12291 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 189 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, March 25, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 25, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 189 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 189 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 189 (Version officielle) 147 189 25 03 2015 2015/03/25 14:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers Statements by Members (1400) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem, today, led by the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso. [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] Elmwood—Transcona Mr. Lawrence Toet (Elmwood—Transcona, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, countless community groups are making a difference in Elmwood—Transcona each and every day. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize some of their efforts and achievements.

For 50 years, the Transcona Pipe Band has showcased our Scottish Canadian community's heritage with innovative bagpiping and drumming presentations that have captured the imagination of audiences at home and around the world. I would like to acknowledge Dave Stewart and the numerous parent volunteers who devote their precious time and energy to this respected Transcona institution. The Together in Elmwood Parent Child Coalition and the Elmwood East Kildonan Active Living Centre are two other organizations that provide valuable programming to the community.

These groups play an integral role in improving the quality of life of local residents, especially youth and seniors. I am glad to recognize Leilani Esteban and Con Gislason for their hard work and commitment to supporting our community members, young and old, to live up to their fullest potential. I wish to thank these groups and the many others for all that they do to build a better community for everyone.

Mount Dennis Outdoor Community Skating Rink Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, winter is finally behind us. In York South—Weston, this cold, harsh season was made warmer and brighter by a dedicated group of volunteers who for the third year ran the Mount Dennis outdoor community skating rink in Pearen Park. I was delighted to host a Family Day skating party there. Over 400 individuals learned to skate at the rink this past season. Nearly 900 used the free skate loan program.

The rink continued its fine tradition of making a positive difference in the community, one smile and one skating lesson at a time. With a tip of my toque, I would like to congratulate rink coordinator Simon Chamberlain who received a volunteer Toronto award for his outstanding efforts and ice master Guy Ruggieri and his over 40 volunteers who gave generously of their time to make this grassroots initiative a smashing success. Margaret Mead said, “... a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.

Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” That is a fitting tribute to the Mount Dennis volunteers.

(1405) Medals of Bravery Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, two years ago, a fire broke out at the Irene and Leslie Dubé Centre for Mental Health, creating thick smoke. After having to retreat from the area several times due to the smoke, two of Saskatoon Health Region's security team members, Chris Clark and Tyler Campbell, bravely rescued a trapped female patient from a burning room in the centre. “It was a scary situation, but we knew someone was in there and we needed to get them out, so we were going to do whatever we could to make that happen”, Clark said.

Fortunately, the fire was isolated to a single room and no one was seriously injured, thanks in part to the actions of these two men. This March 6, both Corporal Clark and Mr. Campbell received Medals of Bravery from Governor General David Johnston for their

part in this rescue. On behalf of the House of Commons and the citizens of Saskatoon—Humboldt, I would like to extend our thanks to Corporal Clark and Mr. Campbell. Their bravery and concern for the needs of others are an example for us all. They represent the best of Canada.

William “Bull” Marsh Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a renowned Cape Bretoner, William “Bull” Marsh, who passed away over the weekend. Bull was born in New Waterford on January 21, 1922. After serving four years in the navy during World War II, Bull went to work in New Waterford's No. 12 Colliery, then transferred to No. 16, where he began his work with the United Mine Workers of America. In 1958, he was elected president of District 26 and held that position for 22 consecutive years. He was the longest serving president in District 26 history.

In 1965, there were 6,500 miners working in Cape Breton and Bull played a major role in securing their livelihoods. He had an amazing talent as a speaker. In his leisure time he could be seen fishing, hunting or training his Labrador retrievers. Giving the miners a fair deal is what Bull stood for. His impact on the community was remarkable and he will be fondly remembered for many more years to come.

Religious Freedom Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this morning at a press conference on Parliament Hill, Canadians from all walks of life called on the government to protect religious freedoms in Canada. Canada is recognized as a country that advocates for human rights and religious freedom internationally. Canada's excellent international reputation is due to our government's strong stand on human rights and the outstanding work of Canada's ambassador for religious freedom. We also need to focus on religious freedom in Canada to protect the chartered rights of all Canadians.

Religious freedom is integral to the fabric of the Canadian identity. It is at the core of who we are as a tolerant and pluralistic society. It is central to our culture, our history and has shaped us as a nation. Recent intolerant attacks on religious freedom in Canada are being condemned. I call on all members in the House to commit themselves to protect our religious freedom.

[ Translation ] Greek Independence Day Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise in the House today, March 25, to celebrate Greek Independence Day. As founders of democracy, philosophy and theatre, the Greek people have, on many occasions throughout history, demonstrated resiliency, courage and the will to exist and to be. I am lucky to represent a riding, Laval—Les Îles, that is home to one of the largest Greek communities in Quebec.

I am therefore pleased to invite not just the people of Laval, but all of my colleagues in the House, to participate in the celebrations that will be put on by the Hellenic Community of Greater Montreal this weekend. I am proud to say that I will be there. I would especially like to invite everyone to the parade that will take place this Sunday on Jean-Talon in Montreal. Every year, the parade showcases Greek culture, which is so vibrant in my community. Long live the Greeks in Laval, Quebec and Canada, and long live Greece. [Member spoke in Greek as follows:] Zito Y Ellada!

[ English ] Greek Independence Day Mr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today marks the 194th anniversary of the great rebellion of the Greek people against the Ottoman Empire, liberating a nation after almost 400 years of illegal occupation. On this March 25 and throughout this week, Canadians of Hellenic descent will be celebrating this national day of independence with parades and community events across Canada, including in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver and many other places.

In my riding of Richmond Hill, the Hellenic Canadian community of York Region will be hosting a Greek school celebration at the Hellenic Academy of York located at Pleasantville Public School, with student performances including poems, songs and traditional Greek dances. We salute all Canadians of Greek heritage during this time of celebration, and recognize their important and positive contributions to Canada. I would like to wish everyone in York Region, throughout Canada and indeed throughout the world a very happy Greek Independence Day. [Member spoke in Greek as follows:] Zito i 25h Martiou! Hronia Polla!

(1410) Colonel Fitzgerald Branch 233 Royal Canadian Legion Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely congratulate the Orangeville Colonel Fitzgerald Branch 233 Royal Canadian Legion on its 80th anniversary. Since 1935, this exemplary legion branch has been an integral member of our community through its extraordinary efforts to ensure that the imperative act of remembrance has been passed from generation to generation.

Furthermore, this tremendous organization has continued to dedicate itself to enriching our community by sponsoring youth groups such as Girl Guides, escorting veterans to and from medical appointments and hosting the annual seniors Christmas lunch as well as public events such as Canada Day, Founder's Day and of course Remembrance Day. This Saturday, the Orangeville legion will be hosting its anniversary celebration. This is an excellent time for all of us to recognize and thank this outstanding legion for its exceptional service to our community and country.

Employment Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the Conservative government's constant mismanagement of the temporary foreign worker program, next Wednesday a large number of temporary foreign workers must leave Canada. The government will not actually tell us how many. Among them are workers who have already filed applications for permanent residency and are at present waiting for an answer. These workers followed the rules. They came to Canada, worked hard and contributed to our economy. The current government changed the rules midstream.

Based on an arbitrary deadline, the government is going to send these workers away. It is unfair and heartless. We are calling on the Conservative government to allow temporary foreign workers who have submitted an application for permanent residency to be able to stay in Canada as their applications are reviewed and answered. We are also calling on the government to take immediate steps to restore pathways to citizenship for all temporary foreign workers as part of a full review of the badly mismanaged temporary foreign worker— The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Brampton—Springdale.

Taxation Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, mothers and fathers should be able to make the important decisions that affect their own children. That is why our new family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit will give 100% of families with kids an average of nearly $2,000 per child. That is nearly $12,000 per child over six years. From that side of the House, we hear of new taxes, high debt and the removal of all of these benefits we have brought forward to help Canadian families. Canadians do not want their money funnelled into bureaucratic black holes.

They do not want higher taxes. Canadians need tax relief and support that they can use as they see fit, and that is exactly what we are delivering on this side of the House.

[ Translation ] Gender Equality Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, despite all its hard work to achieve gender equality at all levels, the Table de concertation de Laval en condition féminine has noted that women are still under-represented in decision-making roles. This bitter reality is even more disconcerting considering the Conservatives' inaction on this issue. In 2012, this government committed to creating an advisory council with a mandate to increase opportunities for women's leadership on corporate boards of public and private companies.

Unfortunately, the long-awaited report has yet to be delivered. We could have taken positive action by supporting the bill introduced by my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles , which was intended to increase women's representation on boards of crown corporations. The Conservatives chose the status quo. Now is the time to move forward and take action to ensure that the women of tomorrow can contribute to our society in a way that reflects their full potential.

(1415) [ English ] Veterans Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is keeping our pledge to strengthen support for Canada's veterans and their families. Recently, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced changes that will ensure the earning loss benefit is calculated in the same way for reserve force veterans as it is for regular force veterans. This is about respect for reservists.

This is also about families, as the families of our reserves will have the confidence of knowing they too will benefit in the event of their reserve veteran being seriously injured or killed in the line of duty. Canada's reserves form a crucial component of our armed forces and served our country proudly in Afghanistan. Our Conservative government knows this change is just the right thing to do.

South Africa Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from a moving trip to South Africa on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Freedom Charter, the iconic moral compass of the anti-apartheid movement that inspired the creation of a free, democratic, egalitarian, and non-racial South Africa with Nelson Mandela, our honorary Canadian citizen, as its first president.

