2010-05-07

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The last time this bill was before the House, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel had the floor. He has nine minutes remaining to complete his remarks. The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my speech on Bill C-13, which would amend the employment insurance act. This bill would enable soldiers to receive their full parental benefits and their full parental leave if they are sent on a mission while on parental leave. The soldiers would have the right to take their leave when they return from the mission. If they were on a mission when they were entitled to leave, they could use it when they return.
As I was explaining, the government should have adopted this measure, along with others, a long time ago. The young men and women, Quebeckers and Canadians, who enrol in the armed forces are doing a job. I have had the chance to speak to some of them. This is far from fighting for the Queen. These young people are ready for adventure. That is what the armed forces advertises. That is what they are trying to sell.
They consider it to be a job, and more and more, they are expecting to be treated like workers. Parental leave is part of the new rights. Family rights. It is part of what we refer to as the work-life balance. The government must take a closer look at this situation, otherwise it will have a hard time recruiting.
Out of personal interest, I took training in workplace sociology. We need to understand that the new generations, generations X and Y, unlike the baby boomers and the veterans before us, work to live. The baby boomers and veterans before us lived to work. It is completely different. The armed forces must pay more attention to labour rights issues. Young men and women choose a job when they enrol. They see opportunities and we must be able to continue to offer them opportunities. We also need to be very respectful of their rights.
As I said, they work to live. Their goal in life is to work so that they can afford recreational activities and have fun once they retire. We should be improving their work conditions. That is what the government must do. We need to stop thinking that they will be excited and want to enrol if we give them nicer equipment and new toys. Enrolling, to them, is like starting a job. We have to keep passing legislation that will improve their work conditions. If we apply this outlook on life to amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, it would allow them to take the parental leave that they missed out on because they were on a mission or that was cut short because they had to go on a mission.
That is one angle, but there are others as well. Because of the work they are doing, they have psychological and physical needs that must be taken care of. They are putting their lives in danger. This is not just any kind of work. It is dangerous. They chose to do it because they love adventure and that is what the advertisements promise them. They very quickly realize that it is very dangerous. They are risking their lives and that, inevitably, can cause emotional shock. This type of work can also cause physical problems.
This service has to be provided. We are not getting from the government the feeling of any firm desire to invest in physical rehabilitation and psychological support. Yet, that is how we can attract young men and women into the military.
In addition, there is a petition being circulated which calls for the compensation scheme for injured military personnel under the Veterans Charter to be amended so that they receive a lifetime pension. Again, this is about working conditions.
The Conservatives have to stop thinking that the young men and women, the young Quebeckers who enrol do so for the country or for the Queen. That is completely out of date. This is the age of Internet and video games. Many young people really enjoy playing war.
In their ads, the Canadian Forces offer young people a taste of adventure. Inevitably, some join the army, but they look at it like a job. The course I took on the sociology of work made me realize that the young men and women who join the army are no different from those who choose other types of jobs.
As I said, generation X and the new generation Y work to live. Working is something they have to do to pay for their leisure time. We live in an age of leisure. The new generations are not like us; we learned to live to work. Work was important to us and even more important to our parents and grandparents. That is what they lived for, but the new generations are the complete opposite. The psychology of the young men and women who enlist in the army is no different from that of their peers. We have to be able to offer them attractive working conditions, because serving in the army is a job for them. The army is their employer, and they consider military service a job. I know what I am talking about. Studies have been done that show this is true. 
The generations that come after us, the baby boomers, will have more job opportunities, which stands to reason. In Quebec alone, 150,000 jobs will be available around 2018. Young people know this, and they are well aware that if they do not like a job, they can always look for another one, because they will have no trouble finding work.
We can try to convince them otherwise, but they will let us know that that has not been their experience. We are going to have to adapt, which is why I took this course on the sociology of work. It is clear that employers who cannot adapt will go out of business. Quite simply, they will have no more employees. That means that if the army does not adapt, people will stop enlisting. The Conservatives may think they can still impose mandatory enlistment, but that would surprise me. It would not go over very well, and they could forget about it in Quebec. 
We must be very respectful of the work our young men and women, our sons and daughters, Quebeckers and Canadians, do for the armed forces.
This bill must be improved. It changes employment insurance so that soldiers who would have been entitled to parental benefits or parental leave would still be entitled if they are on mission, but these benefits must be made retroactive for soldiers who have just lost their entitlement because they were on mission in Afghanistan, for example.
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and I am a bit disappointed that he minimized the role that people play in our military as just a job. Lots of people join the military for Queen and country, for protecting our freedoms, human rights and all the benefits we enjoy as Canadians.
The member sort of brushed off the history of the armed forces. Generation after generation of families and individuals joined the military because their parents and their grandparents did. They fought for our freedom. People know full well that when they volunteer for the army, the air force or the navy, they may be called upon to fight for our great country. That is not just a job, that is a calling. The people who do this surely need to be properly compensated, and this government has done more than any other government to ensure they are compensated and that they have the tools they need to do their job.
Could the hon. member maybe moderate the rhetoric and at least recognize that people in the military are doing what they believe in and are fighting and representing Canada abroad to make our country better for Queen and country.
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, once again, I am not surprised by the minister's comments. He truly is a Reform Conservative. He can believe what he wants, but the problem is that even if the children of CF members were willing to take their fathers' places, the numbers would still be lower because baby boomers had fewer children. More and more of the young men and women who will enlist do not come from military families. If he thinks there will be enough children from military families to take over for their fathers, he is mistaken. The armed forces are going to face personnel shortages.
My colleague said these people enlist to fight for their country. That is not how the armed forces are advertised in the media. Instead, the ads ask young people if they like adventure. The armed forces are selling adventure and that is fine. I have a great deal of respect for military work.
The problem is that for young men and women of generation X and generation Y, it is a job like any other. Those generations work to live and have a completely different outlook from that of their parents and grandparents.
We can continue with the status quo, but if we do not address the working conditions, the armed forces are going to face personnel shortages.
At least I had the chance to share my thoughts here today, to wake up the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. They are wrong to believe that all young men and women who enlist do so for the Queen.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that he does not need to wake up the NDP. We are very attuned to this issue. We are in favour of sending the bill to committee and I believe we are in support of the Bloc's amendment to backdate the coverage for people who are already in the process, because the bill says that the measure will not start until it receives royal assent. 
However, is he planning to support the NDP amendment brought forward by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, which would expand the coverage of these 50 to 60 people who would be covered under the bill to include members of the police forces who are deployed as part of missions outside of Canada, along with the military?
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from the NDP. He and his colleagues are on the right track with the realization that better working conditions should be provided to our young men and women who enlist in the forces. With respect to the amendment, I do not sit on the committee that will deal with the bill but, given that it involves parental leave among other things, I personally have no problem with this being extended to police forces and to the RCMP.
I have no problem with that, especially since, if we look at the trends with the new generations, those of our children and grandchildren, we can see that, without better working conditions, they will shy away from hazardous occupations because they will have many other opportunities. The fact is that those generations will get many job offers and they will take those with the best working conditions.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague's observation that young people today are not always driven by the same motivation that their fathers and grandfathers were. Many members of my family were in the armed forces 30 or 40 years ago and a number of other family members are in the army today. They each have completely different reasons that motivate them. Young people today realize that it is above all a job and they flat out say that they go oversees to help people in impossible situations and not out of a sense of national pride.
My question for my colleague is the following. We know that soldiers who return from combat with physical or psychological injuries receive lump sums for those injuries. This has even been criticized by the Canadian Forces ombudsman, who said that he did not see why people who have been psychologically injured should have a large sum of money put at their disposal when they are often under the influence of alcohol or drugs. That is what he said. We have the example of General Roméo Dallaire, which does not go all that far back.
Does my colleague not think that implementing appropriate measures to give soldiers the same rights as other workers is a much better way to help those who are defending us abroad, defending the government's positions ?
[Interjection]
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond for sharing his perspective on this issue. As he said, members of his own family were or are in the Canadian Forces. He understands that if we want to renew our armed forces, if we want the qualified personnel we need, we have to offer better working conditions and support for mental health needs. We need to prioritize support for problems caused by accidents or physical problems because that is part of the working conditions.
We have to be able to tell our young men and women that we know they are risking their lives, and that if anything bad ever happens to them, they will get help. We need to stop buying them war toys and make sure that these young men and women get the same working conditions as other workers. All other workers, whether they are in the construction industry or some other industry, are covered by workplace accident laws. Those workers get support. We have to do at least that much for our military personnel or nobody will want to join the armed forces.
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill that deeply affects us all because there are important changes to be made. Wars are not what they once were. The situation has changed since the last world war, in 1945.
The soldiers we sent to Afghanistan at the very beginning were supposed to be peacemakers and rebuild the country. Their mission changed along the way. These soldiers were trained to rebuild the country, but now they are engaged in a war without having received any training before leaving. They received another type of training and have had to change their work and adjust to a war in which they did not necessarily decide to participate at the beginning. They have remained in Afghanistan. I would say that these men—and women, as there are now many women in the army—are courageous. We have lost many soldiers since the beginning and that is a sad reality. However, we accepted our responsibilities and will stay there until 2011.
When young people join the army, they tell themselves that it is a job. It is not just a job, it is a commitment. They do not sign up for a 9 to 5 job. They go out into the field and do not know what they will be dealing with. The land is littered with mines and IEDs explode everywhere. They build a school and it is destroyed the next day. There are situations that our soldiers were not necessarily prepared to deal with.
