OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 101 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, June 11, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 11, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 101 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 101 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 101 (Version officielle) 147 101 11 06 2014 2014/06/11 14:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 2 p.m. Prayers

Statements by Members (1405) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem, led by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard . [ Members sang the national anthem ] Statements by Members Statements by Members [ English ] Anti-Spam Rules Mr. Jay Aspin (Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government does not believe Canadians should receive emails they do not want or did not ask to receive. That is why we introduced and passed legislation that would prohibit unsolicited text messages, including cellphone spam.

These new rules will effectively protect consumers from spam and other threats that lead to harassment, identity theft, and fraud, giving Canadian businesses clarity so they can continue to compete in the online marketplace. Canadian businesses say that they are concerned about being compliant with the law by the July 1 deadline. All business owners can be assured that although these new rules come into effect soon, they will have 36 months to renew consent with their existing clients.

Our government has taken every step to limit the impact on Canadian business, while continuing to stand up for Canadian consumers. For more information, consumers and business owners should visit fightspam.gc.ca.

The Change Agents Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to attend the Ottawa premiere of the feature-film drama entitled The Change Agents . The event was co-hosted by the Citizens Climate Lobby and by my NDP colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior . The writer/director of the The Change Agents , Robyn Sheppard, used to reside in Toronto—Danforth , which is one of Canada's film-making hubs. She moved out west to Nelson, B.C., where she is the drama teacher at L.V. Rogers Secondary School.

The Change Agents is the story of dedicated high school students mobilizing co-students to make a strong, passionate statement for environmental protection, especially in relation to the tar sands. L.V. Rogers' students were involved in all aspects of the film-making process, both in front of the camera—like Lucy Carver Brennan, who plays Ruby in the film—and behind the camera. They, and the film itself, demonstrate that young people's despair over ecological destruction can be transformed into the kind of citizen engagement that generates hope we may yet act in time to step back from the edge of the cliff.

Calgary Northeast Mr. Devinder Shory (Calgary Northeast, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, community organizations and their volunteers are vital for happy, healthy, and connected communities. I am proud to say that the hardest-working riding of Calgary Northeast has a multitude of active community organizations.

As Canada Day and the greatest outdoor show on earth, the Calgary Stampede, approach, I would like to extend an invitation to all members of the House to come to participate in the diverse Canada Day celebrations and Stampede breakfasts and barbecues being organized by all the great communities and cultural organizations in Calgary Northeast . In particular, I would like to recognize the Muslim community in Calgary, which will be hosting its annual community celebrations as it focuses on fasting and prayer during Ramadan. Happy Ramadan to all Muslim communities.

We thank all the volunteers for getting involved in their communities and making Calgary Northeast a great place to live, work, and raise a family.

Co-operatives Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who attended the first three meetings of the all-party caucus on co-operatives. Since our first meeting in March, this caucus has allowed for strides to be made in the relationship between the government and co-ops. During today's meeting, we had the opportunity to hear from the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada and Fédération des coopératives funéraires du Québec. Housing co-ops occupy an important sector of the housing market and offer alternatives for residents.

Indeed, the co-operative sector presents a range of opportunities and could greatly benefit from increased parliamentary support and continued government assistance. CHF Canada held a rally as part of its “'You Hold the Key!' - Fix the Co-op Housing Crunch!” campaign last Wednesday to bring the attention of the government to upcoming cuts that threaten co-op housing residents.

It is my hope that ongoing efforts of the all-party caucus on co-operatives, in partnership with the co-op community, will continue to benefit Canadians and raise awareness about the important role co-operatives play in the economy and in our communities, each and every one of us.

Women's Empowerment Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I know it is almost Father's Day, but it gives me great pleasure to stand today to honour one of my heroes, my mother, Marjorie Nattress, who is with us. She is a true-blue Albertan, the kind of person who helped build Canada. Her mother had a political bent and held a “Pink Tea” for Nellie McClung, when the Famous Five were fighting to achieve some of the great “firsts” for women in Canada. My mother was the first in her family to graduate from university.

As a young public health nurse, she and my dad ran a tiny hospital in the coal mining town of Luscar. Moving to Lloydminster, she started the first CPR course and the first candy stripers to train young girls in nursing. After seeing some women on the streets fleeing abuse, she co-founded Interval Home, one of the first women's shelters in Alberta. She has been an outspoken advocate against violence against women and girls, which is also a passion of our government. When they retired, she and my dad served as medical missionaries in Lesotho. She is a pillar of her church and the strength of our family.

I thank mom for being a trailblazer.

(1410) [ Translation ] Philippe Massicotte and Thomas Dupré Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have often said that young people are not our future, they are our present. Thanks to their creativity, Philippe Massicotte and Thomas Dupré, graduates of St. Joseph Seminary in Trois-Rivières, will represent Canada at Expo-Sciences International in Brussels next July. Their invention, both simple and clever, reminds people that good posture is an important part of preventing back pain, which costs the Canadian economy $4 billion a year.

Their invention won them the Youth Science Canada Excellence Award, the S.M. Blair Family Foundation Award, the Université du Québec award, and the Synapse award, presented by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. While the talent and hard work of these two young men deserve recognition, I would like to take this opportunity to also congratulate the parents and teachers who support them on a daily basis. Philippe Massicotte and Thomas Dupré, you make us proud, and the people of Trois-Rivières join me in congratulating you and encouraging you to keep dreaming big.

[ English ] Canada-Hungary Relations Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate half a century of diplomatic relations between Canada and Hungary. It was exactly 50 years ago, on June 11, 1964, that Canada and Hungary established diplomatic relations. Still under Soviet domination at the time, Hungary was unable to act entirely freely, but establishing diplomatic relations with countries like Canada eventually helped it to achieve independence and democracy.

The freedom fight of 1956 was a bold attempt by Hungarians to establish solidarity away from the long arm of Soviet and Communist rule. Many Hungarians fled their homes afterward, and 38,000 were welcomed to Canada with warmth and compassion, where they have made a significant contribution to our national wealth. Since 1989, the year of regime change in eastern Europe, Canada and Hungary have become close allies.

Canadian–Hungarian relations demonstrate that democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and citizen-driven governance are the only solid foundations for prosperous societies in the 21st century, and indicate a strong commitment to further deepening diplomatic and commercial ties.

[ Translation ] Grand défi Pierre Lavoie Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last year, our Conservative government promised to support the Grand défi Pierre Lavoie to the tune of $1 million over two years. Although the Grand défi Pierre Lavoie organizes activities throughout the school year, the 1,000-km event that is part of the adult component of the défi will be held this weekend. This Friday, May 12, nearly 1,000 cyclists will join this cycling marathon, pedalling behind Pierre Lavoie from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean to Montreal.

This sporting event is a forum to raise awareness among the community of the importance of changing our lifestyle habits to ensure our children's future. All proceeds from the event go to the Grand défi Pierre Lavoie Foundation to support medical research on orphan diseases and to fund projects that promote healthy life habits. Congratulations to Pierre Lavoie, who, since 2008, has captured our hearts and those of our children by pedalling for a good cause.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be introducing a bill this week to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to prohibit interprovincial movements of hazardous wastes. This bill was designed by Mr. Rob Williams' French immersion students at Citadel High School as part of the Create Your Canada project. After learning about the legislative process and government jurisdictions, the students identified some problems within our community.

Many ideas were put forward, such as creating a scholarship program for studying French and promoting local food. Students then suggested a bill to encourage the provinces to find innovative solutions to reduce the quantity of waste produced. I congratulate all the students who helped create this bill. I am proud to introduce this bill and represent these young people who care about the environment. (1415) [ English ] Way to go, Citadel High.

Housing Mr. Phil McColeman (Brant, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last week the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada held its annual rally on the Hill. During this time, members of the federation were grateful for our government's sound investments. They said that they looked forward to continuing to work with us on finding ways to improve housing options for Canadians. Our government is committed to building on our record. In 2013, our government changed the rules to allow refinancing for housing providers that required capital repairs and renovations to extend the life of their housing.

Just last year, we announced a common sense approach that gave many co-ops greater flexibility when their CMHC operating agreements reached their maturation. Co-ops can now retain any money they have in their subsidy surplus fund to lower the cost of housing for low-income households. On this side of the House, we are ensuring that these changes are saving Canadians money and are helping to lower the cost of housing, while at the same time creating jobs in the process.

Activist for the Humber River Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and show my support for Madeleine McDowell, a lifelong activist for the Humber River in my riding of Parkdale—High Park, in Toronto. Working as a conservationist and historian, Ms. McDowell was a leading force in the campaign to have the Humber recognized as a Canadian heritage river. This past Sunday, on Canadian Rivers Day, I joined Madeleine and members of the community to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the Humber's heritage designation.

Madeleine has worked tirelessly to protect the Humber and keep its rich history alive. The only heritage river that is accessible by foot, bike, car, and subway, the Humber is a cherished part of Toronto's urban ecosystem. We are truly fortunate to have Madeleine as a community leader and advocate for Canada's natural heritage. On behalf of my whole community, we thank Madeleine McDowell.

World Elder Abuse Awareness Day Mr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, June 15 marks World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Elder abuse is a serious issue to Canadians, and our government is taking action. Last January, we introduced the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act to ensure tougher penalties for those who take advantage of elderly Canadians. We also recently introduced the Canadian victims bill of rights, which would give seniors dignity and respect by the legal system that they depend on to defend them.