I had occasion to meet with Susan Shabangu, South Africa's minister responsible for women, on the eve of International Women's Day, whose message was that empowering women was empowering Africa, and indeed, it is equally true that empowering women is empowering Canada. I met with Minister of Justice Tshililo Michael Masutha, discussing the contribution of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian jurisprudence to South African constitutionalism. I also met with Minister of the Presidency Jeff Radebe on the importance of a human rights foreign policy.

There is great potential for a Canada-South Africa partnership in the area of women's rights, constitutionalism, and international justice, where both our countries and peoples will be the beneficiaries.

Manufacturing Industry Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, manufacturing in southern Ontario remains critical to our nation's economy and long-term prosperity. Since we came to office, we have taken action to support manufacturing and all the jobs it supports in southern Ontario and across Canada. While our government continues to create and stand up for jobs in the manufacturing sector, the leader of the Liberal party has been very clear in saying, “A large part of it is transitioning away from manufacturing-based employment as a driver in the economy”.

These comments are further proof that the Liberal leader is an economic novice, who is not capable of managing the Canadian economy in a still fragile global economy. Canadians deserve better. That is why our government will continue to focus on jobs, fostering economic growth, and ensuring long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

[ Translation ] Military Contribution Against ISIL Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister delivered a fine speech to try to sell us on the idea of a lengthy, ill-defined and costly war. The Prime Minister prefers military intervention over humanitarian aid. In fact, the numbers speak for themselves. Since the beginning of 2014, the government has committed $100 million to Iraqis affected by the conflict. The war on the ground alone has already cost $122 million and that is just a small portion of the total bill.

Let us not forget that the Canadian mission in Libya ended up costing six times more than initially estimated, and extending operations will cost hundreds of millions more. In the meantime, the government is not making any announcement about increasing aid in Iraq and the entire region. The motion that the Conservatives moved yesterday does not include any plans for humanitarian assistance. The NDP puts people above weapons.

Military Contribution Against ISIL Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the terrorist death cult that is the group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant is specifically targeting Canada. Voters in my riding, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, believe that it is vital to weaken ISIL to the point where it no longer represents a threat to Canada. Thanks to the Royal Canadian Air Force and our coalition partners, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant is already in defensive mode in 20% of the zones it controlled. Our government believes that it is in Canada's national interest to take

part in the global fight against jihadist terrorism. The Leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the NDP are not taking the jihadist threat seriously. They are out of touch with the international community. They would withdraw Canada from the global fight against jihadist terrorism. I am proud that Canada is helping combat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions (1420) [ English ] National Defence Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the foreign affairs minister claimed that Canada's legal basis for bombing in Syria was “the same basis as the Americans”. The United States justification for war in Syria is that it is defending the Iraqi government. Does the Prime Minister stand by that? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I have already made it very clear that Canada will pursue its air campaign in Syria on the same legal basis that our allies have been pursuing that campaign without challenge for the past several months. Our position is that ISIL should be given no safe refuge in Syria. The fact that Canada and its allies strongly oppose the Assad regime is, of course, absolutely no reason to allow ISIL safe haven in Syria, from which it could launch attacks against others. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, precisely in Samantha Power's letter to His Excellency Ban Ki-moon on September 23, she says that that is the American justification; that they are helping Iraq and it is at the request of Iraq that they are going into Syria. [ Translation ] The question for us, then, is this: Did Canada receive a formal request for military intervention in Syria from the Iraqi government, yes or no? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat my answer. The Government of Canada is pursuing the Islamic State in Syria on the same legal basis as our allies.

They have been pursuing that campaign without challenge over the past several months, and we accept that. With regard to the specific question, the Iraqi government has expressed its support for our actions and those of our allies. Obviously, our motivation is to protect our country from this terrorist caliphate. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that means the answer is no.

They never received a request for military intervention in Syria from Iraq, unlike the Americans, who indicated as much in their letter to the United Nations. [ English ] Let us stay with the United Nations because the Prime Minister says that he is following the U.S. model here. The United States wrote to the Secretary-General, as required under

article 51 of the UN charter, and laid out its legal case for its planned intervention in Syria. Has the Prime Minister written to the United Nations, laying out Canada's justification for its planned intervention in Syria? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the government is pursuing this action on exactly the same legal basis as its allies. I am not sure what point the leader of the NDP is ultimately making.

If he is suggesting that there is any significant legal risk of lawyers from ISIL taking the Government of Canada to court and winning, the Government of Canada's view is that the chances of that are negligible. We are clearly defending not only the wider region, but— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker: Order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Hon. Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, extraordinary. Living in a Canada where that sort of idiocy passes for argument in the House of Parliament. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker: Order, please. I know that the hon.

Leader of the Opposition will want to avoid using terminology like that which can cause a great deal of disorder. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

(1425) Foreign Affairs Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, the Punjab Legislative Assembly passed a unanimous motion calling on Canada to apologize for the Komagata Maru incident. The Komagata Maru is a dark moment in Canadian history. The ship was turned away simply because its passengers were from India. Upon returning home, many were arrested or killed. Will the Prime Minister finally do the right thing, acknowledge this horrific tragedy, and apologize in this House for the Komagata Maru ? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the NDP knows that Canada and Canadians have appropriately acknowledged that incident for some time. I would be remiss if I did not return to the previous exchange, and while I obviously will not repeat the terminology used by the leader of the NDP, if his idea of protecting Canada's national interest is that we do not do everything in our power, legally, militarily, and in terms of co-operation with allies, to defend the interest of this country against the terrorist caliphate, he and I obviously have very different ideas of what the national interest of this country is. Hon.

Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada thinks he is above international law also. He is not, and Canada is not. That is all we have. [ Translation ] World leaders are taking up the cause of Raif Badawi, the Saudi Arabian writer who was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for creating a pro-democracy blog. I had the opportunity to meet with Ensaf Haidar, Mr. Badawi's wife, who lives in Sherbrooke with their three children. One cannot help but be moved by her courage. With so much support for Mr.

Badawi, what is keeping the Prime Minister , to whom I wrote about this issue, from doing something to secure this man's release so that he can be reunited with his family here in Canada? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and I have already indicated that we support Mr. Badawi's release. [ English ] Once again, I do want to return to the previous exchange.

If the leader of the NDP is suggesting for a moment that there is any case in the international legal community that stands behind ISIL, he is not only wrong, but the international community has united in opposition to this group. Five dozen members of the United Nations have united to confront this international terrorist organization. Canada is working with them. Canada is working not only with people from our own political family but with liberals and social democrats across the world in taking a strong stand to stay this ruthlessness.

National Defence Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's motion explicitly leaves the door open to expanding our combat operation outside of Iraq and Syria against terrorist entities aligned with ISIL. Is the Prime Minister considering sending our bombers or special forces into Yemen or Libya or against Boko Haram in sub-Saharan Africa? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, we are not. I thought we were clear on that yesterday, but I am glad to be clear on it again today. Let me be clear.

Where we face organizations, as we do today in Iraq and Syria, that are establishing caliphates, large territorial areas from which they are threatening to launch terrorist attacks against this country, Canada will work with our allies in every single case where that ever occurs to make sure we protect the security of this country. [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's motion leaves the door open to expanding our combat mission outside of Iraq and Syria.

Can the Prime Minister assure the House that yesterday's motion will not be used to justify sending military resources to combat the Islamic State elsewhere in the world? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, the government's intentions are clear. We are trying to prevent the Islamic State from taking refuge in Syria. We will also continue to combat the Islamic State in Iraq. This is different from the Liberal Party's position, which makes absolutely no sense. The Liberals support another military mission, but not this one. We are clear.

We will continue to work with our allies to protect the security of this country.

(1430) [ English ] The Economy Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the economic news for the middle class is getting worse, not better. Stats Can just said that the past 15 months have been the weakest period of growth it has ever recorded. There are continued fears of a recession in Alberta, and today, TD forecast that the unemployment rate will rise this year, yet the Prime Minister 's only plan remains a tax break for the rich. How will that solve any of these problems? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we know very well that we are in a fragile and uncertain global economy, and of course, this country is being impacted by the dramatic fall in oil prices. That is only more reason to stick to the plan that has generated 1.2 million net new jobs since the end of the recession, to lower people's taxes, to make targeted investments in the Canadian economy, and to run a very strong fiscal ship. Nobody in the world, other than the leader of the Liberal Party, believes the solution to any of these problems is to hike taxes on the middle class.

Public Safety Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this week witness after witness has come forward to lay out the critical flaws in Bill C-51 . Last night we heard from retired Supreme Court Justice John Major, who testified that the judicial warrant the Conservatives are fond of calling oversight is simply not oversight. Major said that in order for there to be proper information sharing there needs to be oversight at the back end. Why is the concept of more powers, more oversight, such a hard concept for the minister to understand? Hon.

Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as we know, the international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada and its allies. Canadians are being targeted by jihadi terrorists simply because these terrorists hate our society and the values it represents. Jihadi terrorism is not a human right; it is

an act of war. Regarding oversight, we believe strongly that third-party, non-partisan, independent expert oversight of our national security agencies is a much better model than a political intervention in the process. There are key powers in the new legislation that are subject to judicial review and judicial authorization. We agree with the Supreme Court that SIRC is the best model for Canadians. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that is just the opposite of what Justice Major told us last night, but I am not asking the minister to take my word for things here.