Having said that, we do not oppose the bill, but we would like to make some improvements. When we change a law, let us get it right in the first place so that it respects the rights of military workers who choose to enter the army and risk their lives while doing their work, which is difficult work. It is not a 9 to 5 job. It is a hard job that takes them away from their family for months, sometimes years. They should receive all the help available when they return, in order to lead as normal a life as possible. 
What I am really concerned about are soldiers' many physical and psychological needs. I would like to share some statistics. If I were in the government's position, I would be really worried about the way I was treating the men and women who decide to join the army. The armed forced should provide adequate follow-up for soldiers because 4% of the Kandahar veterans develop suicidal tendencies. That is a huge number. They do not just develop suicidal tendencies; several young people have committed suicide.
This is a serious problem. Parents whose children come back after four or five months are not equipped to deal with this kind of situation. They do not know how to react. I am talking about young people who still live with their parents, but there are also young fathers who come back completely transformed. Families have no resources to deal with this situation.
Anyone returning from Kandahar or any other war-torn country experiences shock. Right now, no resources at all are made available to help them. About 4.6% of them have symptoms of severe depression and over 15% have mental health issues. That number is huge. That adds up to 20%.
That is why I believe that the government and society are failing the soldiers who come back from the front, from a war, and it is a war. They need to get help, but they may not have the means to pay for that help.
I believe that should be an integral part of each mission. As soon as soldiers, male or female, return from Kandahar or anywhere else, they should be placed under observation to ensure that they are capable of normal social reintegration. If they are not, we have to make sure that we give them the resources they need to get better. I believe that is critical.
I would like to tell hon. members about a young man who served two tours in Kandahar. Before going on his first mission, this young man really believed that this was a job and that he would go and work over there for six months and see what happened. He was also looking for some discipline, which he got with training when he went on mission. When he returned from his first tour, he did not feel at home anymore. He did not feel he could readjust to society, so he went back for another six months, but when he came home again, he was completely unable to reintegrate and lived on the fringes of society. 
His parents, who did not know what to do or how to deal with him anymore, tried to get help. But people need specialized help in such cases. You cannot just ask a psychologist who looks after people with psychological problems caused by a separation or something else to treat this sort of problem. This young man was returning from the war. He had seen his friends die in battle or lose legs or arms. These people need specialized help when they come home. But there is a serious lack of help, and we must find solutions very, very quickly.
In my opinion, when this bill goes to committee, the committee members will have to look closely at this issue, because if we do not act right away, we are going to lose countless people. We are going to lose more people when they come back from the war than we lose in battle. This is disturbing, and it is not very reassuring. It means that we are not doing our jobs in this House and that the government is not doing its job. It means that the government does not care about our soldiers. That should not be the perception, but it is right now.
There are people who are losing children because they commit suicide. There have been a number of cases where men have killed themselves on returning home from the war, and the women with young children they leave behind feel ignored.
In addition, we must take all kinds of things into account in this bill, such as the pension. If a soldier is killed on the battle field, the widow or widower receives only 50% of the pension. Have they not considered that this person gave his life and perhaps spent several years defending a country, protecting it and trying to restore order? It is unacceptable that the soldier's parents, or a mother who is left alone to raise three children, are left with nothing.
I think that we must absolutely ensure that families receive more than half of the pension. They should receive at least three quarters to ensure that they can survive. The family will be going through an extremely difficult time. It will have to rebuild. The mother will have to start her life over to enable her kids to go to school and to provide all of the basic necessities.
I do not think that is too much to ask. When a soldier has spent years at war, in Afghanistan or elsewhere, it is not too much to ask that a spouse would receive more money to get through this mourning period and to start over, which is not easy.
Furthermore, we must ensure that these men and women receive psychological help. Help not only for the soldiers, but also for the families, because they will be scarred for life. Losing a loved one in war is tragic and traumatic. Often, these men and women fall into a depression and are not even able to care for their children. I think it is important to provide immediate support and to offer them assistance. They must have access to specialists, which is not the case right now. They need specialists.
Roméo Dallaire himself has talked about how unbearable life was when he returned and how people are left to fend for themselves when they come home. This measure must be a priority. We have to think about the money we should be giving these families, and also about the emotional support that people need. It is very important. We have to think not only about the families, but also about the parents and other people who are affected, including brothers and sisters. It is important.
When a tragedy occurs at a school for example, psychological support is always provided within 24 hours. Within 24 hours, psychologists, psychiatrists, specialists and social workers arrive at the school to provide support and to comfort the young people who have had a shock, and provide them with the necessary care to get through the crisis.
Why could we not do the same thing for our soldiers? I think it is the least we could do.
I think it is a shame that nothing is being done. I hope that with this bill we will truly focus on this because it is necessary. Mark my words, over the coming months and years, there will be more soldiers committing suicide and being ill after their return than dying on the battlefield, and that is completely unacceptable. In any event, even one person lost in a war is one too many.
These soldiers come home with psychological, psychiatric and physical wounds. It is not easy to go on with life after losing an arm or a leg. It is not easy to find a job after being a soldier for many years either. It is difficult even if it has not been so many years, even if the soldier has only been in the army for five years. It is almost impossible for soldiers to go to work in a 9 to 5 job. They do not work from 9 to 5. They work in the field, always on alert, always on their guard and always protecting the public and protecting their own lives. And yet, after all that, we expect them to fit into any old job.
And that is why employment insurance is such an important issue. We have been saying this forever—we need to increase benefits from 55% to 60% and the number of weeks needs to be increased for military personnel so that when they return home they really have the time to resume a normal life and ensure that they find a job that really suits them. 
I doubt that when they come home they wake up the next morning knowing what they want to go into. They have other work to do. They have to exorcize some of the war demons, forget everything they saw and deal with all of the psychological wounds. They have to take some time to get reoriented and they need help with that. They need intervenors—people who will meet with them, who can guide them and tell them what they would be good at. Perhaps soldiers would be excellent intervenors. Or maybe they could work with children. We do not know.
The important thing is that they receive guidance. That is a necessity and it will take time. They must also be able to provide for their families and meet their own needs. That takes money. And that is where employment insurance is very important. They need to have the financial ability and the necessary tools to resume a normal life.
Those who lose a limb—an arm or a leg—or suffer other physical trauma should be compensated. We should not give them a lump sum if they lose an arm. We do not give them a lump sum if they lose a leg. The person loses much more when that happens. First, there is terrible a psychological shock and, second, where will these people work afterwards? What will they do for work?
What does a young person of 25 do after losing an arm or a leg? Small miracles can be done, but we must make sure these people are well compensated and well taken care of, so they can also go on with their lives in another field.
I think a great deal needs to be done and very little has been done so far. I would say that we here in Parliament have done a less than stellar job supporting the troops we send overseas. We are all proud of them. We have Canadian Forces members representing us in Kandahar, but we need to take care of these people when they come home. 
Some come home and are very tough, very strong. They will do fine and thank goodness. I am very happy for them, very happy indeed. Perhaps they will pursue a career in the military for the rest of their lives. However, other people come home and have a completely different experience. We must help those people.
We also need to think about parental leave. I will close on this thought, because I think I am almost out of time. Parental leave is important. If they cannot take it while they are overseas—which is understandable, since they may have to stay over there if there is a crisis—they must be able to defer that leave. If they come home to take their parental leave but are called back to duty because of an emergency, that leave must not be lost; instead, it must be deferred. I do not think this is too much to ask. It is the same amount of money, except that, if we send that person back overseas, the parental leave must be granted at a later date. I think this would only be fair, because these people have families, too.
We cannot treat Canadian Forces members like objects. They are human beings like us. The hours these people work are appalling, and they see things that we here in the House might not be able to endure.
Accordingly, I think we must show them some respect and give them all the help they need so that when they come home, they continue making us proud, they continue to feel proud of themselves, and they can continue living balanced, normal, healthy lives.
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, I find it very ironic that the Bloc members are saying those things. In fact, they voted against the Veterans Charter. They voted against providing the equipment that the men and women in uniform need. They have voted against every initiative this government, and really any other government, has put forward to support the military members and their families.
First the Bloc members degrade the motivation of our men and women for their service to our great country. Then they say the thing they are now saying. Then when it comes time to stand and be counted, to provide the supports for our military, they vote no every time.
Will the Bloc members apologize for all the times they have said no to our military and for their refusal to support the military?
[Interjection]
Monique Guay:  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit to my colleague across the way that we are not talking about equipment here. We are talking about what our forces are dealing with over there and how they are being treated. We are talking about employment insurance, parental leave, psychological and psychiatric services, if required, upon their return. That is what we are talking about.
We support this bill, but we would like to make it better, and that is also a good thing. We want to give them more and to provide them with services. I cannot understand the member's position. Again, from what he just said, the Conservatives' thinking is clear as day. It is as if they were saying, “Let us buy equipment and forget about the military personnel when they come back; we do not care. That does not matter; our job there will be over. We will give them toys and, when they come back, they can deal with their problems on their own”. That is a totally unacceptable way of thinking, and I will never go along with something like that. We did vote against some things which we felt were wasteful. But when it comes to bringing soldiers home, giving them back their dignity, ensuring they have a healthy lifestyle and making sure they do not commit suicide, I am sorry, but no price tag can be put on that. 
Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member across the House said, I found the member's speech on this bill to be very heartfelt. In fact, it appears to me to be furthering the benefit availability that the government is putting forward. We certainly fully support the amendment the Bloc is proposing and, of course, as my colleague said, we look forward to the Bloc's support of our amendment. I would encourage that the bill be amended to include not just police who are deployed overseas but also the many other officials, including peacemakers, who are deployed overseas to help in missions. We need to ensure that they are also covered.
I particularly appreciated the member's discussion about the breadth of the issue when soldiers return home. Even though the soldiers would like to immediately return and take up their parental leave, I have seen cases in Edmonton where soldiers have returned home and are so traumatized by the war that they have a hard time relating to their newborn children whom they are just meeting for the first time.
 It is very important that we reach out and provide even more benefits to our soldiers when they return home. We need to ensure they have affordable access to quality child care and other support to help them when they return home to their families.
I wonder if the member could comment on that.
[Interjection]
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I think that we have a similar and humane view of our soldiers. I completely agree with her.
As I said earlier, we cannot put a price tag on helping these people. I will give an example. A father returning from Kandahar has seen horrible things. He saw children killed and women raped. He saw all kinds of things that do not happen here. In Canada, our tolerance for violence would maybe be a two out of ten, while in war-torn countries, it is an eight out of ten. We are not used to that. 
I know that they are trained, but still, at home things are not like that. When they return home and must start taking care of a family, it is not easy. They are scarred, shattered, and their dignity takes a beating. They no longer know who they are. They do not want to talk about it with their partner, because they are ashamed of their feelings and their weakness. We must find a way to seek them out and help them.
It is not an easy thing to do. The family, on its own, cannot help these men and women who are proud. There is a sense of pride in being a member of the military. Sometimes, they come back to Canada shattered. That is unfortunate, but it does happen. I am not saying that it happens to everyone. However, we absolutely have to do something for those who are affected. In order to help them, they must be seen and assessed by specialists as soon as they get back. If we wait six months, a year or longer, the damage will have been done. Soldiers become alcoholics, or they take drugs or any kind of anti-depressant. They do not know what else to take to dull the pain. It is an internal illness that is extremely difficult to detect. We have to be able to offer them services as quickly as possible so they can take hold of themselves quickly and not go down the wrong path, which is not desirable.
We send men and women to defend us, and we are proud of them. We boast about it. Then they come back to Canada and we let them fend for themselves. I believe that is unacceptable.
This legislation is good news and it should be adopted as quickly as possible because there are men and women coming back now and more who will return in 2011. We must be able to provide for them and to look after them. This must be a lesson to us for the future, when we decide to become involved in a war somewhere else in the world. We have to take appropriate action and be equipped, but not with war toys such as tanks and trucks. That is not what we need. We need military equipment, but that is not the purpose of this bill, which will help military members who return from a very, very difficult mission. 
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, the member made a very good presentation.
The question has been asked whether reservists are included in the bill. The bill deals with roughly 50 to 60 cases per year and will cost about $600,000 a year.
The proposed measure does include reservists who due to military requirements have their parental leave deferred or are ordered to return to duty while on leave under the EI parental benefits. The measure also extends the period for which they are eligible by another 52 weeks. In fact, parental benefits provide income replacement for up to 35 weeks to biological or adoptive parents while they are caring for a newborn or newly adopted child. The benefits may be taken by either parent or shared between them. If the parents opt for these benefits, only one two-week waiting period must be served.
I thought I should point that out because I was asked that question. 
Would the member be willing to entertain the amendment from the NDP which would include the measure to include police officers involved in these missions?
[Interjection]
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support. I should point out to him that I do not sit on that committee either, but that, as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois indicated, it will very likely be included. The committee has to look at this and see what is involved. 
Personally, I think we cannot put a price tag on helping these people, whether police or military. They do extraordinary work. They protect us and help in many ways to make things better for others. I cannot see why they could not be included.
That is something that will have to be discussed at committee and decided by the hon. members. They know where we stand on this bill, which will hopefully be approved quickly at committee.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-13, which recommends changes to employment insurance. The summary of the bill states:
 This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend the benefit period and the period during which parental benefits may be paid for Canadian Forces members whose period of parental leave is deferred or who are directed to return to duty from parental leave. 
My party and I are certainly going to support this bill. We have to recognize that our troops, who are defending our country or democracy everywhere in the world on a Canadian mission, deserve to be given consideration in this regard, so that they are not penalized. If our soldiers had not gone overseas, they would have been able to take parental leave, for example, to be with their newborn child. That is so important.
Most of the people in the House of Commons are parents. In our day we did not have parental leave. Parental leave was something wonderful for our parents and it was wonderful for their children. We are living today in a world where both spouses work, and parents are not able to stay at home with a newborn child. The child is sent to a day care centre because the parents have to work. A bill like this one is appropriate. It would give parents the chance to stay with the child for the first year of his or her life. That is wonderful.
Our troops do us honour everywhere they go. The Bloc member clearly stated other benefits that we might give our troops. This is one benefit we can support.
The member who introduced this bill said that he knocked on a door and a soldier answered. It was that soldier who made him aware of this issue.
With respect to employment insurance, I can say we have knocked on many doors. People have made us aware of the problems they have with the employment insurance scheme and the problems it causes in society.
The government has a surplus of $57 billion to $60 billion in the employment insurance fund. This program is paid for entirely by workers. Many people are entitled to employment insurance. Given the eligibility criteria of a minimum of 420 hours or 840 hours worked, in the case of a first claim many people are excluded from the employment insurance system. For women, the same is true. Many women work part-time and cannot accumulate the number of hours required. They are not eligible for employment insurance. 
Over 800,000 people in Canada pay into the employment insurance scheme but are not eligible because of the restrictions the government has imposed. The government is making piecemeal changes. 
At the same time there are many other changes that the government could make. I know this is a bill for our troops, and I will come back to it quickly, but we have to look at the human element and the changes being requested.
There is the case of Marie-Hélène Dubé, who lives in Montreal North. She circulated a petition signed by 62,000 people that was presented here by a member of the Bloc Québécois. It asks that sick leave benefits be extended to 52 weeks. 
We have to see the human side of this issue. People work their entire lives and then have the misfortune of falling ill. For example, a person who gets cancer has to take treatments prescribed by a specialist for a year. But after 15 weeks he or she no longer qualifies for employment insurance unless he or she works for a company that provides insurance. If that individual has no income, he or she is thrown on to welfare. 
It is totally unacceptable that employees who have contributed into this program cannot qualify for benefits.
I want to return to what really happens on both sides, the military side and the civilian side. Beginning with the military side, the government says we should support our troops. There is nothing wrong with that. We should support our troops and we do, even though the Conservatives try to imply that the opposition does not support the troops because we disagree with them about some of the missions the government sends them on.
There is a difference between a mission and supporting the troops. We support our troops, but sometimes there are missions with which we disagree. We live in a democracy and have the right to express our views in the House of Commons. That is what we are elected to do, to express our views on things like this.
They ask us to support our troops, our veterans, our soldiers and our military personnel. Some soldiers are on disability and that was officially acknowledged by the army. I will give the House one example. As a result of a disability, this solder is put on the reserves, and I am not sure about the exact military term, and could stay there for three years with pay but without serving in the regular forces.
The government knew he was going to retire. He knew he would be finished with the forces at the end of May and would receive the official pension from the federal government. The army told him, though, that he would start getting his pension 8 to 12 weeks from then.
The Conservatives say we should support our troops and our veterans, but here I am forced to get involved. I have to ask National Defence why it needs 12 weeks to cut a cheque for a soldier when it has known for 3 years that he was going to retire. The cheque will not be ready at the end of May, and when he retires he will have to wait 12 weeks without any income. Is that how we support our troops?
Another soldier has been in the Canadian Forces for 20 years and would be retiring in three years. He says that because of the medical problem which the CF has recognized, he was put into another category and is no longer in the regular forces. He said that the military has known for 3 years that he would be taking his pension this month, but he was told that he would not be able to get his pension for at least 8 to 12 weeks from now. He wants to know, who will feed his family? Is that how we support our troops?
Our troops go to war, they defend our country, and they defend democracy around the world. When they come back, they need our support. I support Bill C-13 because it would give our soldiers, when they come back from a mission, a break of 52 weeks to spend with their families. They would receive parental leave, like any other Canadian.
The member for Acadie—Bathurst suggested to the government that clause 3 of Bill C-13 be amended by adding another line, after line 5, page 2:
 For the purposes of subsection (3.01), a member of a police force who is a Canadian citizen in the employ of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a Canadian citizen under contract with the Government of Canada, and who has been deployed as part of a mission outside Canada is considered to be a claimant. 
I believe this is reasonable. We are not talking about millions of people. We have police officers who are deployed in various countries to conduct missions and to help in reconstruction efforts. We have other members of police forces who go to those countries.
We know of a specific case. RCMP Sergeant Gallagher lost his life after landing in Haiti the day of the earthquake. He went to the country to help the Haitian government and community build up its police force. We have other citizens in similar situations.
That is why I take Bill C-13 seriously. It is a good bill—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but it is time to move to another subject. So when the debate is resumed, the hon. member will have 10 and one half minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

Statements By Members
NursingMr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, next week represents another National Nursing Week. First, I would like to wish happy nursing week to all the nurses and nursing students across Canada. 