This April, our government tabled the digital privacy act, which would better protect seniors from fraud and financial abuse. I ask that all Canadians stand with this government in recognizing World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, on June 15. Together we can make a difference.

Shootings in Moncton Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday thousands of residents of southeastern New Brunswick, and police officers from across the country honoured the ultimate sacrifice made by RCMP Constables Fabrice Gevaudan, Dave Ross, and Douglas Larche in the line of duty. We also prayed for the recovery of the two other brave officers, Constables Darlene Goguen and Eric Dubois, injured in the same horrendous act of violence. [ Translation ] The Greater Moncton community, normally peaceful and always full of compassion, has been through some painful times.

The pain that residents are feeling represents just a fraction of the grief and sadness felt by the families, including the young children, of our three heroes. [ English ] Tragic moments often reveal the hidden strength of a community. We were blessed by the strong leadership of Moncton's Mayor George LeBlanc and RCMP Superintendent Marlene Snowman. Their words inspired all of us to endure in the face of terrible evil and to begin the road to healing. I know that all members join me in expressing our sympathies to the families of these brave RCMP officers. May they rest in peace.

Shooting in Vancouver Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was another senseless shooting, this time in Vancouver. Shots rang out in a midday gun battle in busy Yaletown, steps from the False Creek seawall. I am pleased to see that the victim, an innocent bystander and pillar of the community, is now in stable condition, and that the police officer who was injured while defending the people of Vancouver has been released from the hospital.

Our government is committed to keeping our streets and communities safe by ensuring that those people who engage in evil and depraved actions will be put behind bars where they belong, and where they cannot harm innocent Canadians who are going about their daily lives. I look forward to the individual responsible for this crime facing the full force of the justice system.

(1420) Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to questions about whether the Conservatives' latest bill is unconstitutional, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration decided that the best thing to do was to evade the question and instead launch a personal attack on the lawyer challenging the bill. Then, last night on CBC, the minister was asked what he thought about revoking the citizenship of Canadian-born citizens. How did he respond? He said that the host should stop frightening people.

It is as though the minister now understands that actually reading his bill will make people fear it. The minister does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Canadian Bar Association has said that this bill imposes “exile as an additional form of punishment”. After countless bills overturned, a Supreme Court pick rejected, and the government's unilateral Senate position stopped, Canadians deserve better than a bungling immigration minister misleading Canadians and ramming through unconstitutional bills. In 2015, by voting NDP, they will get it.

Eleanor Milne Ms. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in St. Paul’s Cathedral, in London, England, is found the tomb of the great architect Sir Christopher Wren. The words carved on his stone are: Reader, if you seek his monument, look around you. Let us look around this building at the 14 great windows of this chamber bearing the floral emblems of the provinces, at the great frieze sculpture above the foyer that tells the story of Canada, and at the many other carved artworks created by Canada's first Dominion Sculptor, Eleanor Milne.

From 1962 to 1993, she altered the very fabric of this building using a mallet, a chisel, and a brilliant artistic mind. She and her team worked from 11 at night until 6 in the morning. The frieze outside this chamber, the “History of Canada Series”, took 12 years to complete. Her book, Captured in Stone: Carving Canada's Past is dedicated to “all who come to visit the Centre Block, Canada's Parliament Buildings”. Miss Milne died on May 17 at the age of 89. If you seek her monument, look around you.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Employment Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today we finally learned why the minister of employment has been trolling Internet job sites like Kijiji instead of using real labour market statistics. He has cut the budget for job market research by 20%, at a time when there are 1.3 million Canadians unemployed, 300,000 more than when the recession hit. How can the Prime Minister possibly justify cutting a service that actually helps Canadians to find jobs? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, on the contrary, I understand that is not correct. The minister has diverted resources from some areas into the labour market area and will be doing so further. However, that should not obscure the outstanding job creation record of Canada. We have had 1.1 million net new jobs created since the recession. That is obviously one of the best records in the world. We continue to look for ways to increase that even farther. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a million new jobs.

It sounds like the Prime Minister is taking math lessons from Tim Hudak. [ Translation ] How can the Prime Minister justify that his government— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor. Hon. Thomas Mulcair : Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister justify that even as his government is trying to take over job training programs—up to now a provincial responsibility—he is eliminating the information service for these programs, which we need? Now that he has eliminated the programs in question, is he serious about using Kijiji as a way to obtain information?

(1425) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I just said, it is quite the contrary. What the NDP leader said is not accurate. [ English ] The numbers I am citing on job creation actually come from Statistics Canada. I would urge the leader of the NDP to look at those. He will find that over 80% of these jobs are full time and in the private sector; nearly two-thirds of them are high wage. While he is at it, he would be best to educate himself and learn that we cannot create jobs through opposing trade, opposing development, and hiking taxes, as the NDP— The Speaker : Order, please.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition . Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : I must have hit a soft spot, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals and Conservatives have watched a generation of good middle-class jobs disappear, and they have done nothing to create the next generation of full-time, well-paid jobs. There are 300,000 more people unemployed today than before the recession. What do they do? They cut job market research. They kill tax breaks for small businesses, the real job creators in our country. Can the Prime Minister tell us why he is killing the small business hiring credit that helps create jobs?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is interesting. This is a time-limited credit that the NDP voted against, not once, but on several occasions. We have lowered taxes for businesses of all size in this country. We refuse to bring in not only the job-killing carbon tax, but the 60% hike on EI premiums that the NDP wants to bring in to pay for the 45-day work year. That is why there is not a single small business organization in this country that is ever going to support the NDP.

Public Works and Government Services Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in the words of one of Canada's top defence journalists, David Pugliese, “It appears to be total confusion on the F-35 front in Ottawa these days”, yet the Prime Minister still seems poised to blindly push ahead with the expensive and risky single-engine F-35. I have a straightforward question for the Prime Minister . Will other companies be allowed to submit bids on the contract to replace Canada's aging F-18s before any decision is made on the F-35? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as we have said, the process for procuring the next generation of fighter aircraft has been going through a multi-step process, including an extensive independent evaluation of the options by experts in the field. That report has just been received by us. It has not yet been reviewed by cabinet, but I assure the hon. member that when we look at it, we will always consider what is in the best long-term interests of the men and women of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, apparently the Prime Minister does not understand that in an open, competitive bidding process one allows the bids before announcing the decision, so that the process works. [ Translation ] Two years ago, the Auditor General reviewed the Conservatives' plan to purchase F-35s and found that the process was a complete mess. We knew that already. The Prime Minister was forced to retreat and dismiss his incompetent minister. Two years later, he is about to make the same mistakes because he still has not launched an open and transparent bidding process, and this time he cannot blame his incompetent minister.

How much longer do the Canadian Forces have to wait? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the government commissioned a panel of independent experts to look at all of the options for replacing our fighter jets. Cabinet is going to examine that report, and it will determine which option is the best for our air force. [ English ] The one thing I know for sure is that whatever decision the government takes it will be opposed by the NDP because the NDP always opposes acquisitions of equipment for the men and women in uniform. It is the no-defence party over there, the NDP.

Ours is the party that stands for the men and women in uniform.

(1430) Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in December 2012 the Chief of the Defence Staff told the defence committee that the F-35 was not the only plane that met Canada's stealth requirements and that “all options are on the table” to replace our fighters. Therefore, will the Prime Minister commit that the government will only replace our CF-18s through an open, transparent, competitive bidding process? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the government has indeed commissioned a panel of independent experts to look at all the available options and also the appropriate process for that. We have just received the report, and I can assure the hon. member that the government will act on the recommendations of experts and always do what is right for the men and women of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

The Environment Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the northern gateway pipeline project has failed in its duty to consult with first nations. It has failed to reassure Canadians that the Great Bear rainforest will be protected. It has failed to show those whose jobs and livelihood depend on the Pacific Ocean that a catastrophic spill can be prevented. Therefore, will the Government of Canada do the right thing and say no to the northern gateway pipeline? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I understand the ideological opposition of the Liberal Party to the energy industry, which of course goes back to the days of his father. The reality is there has been a joint review process, a rigorous process, undertaken in terms of environmental assessment. The government has received that report. The government is in the process of examining it and the government will act on the recommendations of experts. [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this government did not act with due diligence when it comes to the northern gateway pipeline project.

Environmental considerations were not adequately assessed and the aboriginal communities that will be affected by the project were not adequately consulted. Will the Prime Minister say no to this mismanaged pipeline project?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party took that position before even seeing the final recommendations made by the panel of experts who worked on this matter for several months. The panel gave us a report containing recommendations and we are going to consider them before taking action.

[ English ] National Defence Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, former Liberal defence ministers Bill Graham and David Pratt are calling on Canada to participate in the U.S. missile defence scheme. It was a bad idea in 2005 and it is a bad idea today. Will the Prime Minister be very clear that he will not drag Canada into the U.S. system for ballistic missile defence? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what I will be very clear on is that this government will always take the appropriate course of action to protect the security of Canadians.