I am asking him to listen to the legions of witnesses opposed to this bad bill. Even the Internet's Mozilla Foundation has come out swinging against the sweeping provisions of Bill C-51 , calling it “an approach to cybersecurity that only serves to undermine user trust, threaten the openness of the Web, and reduce the security of the Internet and its users”. What is it going to take for the minister to get the message that sacrificing the rights and freedoms of Canadians will not make Canadians safer? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, if the member would really listen to Justice Major and the Air India commission, he would support the provision in Bill C-51 regarding information sharing. Bill C-51 is the most important national security legislation since the 9/11 era.... Bill C-51 is designed for the post-9/11 era. It's a new legislation for a new era in terms of security threats. Who said that? It was Professor Elliot Tepper from Carleton University. Where was the member when the witness said that? [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, in committee yesterday, more expert witnesses criticized Bill C-51 . Scott Tod, the Ontario Provincial Police's top anti-terrorism official, cautioned the government. Bill C-51 will give the police force more responsibilities but will not provide additional resources. The police force will therefore have to reallocate resources currently being used to combat organized crime. What is the minister's plan for making sure that our police officers can continue to do their jobs well? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, over the past nine years, our government has increased resources allocated to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police seven times. In total, the RCMP's budget has gone up by more than a third. Unfortunately, the New Democrats were unwilling to support us in giving our police forces those resources. We intend to stay the course to ensure that our police forces have the resources and tools they need to combat the terrorist threat. That is why Bill C-51 is on the table.

(1435) Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, police officers are not the only ones concerned about the consequences of Bill C-51 . The Government of Quebec has denounced the fact that Bill C-51 will give the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; “such vast powers, including the possibility to take certain actions that violate the Charter”. The Conservative majority on the committee refused to allow ministers from Quebec to appear. Why is the government refusing to hear from those who will have to enforce this deeply flawed legislation? Hon.

Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the primary role of any government is to protect its citizens from terrorist threats, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are doing so in co-operation with the provincial and territorial governments. That is why I have had many discussions with Minister Thériault from Quebec, as well as other representatives from the provinces. We will continue to ensure that police forces and intelligence services work together to protect Canadians. Our government and the Quebec government are on the same wavelength on this.

[ English ] Canada Revenue Agency Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a report published today by the Environmental Law Centre of the University of Victoria raises very troubling questions about the so-called political activities audits being undertaken by the Canada Revenue Agency. It analyzes the alarming lack of clarity in the rules governing political activities for charities. It is now clear the government must immediately suspend these audits and fix the broken system. Will the Conservatives finally put a stop to this and clean up the mess they have created? Hon. Kerry-Lynne D.

Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that member knows full well that CRA audits occur at arm's length from government. They are conducted free of any political interference or motivation. The CRA charities directorate acts independently. The rules regarding charities and political activities are long standing, and charities must respect the law. It really is shameful that this member continues to politicize a matter that is free of any political interference or motivation. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the credibility of the Canada Revenue Agency is at stake.

The Conservatives are spending $13.4 million of taxpayers' money to target charities the Conservatives do not like at the same time as they are cutting $200 million from the overall budget of the CRA. It is very troubling. The recommendations in this report deserve serious attention. Instead, we just hear more denials from this minister. But she is responsible for the credibility of the CRA. Will she ever take action? Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as the director general of the charities directorate has stated: As I have made clear in the past, the process for identifying which charities will be audited (for any reason) is handled by the Directorate itself and is not subject to political direction. The CRA audits 1% of the charitable sector every year. This means, on average, only 0.4% of all charities end up having their status revoked, for whatever reason. The only politics in this story are the shameful political motivations of the NDP. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, we are aware of the minister's talking points, but the University of Victoria's Environmental Law Centre raised some troubling facts in its report. Some 52 organizations, mainly environmental and advocacy groups, are being monitored by the Canada Revenue Agency. It is a veritable witch hunt for purely political purposes. Will the Conservatives get their priorities straight and deal with tax evasion instead of going after charities? Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the CRA conducts audits independently and without political interference or motivation. The rules regarding charities and political activities have been in place for a long time. Charities must obey the law. The CRA is legally responsible for ensuring that charitable cash donations made by charitable Canadians are used for charitable purposes.

(1440) Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when the Canada Revenue Agency is not wasting its time going after environmental groups, it gets mailing addresses mixed up and sends personal information to the wrong people. In 2014, CRA employees used the wrong mailing address 3,800 times. In other words, more than 1 million Canadians' personal information has been compromised since the Conservatives came to power. When will this government fix this problem? [ English ] Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we agree with Canadians who rightfully expect that their personal information should be protected when dealing with the CRA. We expect the CRA to have a close working relationship with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and to act on all his recommendations. Ninety-five percent of the reported privacy issues are related to misdirected mail, as the CRA handles over 150 million pieces of correspondence every year. That said, we expect the CRA to improve on how it deals with the personal information of Canadians. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, check this out.

In the last two years, the Canada Revenue Agency has had more data breaches than all other government agencies combined over the last 10 years. Now, that minister just does not seem to understand the importance of protecting the personal financial information of Canadians. I have a simple question. Why is the minister using the tax department as the political enforcement arm of the Conservative Party?

Why is she attacking birdwatchers, environmentalists, and Oxfam, when she should be dealing with the appalling record of lost, stolen, and compromised data that is happening in her department under her incompetent nose? Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, 95% of the privacy incidents reported by CRA are related to misdirected mail. That being said, more serious incidents related to lost or stolen data and unauthorized accesses are completely unacceptable.

My expectation is that CRA work closely with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and implement all his recommendations to ensure confidential information remains protected. As I said before, that party knows there is no political interference in charitable audits, as has been stated over and over again.

The Economy Ms. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, over the past week, both the OECD and TD have sharply cut their economic outlook for Canada. TD's new forecast for 2015 has Canada losing $22 billion from our economy compared to the bank's projections from just three months ago. TD warns unemployment will rise, wage growth will stall and household debt will mount. When will the Minister of Finance stop playing hide and seek with the House and personally tell us what his plan is to reverse this painful economic decline? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is called the low-tax plan for jobs, and it is working. There were 1.2 million net new jobs, with 85% of them in the full-time category and two-thirds of them in high-wage sectors. The Liberal plan is to raise taxes on those who create jobs and to raise taxes on middle-class families. That would send shockwaves throughout our economy. It would kill jobs and set families back. We will not let the Liberals do it. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker : I would ask members at the far end of the chamber to come to order when the minister is answering the question. The hon. member for Bourassa.

[ Translation ] Infrastructure Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the mayors of Montreal and Toronto met today, and what did they talk about? They talked about infrastructure. The late Jim Flaherty himself said that it is the best way to stimulate job creation and growth. The Conservatives have since cut 90% of these expenditures, and reports are showing that employment in Canada is precarious. This government does not have a plan, and the minister is missing in action in this matter. When will the Conservatives commit to reversing the cuts in infrastructure? Hon.

Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I met with the mayors of Montreal and Toronto. What did they talk to me about? They talked about infrastructure and they congratulated us on our plan, the longest and largest infrastructure plan in Canada's history. That is why I met with them. (1445) [ English ] Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, they like the plan, but they would rather have the money. The mayors of Toronto and Montreal met today.

The cities are often seen as rivals, but what has them united? Mayor Tory and Mayor Coderre. The great cities have been united because they got absolutely nothing from the federal government for the last two years from the new infrastructure build fund. However, they do have a lot of photo ops, a lot of billboards, but nothing when it comes to a cheque being cashed. When will the Conservative government send a budget to the cities? Why will the Minister of Finance not come out from under his desk, quit hiding and deliver a budget that funds infrastructure, creates jobs and creates growth? Hon.

Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as we have said before, the new building Canada fund is very important. The infrastructure plan is there. I will explain the gas tax fund. As a former city councillor, he probably already knows, but I will repeat it. Two times a year, in July and November, we transfer to the provinces and territories the money from the gas tax fund. Two billion dollars a year have been transferred to municipalities and provinces.

Veterans Affairs Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government's utter disregard for veterans continues to take its toll. Over the past three years, the Conservatives have cut the number of case managers for veterans by 20%. Those who are left are struggling to deal with unmanageable caseloads. This has a major impact on the quality of care and services that veterans receive. Veterans and members of Parliament warned that this would be the outcome of Conservative cuts. Why did the Conservatives fail to listen? When will they make amends? Hon.

Erin O'Toole (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we will continue to make investments in front-line services and support our case managers for veterans. By the end of this year, due to our investments, the veterans and their families will have up to 26 operational stress injury clinics scattered throughout the country. In the last few weeks I have also expressed our interest to bring out the retirement income security benefit. We are bringing respect and parity for our reserve forces. We are providing the family caregiver relief benefit. We are moving to support our veterans and their families.

I hope the opposition finally stops the rhetoric and gets behind it. [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister does not know what “respect for our veterans” means. Our soldiers who suffered traumatic injuries while protecting our country deserve to have access to the services they need. However, the government had no qualms about reducing the number of case workers from 309 to 254. That is a 20% reduction. The people who help our soldiers are overwhelmed. What is the government waiting for to reverse that senseless decision? [ English ] Hon.

Erin O'Toole (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as that member would know, in the last two weeks we have actually expanded benefits and programs for our most seriously injured. We have made a major expansion for eligibility to the permanent impairment allowance for our critically injured. For their families, we are giving the family caregiver relief benefit. These are real benefits that will come to the House. I hope that member will stand in the House and vote for these outstanding benefits for veterans and their families.

[ Translation ] The Environment Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, all the parties voted unanimously for the NDP motion that would eliminate microbeads and put an end to the pollution of our waterways. Now, we need to follow the example of the American states and the other countries that have taken action in this regard. Promising to organize a meeting on the issue is not enough. That is not taking action. What is the government's concrete plan to put an end to the use of microbeads and protect our environment? Mr.

Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday's motion received unanimous consent. Environment Canada is initiating a scientific review to assess the effects of microbeads on the environment. This panel of experts will document future action on microbeads. Our government has come up with an innovative chemicals management plan to prioritize microbeads for assessment, which will benefit all Canadians.

We are going to work in co-operation with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, and we support including the issue of microbeads on the agenda for the council meeting this summer. (1450) [ English ] Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we did not agree to more study; we agreed to action. The motion was clear and it called on the government to list microbeads as a toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Instead of promising real action, all the Conservatives are saying is that they are going to try to add it to the agenda of a meeting. We did not vote on that.

Do the Conservatives plan to stand by their vote or are they just trying to weasel their way out of responsibility for protection of the environment? Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the only weaseling is by the NDP members who will not respect science. We are taking a leadership role when it comes to protecting our environment. Environment Canada is initiating a scientific review to assess the effects of microbeads on the environment. It is this expert advice that will inform future potential actions on microbeads.

Taxation Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, now that we are balancing our budget, we are helping all families balance theirs. On that side of the House, the Liberal leader says that he will raise taxes on every family. The only ones who benefit from the NDP plan are big bureaucracies. Could the Minister of Employment and Social Development please tell us what our government is doing to help all Canadian families? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, today I was at the Sandy Hill Child Care centre celebrating the legislation we will introduce Friday to increase the universal child care benefit, those monthly cheques that people get, to almost $2,000 for preschoolers and $720 for kids 6 through 17. The Liberals and NDP have voted against these initiatives in the past. They are going to oppose them again. We know they would take that money away to give it to the so-called experts. We are going to give that money to the eight million real child care experts out there whose names are mom and dad.

Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it was revealed today that during a meeting with chiefs last week in Calgary, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development said that indigenous men were responsible for 70%— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order, please. The member for Churchill now has the floor. Other members who wish to persist in this can sit on the very comfortable couches in the lobby. There they would only torment the whips' assistants instead of other members. The hon. member for Churchill has the floor. Ms. Niki Ashton : Mr.

Speaker, it was revealed today that during a meeting with chiefs last week in Calgary, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said that indigenous men were responsible for 70% of the murders of indigenous women. He told them that this was unreleased RCMP data, but we all know that the number quoted is not backed up by any of the RCMP reports. Will the minister stand in the House and release the data on which he based his claim, or will he get up and tell us that he made this number up to suit the Conservatives' discriminatory agenda? Hon.

Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, indeed, last week I toured the Prairies and met with several first nations chiefs, councillors and stakeholders to discuss a wide range of issues. While I do not disclose the specifics of closed-door meetings, I can assure the hon. member that the discussions were productive, and our government will continue to work with first nations to address these issues.

Northern Development Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : The government will never learn from its mistakes, Mr. Speaker. After ramming through its plan to do away with regional environmental boards in the Northwest Territories, the Conservatives are now stalled by an injunction handed to them by the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories and they will likely face the same kind of legal action from Yukon first nations over Bill S-6 . When will the Conservatives get it? Gutting environmental protection and altering land claims agreements just simply lead to more uncertainty and legal actions.

Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I guess I missed the question. Unlike previous Liberal governments, this Conservative government has made the long-term prosperity of Canada's north and northerners a priority. This includes fostering economic development, among others, by improving Yukon and Nunavut regulatory systems, while protecting our environmental heritage. That is what Bill S-6 would do, and I encourage him to support it.

(1455) [ Translation ] Pensions Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a study by the Université de Montréal confirms that the Conservatives' old age security reform will increase inequalities among seniors and create more poverty. We know full well that at the end of the day, changing the retirement age from 65 to 67 will only delay the payment of benefits. Ultimately, this measure will do nothing but make things harder for seniors. Why is the minister maintaining this reform now that he knows it will achieve nothing? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the only plan the New Democrats and the Liberals have for seniors is to increase taxes. Seniors have worked their entire lives. They do not need to be penalized with more taxes. That is why we have taken 380,000 seniors off the tax rolls by increasing the amount they can earn without paying taxes. We also created the tax-free savings account, which helps seniors have tax-free income. We will continue to serve our seniors. [ English ] Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Seniors , because the Conservative government has been absolutely cynical in its treatment of seniors. According to a recent study from the Université de Montréal, raising the age of eligibility for old age security will significantly increase poverty and inequality among Canadian seniors. This will have a serious negative impact on the health and life expectancy of poor seniors.

Will the Minister of State for Seniors stand in her place and tell Canadians why she is insisting on pursuing this offensive policy that will increase poverty and destroy the quality of life for our most vulnerable seniors? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada's seniors have worked hard all their lives.

The last thing they need is a tax increase from the Liberals and the NDP, both of which have promised to eliminate pension splitting and bring in a carbon tax that would raise the price of all the household goods and heating and utilities that seniors have to pay and would push them back into poverty. We have lifted 380,000 seniors off the tax rolls altogether by raising the personal exemption. We have brought in the tax-free savings account, which allows them to have tax-free income to put right in their pockets.

We have cut every tax that the government collects to leave more money in the pockets of our seniors and we are going to keep doing it.

Veterans Affairs Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, despite the minister's shabby rhetoric today, despite his repeated assurances that spending cuts at Veterans Affairs will not affect veterans, he is wrong. Since 2011, Veterans Affairs has cut one out of every four staff members right across the country, and these layoffs are definitely affecting front-line services. In fact, the government cut almost one of every five caseworkers, leaving a smaller group struggling under their workload.

Veterans are the ones paying the price, and I have news for the minister: if they do not have a caseworker, they will not get to an operational stress clinic. Will the minister reverse his callous neglect of our veterans and rehire the— The Speaker : The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs. Hon. Erin O'Toole (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we will continue to make investments in front-line services and work to make sure that caseworkers who are working with veterans and their families have the support and the allocation of cases they need so that they do not have too much burden from some of the challenges with mental health cases. Those cases are being assisted by our rapid rollout of operational stress injury clinics from coast to coast. In the last few weeks I have announced some benefits.

In many ways we are fixing the gaps in the Liberals' new veterans charter, so I hope the member's rhetoric will be matched by her willingness to stand in the House and support veterans and their families.

Manufacturing Industry Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the government set up a $200 million fund to support advanced manufacturing in Ontario, but as of now, it has not spent one penny. Since the government came to office, Ontario manufacturing jobs are down a staggering 25% and exports down 20%, yet Conservatives have not spent a penny of the fund. Is the Prime Minister so disconnected from the economy that he no longer cares about struggling middle-class Canadians in the manufacturing sector?

(1500) Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly clear the member is describing his own leader when it was the Liberal leader who said that southern Ontario needs to transition “away from manufacturing-based employment as a driver in the economy”. That is what the Liberal leader said. By contrast, I visited SickKids hospital in Toronto last week and visited some advanced manufacturing in robotics that we invested in. One in 700 children is born with a cleft palate.

Because of the investment we have made in advanced manufacturing, this is technology that is protecting kids, stopping infection, and fixing cleft palates. We are going to sell this technology all over the world, creating jobs and protecting kids well into the future. That is what we do as the Conservative government.

Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have mismanaged B.C.'s herring fishery into a state of crisis. Without warning or consultation, the DFO opened a herring fishery near Bella Bella on the central coast. Local first nations, the UFAW, and fishery experts have raised serious concerns about its sustainability, but the government refuses to listen. Why are the Conservatives ignoring experts and the Heiltsuk First Nation and putting this herring fishery in jeopardy? Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, let me be clear that we do respect the right to protest. However, we expect that it be done without any threat to fishermen or their property. Science forecasts have shown that the Pacific herring stock abundance continues to support moderate commercial harvest opportunities while meeting conservation objectives. The Pacific herring fishery is under way. The openings are based on science and follow the precautionary approach.

[ Translation ] Quebec Bridge Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that CN commissioned a study on repainting the Quebec Bridge and that it would cost more than $400 million. That is double what the government thought when it promised $75 million, which, I remind members, is conditional on CN's participation. Has the minister spoken with CN since the announcement? Did he know that CN was conducting a study? What does he plan on doing with this study? When will the minister finally find a solution and fix the problem once and for all? [ English ] Hon.

Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the owner of the bridge, Canadian National is responsible for its maintenance and for its upgrade. However, we have been very clear here on this side of the House. We have committed significant funding to repaint the Quebec Bridge. The province and the municipalities have also put forward money for that, and we asked CN to come to the table on this specific project to commit the other funds that are necessary to get this project done.

Public Safety Mr. Rodney Weston (Saint John, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the RCMP announced that it had arrested an individual in Prince Edward Island who had plans to commit acts of terrorism. The RCMP has confirmed that it had grounds to suspect that he intended to commit a terrorist offence. Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness please update this House on this situation? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the question from the hon. member for Saint John .

I would like to thank the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for its work on this case and the other cases it is working on. It is clear that terrorism remains a real threat to Canadians. That is why we have tabled the anti-terrorism act, 2015. [ Translation ] Since the case is before the courts, I will leave this in the hands of the RCMP, but I can assure Canadians that we will continue to implement concrete measures to protect them from the terrorist threat.

[ English ] Finance Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we understand that Canada has been invited by China to join its newly created Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The Liberal Party feels that there are good reasons for Canada to accept this invitation, which, as members know, is involved with funding of infrastructure projects in Asia. We understand that the invitation is extended until the end of the month. We know that France, Germany, and Great Britain have joined the bank. Is the government seriously considering this invitation from China?

(1505) Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our ties with China, both commercial as well as heritage, have improved dramatically. We have just recently announced the renminbi trading hub in Canada, which will help businesses. We are continuing to look at this possible bank venture as well.