 I would like to make a special mention to the nurses of the Markham Stouffville Hospital and York Central Hospital who service the good people of Oak Ridges—Markham every single day.
Nurses possess a tremendous amount of skill and knowledge as well as a deep sense of kindness and commitment. Without them hospitals, seniors residences and hospices could not function. When patients are at their most vulnerable, the most embarrassing situations, and the most painful situations of their lives, nurses are there to provide them with quality care, free of judgment and full of compassion.
Nursing does not fall under the list of most glamourous occupations, but it is of course, on the top of the list of most vitally important professions in this country.
Since 1971, May 12, which is Florence Nightingale's birthday, symbolizes International Nurses Day. 
I encourage Canadians to give thanks to all the nurses who, without a doubt, have touched the lives of so many through their hard work and medical expertise. This is another reason why I am so proud to represent the people of Oak Ridges—Markham.
Bay RobertsMr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, I joined MHA Roland Butler and Mayor Glenn Littlejohn at the Royal Canadian Legion in a wreath laying for the Battle of the Atlantic.
Recently, I attended the Ascension High School gala dinner. This community of 5,500 people raised over $47,000 to benefit the students.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what town this all happened in? Bay Roberts.
This week, using flawed data and shoddy research, MoneySense magazine named that town as the worst place to live in Canada. This could not be further from the truth. 
Bay Roberts is a vibrant, bustling community with a growing population. This town is full of volunteerism, community spirit and pride is abundant.
 MoneySense may think Bay Roberts lacks culture, but obviously has never attended “A Time in Pigeon Inlet”.
I always look forward to the Klondike Days and the Winter Lights Festival.
These are just a few examples of what makes Bay Roberts a special place. If the magazine representatives took the time to visit, it would not take them long to realize that they must have printed their list upside down.
 MoneySense may not want to rank Bay Roberts number one, but common sense would.
Quebec Entrepreneurship ContestRoger Pomerleau:  Mr. Speaker, the prizes in the 12th annual Quebec Entrepreneurship Contest for the Centre-du-Québec region were awarded in Drummondville on April 29. The students and entrepreneurs who were honoured greatly deserve the praise they have received.
Winners from the Drummond RCM were as follows: in the bio-food category—Moulin La Fine Fleur, owned by Julie Tessier and Étienne Poirier; in the commerce category—Steven Frenette from Boiseries Sir Laurier Inc.; for technological and technical innovation—Marcel Boutin's Produitson Inc.; in the category of business operation, processing and production—Daniel Marcotte from Jeux Modul'Air; and in the category of services to individuals—Isabelle Auger, Jonathan Delorme and Mylène Fillion from the Centre de stomie Lingerie Sérénité.
In the Érable RCM, AZN2 Environnement Inc. won in the category of services to companies. And in the Arthabaska RCM, the Marché de solidarité régionale de Victoriaville won in the social economy category.
Bravo to all the finalists and congratulations to the winners.
School CentennialsMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to celebrate the centennial of two great schools in Ottawa Centre.
Devonshire Community Public School is a wonderfully diverse, French-immersion elementary school named after a former Governor General. It serves the Hintonburg and Preston/Somerset communities, and was recently officially designated a heritage building. Students, parents and staff kicked off Devonshire's 100th birthday by opening a time capsule prepared by the school's students 25 years ago.
Another great Ottawa school celebrating its centennial this year is Hopewell. Hopewell Avenue Public School has been a cornerstone of the history of old Ottawa south and the Glebe. The growth of the community has been reflected in the faces that have passed through that school's doors.
I invite all parliamentarians to join me in celebrating 100 years of learning at Devonshire and Hopewell schools right here in Ottawa.
Commemorative StampMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after 60 years, six decades of official diplomatic relations between Canada and Israel, our two countries have launched a joint stamp to commemorate this successful relationship that has endured. 
Unfortunately, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has opposed this wonderful initiative and has singled out Israel for unfounded and unfair criticism.
I rise today to point out that the Union of Postal Workers is in fact wrong. 
Israel is our friend and our ally, and no prime minister in Canadian history has been more loyal and more supportive of Israel, especially in the war against terrorism.
Our shared interests make us allies. Our shared values make us friends. Our shared history makes us proud.
Ned MacDonaldMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a tremendous person, an exemplary public servant and an exceptional community leader. 
Ned MacDonald, a long-serving councillor in the municipality of the county of Inverness, died unexpectedly on April 23. He was 63 years old.
An educator by profession, Ned was a true inspiration to the many students who passed through his classroom over the years. His love for teaching was rivaled only by his passion for history, which was evident in his tireless work to establish the Inverness Miner's Museum and the many books he wrote on the history of Inverness.
Ned MacDonald served the people of Inverness and area as councillor for two decades. The community has lost a special son and one of its greatest champions. 
On behalf of myself and all constituents in Cape Breton—Canso, I want to acknowledge Ned's priceless contribution to life in his community and offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Abby, and his two daughters, Janna and Breanna.
HeroismMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise in the House to pay tribute to a young hero from my community. 
On July 12, 2007, Aaliyah Braybrook, a 12-year-old resident from the town of Clairmont, was babysitting two young neighbour boys when a fire broke out in the home. Immediately, Aaliyah did what her training at the Red Cross babysitting course had taught her to do. She evacuated the home, saving the two young residents and the family pet. She then called 911. Within minutes, the mobile home was burned to the ground.
This week, Aaliyah's heroic actions were rewarded by a lawsuit initiated by an unnamed insurance company demanding that she take financial responsibility for a portion of the $350,000 in damages. Aaliyah did her job. She saved those who were in her care and immediately warned authorities of the fire.
Aaliyah is a hero. I think so, her family thinks so and so does her community. I call on this unnamed insurance company to back off and to recognize Aaliyah for the hero that she is.
Claude CousineauMonique Guay: Mr. Speaker, Claude Cousineau, my friend and the National Assembly of Quebec member for Bertrand, was just named an officer of the Ordre de la Pléiade by the speaker of the National Assembly of Quebec. He received the honour for his tremendous contribution as the vice-Chair of the Quebec branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie to the propagation of the French language and to the development and mutual understanding of cultures and civilizations.
Claude has a specialized bachelor's degree in the pure sciences. He is very experienced thanks to his time in municipal government and economic development. A member of the National Assembly since 1998, he has been responsible for several files and is currently the official opposition critic for tourism, wildlife and parks. As a member of the assembly, he joined the Association pour la francophonie to share his love for the French language.
I am delighted to congratulate Claude Cousineau, Officer of the Ordre de la Pléiade.
Umaru Musa Yar'AduaMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Parliament and Canada and all Canadians, I wish to express my profound sadness at the news of the death of Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, following a long illness.
President Yar'Adua was steadfast in promoting regional peace and security and ensuring Nigeria's leadership role within the international community, particularly with respect to unconstitutional changes of government in the sub-region. In Nigeria itself, President Yar'Adua's pursuit of stability and security for the people of the Niger Delta was a critical aspect of his leadership.
As a faithful friend of Nigeria, Canada has stood alongside Nigerians through the difficult period of President Yar'Adua's illness and we offer our profound condolences to the people of Nigeria on this sad occasion.
Firearms RegistryMrs. Alexandra Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, police forces, families, students, dozens of special interest groups, the families of victims of the Polytechnique and Dawson college massacres, women's groups, medical associations and farmers who understand the importance of gun control are all rallying to save the firearms registry.
Why? Because the registry is necessary. It is crucial to public safety. Police officers consult it over 11,000 times every day.
Yet the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse is about to vote to eliminate the registry. Like the other Conservative members from Quebec, he is going to blindly follow his leader, like a sheep.
His leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, has decided to side with the gun lobby.
Will the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse listen to his constituents? Will he listen to Quebeckers? Will he listen to police officers? Or will he blindly go along with the gun lobby?
The EconomyMr. Greg Kerr (West Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to report that this morning Statistics Canada said that we had set a new record for April job numbers: 108,700 jobs. That is right, Mr. Speaker, I sense your amazement at that number. It was the largest monthly job gain on record. The numbers show that Canada's economic action plan is working and that low taxes fuel job creation and economic growth.
Since last July, Canada has created some 285,000 new jobs. No wonder the latest edition of the influential magazine, The Economist, calls Canada an “economic star”. 
Because the global recovery remains fragile, jobs and growth remain our government's top priority. 
Yet the Liberal leader's top priority of hikes to job-killing business taxes and a higher GST would halt the recovery in its tracks. Canadians have 108,700 reasons to reject the Liberal plan for tax hikes.
Katharine HayLinda Duncan: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, a very special young woman from my riding lost her lifelong battle with kidney disease at the age of 24. Katharine Hay was born with polycystic kidney disease and had her first transplant when she was in grade five.
With the support and encouragement of her parents, she enjoyed sports, riding horses and became an accomplished pianist. In high school, she took up biathlon winning a bronze medal at the 2001 national championships.
Starting in pre-med at the University of Alberta, she later switched to radio and television at NAIT, hosting a weekly radio show and writing for the student paper.
In 2007, her mother donated a kidney when her transplanted kidney failed. 
At the U of A she continued to lead New Democrat youth on campus, bravely running against a cabinet minister in the 2008 provincial election.
When she died, Katharine was training for the Kidney Foundation Gift of Life Fun Run. Her friends formed Team Kat, raising over $8,000. In her honour, Edmonton's Kidney Foundation has named its award for most individual donations “The Katharine Hay Memorial Award”. We will all miss her.
HaitiMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our commitment to and our solidarity with the people of Haiti is stronger than ever, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has just announced an additional $10 million in support for Haitian justice and security institutions.
The minister is meeting with President Préval, Prime Minister Bellerive, the UN mission in Haiti and our dedicated Canadians who are working on building a new Haiti. He will be visiting Jacmel and Léogâne, where Canada is playing a crucial role for Haitians. 
Canada's commitment to Haiti is a key aspect of our foreign policy. Canada is seen as a leader in Haiti and throughout the world and that is thanks to this government.
Canadians are proud of that, thanks to this government and to the generosity of Canadians.
Firearms RegistryMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 2006, someone said that the gun registry should continue. Who said that? None other than Senator Boisvenu. That statement is in sharp contrast with his most recent one, to the effect that the register only has symbolic value.
However, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Association of Police Boards as well as the survivors of École Polytechnique, to name just a few groups, are quite definite on that point. Far from being symbolic, the registry is an efficient and practical tool that helps save lives. It is consulted more than 13,000 times per day.
Twenty years later, with the future of the registry at stake, time has come to stand up for the rights of women and children and help fight violence against them. Well beyond a white ribbon campaign, if the NDP leader wants to do something, he should get his entire caucus to vote in favour of maintaining the firearms registry in its entirety.
EthicsHon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, four weeks ago today, the Prime Minister hastily convened a news conference to inform Canadians that he had fired his Status of Women minister, kicked her out of caucus and called in the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner, but Canadians still do not know why.
We have learned a lot since then but we still do not know the nature of the allegations deemed to serious that a sitting Prime Minister needed to call in the RCMP on a sitting cabinet minister for the first time since the days of Brian Mulroney.
We know it was not enough that the minister violated airport security and abused airport personnel. It was not enough that her staff impersonated the public in a letter writing campaign, and it was not enough that her husband conducted business in her office. During all that, the Prime Minister repeatedly said that she was doing a great job. 
Then, presto, overnight he called in the RCMP.
What did she do that warranted the drastic move of being kicked out of caucus and now refusing her candidacy, essentially banishing her?
The EconomyMr. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the difference between our government's approach to the economy and the Liberal approach could not be more clear. 
Our government believes that low taxes fuel job creation and economic growth. That is why since forming government we have reduced taxes for families, seniors, students and businesses. The Liberal Party thinks Canadians should pay more, a higher GST, a new carbon tax and hikes to business taxes, a move experts have said will kill jobs.
We need only look at the facts to know which plan will have better success. Canada has created 285,000 new jobs since last July, including a record number of job gains last month. On the economic growth front, the IMF and OECD predict Canada will lead all G7 countries in growth both this year and next year.
Canadians have a clear choice. They can choose the tax and spend Liberal approach, a failed approach from the past, or they can choose our low tax approach, which has made Canada the envy of the industrialized world.

Oral Questions
Government PoliciesHon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the pattern of intimidation and deceit in that government gets worse as time goes on. For four years, anyone who disagrees with it is told to get out of the way or suffer the consequences. Women's groups, literacy advocates, cultural groups, even the Immigrant Workers Centre in Montreal have all had their funding cut.
When will the government stop trying to stifle dissent, destroy all dissent and start to listen to those groups?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have an important responsibility as the Government of Canada to listen to all the voices and then to act in the national interest and in the public interest. 
I think Canadians are justifiably concerned with what they learned yesterday about a Liberal member of Parliament advertising himself as a paid lobbyist who could seek regulatory changes.
I have a question for the Liberal Party. Why would the Liberal leader put a man member who advertises himself as a paid lobbyist, who could have regulations changed for foreign interests, why would he put the same Liberal member on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations? Is that not putting the fox in charge of the henhouse?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the member should talk to the Ethics Commissioner because his allegations are all false.
Women's rights groups that speak up get their funding axed. When Richard Colvin revealed disturbing torture allegations, they attacked his reputation. When police forces and survivors of the École Polytechnique massacre demanded that the gun registry be maintained, the government called the police a cult.
When will the government stop intimidating everyone who opposes it?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it is not about bullying anyone. It is about standing up for the national interests. It is about standing up for what is right and standing up for the public interests.
The member opposite has come to a conclusion about what the Ethics Commissioner will decide on the matter on which the Liberal member has sought advice. I guess the Liberal Party does not want to hear from the Ethics Commissioner because it has already made up its mind.
Canadians want to know about the Liberal cover-up. First the leader of the Liberal Party argues against including members of Parliament under the Lobbying Act. We did not know why. We learned why yesterday. Then the Liberal member alters information on a website before he sends the matter to the minister, and then alters it again after. The Liberal Party—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-De-Grâce--Lachine.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the government has no shame with its fibs.
Under the Conservative government, different points of view are shut down, questions are ducked and Parliament is shut down when the heat becomes too much for the Conservatives.
Back in 2005, the Prime Minister said:
 When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern. 
When did the Prime Minister stop believing it? Was it when he became Prime Minister?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations is one of the most important bodies in Canada. It is there to oversee the government's role in regulations. All the members of that committee are there to stand up for the public interest.
 Why would the Liberal leader put a man who advertises the fact that he is a paid lobbyist, advertises that he can have regulations changed for foreign interests, why would the Liberal leader put this same Liberal MP on this important standing committee? Canadians have a right to know and Canadians want to get to the bottom of it.
Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives disrespect for democracy is no more apparent than their treatment of independent watchdogs. Linda Keen, Peter Tinsley, Paul Kennedy, Bernard Shapiro and Robert Marleau were all fired and pushed out. These people had one job: to keep the government honest and the Conservatives just could not stand it.
Why the fear of accountability? Why the fear to face the truth?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we have the Liberal Party, in the leader's round, suggesting that the conclusions of an ethics investigation are already made, despite the fact that the Liberal Party had to send its own member to the ethics committee just yesterday. That violates the independence of the Ethics Commissioner.
Canadians also want to know of some additional information that has come to the government's attention, that has come to the public realm. The Liberal member of Parliament for Scarborough—Rouge River, while advertising himself as a paid lobbyist, was taking free trips to Dubai from a special interest. What was going on in the United Arab Emirates and why was this issue with respect to his lobbying not brought before the House before we discussed lobbying reform earlier this week?
Anita Neville: Mr. Speaker, the minister should show some respect for the House and answer the questions. 
As usual, the government cannot simply face the truth. The list of officials goes on: Adrian Measner of the Wheat Board, Richard Colvin, the National Science Advisor and muzzled Environment Canada officials. 
When will the Conservatives stop the attacks, stop the intimidation, begin to accept the truth and start to treat our open democratic system with some respect and answer some questions in the House?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I know Canadians want answers. They want to know what the Liberal member for Scarborough—Rouge River was doing on a sponsored trip, where he was there to lobby interests in the United Arab Emirates, which was paid for by group called Paradise Forever, an Islamic religious group, for he and his assistant, Amber Watkins. This organization was led by a gentleman named Mr. Muhammad Heft.
 Who was the Liberal MP lobbying in the United Arab Emirates? Was it the government of the United Arab Emirates or was it private sector interests? Why would the Liberal leader not have made this public when we were seeking to reform the lobbyist rules earlier—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Joliette.
Firearms RegistryMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, survivors of the Polytechnique massacre reminded the Conservative government that the firearms registry truly commemorates the 14 victims because it saves lives. Like them, we believe that the registry is anything but a symbol, as a Conservative senator suggested. It is a useful crime-fighting tool. 
Why would anyone refuse to listen to the survivors of the Polytechnique massacre who are urging the government to maintain the gun registry as is?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, tragedies like the one that happened at the Polytechnique are unacceptable. That is why we are getting tough on crime. We want to take the right approach to curbing criminal activity. 
I want to make one thing clear: we are talking about eliminating the long gun registry, not the registry as a whole. We are talking about eliminating the long gun registry, which, unfortunately, makes it an offence for farmers, hunters and honest folks to not register their guns. That is what we are doing. We hope that the opposition will support the other measures that we introduced to tackle crime.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about tackling crime. Three police associations came here to tell us that the gun registry prevents violent incidents every day. They reminded us—and the minister should know this—that in 2009, nearly 90% of the weapons seized were long guns, the very weapons that the Conservative government and some Liberal and NDP members want to leave out of the registry.
Why does the government want to raise levels of violence and make people feel less safe by trying to dismantle the gun registry? We have to maintain it as it is now.
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, this is a red herring. We are not going to wipe out crime by making it an offence for hunters and farmers to not register their long guns. The real issue is tackling crime effectively and wiping it out, including gun crimes and predatory offences.
Why is the Bloc Québécois opposed to the government's measures for dealing with theft over $5,000? Why does it want people to serve their sentences in the comfort of their own homes instead of in jail? That kind of heresy is the reason people keep committing crimes in this country. And we will wipe out those crimes.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister called this a red herring, but I will give him a concrete example.
Suzanne Laplante-Edward, the mother of one of the victims from École Polytechnique, spoke about the importance of the firearms registry in preventing crime. With the Conservative bill, the semi-automatic gun used by Marc Lépine to kill this woman's daughter and 13 others would no longer be registered.