A decision, which was supported by our party some years ago, was made not to participate in that system, given the risks that existed at the time. Those risks have continued to evolve. The government will continue to examine the facts and will make any decision necessary to protect the security of Canadians. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister serious? Does he really want Canada to participate in the American missile defence system? Is that his peace plan, an arms race? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I know that the NDP takes an ideological position against defending Canada. However, protecting Canadians at all times has always been one of the responsibilities of Conservative and Liberal governments. A decision was made a decade ago. The government will continue to examine the situation before it determines a course of action.

(1435) Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, thousands of Canadians and first nations members are joining the Our Dreams Matter Too walk, calling for better education and health care for first nations children. This walk is being held as the Conservative government is gearing up to eliminate on-reserve early childhood intervention programs, effective July 1. This decision, which is pushing families to leave their community to get services, is currently before the Human Rights Tribunal. Why is the minister targeting the most vulnerable children? Hon.

Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, protecting children living on reserve is a priority for our government. That is why, since 2006, we have used a prevention-based approach to delivering family and child services. To protect these children, we have increased funding for the family violence prevention program by 38% and we have passed the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act.

In fact, since 2006, our government has invested more than $10 billion to support the primary and secondary education of roughly 117,500 first nations children on reserve. The NDP voted against those measures in every budget. [ English ] Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today marks another anniversary of the residential school apology. Back then the government promised that things would be different and that relationships would be improved, but aboriginal children are not seeing these promised changes.

On July 1, the Conservative government will be cutting early childhood intervention programs, and no replacement will be provided. Government should be investing in aboriginal children, not clawing back badly needed services. Why is the minister cutting funding from some of our country's most vulnerable children? Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, the funds are not being cut. It is a falsehood. Protecting children on reserve is a priority for our government.

We believe that the best way to ensure first nations children and families get the support they need is by working with willing partners, including first nations, provinces, and territories, which deliver child and family services. This is what we are doing and will keep on doing.

Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration took evasive action after being asked about the constitutionality of his immigration bill. He refused to answer the question, but he did manage to make an unrelated reference to the “disgraced ideological former lawyer of the Khadr family”. Could the minister tell us how his latest smear job is even remotely relevant to the constitutionality of Bill C-24 ? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, what is clear is that we were given a strong mandate as a government to reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship, and citizenship is based on allegiance. Liberals had 13 years to try to sort these issues with backlogs. New Democrats have not had the chance, and if all goes well, they will never have it, but Canadians think it is absolutely legitimate for dual nationals who have committed acts of treason, of terrorism, of espionage to forfeit their Canadian citizenship. That is a violation of— The Speaker : The hon. member for Davenport. Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, what is clear is that this bill proposes new powers to deport a Canadian-born citizen to a country to which they have no connection. This is nonsensical, and it is most likely unconstitutional. The hon. member knows there is a public outcry and he knows people are asking to compromise, yet he stubbornly steams ahead, ignoring all criticism. Why did the government turn down every single suggestion put forward to try to fix this bill? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the member opposite is lost in the thicket of his own ideology.

There is absolutely no new provision in this bill to deport or to strip the citizenship of Canadian citizens who have only one nationality. It is offensive for the members opposite to be drawing a false distinction between who are naturalized Canadians and those who are Canadian born. The law applies to them equally, and we will continue to take our advice from lawyers who know the difference between a removal and a revocation, which the lawyer he mentioned clearly does not. (1440) [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the minister no longer knows what to say to salvage his credibility. A number of experts, including the Canadian Bar Association, believe that the citizenship bill is unconstitutional. Yesterday, in a CBC interview, the minister dismissed the criticism, saying that Bill C-24 is similar to what is being done in other NATO countries, but what does NATO have to do with a debate on access to Canadian citizenship? It is completely ridiculous. Will our fundamental rights in Canada now depend on the mood of our NATO allies? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, what does NATO have to do with this debate? Our allies and partners think it is important to show allegiance to their system of law and their country. Canadians also think that is important. That is why we have a citizenship bill that will strengthen the value of citizenship and protect us from terrorists, traitors and spies. It is high time that the NDP realized that these people exist, that they pose a threat and that we have to take action to deal with those threats. Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, a few weeks ago, the minister had to apologize to an immigration consultant whose name he unfairly dragged through the mud. The minister also attacked the Canadian Bar Association for its position on Bill C-24 , and yesterday, he went after Toronto constitutional expert Rocco Galati, who was another victim of the minister's mood swings. Why is the minister ignoring or attacking everyone who does not agree with him? Does he not realize that this attitude, which is typical of the Conservatives, is completely ridiculous and inappropriate? Hon.

Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the real question is how the NDP can justify defending terrorism, treason and espionage as a cornerstone of our citizenship. How can the NDP say that these people should keep their citizenship, even if they are dual citizens? We will not accept that. Canadians have been clear in this regard, and we do not think that the few lawyers who expressed an opinion on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association speak for the lawyers of this country.

Most Canadians agree that we must protect the value of Canadian citizenship and allegiance to the crown and this country.

Justice Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I do not know what planet he is living on. The Conservatives' unilateral reform of the Senate was deemed to be unconstitutional. A number of aspects of their law and order agenda have been struck down by the Supreme Court. The same is true of their initial securities commission plan. Despite these setbacks, the Conservatives stubbornly continue to introduce flawed bills. Many aspects of the unfair elections act are unconstitutional. The same goes for their immigration reform, which will certainly end up before the courts.

When will the Conservatives start drafting bills that comply with the Constitution? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, on each occasion we introduced bills that complied with the Constitution. That is absolutely necessary. A

section at the Department of Justice examines every bill before it is introduced in the House of Commons. I encourage my dear colleague to take the time to read the bills before rising in the House of Commons to share misinformation.

[ English ] Employment Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, while perhaps not the most heinous action by the Conservatives, the cancellation of the long form census was arguably the stupidest, depriving Canadians of a true understanding of our country. Now they are at it again, slashing spending on labour market data at a time when they used alleged labour market shortages to justify a mushrooming increase in foreign workers. Did they deliberately bury the data to hide the fact that they were hiring foreigners when Canadians were able and willing to do the work? Hon.

Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the question is false and ridiculous. In fact, a couple of non-labour-market-information related time-limited surveys ran their course, but I am pleased that the member raised the question, because it allows me to inform the House that the government will be launching two significant, robust, new labour market information studies, one a quarterly study on job vacancies and one a robust annual survey on wage rates, just as experts have asked us to do. We are delivering.

We will be getting that labour market information. Unlike the Liberals, who set up the low-skilled temporary foreign worker program in 2002, we are going to tighten up this program and ensure that Canadians always come first.

(1445) Natural Resources Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, since getting U.S. approval for Keystone XL is important for our economy, why have the Conservatives so badly bungled this file? The Prime Minister thought that he could bully President Obama into submission. How did that work out? They have destroyed Canada's environmental reputation, and that has delayed the approval process. When it comes to an important piece of energy infrastructure like the Keystone XL pipeline, why are the Conservatives so strategically stupid? The Speaker : I do not know if that is fitting of the chamber.

I do not know if the hon. parliamentary secretary wants to answer or not, but we will move on. The hon. member for St. Paul's .

Citizenship and Immigration Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are appalled to learn that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is threatening to unilaterally strip Canadian citizenship from people born here in Canada. Criminals in Canada are punished according to our law. This arbitrary change to dual citizenship cuts to the absolute core of what it means to be Canadian. How can the minister justify this abuse of power that tramples on the rights of Canadians, even those born here in Canada? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, this bill cuts to the absolute heart of the shortcomings of the 1977 Citizenship Act, brought in by Prime Minister Trudeau, which actually cheapened Canadian citizenship, opened it to abuse, and put to one side the whole question of allegiance and loyalty to this country. The Liberals had 13 years to clean up this mess. They did nothing to stop citizenship of convenience. They did nothing to protect us from traitors.

Employment Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, another diligent investigation by Ironworkers Local 720 has revealed yet another major violation in the temporary foreign worker program in Alberta's oil sands. This is the third case of an oil sands operation replacing 100 Canadian ironworkers with temporary foreign workers. What is equally reprehensible is that the investigations continue to be led by the ironworkers, not the government. When can these workers expect the minister to finally start investigating and punishing these blatant violations and actually protect Canadian jobs? Hon.

Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yet again, the premise of the question is entirely inaccurate. Of course, the member would complain if the minister himself was leading an investigation. It is our highly trained professional public servants at Service Canada and at Employment and Social Development Canada who are responsible for such investigations, who are conducting one in this respect, and I look forward to the results of their investigation.

Just as we have increased substantially investigations and audits of employers using the temporary foreign worker program, we will further tighten the program in the near future. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, future changes are no consolation to Canadian workers who are losing jobs today. The minister's own department is continuing to approve labour market opinions that allow temporary foreign workers to replace Canadian workers, and they are doing so despite documented abuse in this sector.

The minister stands here and claims he will act, while his department continues to rubber-stamp requests. Will he finally call an independent review and fix the mess the Conservatives have created? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member is incorrect. In fact, the highly trained professional public servants of Service Canada do not approve labour market opinions for employers seeking temporary foreign workers if Canadians are or have been displaced by an employer. To do so would be against the law.

Of course, we have introduced independent audits at work sites, and we will be introducing a robust package of reforms in the near future to further ensure that this program is only and always used as a last and limited resort. (1450) [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government's management of the temporary foreign worker program has been a catastrophe, and today we know why. In order to approve labour market opinions, the minister must have information about the labour market.

