sad that closure was invoked at second reading stage of such an extremely important and complex file, because we can see from the title of the bill alone that it affects a number of statutes at the same time. It introduces a specific database for offenders who are at risk of reoffending and committing more serious offences than the ones described in the current database.

As I was saying to the Minister of Finance , who was well informed but was perhaps not the person who worked directly on this file, the House has passed many laws regarding sexual offences against children. In fact, we have to question why, by the Minister of Justice 's own admission, there has been a 6% increase in offences in the past two years alone. That still bothers me somewhat because if one of the main objectives of the law is to deter criminals from committing crimes and to report sexual offences against children, there may well be some flaws.

I do not want members to tell me that this did not exist before. Minimum sentences did exist. Bill C-26 does not include any new minimum sentence or any new maximum sentence. All that happened was that the length of the sentences was increased. Both minimum and maximum sentences were increased. Perhaps these types of sentences did not work. In short, we could have done the analysis, but first there was closure in the House, then we went to committee. I must confess that I was a bit wary in the beginning.

We were under the impression that the members sitting on the government benches wanted to work very quickly and take shortcuts. Nevertheless, I admit that we were finally able to call the witnesses that we wanted to hear. I am not quite so positive when it comes to the amendments. Only the government's amendments were accepted, which is always the case. I think that is unfortunate because one of our amendments was based on the very solid evidence given by a criminology expert.

(1610) She told us that the information the government wants to put in the new registry—or high risk sex offender database—that it wants to create and that is mentioned in clause 29 of Bill C-26 might be used to identify some victims. This government claims to be on the victims' side and tells us that we are the mean ones who always side with the criminals. I presented a very simple amendment but the government decided it was too complicated and unnecessary because the notion was implied. When I studied law at the University of Ottawa I was taught that if it is clear, you spell it out. You write it and that is that. Leaving things open to

interpretation is another story. All we were asking was that, “under no circumstances must the information referred to in subsection (1) be used to identify the victims”. The amendment was rejected. This government likes to introduce all kinds of bills. Sometimes it seems as though it is lacking a plan or a person to make sure that the different bills do not contradict each other or that a bill, like Bill C-13 on cyberbullying, which amended a lot of other laws, is not affected in any way by Bill C-26 . Sometimes I wonder whether the government is losing control and losing its way.

We presented a perfectly reasonable amendment, requesting that the minister of justice be required to prepare a report specifying the number of persons whose name has been added to the database and the information specified in paragraphs 5(

f) and ( g ), which have to do with the type of offence. This information could have been interesting to look at with respect to each of these individuals. The amendment stipulated that the minister of justice would have to table the report to each house of Parliament within the first 15 sitting days after the report has been prepared. Once again, this seems to me like a reasonable amendment. The Conservatives will probably give me the same answer. The answer that was given by the Department of Justice and the Conservatives is that it is a public registry—as if I did not know that. The word itself says it all.

Since it is a public registry, it is up to me to find the information I need. Every year, I will have to go and check the registry to find the information. If the government was interested in promoting these things and ensuring that its bills work well, this is the type of work that would normally be done. They want to complicate our lives. That is fine. That is good. We will put that in our pipe and smoke it. However, that being said, it would have been much simpler to do this the way we are proposing.

It could also have been useful for the government, since it could have found some missing information right in this report. The government may well say that the 6% increase could be due to the fact that the minimum sentences were not yet harsh enough. On this side of the House, we think that the increase is more likely related to the fact that the government does not spend much and, even worse, it is making cuts to programs that are working really well and that have been successful. That is also what experts told us in committee.

As I said before on the radio and here in the House at second reading, it is all well and good to have a registry. We already have one. The person responsible for the registry at the RCMP came and told us in committee that the RCMP is already doing this. When a dangerous person moves into a community, the RCMP informs the people living there. The RCMP does not need the government to keep the public safe. The government created this registry saying that it would formalize what the RCMP is already doing. I will digress for a moment.

When we had the minister's press conference after the Prime Minister 's presentation, everyone who talked about Bill C-26 made it sound as though it was the ultimate goal and that it would solve all of the world's problems. Finally, the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP answered one of my questions and said that it would affect perhaps a dozen cases a year.

(1615) That brings us back to reality. The National Sex Offender Registry already exists for such offenders. The additional “high risk” aspect pertains to about a dozen people. One thing is clear, and I am surprised that the Conservative government has not paid more attention to it. In fact, instead of talking in glowing terms about this type of measure, it should instead be worried about the fact that these high risk offenders are in our communities. That worries me a lot.

I sometimes feel that this government works a lot harder on paper, with words, because that goes hand in hand with its rhetoric that makes it appear to be tough and to be doing something. However, in reality, when we look at the resources available to the RCMP and police forces to conduct investigations, that is not the case. I shudder when I hear police services say that some types of crime will have to be ignored because combatting terrorism is now the priority. Perhaps the minister was right to specify the criteria for a sentence.

Yes, there is rehabilitation, deterrence and all that, but one of the government's main purposes is to protect its citizens. Putting more eggs in one basket than in another is not necessarily good management. There is nothing real there. As for minimum sentences—that is what the member opposite was talking about—I am of the same mind as a former Supreme Court justice who appeared before us and said, in the context of another justice-related file, that all minimum sentences are not necessarily unconstitutional. It is simply not a tool that should be overused.

First of all, and this is very important, even the witnesses who appeared in committee, whether they were victims or people who work with organizations that support victims, told us that minimum sentences were not the issue. If, for the kind of offence and the seriousness of the crime committed, we were to impose the minimum sentences that the Conservatives proposed in Bill C-26 , there is a problem somewhere. However, there could be a case that has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of stereotype we have of that kind of offence. Therein lies the problem. We heard it directly from legal experts.

To say that we are against minimum sentences for this kind of offence does not m