How can the Conservatives, with the help of the NDP and the Liberals, propose that we dismantle the firearms registry? Why are they refusing to remember the 14—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. My colleague is confusing the issue for purely partisan purposes. When someone purchases a firearm, it is automatically recorded, because that individual needs a possession and acquisition licence.
My colleague comes from a rural riding. He wants to criminalize the honest hunters in his riding who have not registered their firearms. He will vote to criminalize these honest citizens in his own riding. That is what is shameful.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, here is proof that a Conservative minister, a token Quebecker, refuses to acknowledge the consensus in Quebec.
The Quebec National Assembly, police officers, women's groups, advocacy groups for victims of crime, the families of École Polytechnique victims, and public health experts all want the gun registry to be kept as is. 
When will this self-styled law and order government realize that when it keeps pushing to dismantle the firearms registry, it is putting the safety of Quebeckers in jeopardy?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Quebecker who cares about all Quebeckers, and not a Quebecker who cares only about Quebec sovereignty.
He wants to destroy the federation and criminalize honest citizens in his riding. If there is a consensus, all Quebec has to do is create a registry if it wants one. My colleague knows very well that the registration of goods and property is a provincial jurisdiction. We do not want to criminalize honest citizens who do not register their long guns. He must stop confusing the issue.
International Co-operationMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have turned Canadians against each other on an initiative that could have united the country. There is no question that access to safe abortion saves lives. The Lancet, one of the world's most respected medical journals, said in an editorial: 
 Canada and the other G8 nations could show real leadership with a final maternal health plan that is based on sound scientific evidence and not prejudice. 
Why will the current government not accept the evidence and include safe abortions in its maternal health initiative?
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the facts are what World Vision tells us. It tells us that every day, as we sit in this chamber, 24,000 children will die under the age of five. Our government is bringing the world together in June with a goal to save the lives of women and children.
We also know that development leaders tell us:
 Every year nine million women around the world watch as their children die from painful, preventable illnesses that often cost dimes, not dollars, to treat. 
We have a responsibility to act to save these children. It is the right thing to do. It is something all of us can get behind. We ask the opposition to support this great initiative.
Government AppointmentsLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the credibility of Canada's reputation continues as we see international foundations, NGOs and even the WHO shunning Canada's highly regarded International Development Research Centre.
The IDRC has undertaken exceptional anti-smoking work in developing countries. However, the Prime Minister's appointment of former Conservative minister Barbara McDougall, while she was also a member of Imperial Tobacco's board of directors, has tarnished IDRC's reputation.
Will the Prime Minister finally admit his mistake, stop the erosion of our reputation and ask Ms. McDougall to step down, as she should?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the member raises the issue with respect to the IDRC board. I think Canadians will know that the Hon. Barbara McDougall is an outstanding Canadian who has made a great contribution not just in Canada but, as a former foreign minister, around the world. I think she will do, and continue to do, an excellent job in chairing this important board, both in Canada and abroad.
National SecurityLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, why would the RCMP have been conducting surveillance on an elected official who served as a premier and later as a federal leader? That is what Tommy Douglas was subjected to during his long and outstanding political career.
The Saskatchewan legislature voted unanimously this week for Mr. Douglas' surveillance files, which are now held by CSIS, to be released. Will the government respect this request from the Saskatchewan legislature and release these files?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite is aware, the matter is before the courts. As such, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specific case. There are, however, some points I am sure will be of interest to the House.
First, CSIS is an arm's-length agency, and the case in question predates its creation. In addition, all access to information requests are processed by officials of the public service. Finally, this matter has been reviewed by the Information Commissioner, who supported the redactions on national security grounds.
Status of WomenMrs. Lise Zarac (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government launched a general attack on women's organizations, telling them to shut up or else it would attack women's right to control their own bodies. The next day, the government cut funding to two dozen groups, some of which Canada has funded for 30 years.
Why attack the Réseau des tables régionales de groupes de femmes du Québec? Why attack the Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to tell the House that our government has increased the funding for women's groups to the highest level ever in the history of the Government of Canada.
In fact, we now have projects we are funding in every province and territory across the country. Let me tell the member about one right in Montreal where we are helping low-earning women from slipping below the poverty line, helping female entrepreneurs build projects and give young, old and immigrant women access to jobs.
I would like to ask the member if she is suggesting that we not support these groups. I would also like the opposition to stop pitting women's groups against each other and work with the government to support women.
Lise Zarac: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why the government is attacking the Association féminine d'éducation et d'aide sociale. Why cut funding to Action travail des femmes? What do the Conservatives have against the Centre de documentation sur l'éducation des adultes et la condition féminine? Why is the Prime Minister interfering in African women's medical decisions? Why is this government intimidating women?
Canadians want to know: what is next on the government's reform agenda?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, as I said, this government has increased funding to the highest level, to record levels, more than any other government in the past. In fact, more women's groups are applying than ever before because our program is working so well. 
Let me tell members about another project in the Korean Canadian Women's Association where family and social services is running a 24-month project in Toronto to help the community face violence against women.
We are now funding 40% new projects that have never received funding before and almost 40% of our projects are going to end violence against women. It is something we are all proud of, and I ask the member to support this.
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday a Conservative senator told women's groups and rights organizations to shut up, apparently too late. Twenty-four hours later, the government cut funding to a dozen women's organizations. The New Brunswick Coalition for Pay Equity, the Alberta Network of Immigrant Women, the Canadian Research Institute on the Advancement of Women, and Womanspace Resource Centre are just some of the groups that the government is punishing.
Will the Prime Minister agree to put an end to this campaign of intimidation and restore funding to these groups?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that this government has increased funding to record levels to women's groups. We are funding projects in every province and every territory across the country.
Through violence prevention workshops in Winnipeg, we are assisting aboriginal women and young girls in the inner city to help them understand and overcome the barriers that face them. In Lower Mainland B.C., we will be reducing the isolation of refugee and new immigrant women.
All of these are great projects. All the projects that come into our department have merit. We cannot fund all of them. I would ask the member to stop pitting women's groups against each other and work with us to support women.
Maternal and Child HealthCarolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to stop intimidating women's groups and restore their funding.
This week a top British medical journal, The Lancet , joined these very same groups by criticizing the government for its harmful change in policy and its approach to the G8. The editorial calls Canada's position “hypocritical and unjust” and says “this stance must change.”
When will the Conservative Party and the government stop silencing their critics and start listening to them and their call for evidence-based policy?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, let me share with the hon. member what World Vision tells us. World Vision tells us that 24,000 children under the age of 5 will die today and every day in the developing world.
 In June our government will have the opportunity to do something historic. We are bringing the world together on an initiative to save the lives of women and children. In fact, the president and CEOs of World Vision, UNICEF, Results Canada and CARE Canada have said, “It is time to focus on the hope and opportunity that this G8 initiative on maternal, newborn and child health presents”.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, the list of people who condemn the ideological cuts to funding for women's groups is growing. Quebec's status of women minister, Christine St-Pierre, and Ontario's health minister, Deb Matthews, are publicly criticizing the Conservatives and their brutal cuts, which are threatening the survival of organizations that help women here and in developing countries.
How can the government be so blinded by its Conservative ideology that it cannot see that it is threatening the health of women here and elsewhere?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the opposition again that every day as we sit here, 24,000 children under the age of five die in the developing world. We are bringing the world together in June in Muskoka to talk about how we can save the lives of women and children.
Let me tell the House what Sharon Marshall, the head of World Vision Canada, said. She said:
 World Vision is outraged that... [this] debate is being raised in order to distract from the real issue on the table ... 8.8 million children dying every year from causes that we could easily prevent with interventions that cost pennies. 
We have a responsibility—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, if the government helped women's groups, children here and in other countries might not die.
The Conservative government has cut funding to women's groups that do not share its ideology on abortion, a decision that the prestigious medical journal The Lancet has criticized, yet it has loosened the purse strings for evangelical groups. No doubt about it, this government is under the thumb of religious fundamentalists.
When will this government stop imposing its backward ideology on women here and elsewhere?
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, whom we are listening to when it comes to the issue of saving the lives of women and children in the developing world is World Vision. It is telling us that every day, 24,000 children under the age of five will die and we can make a difference. We have a responsibility to act. We ask the opposition to stop playing politics with this issue. 
Leading presidents and CEOs of all development agencies around the world have said to us, “It is time to focus on the hope and opportunity that the G8 Initiative on maternal, newborn and child health presents and end the suffering of millions” of women and children.
Agri-FoodMario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, the priceless Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture announced an umpteenth consultation process to solve the problem of labelling products as “Made in Canada”. If the government had waited for the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food's hearings on the subject to end before imposing the 98% rule, it would have avoided making our food producers and processors pay additional fees.
Why is the minister imposing a new industry deadline when everyone agrees on the 85% rule?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians wanted to know what is in the food they are eating and we responded to that demand. Now, we would like to undertake studies and receive feedback on our policy. That said, our policy is a good one because Canadians want to know what is in their products.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, it is such a good policy that no one agrees with it.
With its unrealistic rule for defining products that are “Made in Canada”, the Conservative government is hurting the agri-food industry by creating uncertainty and by imposing additional fees. The 98% rule is ridiculous. Not even grandma's apple pie would meet the minister's requirements. It is shameful.
When will the minister get on with it and implement the 85% rule the entire industry is calling for?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, we created this policy to help Canadians and our farmers. Our policy is a good one, but we are holding consultations because we want to know if it will work, and it will. I would like to quote the member for Malpeque, who is a member of the opposition. He said that:
 —the new regulations would provide consumers with honest information on the contents they purchase and the changes could also increase the consumption of Canadian products. 