However, in their wave of blind budget cuts, the Conservatives have systematically reduced funding for labour market data collection. Last year the budget reduction was about 20%. How can the minister justify these cuts? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member said that the program is a catastrophe. There are problems with it, but the number of temporary foreign workers entering Canada represented 1% of all workers seven years ago and it is still 1% of all workers today.

It is not a huge change, and the effects are not catastrophic. That said, we have increased audits and sentences for employers who abuse the program, and there will soon be substantial changes to strengthen the integrity of the program. [ English ] Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is just more proof of gross mismanagement on the part of the Conservative government. For years experts have been calling for better labour market statistics, which is crucial information that can help government craft the right policies.

Instead the government cut funding for labour market information by 20% in just the past two years. It cut millions more from key Statistics Canada programs. No wonder the Conservatives are failing so badly at managing our labour market. Why will the minister not stop this war on evidence and restore funding for labour market research? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, the premise of the question is false. In fact, most of the surveys to which the member refers were not dealing with labour market information.

They were time limited. They ran their course. I am surprised to hear that NDP members do not read their favourite newspaper, the Toronto Star . If the member did, she would realize that the government is now launching two important, robust new labour market information surveys, one with respect to a quarterly survey on job vacancies and one an annual survey on wage rates.

I am pleased to say that we have either implemented or are in the process of implementing about two-thirds of the recommendations of the Drummond commission and are working closely with the former labour market ministers to ensure better coordination of labour market information.

Public Safety Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians laid three heroes to rest. Thousands of police officers, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and everyday Canadians joined together in Moncton to remember the lives lost last week at the hands of an evil individual bent on revenge. Our hearts were touched by the eulogies of families and friends who knew the three RCMP officers. Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness , who attended the regimental funeral, please update the House on this matter? Hon.

Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, a whole nation came together yesterday to mourn our three fallen heroes, RCMP Constables Larche, Gevaudan, and Ross. [ Translation ] Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of these young officers, who were taken in the prime of their lives. [ English ] We would like to express our gratitude to the law enforcement community and emergency response services for their remarkable conduct during those tragic hours as well as to the courageous people of Moncton who were so useful. We will remember them.

[ Translation ] International Trade Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Hupacasath nation of British Columbia appeared in court yesterday to appeal a Federal Court decision concerning the investment deal with China. It is distressing to see that the Conservatives are forcing our first nations to file an appeal to assert their rights. Instead, they should be taking those rights into consideration when negotiating international trade agreements. Why are the Conservatives not listening to first nations and Canadians?

Why are they not acknowledging that they have signed a terrible agreement? Why not simply ditch this agreement with China? [ English ] Mr. Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the FIPA with China will give a lot of Canadian exporters and companies many of the same protections that Chinese operators in Canada already have. It is about evening and levelling the playing field, helping one in five jobs attributable to trade continue. As for the court case, we will not comment on that at this time.

(1455) Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Canada-China FIPA was rammed through Parliament a year and a half ago, and at that time, the Conservatives made a big deal out of a bad deal, but mysteriously, the Conservatives have never ratified the treaty, and the minister will not explain why. This secrecy and confusion is damaging Canada-China relations. Have the Conservatives failed to ratify the deal because it was sloppily negotiated, because they failed to consult first nations, because they are getting sued, or was it all of the above? Mr.

Erin O'Toole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the trade committee for that multiple-choice test he is seeming to give. The real answer is what trade deal has the NDP stood in the House to support? The answer to that question is none of the above. We are here to grow jobs for Canadians, including import and exports to China, and we look forward to a decision. The courts are moving forward on this agreement.

The Environment Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there is no way to make the northern gateway pipeline project safe. Shipping raw bitumen through the pristine waters off B.C.'s coast means a spill would be catastrophic. We all know, and even Enbridge admits, that spills happen. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources claims projects will only proceed if they are safe. Well, this project is not safe. First nations know it, experts know it, British Columbians know it, so will the minister abide by her promise and just reject this grotesque proposal? Mrs.

Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have been clear. Projects will only proceed if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. We are proud of the action we have taken to ensure that Canada has a world-class regulatory framework and a means for the safest form of transportation for our energy projects. Our government is currently reviewing the independent joint review panel report and will make a decision in due course.

Natural Resources Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, from the Prime Minister 's own hand-picked adviser, to Jim Prentice, to B.C. first nation leaders, all have warned the government that if it tries to ram through the Enbridge northern gateway project against the wishes of B.C. first nations, not only will it ensure that this bad pipeline never gets built, but it also puts at risk many other industrial development projects across B.C. Their arrogance is threatening the B.C. economy.

Are all 21 British Columbia Conservative MPs going to sit on their hands while the belligerence of the government threatens B.C.'s economy? Whatever happened to standing up for Canada? When are you going to stand up for British Columbia? The Speaker : The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley knows to direct his comment through the Chair and not directly at his colleagues. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources. Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is a process that is currently under way.

The joint panel has provided the government with its report, and we are carefully considering it prior to making any decisions on this project. Once again, projects will only proceed if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

[ Translation ] Privacy Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, clause 28 of the Conservatives' omnibus bill is designed to allow any public servant at the Canada Revenue Agency to share personal and confidential information with any police service, without taxpayers' consent. That infringes on the right to liberty and will lead to unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court has already said that Canadians must not lose confidence in the tax system and that its credibility should not be undermined. Why, then, are the Conservatives putting Canadians at risk? [ English ] Hon. Kerry-Lynne D.

Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, those statements are simply false. When CRA officials uncover evidence of serious criminal activity in the course of their ordinary duties, they will be able to share that with law enforcement agencies. That is a reasonable expectation that all Canadians would have. There have been occasions when CRA officials have uncovered evidence of drug trafficking, terrorism, child pornography, and even contracts for the commission of murder, and have been restricted from conveying that information.

Contrary to these claims, police forces will not be able to direct CRA officials to search for specific information. Quite frankly, I find the statements of the member opposite extraordinary.

Democratic Reform Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the so-called fair elections act needs amending. Yesterday Liberal supporters from across Ontario received letters from the Ontario Conservatives reminding them to vote, but at the wrong polling stations. One of these letters was even signed by the assistant of the Conservative MP for London North Centre. The letters from the Conservatives' Ontario cousins suppressed votes, just like Conservative data were used to suppress votes in the 2011 federal election. Will the Conservatives give the elections commissioner the powers he needs to protect Canadians?

(1500) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course nothing could be further from the truth. As members know, Elections Canada investigated the false allegations by both opposition parties that they made over the last couple of years and found, of course, as we have been saying all along, that we ran a clean and ethical campaign.

The fact of the matter is that we were returned to government with a majority because we cut taxes for people, we invested in the economy, and we have had over a million net new jobs created in this country. It is because we provide a good government that Canadians rewarded us with another mandate, and that is why they will do it again after 2015.

[ Translation ] Justice Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected an NDP amendment to Bill C-13 that would have made discrimination on the basis of gender identity a hate crime. It just so happens that right before the vote, the member for Kootenay—Columbia , who supported the amendment, was replaced by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex . Why did the Prime Minister's Office intervene to block this important amendment? [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as Minister of Justice, I certainly do not interfere with the committee process. What I do know is the member for Kootenay—Columbia , a former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, took the time to leave the committee to pay respects to his fallen comrades in the RCMP and to watch the service that was being broadcast live from Moncton. I am sure the member opposite and all members can understand this, and empathize with a former RCMP officer who would want to, in that moment, be spiritually with his fallen comrades. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the fact remains that at the last minute, Conservative votes were swapped or changed in order to block an amendment to Bill C-13 that would have protected those most subject to hate crimes in Canada. This was an amendment that the Minister of Justice said in committee that he supported in principle. Instead, Conservatives voted to deny equal protection against hate crimes to transgendered and gender-variant Canadians, even though this very same protection has already passed the House of Commons twice, only to be blocked in the Senate.

What do Conservatives have against standing up for vulnerable Canadians? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have just explained and I am surprised that the member opposite would again leave some aspersions hanging over the individual. However, with respect to the substance of this issue, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has already, along with several of its provincial counterparts, recognized that discrimination on the basis of transsexualism is a form of sex discrimination.

Additionally, under the Criminal Code as well there is a non-exhaustive list of provisions for aggravating factors that are used to increase sentences. It is not necessary to amend the legislation, as sufficient protection already exists.

Industry Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government recently announced the renewal of the computers for schools program, an initiative that has provided tremendous opportunities for Canadian youth for over 20 years. This program takes and refurbishes computers that are otherwise destined for a landfill, and provides hundreds of thousands of young people in schools, public libraries, and aboriginal communities with access to a digital world. Could the minister please explain why our government has renewed this program, and how it fits with Canada's digital framework, DC150? Hon.

James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as part of our Digital Canada 150 policy, we want to make sure that all Canadians have access to all the economic and educational opportunities of the digital age. The computers for schools program refurbishes 280,000 computers and gives them to schools all across the country, but also does better than that. We hire 1,000 students to refurbish the computers, and we put them into schools. We also put them into communities that do not have access to this kind of technology.