Foreign Affairs Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government cannot continue to ignore the Komagata Maru tragedy. The Prime Minister has refused to agree to our demand for an apology in the House. It is a shameful moment in Canadian history that must be honoured with a formal apology from the Canadian government. Today the Punjab assembly passed a resolution seeking an apology from Canada. It is clear that until there is an apology this wound cannot be healed. The Prime Minister sidestepped this question earlier today. Here is another opportunity for him.

Will the government finally apologize for the Komagata Maru tragedy? Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Multiculturalism), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of the Komagata Maru were truly a regrettable

chapter in Canada's history. That is why this Prime Minister and this government were the very first to acknowledge what happened to the passengers of the Komagata Maru on behalf of all Canadians. It is this Conservative government that worked with the Khalsa Diwan Society to build a museum around this tragedy, and also a monument and a number of other projects to educate Canadians. On the 100th anniversary of that tragedy, Canada Post released a special stamp to further create awareness about this tragedy. While we are educating and creating awareness about this tragedy, those opposite continue to play politics with it.

Infrastructure Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon (Miramichi, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that they can count on our government to deliver real results. To support job creation and economic growth, our Conservative government has been making record investments in infrastructure projects across Canada. Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the regional minister for Prince Edward Island update this House on how our government is investing to support energy delivery to P.E.I.? Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, last week our government announced we will invest over $50 million from the green infrastructure fund for new electricity cables to Prince Edward Island. This is the most significant infrastructure project for the island since the Confederation Bridge. It will support jobs and economic growth by providing more power and cleaner energy to islanders. Years of Liberal governments never delivered a cable. All they have done there is talk. I am extremely proud to be part of the Conservative government that has delivered to islanders.

Rail Transportation Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives refuse to act, passenger services on the Algoma Central Railway will end on Tuesday. Northern Ontario businesses— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order, please. There has been a steady cacophony from the far end of the chamber all of question period. I was hoping that with a week and a half left in Lent, members might have given up heckling for Lent. Maybe we can get into the Christmas spirit. It is nine months from Christmas today, so they can think about that.

There are only a couple of questions left. Let us come to order. The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing . Mrs. Carol Hughes : Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives refuse to act, passenger services on the Algoma Central Railway will end on Tuesday. Northern Ontario businesses and communities rely on this service to support the local economy and hundreds of jobs. The working group has done its job and found a third party. With a little help from the federal government, passenger services on the ACR could be self-sustaining in five short years. Everyone is waiting for an answer.

Why is the government dragging its feet? Will the minister commit to the future of this passenger service to ensure the survival of this vital economy? Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it gives me an opportunity to highlight the great work that our member of Parliament on this side of the House has been doing, constantly making sure that we have appropriate information. The fact of the matter is that the information for this new line is with Transport Canada officials, who have to review it in its entirety to make sure that it is a safe operation.

From there, they also have to make an application to the Canadian transportation review. With those two pieces of information, going forward we will be able to provide the House with updates as these things unfold.

Foreign Affairs Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister . It relates to Canada's support for Ukraine. We all join the Prime Minister in condemning Putin's aggression, but the extent of Canada's involvement with Ukraine does not appear on the DFATD website. We learned through the media of RADARSAT-2 data being provided to Ukraine, initially over the objections of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of National Defence. I hear that there may be memorandum of understanding between Canada and Ukraine. I would like the Prime Minister to confirm that and let the House know when it will be tabled with Parliament.

(1510) Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear throughout this that Canada is standing with the people of Ukraine in the face of Vladimir Putin's military aggression and we have made significant contributions directly to Ukraine. We have been part of the NATO assurance package. Whether it takes five months or 50 years, we will stand with the people of Ukraine for their independence and their freedom.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ English ] Foreign Affairs Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Consular, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs , pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaties entitled “Amendment to Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade”, adopted at Geneva, April 28 to May 10, 2013, and the “Second Protocol amending the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China on Air Transport”, done at Beijing on November 8, 2014.

An explanatory memorandum is included with each treaty.

Government Response to Petitions Mr. Chris Warkentin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.

Committees of the House Scrutiny of Regulations Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations in relation to the review of statutory instruments.

Financial Administration Act Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) Bill C-660. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-660 ,

an act to amend the Financial Administration Act, balanced budget and public debt repayment. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise and table

an act to amend the Financial Administration Act for balanced budgets and debt repayment. This legislation, if adopted, would provide for statutory requirements for the government to table a balanced budget and repay the over $640 billion in public debt. This legislation allows for a 3.5% cushion or contingency fund for normal contingencies, and allows an exception for a deficit in times of exceptional circumstances, provided that the Minister of Finance clearly explains those extraordinary circumstances to this House.

Significantly, surpluses would be statutorily used to pay down the public debt in an orderly manner. Governments would be unable to use windfalls to go on spending sprees. The government, since the 2013 throne speech, has promised balanced budget legislation but has yet to deliver on that promise, notwithstanding reminders from this member. Accordingly, I encourage the government to honour its pledge to prudent fiscal planning. I encourage all hon. members to support the balanced budget and public debt repayment act. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House Justice and Human Rights Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 16th report on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights presented in this House yesterday, March 24, 2015, be concurred in. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? (Motion agreed to)

Human Rights Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move: Motion That, in the opinion of the House, Sergei Magnitsky, a Moscow lawyer who uncovered the largest tax fraud in Russian history, was detained without trial, tortured and consequently died in a Moscow prison on November 16, 2009; No thorough, independent and objective investigation has been conducted by Russian authorities into the detention, torture and death of Sergei Magnitsky, nor have the individuals responsible been brought to justice; The unprecedented posthumous trial and conviction of Sergei Magnitsky in Russia for the very fraud he uncovered constitute a violation of the principles of fundamental justice and the rule of law; Therefore the House calls upon the government to: Condemn any foreign nationals who were responsible for the detention, torture or death of Sergei Magnitsky, or who have been involved in covering up the crimes he exposed; Explore and encourage sanctions against any foreign nationals who were responsible for the detention, torture or death of Sergei Magnitsky or who have been involved in covering up the crimes he exposed; Explore sanctions as appropriate against any foreign nationals responsible for violations of internationally recognized human rights in a foreign country, when authorities in that country are unable or unwilling to conduct a thorough, independent and objective investigation of the violations.

(1515) The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Impaired Driving Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from a number of Canadians requesting that the impaired driving laws of the country be strengthened. Petitioners feel they are too lenient and believe the laws, particularly impaired driving causing death, need to be strengthened.

The Environment Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of presenting a petition signed by literally thousands of citizens from my riding of Burnaby—Douglas and across British Columbia. The petitioners call on the federal government to oppose the new Kinder Morgan oil pipeline that would run right through Burnaby. The signatories note that this export-only crude oil pipeline brings massive environmental and economic risk but no real benefits for local residents.

This is without a doubt the number one issue facing Burnaby and my office has never received so many petitions before from constituents. While I know the Conservatives and Liberals both support the new Kinder Morgan pipeline, I urge the government to take this call to oppose the pipeline very seriously.

Impaired Driving Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two separate petitions today, both dealing with the issue of impaired driving. These citizens want to see tougher laws and the implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. They are also asking that the Criminal Code of Canada be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

Public Safety Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from students at the University of Victoria calling on the House to reject Bill C-51 , the so-called anti-terrorism bill of 2015. Students call on all members to join with the NDP caucus in voting down this deeply flawed legislation. The students are not alone. They stand with prime ministers, Supreme Court of Canada justices, legal experts, privacy commissioners and the like. They stand with hundreds more who have written letters, attended meetings and spoken out across Canada, including on the streets of Victoria.

Impaired Driving Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions. The first one calls on the government to bring in tougher impaired driving laws, particularly around the implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Agriculture Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions calling on the House of Commons to commit to adopting international aid policies that support small family farmers and ensure that these policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use and freely exchange seeds.

I have a fourth petition, which is basically the same as the last ones, other than it is calling on Canada to enshrine in legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange and sell seeds and that the government refrain from making changes to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act.

[ Translation ] CBC/Radio-Canada Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today it is my honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of people from my riding and neighbouring ridings. They are calling on the government to guarantee stable, adequate, multi-year financing for our public broadcaster to allow the CBC to live up to its mandate from coast to coast to coast. They are very disappointed by the cuts the Conservatives have made and are asking the government to restore the funding.

[ English ] Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Mark Adler (York Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition signed by 2,619 Canadians calling for the swift passage and all-party support of Bill S-219 , the journey to freedom day act.

Mental Health Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of my constituents in Surrey and Newton. The petitioners are calling on the government to create a ministry for people with disabilities and mental health issues. This petition has gathered hundreds of signatures in my riding and this is about the fifth time I have presented this petition in the House. The petitioners feel there are very limited after-hours and weekend programs offered to those with disabilities or mental health problems.

Like the petitioners, I want to see real leadership on mental health. Of those with mental health issues, only one-third who need services in Canada actually receive them. New Democrats agree we need to ensure that Canadians who are living with mental illness have access to the supports they need.

(1520) Public Safety Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first is from residents of my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, as well as Victoria, Winnipeg and Toronto. The petitioners call on the House of Commons to reject Bill C-51 , the so-called anti-terrorism act, as a violation of Canadians' rights and freedoms, while at the same time not making us more safe.

Housing Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on the subject of affordable housing. It comes with over 250 signatures from residents of my riding who are calling for the House to take the advice of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and put in place a national affordable housing program.