Public SafetyMr. Francis Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been weeks since I told you that Canada's agri-retail sector has been pleading with the government to assist in securing sites where tonnes of explosive fertilizers and meth-producing chemicals sit without so much as a fence to stop them from falling into the hands of terrorists and drug dealers. In fact, the sector still cannot even get a meeting with the minister and has heard nothing.
The U.S. has implemented tax breaks to upgrade the agri-retail sites, yet Canada's government sticks its head in the sand and our public remains unprotected. When will the government take action to keep Canadians safe?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, we are working for our farmers and for the agri-retail industry. In fact, over the past few weeks the agriculture committee has been travelling across Canada speaking to farmers about what is most important to agriculture. We have been listening to young farmers and to farmers who have been farming for decades. We are receiving excellent feedback. 
We are moving ahead, putting farmers first and defending their interests.
Frank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is admitting the government has not talked to them.
The most basic responsibility of the federal government is to keep Canadians safe. If the minister read the news, he would be aware that a terrorist recently attempted to explode a car bomb packed with gas, propane and fertilizers in Times Square. In fact, if that terrorist had used the kind of fertilizers that sit unprotected at Canada's agri-retail sites, the bomb would have killed hundreds of innocent people, terrorized a nation, and caused billions in economic loss.
What does the government not understand about what is at stake here?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, safety is very important but there is no need to yell.
What is important to farmers is what this government is doing in their best interests. Let me just recap here. Through the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act, $1 billion in new credit is available for farmers. We have also put forward $500 million through the agri-flex program. We have provided $125 million to improve slaughter capacity and deal with SRM, specified risk material.
That is a very important issue for farmers and that is something the member and every MP in his party voted against.
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, by 2012, the Conservative budget for prisons will have increased by 238%, and that is not all, as the cost of new measures is not included in that figure.
For one of these measures, projections have risen from $90 million to $2 billion. The minister refuses to disclose the total cost of his bill, if he knows it at all.
Why is the government not honest with Canadians? How many billions of dollars will their mega-prisons cost?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberals, our priority is public safety. The Liberals have shown they have a fundamentally different view on what it means to be tough on crime. They believe that it is citizens who should be locked up in their own houses while dangerous criminals are on the street. 
That is not the position of our party. We stand with victims and we stand for the rights of Canadians, even if the member opposite does not.
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, in the U.S. and the U.K., these policies were tried and they failed.
 Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Party of Canada are the only ones who think this stuff works. In California, under the costs that crippled the government, these policies forced the state to release 55,000 inmates to the streets because it ran out of room. Our system, already bursting at the seams, will meet the same fate.
The question is simple. On what evidence do the Conservatives base these policies? Can they name one jurisdiction, just one, where this path did not lead to complete abject failure?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite would prefer to have all criminals on the street but that is not the position of this party. The protection of Canadians must come first. Part of keeping our communities safe is keeping dangerous criminals behind bars, not releasing them on to the streets early. That is why the provinces and police support our efforts to end credit for time served, efforts the Liberals tried to block.
We disagree with the Liberals' view that dangerous criminals should be released on to our streets early just to save a buck.
The EconomyMr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Conservatives focus on the economy because that is what matters to Canadians. Liberals ignore it. The only time the Liberal leader mentions it is to complain that Canadian families do not pay enough tax. In contrast, the number one priority for our Conservative government is the economy.
We are working hard for Canadians to implement Canada's economic action plan that is helping to fuel economic growth and create jobs. 
There should be an opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to announce the latest news on the job front. I wonder if he could do that now.
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again we have proof that Canada's economic action plan is working. We have over 100,000 examples to prove it. Statistics Canada today announced 108,700 new jobs in April, more jobs in all provinces. That is Canada's largest monthly job gain growth. That sets a record seven months out of nine for job gains.
That is why Canada has been labelled an “economic star” by the Economist.
Foreign AffairsPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, recent reports that U.S. interrogators intimidated Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr, with gang rape are deeply disturbing. An interrogator testified in court that he tried to intimidate Khadr by telling him tales of “a skinny little Afghan Muslim who was sent to an American prison and encountered black guys and Nazis who were still mad about the September 11 attacks”.
Canadians are shocked that the government ignores this case and this evidence and simply dithers. 
When will the government do the right thing and put an end to this charade? Are we going to hear the same tired old refrain or is it actually going to do something?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, Canada's position regarding Mr. Khadr has not changed. Mr. Khadr faces very serious charges, including the charge of murder. Canada has also complied with the Supreme Court ruling. 
I would like to advise my hon. colleague that the Obama administration has opted to send Omar Khadr to a military commission and we are letting that process unfold.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it is really shocking how stubborn the government is in the face of the facts. It insists on hiding behind the U.S. process but the process is based on evidence that was guarded by torture. The justice minister's request for removing information obtained by CSIS from the court process has been rejected. I am not sure if it is aware of that. Now, Canadian journalists have been kicked out of the process entirely.
It is a clear fiasco. The government cannot maintain its stale arguments. This is about Canada's sovereignty now. This is about Canada's international reputation. When will it grow up and—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, he had a question but I do not think he put it forward. 
However, I will let me my hon. colleague know again that Canada's position regarding Mr. Khadr has not changed. Mr. Khadr faces very serious charges, including murder. The Obama administration has opted to send Mr. Omar Khadr to a military commission and we are waiting for that process to unfold.
In reference to the journalists he talked about, that is a U.S. decision and a U.S. court matter and Canada has nothing to do with that.
TransportationMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in its last budget, the Quebec government announced a $200 million contribution for a rail shuttle between downtown Montreal and Dorval Airport. However, they are still waiting for the federal government's contribution to this project.
What is the federal government waiting for to announce its contribution?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we have worked well with the Quebec government. We have provided a great deal of money through the economic action plan and the building Canada fund. We have always been pleased to work with the Quebec government to address Quebeckers' needs. I have met often with Quebec government ministers. I would be pleased to discuss this matter with them the next time.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite happy to talk to Quebec. He has already committed funding for the construction of shuttles to the Vancouver and Toronto airports but still has not committed funding for the Montreal shuttle. This is an important project for the Montreal economy and, furthermore, it will help reduce greenhouse gases.
What is the federal government waiting for to announce its contribution?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the allocation of funding to provinces be equitable. The previous government provided funds to Toronto and our government is working with the other provinces.
I must say that I am pleased that a Bloc member would like our government, the federal government, to provide additional funds to a building named after Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Fisheries and OceansScott Andrews: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative culture of deceit continues. In the last two weeks, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, three other ministers and one unelected senator have issued, word for word, identical press releases about small craft harbours. It is funny that none of these announcements had any details to back them up.
Would the minister table in the House right now the details that back up these vague announcements, or will she admit that she has yet to produce a list of projects, or is she just playing political games with this important funding?
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government inherited a major backlog of needed repairs to our small craft harbours from the Liberals who had ignored these facilities for many years. Our government permanently increased our program's budget in 2006-07 and injected over $200 million into the program under our economic action plan.
We are investing more in Newfoundland and Labrador harbours than that government ever did.
Scott Andrews: Mr. Speaker, that is a great stock answer over there. 
Why is the minister raising expectations of these communities when she cannot back up the claims?
The minister's department has the details and her communications department knows the list. Will she today in the House table the complete list with who is getting funding, what portion is getting funding and the specific infrastructure projects, the ports and harbours in Canada?
Gail Shea: Mr. Speaker, announcements are being rolled out across the country and those who supported the budget will be making those announcements.
EthicsMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis of confidence in Ottawa today. A Conservative MP is implicated in a massive real estate fraud scheme, a Liberal MP is advertising that he will sell his loyalty to foreign interests and there is an infestation of well-connected corporate lobbyists running amok in the corridors of power creating policies that are clearly against the best interests of Canadians. It is no wonder that an already jaded electorate is becoming even more cynical by the minute.
If the Conservatives want to get tough on white collar crime, why do they not start by cleaning up Ottawa and why do they not start with the member for Calgary Northeast?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about ethics in government, which is why the first action our government took was to bring in the Federal Accountability Act. We want to see further reforms to lobbyists. The Liberal Party was fighting us on those lobby reforms and they would not tell us why. Now we know. The Liberal leader appointed a paid lobbyist who advertises for foreign clients and foreign interests. He put him on the standing committee of the review of statutory regulations, a senior body in Canada that is there to protect the public interests. 
Canadians have every right to know who the Liberal Party is representing, the public's interests or their private interests?
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, there was hanky-panky with mortgages that caused the global economic meltdown that left us billions of dollars in debt and yet there is not a peep out of the PMO when a member of his own caucus is implicated in a massive mortgage fraud that has shaken the very financial sector to its core. 
Yet the member for Simcoe—Grey, who was accused of absolutely nothing, faced swift and immediate political execution when she was dumped from cabinet, kicked out of the party and turned over to the RCMP.
 Why the double standard? What could the member for Simcoe--Grey possibly have done that was more embarrassing to the Conservatives than being implicated in a massive real estate fraud scheme?
Hon. Jay Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday in the sense that the civil suit against the hon. member for Calgary Northeast has absolutely nothing to do with government business. 