We also partner with organizations like the Neil Squire Society, which helps Canadians with physical disabilities have access to the basic technologies so they can fully participate in Canadian society. It is a small investment with a great consequence that will help connect Canadians for the future.

(1505) Human Rights Ms. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this month Toronto will have the honour of hosting the WorldPride celebration. This is an essential moment for us all to assert that LGBT rights are human rights, and to establish Canada both as a world leader and a global haven on this crucial issue. My constituents understandably expect their Prime Minister to take part. Could the Prime Minister please tell the House which of the many Pride events he will be attending? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we are very proud of the fact that the summer season is upon us. Across Canada, people will be celebrating. It is a great time for tourists to come to Canada. I know the Pride festival in Toronto brings a lot of people to the city of Toronto. Toronto, of course, is an incredible destination for people to come and visit. We are very proud of the city of Toronto. As somebody from just north of Toronto, I am excited to invite people to my community, to Markham, to Stouffville, and to the York region. We have a lot to offer people from across Canada and from around the world.

I hope to see the hon. member in all of the amazing tourist destinations, and not only across Toronto but across the country.

[ Translation ] Employment Insurance Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tribunal just slapped the government in the face by saying that it exceeded its authority when it claimed tens of thousands of dollars from 100 employees of a seafood plant. The Employment Insurance Commission knew about the agreement and had agreed to pay benefits, but instead of listening to the findings of the tribunal that it created itself, the government is refusing to listen to reason and is appealing the case. Can the minister explain why he is going after honest workers? Hon.

Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this is the result of a serious investigation into potentially misleading statements that cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. In this case, nearly $1 million in employment insurance benefits were paid out to people who were not truly unemployed. When this is discovered, the individuals whose claims are denied can appeal to the Social Security Tribunal, an independent quasi-judicial tribunal.

It is unfair to Canadian taxpayers, who work hard and pay into EI, if we do nothing to recover money paid out to people who were not entitled to it.

[ English ] Natural Resources Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians know the importance of our natural resources in providing jobs and economic prosperity. Canada is a secure and responsible supplier of energy and is well-positioned to contribute to global energy security, whether it be by utilizing our robust infrastructure or by deploying our world-class energy expertise and know-how. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources update this House on what our government is doing to reinforce Canada's commitment to global energy security? Mrs.

Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the very good work he does on the natural resources committee. Our government is committed to collaborating with our allies to support regional and global energy stability. That is why the minister is in New York City today to participate in the Goldman Sachs North American Energy Summit. He will participate in discussions with his North American counterparts and highlight Canada's commitment to global energy security.

[ Translation ] Quebec Bridge Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last year CN produced a report about the condition of the Quebec Bridge. Even though this is a public safety issue, the CN report was released only to shareholders. The most recent public report was released in 2011. Did the Minister of Transport have access to the CN report? If so, when will she make it public? If not, how can she claim that the bridge is safe? [ English ] Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in this country we have rules that we expect railways to follow.

They are very clearly set out in the Railway Safety Act. We also expect that they will conduct investigations on their property to ensure that there are not any accidents. When we say that we have inspected the rail, it matters as well too. Indeed, that is what we did with respect to this rail to ensure that it was safe. As the hon. member does know, CN and the Government of Canada are currently in a dispute with respect to the payment of monies for the further painting of that bridge. As it is before the courts, I have no further comment.

(1510) [ Translation ] Public Safety Mr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Conservatives said that federal penitentiaries have the tools to prevent helicopter-assisted escapes. That is true. What they did not say is that Quebec prisons do not have the same tools. That is entirely the Conservatives' fault. I have a letter dated October 24, 2013, in which the Quebec minister asks Ottawa to regulate airspace over Quebec prisons. Because the government ignored Quebec's request, three dangerous criminals escaped from prison and are now on the run.

How could the Minister of Transport ignore the letter from the Government of Quebec and its request? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague. We all know that three criminals are on the loose. We are supporting the Government of Quebec's efforts to catch these dangerous individuals. If the member or anyone else has information, they can contact Canadian or Quebec authorities.

[ English ] Presence in Gallery The Speaker : That concludes question period for today. I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation led by the Honourable Chi Wanchun, Chair of the China-Canada Legislative Association of the National People’s Congress of the People's Republic of China. Some hon. members : Hear, hear! [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-François Fortin : Mr.

Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: Given the National Assembly of Quebec's passage of Bill 52, the end-of-life care act, that this House reaffirm Quebec's exclusive right to legislate on health matters, including end-of-life care. [ English ] The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the House request that (

a) unless discussing matters relating to security, employment staff relations, or a tender, or if unanimous consent of all board members present is obtained, all meetings of the Board of Internal Economy be held henceforth in a transparent manner open to the public; (

b) all board proceedings be henceforth recorded and verbatim publications of the proceedings be made publicly available; (

c) all reports of studies ordered henceforth by the board be made publicly available; and (

d) proceedings of the board to be held in camera, as well as reports of studies ordered by the board to be kept confidential, only take place after a publicly held discussion of the board explaining the necessity of the confidentiality. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 95 petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : 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 Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union respecting its participation at the 130th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and Related Meetings, held in Geneva, Switzerland, from March 16 to 20, 2014. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I am tabling the report of the Canadian delegation of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie respecting its participation at the meeting of the APF Cooperation and Development Committee, held in Quebec City from March 18 to 20, 2013.

[ English ] Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, requesting an extension to a later date to consider Motion No. 431, election of committee chairs . If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 16th report later today.

(1515) Natural Resources Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to table today. I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “Cross-Canada Benefits of the Oil and Gas Industry”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government make a comprehensive response to this report. I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in relation to Bill C-22,

an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts . The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments. Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting the dissenting opinion of the official opposition to the report by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, on cross-Canada benefits of developing the oil and gas industry of the energy sector.

New Democrats recognize the importance and major contribution of the oil and gas sector to Canada's economy. However, as Canada's official opposition, we favour an approach to parliamentary committee studies that offers objective and balanced analyses, contributing to sound resource management. We are appreciative of all of the witnesses who took the time to share their perspective and expertise. The majority report provides a reasonable

summary of the testimony. Regrettably, the testimony was constrained by the limited scope of the study as proposed by the government, which prevented a net benefit assessment of the oil and gas sector. Few witnesses were invited to testify on current or potential risks, or costs associated with the sector. Consequently, the majority report fails to provide meaningful or balanced direction for public policy.

The government has espoused that responsible resource development requires balanced consideration of both economic development and environmental protection, as well as enhanced consultations with aboriginal peoples, yet, by design, this study was limited to a narrow review of economic benefits of the sector. Inclusion of testimony by a broader range of witnesses on associated risks or challenges faced by communities, aboriginal peoples, and workers could have offered more credible and constructive advice for sound and balanced federal policy.

We were denied the opportunity of even posing questions to witnesses on these broader challenges. In the 21st century economy, a progressive, realistic, and responsible policy must also factor in the true costs of resource exploitation and apply a policy framework addressing those challenges to ensure sustainability. Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, on the same report, I wish to present the dissenting report of the Liberal Party in relation to the seventh report of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The Speaker : The Standing Orders indicate that only the official opposition is able to speak to a dissenting report at the table.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, in relation to a certificate of nomination of Mary Elizabeth Dawson to the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Parliament of Canada Act Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) Bill C-613. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-613,

An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Access to Information Act (transparency) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Avalon for seconding my bill. I am pleased today to introduce the transparency act. I genuinely look forward to working with all members of the House to further open up Parliament and government for the benefit of all Canadians. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1520) Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier today be concurred in. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion? Some hon. members: No. The Speaker: There is no consent.

[ Translation ] Finance Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Motion to concur Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Tuesday, December 10, 2013, be concurred in. I would like to share my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques . Saying this riding's name is probably the most difficult thing about this speech. The finance committee's study examines income inequality in Canada. This debate is vital, not only for poor Canadians, but for all Canadians because the effects of inequality are clear.

The facts in this report show how bad it is for our economy. [ English ] I will touch on a number of aspects of income inequality that are raised in this incredibly important report. As New Democrats, we support many of the general proposals and the breadth of this study that was first raised by my colleagues down the way. There were some other provisions that we would have sought in the study, some harder looks and closer examination of some of the aspects of inequality in Canada.

However, all those watching and listening should rest assured that the impacts of inequality in Canada do not just affect those who are immediately targeted by low incomes and the effects of poverty; we know that those effects migrate out across the broader Canadian economy. It makes the country less healthy, less prosperous, less educated when we have serious inequality and when that inequality is growing.

From 1972 until just a couple of years ago, not only has the category of middle income Canadians shrunk in terms of the size of the Canadian population that can be classified as middle income, but that group has also seen its real wages increase by a staggeringly low 0.2% over that whole time, when adjusted for inflation. What does that mean? That means that people living and working in the early 1970s who were in the middle class have seen their wages grow in real dollar terms by only about 0.2%.

It stayed virtually the same, but what has changed is the cost of living, as we all know, whether it is paying for energy to heat our homes and turn on the lights or paying for food whose costs have increased, and we have seen the cost of education increase. We have seen a steady downloading from the federal government to the provincial governments, on down to municipalities, and to the individuals. This has been steady and growing with the neo-Conservative policies that have been promoted by various Conservative and Liberal governments.