[ Translation ] CBC/Radio-Canada Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have here the signatures of several hundred people who want to support the CBC now that the Conservative government and the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages have abandoned our public broadcaster. It is high time they chose to help and support our public broadcaster as it addresses the challenges of technological change. The petitioners are therefore calling on the government to guarantee stable, adequate, multi-year financing for our public broadcaster to allow the CBC to live up to its mandate from coast to coast to coast.

[ English ] Sex Selection Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions. The first petition sadly acknowledges that there are 200 million missing girls in the world right now due to the practice of sex selection, known as gendercide, and 92% of Canadians believe that gendercide and sex selection is wrong. They are calling upon Parliament to condemn this wicked practice.

Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition sadly notifies the House that 25-year-old Danille Kerpan was tragically killed by a drunk driver, a driver who chose to drive while impaired. Her family was devastated. Danille's family is part of Families for Justice, a group that believes that the impaired driving laws in Canada are much too lenient. The petitioners want the crime to be called what it is, that is, vehicular homicide. They also want the government to introduce legislation that would have mandatory sentencing for that type of crime.

Falun Gong Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise and table a petition containing 33 signatures of constituents of Edmonton—St. Albert calling upon the government to pass a resolution to stop measures against the Chinese Communist regime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners and publicly calling for an end to the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.

Human Rights Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I table a petition today signed by Winnipeggers dealing with the situation in Ethiopia. With a population of 90 million, Ethiopia is an important strategic partner to the western governments and is a host to the headquarters of the African Union. The petition points out that in April and May of 2014, university students in the state of Orma, Ethiopia, protested peacefully against the government's development plan to evict millions of farmers from ancestral lands without any prior consultation.

In part, the petitioners are calling upon the Canadian government to request that the Ethiopian government's legal system bring the perpetrators of excessive force to justice.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Chris Warkentin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if the supplementary response to Question No. 952, originally tabled on March 23, 2015, could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ] Question No. 952-- Mr.

Charlie Angus : With respect to the government’s legal obligations under the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement to provide full mental health, cultural, and emotional supports to each individual going through the Independent Assessment Process (IAP), broken down by each year that the IAP has been conducted and by region: (

a) what was the budget for these programs; (

b) how much of this money was spent; (

c) if additional money was required, how much and was it spent; (

d) what services were provided and for what period of time; (

e) what limitations were set on the services that were provided; (

f) how many counsellors were approved to provide supports; (

g) what was the average case-load of the approved counsellors; (

h) what is the capacity for approved counsellors to take on additional clients; (

i) how many approved counsellors had full caseloads; (

j) how many clients are in need of services but not being provided with them; (

k) how many applications for services were denied; (

l) what is the average wait time for an initial assessment; and (

m) what is the average delay in reviewing these requests for funding? (Return tabled) [ English ] Mr. Chris Warkentin : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Motions for Papers Mr. Chris Warkentin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the notice of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders (1525) [ English ] Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act The House resumed from February 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-26. Third reading The Speaker : The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing has three minutes remaining to conclude her remarks. Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Newton—North Delta.

I must say that I never thought it would be a full month before I had the opportunity to finish three minutes of my remarks on Bill C-26. As I stated in February, this is an issue that affects all of us. It is impossible to imagine that anybody in society supports the kinds of offenders we are discussing. I will also remind the House that these predators do not just prey on young people; they prey on all people. As I mentioned in the first part of my speech, I worked at Probation and Parole Services in Ontario for 13 years.

My daughter and her partner are correctional officers at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre and work mostly with level one offenders. I know from first-hand experience the importance of rehabilitation and prevention, and how it allows us to better deal with the reintegration of individuals who are eventually released back into the general population. New Democrats are not opposed to this legislation, but have concerns that need to be addressed in this process to ensure we are pursuing the right measures while also providing the tools to ensure it will actually be effective.

This is important because the government's record to date has given us crime legislation, but has shown a weakness when it comes to providing the resources needed to do the job properly. The bill is a perfect example of that. As we debated this a month ago, we had only just learned how more than $10 million earmarked for the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre went unused.

Therefore, we found ourselves debating legislation to better deal with sex offenders, which is extremely important, but also digesting the fact that the money allocated to do some of that for initiatives that were already in place was left on the table by the government. Cynics will ask if that was intentional. If that is how one builds a surplus these days, I guess that is the way the government likes to go. Surely, being tough on crime should amount to more than just uttering the phrase.

I am reminded of that old TV commercial with the catch phrase, “Where's the beef?” It is important that the Canadian public understands that about the current government and it is probably more important that we look out for that kind of mixed commitment when it comes to dealing with these offenders. I will close by reminding the House that research shows that treatment of sex offenders does make a difference, that sex offenders who receive treatment are less likely to reoffend. In fact, offenders who do not receive treatment reoffend at a rate of 17%.

For those who have received treatment, the number drops to 10%. While New Democrats will be supporting the legislation, we would like to see the money earmarked for finding offenders spent and we would like to see an honest attempt at rehabilitation that will ultimately help protect potential future victims as these offenders re-enter society. As I indicated, it is important to invest in resources to ensure that when offenders are actually released into the community, the proper treatment and rehabilitation processes are in place. It is not by cutting those services that we will be able to be successful. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would go right to the Prime Minister's Office, which came up with the name for this particular legislation. The PMO chose to call this piece of legislation tougher penalties for child predators. The member made reference, in her closing remarks, to millions of dollars that were not spent. When we look at child exploitation, a great deal of it occurs on the Internet, as we know, and yet there has been the underspending of significant amounts of dollars that could have gone a long way in dealing with the issue at hand.

We have the Prime Minister of Canada saying one thing in terms of the name of a piece of legislation, but saying another thing when the Minister of Finance wants to collect money not being spent, at a great cost. I am wondering if the member might want to expand on that point. In other words, it is tough talk, but there is very little happening in terms of action.

(1530) Mrs. Carol Hughes : Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the government has actually saved $10 million, which was allocated to the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre. When funding is not used, that is supposed to be used to protect the public, then there is a problem, only because the Conservatives want to pay down their deficit and make themselves look good. That is quite problematic. The other thing we need to realize is that the federal government also recently announced that it is cutting the measly $650,000 in funding that if offers to Correctional Service Canada.

Again, these are dollars that went toward trying to put some offenders back on the right track. In addition, there is the circles of support and accountability program that receives funding from the National Crime Prevention Centre, which is also set to end this fall. Again, the government is not putting the money where its mouth is, and when it does put money on the table, it quickly pulls it back. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, for many members of Parliament and certainly for many of the people I represent in the northwest of British Columbia, this issue strikes at the heart of some of the most grievous offences we can imagine, sexually harming young children. It is important for a government to take on this issue. It is of public importance. One would think that this importance would carry right through, beyond the announcements, photo ops, and crafting of the title of a new bill into the actual delivery of the program.

On the preventative side, as my friend has pointed out, $10 million would have gone a long way to protecting our kids and going after some of these offenders. Then on the rehabilitation front, unless the government's plan is, and so far it is not, to lock everybody up forever, we need to do the rehabilitation so offenders do not commit the crimes again.

If the government does not spend the money on the prevention and does not spend the money on actual treatment, so that people do not cause harm again, what can it possibly say to the victims, the future victims who are ensnared in one of the traps set by these predators? If the government simply says that it has decided to put the money into deficit cuts instead and that it does not have any money for treatment as it is for other more important things, what could it say to those families and those kids? Mrs. Carol Hughes : Mr.

Speaker, when it comes to funding, we need to ensure that we actually spend it in the right direction and that we put it where it belongs. We also need to ensure that it is actually used. The Conservatives can purport to support victims, but at the same time they turn around and do not fund any of the programs properly. Let us look at the circles of support and accountability program. All in all the program costs $2.2 million a year and it is help rehabilitate offenders.

It has 700 volunteers across the country who meet with offenders after they are released to help them find jobs and places to live, or to just catch up over coffee. This is to provide them the proper support and to keep them on the right track, and here, the government is looking at cutting funding. Is that not shameful? Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-26,

an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the high risk child sex offender database act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. We are talking about a very serious issue. I can tell members that as a parent, mother, grandmother and as a teacher, I take this issue very seriously, as I am sure does every other member in this House. There is nothing that is more offensive or heinous than the impact of sexual exploitation of children.

I am sure, whether one sits on this side or that side of the House, all of us are impacted by this greatly. During my years as a teacher, I had to deal with some pretty sensitive and horrible situations. In that context, there is absolutely nothing that is more gut wrenching then when a child reports a sexual assault molestation. As a teacher and counsellor, I took that very seriously, and the pain stays for a long time. In a similar way, as a parent, one cannot imagine the pain or even the thought of the sexual molestation of one's child. It causes very deep, unimaginable pain.

On this side of the House, as I hope on all sides of the House on this issue, we take this issue very seriously. We have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual offences against children. I am so proud of my party that it has taken this position, as it has held this position for a long time. It is because of that, that we are supporting the bill before us, but at the same time acknowledging that it contains deficiencies. It is not perfect. We are disappointed that the bill does not go further by offering truly effective measures to protect children and keep our communities safe.

I am hoping that not all of my colleagues here have had to deal with instances of serious sex offences in their ridings. We had one in September 2014. It shook the city of Surrey when 17-year-old Serena Vermeersch went missing and then she was found. A high-risk sex offender was charged. Surrey RCMP Chief Fordy said: Serena should be at Sullivan Heights [her school] having a laugh with classmates and thinking about graduation. Sadly that is not the case. These types of crimes galvanize our community and touch them in an incredible way.