Over those 35 years—and this may strike Canadians as passing strange—virtually 93% of all the growth in disparity between the haves and the have-nots, between the wealthier and the less wealthy Canadians, grew while Liberals were in power. It is a confounding thing for many Canadians because most people do not watch the day-to-day machinations of government. That is understood. They do not tune into question period every afternoon or the work of committees. They do not study every single piece of legislation.

People are busy trying to get the kids out to school, put food on the table, get a good job, and keep a good job. Canadians who are not watching what happens when parties get into power will be confused by the fact that most inequality has grown while Liberals were in power, because most Canadians watch the campaigns. Most Canadians in particular watch the last couple of weeks of a campaign when the parties present themselves in their full force to Canadians.

The trend we have seen—and it is a worrisome and disappointing trend for my Liberal friends down the way—is that they campaign to the left and then tack right as soon as they get into government and introduce policies that are well supported by their Conservative allies across the way. Usually the only disagreement Conservatives have with Liberal taxation policies is that they are not draconian enough. They are not giving away enough in terms of tax treats to the wealthiest Canadians. That is the Conservative criticism of Liberal taxation policy.

This is connected to this conversation about inequality and this particular report from the finance committee, because we see the government's last budget. We saw one of the ministers commit to this just yesterday. In the way the Conservatives presented this budget, we wished the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had taken a Hippocratic oath to do no harm when it comes to income inequality, because of what is in the pages of this budget. Members should get past the title; Conservatives are good at repeating titles ad nauseam.

They put this spin on every bit of legislation around the budget: jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. The question we should ask about that little spin job is: for whom and where?

(1525) Across the country we are seeing not only growing gaps in income between haves and have-nots but also disparity between the regions and the provinces, making the have and have-not provinces grow in distance from one another. One would wonder what the effect is, and we see it in this report from the committee.

From the IMF to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, all the way down from the most Conservative thinkers and think tanks in this country and around the world to the most progressive, there is one thing they agree on, which is that income inequality and regional disparity not only hurt impoverished individuals but also the broader economy. It has a dragging effect on the prosperity of the country as a whole. One would think that if the economy were the number one issue for the Conservatives, as they claim, then income inequality would be one of the things that they would be focused on.

That is why we wish they had taken a Hippocratic oath, because just recently we saw yet another confirmation of the Conservatives making a bad situation worse. The specific policy that I would point to is the notion of income splitting. It would not help 86% of Canadians. It is the very policy that former finance minister Jim Flaherty, whom we all knew well and who was quite endeared to us, raised significant questions about. He raised questions about this idea because it would cost upward of $5 billion to the federal and provincial coffers. That is not a small program.

What would people do with $5 billion if they were trying to attack income inequality or help families? There is a whole slew of ideas, ideas that again come from the most progressive to the most conservative think tanks in this country. The one idea that they say would not be great for income inequality and would not be great for helping families is income splitting, because it would help so few people and would disproportionately help those who need help the least, those making north of $150,000 a year.

Those families that have great disparity between what the spouses earn need to have a big gap between their earnings in order for them to achieve any benefit from income splitting. Single moms and single dads would receive no benefit from this measure whatsoever. People who have kids aged 18 and over would receive no benefit at all. People who do not have kids would not receive any benefit. It is almost as though the Conservatives are stuck in some sort of 1950s rerun. They can only imagine a family one way, so they designed the policy for that one family.

They are confused and confounded when the experts come forward and say it is 2014, not 1950. Because it is 2014, families in Canada come in every shape and size and in all kinds of forms, and if we want to help families, we need policies that would help them all, as opposed to helping just certain families. The Broadbent Institute put a wonderful report out yesterday that confirmed the analysis from the C.D. Howe Institute, just in case anybody is worried about whether this message is coming from progressive thinkers or from conservative ones. The report breaks down the unfairness of the income-splitting program.

More than half of the people who fit within that two-parent, two-kids scenario would not qualify for any benefit if both parents are in the same income bracket or if the disparity between their wages is not great enough. Who will benefit and receive the lion's share of the benefit from this income-splitting scheme, this $5-billion program, would be those who are the wealthiest. They stand to benefit upward of $5,000 to $6,000 per year with no strings attached.

One might question whether people making north of $150,000, as members of Parliament do, need an extra $5,000 in their pockets, as opposed to single moms struggling to make ends meet paying hydro bills or as opposed to parents in the same income bracket, both making $45,000 an hour—excuse me, $45,000 a year. The people making $45,000 an hour are the folks the Conservatives are trying to help out. Those living in the real economy and trying to make ends meet would not get any help from this program at all.

If they do somehow fit into that narrow 14% of middle-income and low-income Canadian families who might qualify, those families would get a couple of hundred dollars a year. The wealthiest families in Canada would get $6,000, compared to a couple of hundred bucks for those with the lowest incomes. Obviously the Conservatives have no interest in dealing with income inequality. I just wish they would do no harm, but instead, time and time again, we see proposals to shift the tax burden away from corporations.

Since the Conservatives took power, taxes for corporations, the wealthiest in this country, have gone down by $4.5 billion, but taxes on personal income have gone up by $15 billion. Individuals are bearing the burden for all those goods and services that we want from government, while corporations are giving less. The rich are paying less while middle-income earners and the poorest Canadians are paying more.

(1530) That is the Conservative world view on taxes. That is the Conservative world view on the economy. Progressives, like New Democrats, believe in something different: true fairness for Canadian families and true fairness for Canadians. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, our finance critic, for his very good speech on this report. I am on the Standing Committee on Finance, which studied the report. I think it is very relevant given that we discussed income splitting yesterday.

During his speech, my colleague from Kings—Hants mentioned a number of times that he hoped all members in the House would be able to work together to tackle the problem of income inequality. However, based on what I saw in committee, that was not the case. I think that it may even be very difficult to have the same perception of the problem of income inequality. I would like my friend to comment on one example. Although there were some recommendations where we could find common ground, we opposed one because it seemed to be irrelevant in a report on income inequality.

It proposed that the federal government, within the parameters set by the Supreme Court of Canada, continue to work collaboratively with the provinces and territories in order to create a co-operative capital markets regulatory system to promote economic growth and better protect small investors. How does such a measure directly address the issue of income inequality? Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is a very broad but also very technical question. I have a problem with the targets, but let us look at the overall situation.

Are the Conservatives or the Liberals interested in dealing with this problem? Yesterday evening, there was a very clear vote on an NDP motion to discuss the Conservatives' proposal to divide Canadian families into two categories, the rich and the poor. We do not think that is a good idea, given the inequality that already exists in Canada. The Conservatives voted against our motion or against the idea of equality, of a fair and equitable program. In the end, the Liberals voted with us. That was a very good development.

The content of the motion clearly shows that inequality has grown substantially during the 35 years of Liberal and Conservative leadership. It is really wonderful that the Liberals are finally admitting that the problem of inequality mainly stems from Liberal government policies. That is the reality. Yesterday evening's vote made that very clear. [ English ] I am glad that my Liberal colleagues came to the point of voting with the NDP motion last night, which said that the income-splitting scheme will increase inequality among Canadian families and that the haves will get more and the have-nots less.

The motion also stated the central fact, which is that over the last 35 years, inequality has grown dramatically under successive Liberal and Conservative governments. The proof of the pudding, for my Liberal friends in particular, will be to actually have policies that do something about it. It will be to have policies that reverse the inequality and the income gap and allow for the possibility of people prospering, which is the opportunity gap that we so often talk about. That is something that needs to be real.

We do not just need a vote on one night in the House of Commons; it needs to be real for all parties in this place if we truly want to stand up for Canadians. (1535) [ Translation ] Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the topic at hand, especially since addressing poverty is one of the ways we have identified for helping Canadians. The member spoke about income splitting. I have considered this situation. Clearly, there are major discrepancies between the people who will receive more money and those who will receive less.

Could an amendment be made so that the income tax refund would at least be issued to the member of the couple who earns less? Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question. Perhaps there is a way to improve the program or reduce its negative effects. That could be a possibility, but I do not know. There are many other ideas out there now about how to help Canadian families. A little extra money could be added to help families who currently have a lot of difficulty just meeting their basic needs. That is a possibility. The facts are not important to the Conservatives.

They are always playing politics. That is often the problem with a government that does not like facts, particularly facts that go against its policies and promises. We will see. We certainly have a lot of ideas about how to help Canadian families. Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley and finance critic for his very interesting speech. This debate is very relevant as it comes right after yesterday's debate on the opposition motion on income splitting.

Unfortunately, the government overwhelmingly rejected the motion, despite the various opinions they heard and those we heard in the Standing Committee on Finance when we discussed this issue. We had a number of debates following the motion moved by my colleague from Kings—Hants . However, he himself said he wanted to find common ground among the different parties. After the four meetings we had in committee, it was clear that we had a different vision of income inequality. When we do not have the same perception of the extent and origin of the problem, then it is rather difficult to find common solutions.

The opposition did its homework on this issue that affects all Canadians. This should not become a political issue; instead, it should be studied for the good of Canadians. In committee, many witnesses, most of whom were invited by the Conservatives, denied the fact that income inequality constituted a structural problem, whether in terms of redistribution through the tax system or in terms of job opportunities.

A number of those witnesses, who had been invited by the Conservative members of the committee, suggested that things were relatively normal and that this had more to do with an intergenerational inequality. In other words, we expect young people to have much lower incomes than people with 25, 30, or 35 years in the workforce. A person in debt or with a very low income early on in their career can expect to move up the ladder and one day obtain a senior position. That is true, but that is true in every society.

That does not explain why income inequality, as measured by the Gini index or other factors that compare different deciles or quintiles of income, is much higher in Canada than in many other industrialized countries. That troubles us and that is why we are having this debate. This inequality is a key concern of Canadians and Quebeckers because it seems to be present in the structure of Canada's social fabric. It arose from the various measures that the various federal governments have adopted over the past few years.

Provincial governments may also share some responsibility, as a result of some of the decisions they have made. However, they are often not involved in decisions regarding transfers from the federal government, in particular social and health transfers. Health care costs can sometimes take up 40%, 45% or even 50% of a province's budget. These issues are therefore extremely important to them, and that explains why this inequality has increased in all of this country's provinces. I mentioned that, in the beginning, members of the Standing Committee on Finance had different views on the issue of income inequality.

This meant that we all had different views on what solutions were necessary. The report contains some recommendations that the entire committee agreed upon, such as improvements to the employment assistance program, which helps low-income workers. We recognize that this is a progressive measure on the part of the Conservative government and that it helps the Canadians who need it most. However, the Conservatives proposed other measures we do not think belong in a report on income inequality.

(1540) The measures could have an impact, but it would be so indirect and remote in this case that it would have little effect. At the end of the day, they would only promote and advance the Conservatives' agenda on certain issues. In my question for the member to Skeena—Bulkley Valley I mentioned that the federal government was still working with the provinces and territories to create a single securities commission. This is an important economic issue. It comes up in debate quite often. The government is trying to reach an agreement with the provinces, and the Supreme Court has become involved.

This is an important issue for financial markets and the business world in general, but it will have little effect on income inequality. I think that we need to take a closer look at employment and education. The report has some good recommendations for education. All of the committee members agreed and voted in favour of these recommendations. The same goes for several measures for the labour market that removed barriers preventing many Canadians from accessing well-paying jobs and fulfilling their career aspirations.

However, the report contains other elements that clearly demonstrate the differences between the Conservatives' approach and that of the NDP, the official opposition. Take, for example, the final recommendation concerning the federal government's strong commitment to keep taxes low and to not impose punishing, higher personal or business tax rates that would harm economic growth for all Canadians Taxes can be kept as low as possible but, from a tax perspective, this debate is about far more than simply keeping taxes low. There are problems with fairness in the tax system.

We did not address that at committee stage. There is nothing in the recommendations about the tax expenditures that currently total more than $230 billion. That includes various tax credits and deductions that, at the end of the day, represent a loss for the Canadian treasury and that could be used to redistribute wealth. These programs need to be evaluated so we can see whether they are meeting their objectives. Are all of these tax credits, whether for businesses or individuals—including targeted credits for arts or sports—adequately serving their function? I think we need to evaluate that.

In our report, we recommended that the Canadian government implement a thorough review of Canada’s tax and transfer system to determine which changes to the regime have resulted in the greatest increases in income inequality. That means that we, on this side of the House, recognize that all of the changes that have been made to the tax system—and we can go as far back as the 1980s, to the reforms presented by the finance minister at the time, Michael Wilson—have contributed to a growing inequality.

In fact, that is when we first saw an increase in poverty, which was exacerbated by the federal measures that were implemented to revamp social programs under the Liberal government in the mid-1990s. Since then, many tax measures have only served to increase, not decrease, income inequality. In light of that, I think the issue merits further debate.

Honestly though, I do not think that the Conservative government wants to debate it, which is why I would like to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges : That the debate be now adjourned. (1545) [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1620) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 202) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Welland) Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Andrews Angus Armstrong Ashfield Ashton Aspin Atamanenko Aubin Bateman Bélanger Bennett Benoit Benskin Bergen Bernier Bezan Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Blaney Block Boivin Boughen Boutin-Sweet Braid Breitkreuz Brison Brosseau Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Butt Byrne Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Caron Carrie Casey Chicoine Chisholm Chisu Chong Choquette Christopherson Clarke Cleary Comartin Côté Crockatt Crowder Cullen Cuzner Daniel Davidson Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dechert Devolin Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dreeshen Dubourg Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dykstra Easter Eyking Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Freeland Freeman Galipeau Gallant Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Gill Glover Godin Goguen Goldring Goodale Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Groguhé Harper Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

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

s) Kellway Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lamoureux Lapointe Lauzon Laverdière Lebel LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leitch Lemieux Leslie Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacAulay MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mai Martin Mathyssen May Mayes McCallum McColeman McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Michaud Miller Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Murray Nicholls Nicholson Norlock Nunez-Melo Obhrai O'Connor O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Papillon Payne Péclet Poilievre Preston Quach Raitt Rajotte Rankin Raynault Regan Reid Rempel Richards Ritz Saganash Saxton Scarpaleggia Schellenberger Scott Seeback Sellah Sgro Shea Shipley Shory Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Smith Sopuck Sorenson St-Denis Stewart Storseth Strahl Sullivan Sweet Thibeault Tilson Toet Toone Trost Trottier Trudeau Truppe Turmel Uppal Valcourt Valeriote Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 246 NAYS Members Fortin Patry Plamondon Rathgeber -- 4 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

(1625) Instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) moved: That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-13,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the Committee be granted the power to divide the Bill into two bills: the first consisting of clauses 2 to 7 and 27, related to cyberbullying; and the second bill containing all the other provisions of Bill C-13 related to other online activity. Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The motion of instruction in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster , just read to the House is out of order and cannot be put to the House. It is obviously part of an ongoing effort by the NDP, in this case, to obstruct and resist the Board of Internal Economy meeting under way. However, whatever the motives may be, the fact is this. On Monday, May 26, the hon. member for Gatineau moved a motion of instruction, which was adjourned, and pursuant to Standing Order 66 (1), now sits on the order paper as Government Motion No. 11. For the Chair's ease of reference, let me read the motion.

It states: That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-13,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the Committee be granted the power to divide the Bill into two bills: the first consisting of clauses 2 to 7 and 27, related to cyberbullying; and the second bill containing all the other provisions of Bill C-13. Now let me read the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster . It states: That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-13,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the Committee be granted the power to divide the Bill into two bills: the first consisting of clauses 2 to 7 and 27, related to cyberbullying; and the second bill containing all the other provisions of Bill C-13 related to other online activity. Mr. Speaker, the difference is these five words, which were added at the end of today's motion, “related to other online activity”. What is indisputable is that the substantive effect of these two motions is identical.

Having established that these motions are for all intents and purposes identical, let me turn to page 560 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, which discusses the rule of anticipation. It states: The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.

According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding (for example, a bill or any other Order of the Day is more effective than a motion, which in turn has priority over an amendment, which in turn is more effective than a written or oral question). If such a motion were allowed, it could indeed forestall or block a decision from being taken on the matter already on the Order Paper .

Picking up at a later paragraph, I again quote: The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. That is a quite well-established principle we are all familiar with. It continues: It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. That is to say at this very moment.

Continuing on with the passage, it states: For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper We have that, for example, I would note, with regard to Veterans Affairs. It continues: but only one may be moved and disposed of. If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), the second may be proceeded with. If a decision is taken on the first bill, the other may not be proceeded with.

A point of order regarding anticipation may be raised when the second motion is proposed from the Chair, if the first has already been proposed to the House and has become an Order of the Day. That is exactly the present case, since the substantively identical motion of the hon. member for Gatineau is an order of the day, identified on the order paper as Government Motion No. 11. As a result, the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster would offend the rule of anticipation.

Therefore, I would submit that the motion of instruction you just read should not be proposed to the House, and the House should, in my respectful view, carry on with the remaining items of routine proceedings.

(1630) I of course note that I raised this immediately, at the moment the motion was read to the House, at the very earliest opportunity, the appropriate point in time to raise such a point of order. Clearly, the House has already made this, as the rules say, an order of the day. It has already dealt with it. It is a duplication of that effort. As such, it is entirely out of order at this time. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, we almost applauded on this side, because we think the government House leader actually made our point. The first point the government House leader made was that it is a different motion.

He also referenced the fact that it is related to other online activity, as part of this motion that is being presented today, which does not configure at all in the other motion he was mentioning. Second, and I am quoting from O'Brien, and the government House leader kind of glossed over this, it is important to read what O'Brien and Bosc also says: ...the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed. The government House leader kind of glossed over this.

It is from O'Brien and Bosc, which is really our procedural bible: The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed. We are not talking about the 17th century here. We are talking about 2014 in Canada. The third point is probably the most conclusive. We have talked about the ancient process. The government House leader referenced something from the 17th or 18th century. I certainly appreciate his reference of historical fact, but it does not have relevance to our standing orders today.

The third point, again from O'Brien and Bosc: While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive. I certainly agree that if the government House leader was standing in the British House of Commons, he might be right, but he is standing in the Canadian House of Commons, it is 2014, and this motion is very much in order. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, if I could address the first issue on whether the two motions are the same, the words are entirely the same, except for the five added on at the end, which we as lawyers would call obiter— Mr. Peter Julian : This is debate. You have already said that. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Yes, it is debate. I am debating the point of order. I am responding to the arguments that have been raised by the opposition House leader . I know he does not want— The Speaker : Order. There are several members who are participating in the discussion without having been granted the floor.