Even today, every time I think of Serena, my heart goes out to her family, friends, neighbours, and the whole Surrey community because I know the pain and anguish everyone went through. As I said, we will be voting in favour of the bill, but once again, it seems that the government is really into optics. Here we have another bill that purports to do something, but then it is missing or lacking the resources that are needed in order to actually implement it.

It is very difficult for service providers when we as parliamentarians pass legislation and want them to carry out and enforce the new laws we make, but we do not give them the tools they need.

(1535) I am sure many of them are absolutely sick to death of hearing us or others, like their employers, telling them to do more with less. In the conversations I have had with RCMP members and other front-line service providers, it is very difficult for them to do more with less. They are feeling really stretched. When we look at legislation like this, which purports to seriously address sexual offences against minors and our children, we really need look at where we were and what we have done. Ever since the Conservatives, and even the Liberals, have been in power, many pieces of legislation have been passed.

At justice committee, the Minister of Justice stated that sexual offences against children had increased 6% over the past two years. This is quite staggering. This is after the Conservative government has taken many steps. We need to listen to experts and informed opinion. We need to ask if some of the repressive measures that have been taken so far are working. Obviously, they are not. Are the resources there? As well as punishment, what are we doing in the area of rehabilitation and healing? What are we doing to support those who are the victims? This is such a sensitive area. I do not want to politicize it.

We also have to ensure that the RCMP, which we charge with responsibility for much of this area, has the resources for a registry and budgets to support victims. Just having nice words on a piece of paper to say that we are all for victims and that we will provide support for victims does not make it happen. I can remember the NDP fighting very hard for the Circles of Support and Accountability program, which was real and tangible. It was being used very effectively.

Here is a quote from Steve Sullivan: —the federal government recently announced it was cutting the measly $650,000 in funding Corrections Canada provides. CoSA also receives funding from the National Crime Prevention Centre; that's also set to end this fall. In total, the program costs $2.2 million a year. Like most community-based victim services, CoSA is a fairly cheap program. It has 700 volunteers across the country; they meet with offenders after their release, help them find jobs and places to live, meet with them regularly for coffee.

They support offenders as they start to live normal lives, ones that don't involve new victims. They hold them accountable. The Conservative government left money unspent when it came to child protection. I get so offended when it calls itself champions of protecting our children. (1540) [ Translation ] Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that the number of cases of abuse has grown in recent years.

Can she go into more detail about why that number has gone up despite the fact that the Conservatives like to talk about how they are dealing with the issue? [ English ] Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, since I have been in the House, I often have heard a lot of rhetoric. We pass legislation, but we do not provide the necessary resources. When it comes to sexual predators and sexual violation of our children, we need to provide support for the victims, but there also needs to be punishment and consequences.

Also, we know there has to be some level of rehabilitation because if we do not do that, the chances of repeat offences are more likely to happen. The government had $10 million in funds earmarked for its national child exploitation coordination centre and related projects. Those funds went unspent. That really begs this question. How serious is the government about its anti-child pornography agenda?

(1545) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have had the good fortune of being a parliamentarian at the provincial and federal levels for a number of years. Through that we have seen significant changes in the exploitation of children in a very negative way. That comes in the form of the Internet. The number of children who are exploited continues to grow year after year, and it is important we do more. It is more than just legislation. The member made reference to the issue of financing.

I made reference to that in the first question I had a few minutes ago in regard to the government's inability to ensure that, at the ground level, the RCMP was equipped to deal with the growth of child exploitation on the Internet. The government and the Prime Minister need to be more proactive in dealing with it at the ground level. By the ground level, I am talking about getting feet on the ground, providing the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies with the necessary resources to achieve the desired impact that Canadians expect of the government in terms of leadership on this file. Would the member agree?

Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, we absolutely need to ensure that our service providers and front line intervention have the resources they need. If we do not give them the tools they need, then we are remiss in our duties and responsibilities when we pass legislation. On this side of the House, we believe we need concrete and truly effective measures to protect our children from sexual abuse and to make our communities safer. We need more resources to prevent crime and combat sexual abuse against children. Tougher prison sentences alone are not enough.

We want the the government to be open and willing to work with the opposition parties and experts to improve the bills it tables in Parliament, especially when they target vulnerable groups such as children, instead of the mantra of the Conservatives, which is “my way or the highway”. Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in support of Bill C-26 , the tougher penalties for child predators act. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Macleod .

Bill C-26 is a part of the government's continuing effort to ensure that child sexual offences result in sentences of imprisonment that denounce the heinous nature of these crimes. We hear the opposition members question the necessity of this bill in light of amendments that this government made in the past, especially those enacted by Bill C-10 , the Safe Streets and Communities Act. The Safe Streets and Communities Act was a good step in the right direction, and Bill C-26 proposes to build on those reforms to fully recognize the devastating impact that these crimes have on the lives of victimized children.

We have heard criticism particularly directed at the effectiveness of mandatory minimum penalties in achieving this objective. A brief discussion about the current sentencing regime in the Criminal Code is warranted in order to explain the necessity of the proposed reforms. The Criminal Code states that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

In order to achieve this fundamental purpose, a sentence may have the following objectives: denunciation, deterrence, separation of the offender from society when necessary; rehabilitation of the offender; providing reparation for the harm done to the victim or community; the promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders; and the acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community. It is important to note that a just sentence does not have to reflect all of these sentencing objectives, but only those that are essential to achieve the fundamental purpose of sentencing.

In sentencing offenders for sexual offences committed against children,

section 718.01 of the Criminal Code directs courts to consider denunciation and deterrence as the paramount sentencing objectives. How can we as legislators ensure that primary importance is also given to these objectives for these types of crimes? Both social denunciation of a crime and the deterrence of criminals are achieved in our laws in two ways. First, maximum terms of imprisonment send a clear signal of what punishment is proportionate for the worst offender who commits a crime in the worst circumstances.

Second, mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment represent the lowest punishment that we as a society consider important for certain serious crimes. By increasing both minimum terms of imprisonment and maximum terms of imprisonment for certain sexual offences committed against children, Bill C-26 focuses on denunciation and deterrence and thereby ensures that sentences imposed contribute to a just, peaceful and safe society. The fundamental objective of a sentence can only be achieved if the sentence imposed is just.

According to the Criminal Code, a just sentence is one that is proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the gravity of the offence. In determining a just sentence, a court must consider the sentencing principles described in the Criminal Code. For example, a sentence must be increased to account for any aggravating factors relating to the offender or the offence. Two of the listed aggravating factors in subsection 718(

a) of the Criminal Code play an important role in child sexual cases. First, paragraph 718.2(a)(ii.1) of the Criminal Code directs courts to treat the fact that an offender, in committing the offence, abused the person under the age of 18 years of age as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. Second, paragraph 718.2(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code directs the fact of the offender in committing the offence abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim also be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

Both these aggravating factors further indicate that the significant punishment as proposed by Bill C-26 is justifiable for child predators. Another important contribution of Bill C-26 rests with the proposed reforms that relate to the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences. These amendments would clarify and codify applicable rules in situations where an offender would be sentenced for multiple offences, whether committed against the same victim or not.

Apart from the explicit reference to mandatory consecutive sentences in the context of terrorism acts, criminal organization offences and the use of a firearm in the commission of the offence, the general sentencing principles found in subsection 718.3(4) of the Criminal Code regarding consecutive and concurrent sentences only offer limited guidance to courts.

(1550) Bill C-26 proposes to improve on this by, among other things, directing courts to consider ordering that the terms of imprisonment for offences arising out of separate events, or a separate series of events, be served consecutively to one another. This represents a codification of the rules developed by courts over the years. Courts will generally order that sentences be served consecutively unless they are committed as part of the same event or series of events, or as some have described it, as part of a criminal transaction.

Where several offences are committed as part of the same criminal transaction, the courts will generally determine what is a proportionate sentence for the most serious offence committed and order that the other offences be served concurrently. However, where an offence committed as part of the same criminal transaction is gratuitous or dangerous, courts will generally consider ordering that the sentences be served consecutively to discourage offenders from committing serious offences with impunity.

This approach is codified in Bill C-26 by directing courts to consider ordering consecutive sentences in situations where one of the offences was committed either on judicial interim release or while the accused was fleeing from a peace officer. The totality principle represents the final step in the determination of whether sentences of imprisonment should be served consecutively. This sentencing principle, described in paragraph 718.2(

c) of the Criminal Code, prevents courts from ordering that terms of imprisonment be served one after the other if the combined sentence is unduly long or harsh. Where the combined sentence is, in the court's opinion, unduly long or harsh, it may order that certain terms of imprisonment be served concurrently instead of one after the other. I understand that in ordering concurrent sentences in such cases, courts intend to craft a combined sentence that is proportionate to the overall responsibility of the offender.

However, in the context of sexual offences committed against children, this approach translates into a sentence discount for the offender. To address this problem, Bill C-26 proposes that sentences of imprisonment for child pornography offences be served consecutively to any sentence imposed at the same time for a contact child sexual offence, and in cases of multiple victims, that sentences imposed at the same time for contact child sexual offences committed against one victim be served consecutively to those imposed for contact child sexual offences committed against any other victim.

Requiring that these terms of imprisonment be served consecutively to one another would send a clear message that every sexual offence committed against children is serious and is clearly unacceptable. These amendments will also send a clear and unequivocal signal that a proportionate sentence is one that acknowledges that every child victim counts.

(1555) Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I asked my colleague this question earlier. Even though these measures have been taken, the incidence of abuse has gone up by 6% over the past five years. I believe that is the figure. Could my hon. colleague explain why the measures taken so far have not worked? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, an increase in offences against children is certainly all the more reason to send serious messages about the heinous nature of these crimes and how they are totally unacceptable to Parliament and the people of Canada.