The Chair needs to hear these types of arguments so the Chair can make a decision that will serve the House well. The key to that is that I need to be able to hear them and not hear members who are not actually recognized by the Chair. If members have things they want to say, I suggest they go outside into the lobby, and they can say whatever they want, but not in the Chamber. The hon. government House leader is making a point that I would like to hear. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, the substance of both motions is identical.

The substance is to divide the bill into two bills, the first consisting of clause 2 to 7 and 27, and the other bill containing all the rest of the provisions. Regardless of how one describes the rest of the provisions, the consequence of the two motions is identical. Two separate bills, one which has clauses 2 to 7 and 27, and one which is the balance of the other clauses. The words describing them, that they are different, is really of no consequence. The fact is, it is an identical motion in terms of what it is asking this House to do.

In terms of the reference to the British practice, the hon. member may not be familiar with the fact that in our rules, our processes, and our procedures, it is often the case that we have reference to the mother Parliament. It is indeed the parent of all our rules and all our followings. It is a common practice to follow those proceedings. However, we are not simply doing that.

We are actually going much farther than that, following no less an authority than O'Brien and Bosc, which says when the rule becomes operative in our House, and that is: ...only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with.... if the first has already been proposed to the House and has become an Order of the Day. That is exactly what has happened in this case. That is exactly why this motion is out of order.

(1635) Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, the government House leader just repeated the same argument. I will not take any more of your time. It is very clear when we read O'Brien and Bosc that we are talking about an ancient rule that the government House leader is trying to reintroduce and something that in O'Brien and Bosc is very clearly part of the Standing Orders in another Parliament. It “has never been so”. I am quoting O'Brien and Bosc. That is kind of an important reference. ...it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons.

It is very clear that we are talking about a motion that introduces other elements. Quite frankly, it is very clear that it is in order, and the rule of anticipation, cited by the government House leader , and with due respect I certainly understand his historic model, is not relevant to the Canadian House of Commons. It is certainly not relevant to 2014. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I will make one final submission in response to the historical reference because the hon. member, in making a motion for instruction, appears ignorant of the history of the motion of instruction and its use in the House.

If I may read further from the legislative process in O'Brien and Bosc, at page 752, it reads as follows: Motions of instruction derive from British practice during the second half of the 19th century. It is funny that he seems to think that is irrelevant. That is the motion that he is seeking to make. They were carried over into the practice of the Canadian House of Commons, although they have been rarely used. As such, it being a British practice and being rarely used in this House, the very best authorities for it are the British. We are not relying merely on those, though.

We are also relying on the text and words and principles and rules found in our own bible, so to speak, the green book, O'Brien and Bosc. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, the repetition of arguments I do not think is useful in this case. I would cite O'Brien and Bosc: “it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons”.

Quite frankly, the government House leader is stretching, trying to find other elements, but the reality is that O'Brien and Bosc, which is our guide, talks about this ancient practice, the rule of anticipation, which is no longer strictly observed, and the rule of anticipation has never been part of the Canadian House of Commons Standing Orders. I think it is pretty clear that this motion is very much in order.

(1640) The Speaker : I appreciate the points raised by both the government House leader and the opposition House leader . Upon examination of the

section of O'Brien and Bosc, upon which both House leaders have relied extensively for their arguments, it seems to the Chair that the key concept is the question of whether or not the motions are substantially the same. Upon examination of both motions on the notice paper, it does seem that the motions are substantially the same and that the principles cited by the government House leader as to the practice of the House are persuasive to the Chair. Accordingly, we will not be proceeding with the motion at this time. We will now proceed with the rest of the items under routine proceedings.

Petitions Canada Post Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. One is from hundreds of residents, mostly from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. They are very concerned about the plans that Canada Post has, which have been approved the government, to cut between 6,000 and 8,000 jobs at Canada Post and to remove service from over five million households that receive home delivery. They will do this over the next five years.

The undersigned are calling upon the Government of Canada to reverse the Canada Post cuts to Canada public postal service and instead look for alternative revenue-generating ideas, such as postal banking, for example, which has worked in many other countries. We know, of course, that Canada is the only country of the G8 or G7, whichever we prefer, that is making the move to get away from home delivery. We are not even just getting away from home delivery. Canada Post claims that is only a small portion of people who receive it, but this is not the case.

(1645) Cadets Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is related to the question of the Valcartier cadets. We have petitions from individuals supporting the notion that the Government of Canada, through the Minister of National Defence , grant the Canadian Forces ombudsman the authority to investigate the case of the death of six cadets and the wounding of at least 60 more due to a grenade exploding at a cadet camp in 1974, which has not been fully investigated. The minister has agreed to do this. It is an important matter, and we hope that the proper investigation takes place.

The 40th anniversary of this event is this summer, on July 30. Proper redress and proper assistance has not been given to the victims of this tragedy.

Agriculture Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition that was presented to me by Ms. Katharina Stieffenhofer on the subject of Bill C-18 .

Impaired Driving Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present many petitions here on the issue of the current impaired driving laws. The petitioners are calling on the government to implement new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by some 100 people about Canada Post service cuts. Canada Posts's plan to cut services would eliminate home mail delivery for five million homes and significantly increase postal rates. The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan to cut services and explore other ways to modernize the crown corporation's business plan.

[ English ] Impaired Driving Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to present three separate petitions on behalf of Canadians regarding impaired driving causing death. Citizens want to see tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Pensions Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, I have three petitions from Edmonton residents. Two of the petitions are calling for increases in the Canada pension and Quebec pension. The petitioners are concerned that retirement security is one of the most pressing issues facing Canadians, but the cuts to OAS slashed $11 billion from seniors, who are now required to wait until they are 67 years old. They are calling on the government to expand CPP and QPP and to restore the OAS entitlement to 65.

Canada Post Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from Edmontonians calling on the Government of Canada to stop the devastating cuts to Canada Post.

Firearms Reclassification Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of citizens concerned about firearm reclassification, which aims to devalue and deprive them of their private property. The petitioners want all of Bill C-68 repealed, not just the billion-dollar long gun registry. The petitioners call upon Parliament to eliminate the bureaucratic chief of firearms officers.

Human Rights in Venezuela Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition on behalf of Canadians who are disturbed by the crisis in Venezuela. The petitioners are concerned about human rights being violated, and people detained and tortured for merely non-violent protesting. The petitioners call upon our government to take an active role against the tyranny of the Maduro government and call attention to the dangers facing Venezuela, which will not disappear by turning a blind eye. They want us to implement economic sanctions against those authorities responsible for human rights violations.

Criminal Code Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the last petition I have is from people across Canada who want the worst cases of sexual assault to be prosecuted more heavily. The petitioners do not want to see us coddle sexual predators, but to see us respect the plight of victims. As a result, the petitioners want to see us give sexual predators the punishment they deserve.

Agriculture Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of Prince Edward Islanders who are concerned about the rights of farmers to be able to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds. This is something that farmers have been doing for an indeterminate amount of time. That appears to be jeopardized by changes to the Seeds Act and the Plant Breeders' Rights Act under Bill C-18 . The petitioners call upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.

[ Translation ] Quebec Bridge Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present three petitions. The first asks the federal government to put an end to legal proceedings and work with CN to make the Quebec Bridge safe.

(1650) Pensions Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting asks the Government of Canada to collaborate with provincial governments to enhance, among other things, the Quebec pension plan and the Canada pension plan, and to restore the age of eligibility for old age security to 65.

Consumer Protection Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition asks the government to put an end to excessive credit card rates, ATM fees, and fees to receive paper bills.

[ English ] House of Commons Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Winnipeg North who want the Prime Minister to know that they do not support the increase in the number of politicians who are going to be elected to the House of Commons. Having 30 new MPs will cost the taxpayer millions of wasted tax dollars every year. Some have estimated the cost at $30 million-plus annually.

Firearms Reclassification Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is on the changes to the classification of firearms without adequate public consultation and public notice. The petitioners note that this erodes the confidence of Canadians in our justice system. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to enforce the Firearms Act in an open, transparent, and fair manner, respecting the right to own property.

Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with gender-selection abortion. The petitioners note that 92% of Canadians believe that sex-selective pregnancy termination should be illegal. The petitioners call upon Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through gender-selection pregnancy termination.

Canadian Forces Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition is in regard to what is happening to veterans and members of the Canadian Forces all across this country. First, the petitioners are concerned about the closure of nine regional offices for Veterans Affairs, and second, the fact that the number of suicides among Canadian Forces personnel and veterans has increased to an alarming rate. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to address the needs of Canadian Forces members by making sure that they and veterans have timely access to mental health services.

Pensions Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with the changes to old age security. The petitioners are very concerned about the fact that the age for entitlement to old age security has increased to 67 from 65. This causes great harm and hardship to many seniors. The petitioners call upon the government to maintain the retirement age for OAS at 65 and make the required investment in the guaranteed income supplement so that we could lift every senior in this country out of poverty.

[ Translation ] Champlain Bridge Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. It is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of people in my riding, Brossard—La Prairie. They are asking the federal government not to impose a toll on the new Champlain Bridg