The measures we have taken are designed to protect the public and certainly to protect our most vulnerable citizens: children. The face of crime is rapidly changing. There are more and more crimes being done on the Internet. We have to double down to make sure that children are protected. Keeping repeat child offenders in jail, where they cannot reoffend, is a measure the Canadian public accepts as a valid way of protecting people from such heinous crimes. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, here is a question I have posed to opposition members.

I would love to have the hon. member provide a detailed answer, as time allows. We have a conflict here in the sense that we have legislation with which the Prime Minister 's office is trying to send the strong message that we want tougher penalties for child predators, which is the

short title of the bill. This implies that the Prime Minister wants to see action on the file. Yet when it comes to fighting cyberexploitation, we have seen chronic underspending by the government to allow law enforcement officers to ensure that there is some justice brought to those individuals being exploited and to assist victims of this exploitation. What I am referring to is the $2 million underspent by the RCMP, which is supposed to deal with this issue.

Can the member explain why the government encourages underspending in areas of this nature, when we know full well that this is an important issue for Canadians? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the question of protecting the Canadian public, every nickel finds a spot, whether it finds its way into the budget of the RCMP or finds it way into a $10-million grant to child protection agencies and centres, such as cybertip.ca or NeedHelpNow.ca. Fighting child offences is not just a matter of handcuffs and pistols.

It is a matter of a total panoply of programs to help combat them, whether it be against cyberbullying, whether it be tips to prevent cyberbullying, or whether it be boots on the ground. Our government is committed to giving all the resources necessary to protect our most vulnerable children. It is not necessarily with the RCMP, with pistols and handcuffs, that this is accomplished. It is a full scope. It is all the elements that are needed to protect the Canadian public. (1600) [ Translation ] Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, more and more people are coming forward with reports of abuse they have suffered at the hands of their abusers. This is bad news, generally, however, there is reason for hope: society no longer tolerates this kind of behaviour. Together, we are trying to address the problem head-on and solve it as much as possible. There is some bad news, however: the RCMP's budget has been cut by $10 million. That money should have been used to tackle this problem.

We support the bill in question, but as legislators, how can we consider increasing penalties if, while society is trying hard to eradicate the problem, police forces have fewer resources to tackle it? It does not make any sense. How can my colleague across the aisle justify such a thing? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, fighting this kind of offence requires a multi-faceted approach. The RCMP is not alone in fighting this. I would remind the House that we have brought in legislation that involves Internet service providers.

In fact, when ISPs identify a problem of cyberbullying, they are obligated to report the source of abuse to the RCMP. We are certainly putting more resources into tackling this problem, but police forces are not the only ones working on it; members of the community and companies are also working on it. There is a wide range of possible solutions. The RCMP is not the only solution to this serious problem. [ English ] Mr. John Barlow (Macleod, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for sharing his time with me today.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in today's debate on Bill C-26 , the tougher penalties for child predators act. Today I am going to focus the bulk of my remarks on the part of Bill C-26 that creates higher penalties for breaches of supervision orders. However, I want to devote a few moments on the other key features of this initiative. I am a father of three children, and as such, it is important to me to highlight the end goal of Bill C-26 : deterring child predators and focusing on the seriousness of child sexual offences.

One way we can achieve that is through higher mandatory minimum penalties and higher maximums. However, one of the reasons I am supporting Bill C-26 is that the amendments also clarify and codify the use of consecutive sentences in child sexual abuse cases. This would ensure not only consistency in application of the law but also justice for each life devastated by an offender's sexual abuse. The amendments to supervision orders in this bill are yet another facet of this criminal law initiative that would strengthen the protection of children from sexual predators.

Supervision orders empower judges to impose conditions on child sexual offenders or persons who might commit child sexual offences. There are various orders a court can use to ensure the supervision of the offender in the community. These orders include probation orders, peace bonds, and prohibition orders. It is important to understand how each of these orders operates to fully grasp how they would achieve the underlying objective of Bill C-26 . The underlying objective is to protect children from sexual predators.

First, probation orders can be imposed where offenders are sentenced to less than two years of imprisonment. They can also be stand-alone orders, and in all cases, they have a maximum duration of three years. These orders can vary substantially in scope. For instance, some conditions, such as keeping the peace, are mandatory,

whereas other conditions are left to the discretion of a judge. These conditions can also include requiring the offender to be under house arrest except for predetermined absences, such as employment. These optional conditions must be reasonable, clear, and most importantly, certain. These conditions aim to protect society by preventing recidivism and facilitating the offender's successful rehabilitation and safe re-insertion into the community. Peace bonds, on the other hand, can be used where there is a reasonable fear that a person will commit a child sexual offence. In fact,

section 810.1 of the Criminal Code allows any person, under reasonable grounds, to lay information before a provincial court judge based on a fear that an individual will commit a certain sexual offence against a young person under 14 years of age. A court will order a person to enter into a peace bond if it is convinced, on a balance of probabilities, that the informant's fear is reasonably grounded.

Peace bonds can encompass a variety of conditions, including prohibiting an offender from communicating on a computer with young people or attending public places where children could reasonably be expected to be present. Lastly, prohibition orders allow courts to prohibit the offender from having contact with children where there exists an evidentiary basis for concluding that the offender poses a risk to young children.

This prohibition may take different forms, such as a ban from specified places where children are present, restriction on employment involving a position of trust or authority over children, and access to the Internet. The Criminal Code requires a judge to consider such orders in every case involving an enumerated offence, and they can last for the offender's lifetime. Maximum penalties for breaches of probation orders, peace bonds, and prohibition orders, referred to collectively as supervision orders, would be increased under Bill C-26 .

This would ensure that those who violate conditions imposed by the courts to protect children would be held accountable. Bill C-26 would raise the maximum penalty for breaches of all supervision orders from two to four years on indictment. In addition, it would increase the maximum penalty for breaching prohibition and peace bonds from six months to 18 months on

summary conviction. The proposed new maximums would ensure that offenders who breached these supervision orders were liable to the same penalties, regardless of the type of order, according to whether the breach was a prosecuted indictment or a

summary conviction.

(1605) Furthermore, fines for breaching probation would increase from $2,000 to $5,000. The supervisory aspect of these orders helps to rehabilitate offenders, but, more importantly, ensures the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society. According to Statistics Canada, a number of studies with a follow-up period of 15 years noted that the average rate of recidivism among sex offenders is about 24%. However, alarmingly, the highest rate for recidivism found in this review was 35.5% for a sample of offenders who sexually offended against children. These offenders were followed for a 23-year period.

The source of that information is the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics in a study called “Police-reported sexual offences against children and youth in Canada, 2012”, which was released on May 28, 2014. It is, therefore, absolutely crucial that serious breaches of these conditions be denounced and deterred.

One way that Bill C-26 would protect children is by ensuring that once child sexual offenders are released into the community, a breach of their conditions will result in serious consequences commensurate with the objective that these types of orders are designed to fulfill—namely, the protection of the most vulnerable members of our communities, our children.

For instance, a key component of the sentencing reform in Bill C-26 would ensure that any evidence that an offence was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence, on parole, or while on statutory release would be an aggravating factor in their sentencing. Treating such instances as aggravating factors is necessary to denounce, deter, and punish offenders who deliberately persist in reoffending even after they have been placed under varying forms of supervision.

Such amendments are also necessary to protect the community when rehabilitative and reintegration efforts are clearly not working for these offenders. Increased penalties for those who violate conditions imposed by the courts to protect children would serve two very important functions: first, they would hold offenders accountable; second, they would prevent future harm to vulnerable children. This is especially true in the context of child sexual offences, where breaches of supervision orders may indicate a risk that the offender will re-victimize children.

Thus, increasing the minimum and maximum penalties for breach of supervision orders is an important tool that courts can use in appropriate circumstances. Not only would these measures dissuade offenders from committing offences, but they would also separate child sexual predators from society before they commit repeat offences. Breaching a supervision order is not a trivial offence.

For instance, persons subject to probation and prohibition orders have already been processed through the criminal justice system and released on conditions that are intimately intertwined with the alleged or previous offences committed. As such, breaching these orders is serious, because it is concrete acknowledgement of a refusal by that offender to be rehabilitated. We must send a clear message. Such breaches require a clear, proportionate, and dissuasive response. It is important to remember that these supervision orders have not been imposed in a vacuum.

Combined, the amendments in Bill C-26 would send a clear message. We will not allow offenders to commit crimes with impunity while being under community supervision, especially when such breaches put children at risk. Additionally, they would achieve consistency in punishment for all heinous sexual offences against children. These features of Bill C-26 are important and necessary. As a result, I urge all hon. members of the House to support this bill and its swift passage. (1610) [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I have a quick question for him. The government wants to amend the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that the spouses of the accused would be competent and compellable witnesses for the prosecution in child pornography cases. Why? [ English ] Mr. John Barlow : Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question. Right now, under the Canada Evidence Act, common-law partners or spouses are not asked or not allowed to testify against their spouse, but in this case, we are adding child pornography to the list of exemptions.

The main reason for that, especially because of the emergence of online child pornography, is that it is really difficult to come to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt without the support of the spouse. There is a legitimate question there in terms of who is responsible for pornographic images on a home computer without having a spouse there to testify against the person who is charged. We want them to have that ability so that when computers within the household are shared pieces technology, the spouse would be able to testify against the person who is charged. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, again I want to emphasize that over the last number of years we have seen significant growth in child exploitation through cyberspace or the Internet. The Government of Canada, in working with other levels of government and di