However, while I am on my feet, I noted that the hon. member mentioned the issue of the financial sector. I want to remind him that what he should be asking about is all the great news that there is out there, which is what is what Canadians are concerned about, and that is jobs, jobs, jobs. What we heard in the news today is that a record 108,000 jobs were produced just last month.
The EconomyMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am speaking of great news. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has advised the House of Canada's record job gains in April, which indicates that the government's focus on the economy is working. The economic action plan has reduced taxes for average Canadians, has helped the unemployed and has invested in communities. 
Will the parliamentary secretary advise the House, and especially Liberal MPs, as to why the economic action plan is better economics than the Liberal leader's tax and spend proposals?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, it is nearly 109,000 times better because the Liberals want to raise taxes in many different ways.I will refer to one. Their suggested raising of the GST by 2%, according to Informetrica, would cost 162,000 lost jobs. I do not think we want to do that in this country. They want to raise business taxes and put in a carbon tax. That is not the way to secure a recovery, and that is what we are seeing. The economic action plan is working. Lower taxes for Canadian families and businesses is working and April's record job numbers prove it. Over 100,000 more Canadians are working.
Official LanguagesMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members of Parliament from Quebec have decided to fall in line like sheep behind the Prime Minister, regardless of consequences to Quebec. On the registry like on the women's group issue, they are ignoring the voters from Quebec.
After intimidating women, diplomats and Steven Guilbeault, will the Prime Minister now intimidate his new senators from Quebec, Jacques Demers and Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, to force them to deny the importance of the French language at the Supreme Court of Canada, or will he let them vote with their hearts?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, the criterion for selecting judges remains merit. Our position has not changed, and we continue to be guided by legal excellence to ensure that the best legal minds sit on the Supreme Court bench.
Paralympic AthletesMr. Nicolas Dufour (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when it is time for a photo-op with Paralympic athletes, Conservative MPs are veritable sprinters. However, when the time comes to treat Paralympic athletes fairly, the government drags its feet.
How does the government explain that Paralympic athletes do not receive the same bursaries that Olympic athletes receive for winning a medal?
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this policy decision is completely independent of the government. It is not the government that decides, but the agencies who give financial support to the athletes. I know this is currently being discussed with the athletes and there will be a commitment. Our government is proud of its latest budget and the hon. member voted against it. We made the largest investment in our athletes in the history of Canada.
AgricultureMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, clauses in the Canada-EU trade agreement that the Conservatives are negotiating, would entrench the rights of patent holders of genetically engineered seeds. The interests of the multinational seed companies would be protected but what about the interests of farmers?
Under the terms of that same agreement, the rights of family farmers to save and reuse their seed will be virtually extinguished. 
Will the Conservatives protect the interests of family farmers and promise not to trade away their seed-saving rights during the negotiations with the EU?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, the EU trade negotiations are in the best interests of our farmers. We are taking measures to ensure that our export markets are better for our farmers and that they have more places to sell their product. We are working in their best interests.
Fishing IndustryMr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government supports both a wild salmon fishery and a sustainable aquaculture industry. 
Our minister established the Cohen Commission in part to investigate the relationship. However, before the commission had a chance to publish its first interim report, the NDP presumed to know all the answers and this week tabled a reckless private member's bill that would put thousands and thousands of British Columbians out of work.
Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans inform this House of the latest irresponsible actions taken by the NDP on this important issue?
Gail Shea: Mr. Speaker, nearly 6,000 British Columbians are employed in the aquaculture industry, which contributes over $400 million to the provincial GDP. This proposed NDP bill would put all of these British Columbians out of work and deliver a severe blow to the province's economy.
Last week, the Steelworkers Union called the actions of the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam irresponsible and motivated by political expediency and personal bias.
While our government continues to work on our economic recovery, and I will note, since July of last year, Canada has created over 285,000 jobs--
The Speaker: Order, please. I am afraid the time allotted for question period has now expired. 
Points of OrderMrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we do not hear this very often in the House, but we are hearing it more and more this week.
I am very proud of all Quebeckers here in the House, no matter where they sit. Mr. Speaker, I know you are currently considering another point of order regarding an expression used in the House by the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, specifically, the expression “token Quebecker”, which, frankly, is unparliamentary.
All Quebeckers in the House deserve the same respect, no matter what side of the House they sit on, and personally, I quite like having Quebec in Canada. Once again I ask that you consider that expression, Mr. Speaker, and that you ask the Bloc Québécois member to withdraw that remark, because it is unparliamentary.
The Speaker: I will take the point of order under advisement as I have already.

Routine Proceedings
EthicsJohn Baird: Mr. Speaker, during question period I quoted from documents pertaining to a relationship between the member for Scarborough—Rouge River and a group entitled Paradise Forever and a Mr. Muhammad Heft with respect to lobbying and advocacy activities that the member was undertaking in the United Arab Emirates. I would like to table those documents here in the House.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I am honoured to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 62 petitions.
Atlantic Shellfish IndustryJay Hill: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday during the reply to the Thursday question, there have been consultations among all the parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That a take note debate on the subject of the importance of the East Coast Shell Fish Industry take place, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Wednesday, May 12, 2010. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
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?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsJim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. 
The first is signed by dozens of Canadians and represent a call against Health Canada's authorization of caffeine in all soft drinks.
Health Canada announced on March 19, 2010 that beverage companies will now be allowed to add up to 75% of the caffeine allowed in the most highly caffeinated colas to all soft drinks.
Soft drinks have been designed and marketed toward children for generations. Canadians already have concerns over children drinking coffee and colas as they acknowledge caffeine is an addictive stimulant.
It is difficult enough for parents to control the amount of sugar, artificial sweeteners, and other additives that their children consume including caffeine from colas.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reverse Health Canada's new rule allowing caffeine in all soft drinks and not to follow the deregulation policies of the United States and other countries at the sacrifice of the health of Canadian children and pregnant women.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, the second petition is also signed by dozens of Canadians calling on the Canadian government to match funds personally donated by the citizens of Canada for the victims of the earthquake in Chile. On February 27, 2010 an 8.8 magnitude earthquake occurred in southern Chile. 
The Canadian Chilean community has been mobilized and has held fundraising events in Winnipeg, several in fact. There is another one coming up, I believe, on May 22. It has raised considerable amounts of money for earthquake relief.
The question that everyone is asking, when will the Prime Minister give the same treatment to the earthquake victims in Chile as he did for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti and match funds personally donated by Canadians to help the victims of the earthquake in Chile?
Ms. Dona Cadman (Surrey North, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to table a petition brought to me by my constituent, Sharista Ishaak-Smith.
The petition calls upon the House of Commons to adopt legislation which will provide a provision in the Criminal Code of Canada allowing victims of sexual assault and other violent crimes to have a lifelong, no-contact order against their offenders after their release.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 165 and 169.
Mr. Todd Russell:  With regard to the Labrador Coast Airstrips Restoration Program: (a) was there a hiatus between the commencement of the current program and the previous program announced on or about April 1, 2003, and, if so, (i) what was the duration of the hiatus between the expiry of the previous program and the current program, (ii) what was the reason for the hiatus; (b) what is the total monetary value and duration of the current program; and (c) do the monetary value and duration of the current program differ from the previous program and, if so, (i) in what particulars, (ii) what is the reason for any such differences?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, with regard to a) There was no hiatus. 
With regard to b) Total monetary value of the current program is $ 4 million and the duration is four years, April 1, 2009--March 31, 2013.
With regard to c) Yes: (i) Term of the previous program was six years with a monetary value of $ 5 million. (ii) The previous program was originally five years however the minister extended it for one year, April 1, 2008 - March 31, 2009, to allow completion of a major airfield restoration project that had commenced but could not be completed during the last year of the original five-year term. The term of the program has historically been five years. In order to align the program term with the departmental program review cycle the current extension was set at four years. Program funding has historically averaged $1 million per year and the $ 4 million over four years for the current program is consistent with historical funding.
Jim Maloway:  With regard to the government's aid to Chile, following the earthquake and tsunami of February 27, 2010: (a) what are the government's current commitments in aid for the victims and rebuilding efforts in Chile; and (b) what other efforts are being considered?
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to a) On March 2, 2010, the Government of Canada announced that up to $2 million would be allocated in urgent humanitarian assistance for those affected by the earthquake. This support is going towards addressing the priority gaps identified by the Chilean government and humanitarian partners on the ground. CIDA’s support is broken down as follows: i) $750,000 to the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies for the provision of essential non-food items, including hygiene kits, kitchen sets, blankets and jerry cans, and emergency shelter materials; the provision of curative and preventative health services, and to help improve access to safe water and sanitation conditions, reaching up to 90,000 earthquake-affected beneficiaries; ii) $500,000 to the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO, towards re-establishing health and medical services; replenishing emergency stocks of medicines and supplies; improving access to safe water and sanitation conditions; and providing technical support to health officials; iii) $500,000 to World Vision to reach over 31,000 earthquake-affected individuals with emergency shelter materials and hygiene supplies; improved access to clean water, and to provide child protection services; and iv) $250,000 to Oxfam Canada for the distribution of essential relief items; to help improve access to safe water; and to work with the government to ensure safe reconstruction of houses and livelihoods.
With regard to b) Canada continues to monitor the situation in Chile, and to ensure that our assistance is delivered in a timely and effective manner, according to the priorities identified by the Chilean government. However, at this time we are not considering any further assistance in response to the earthquake. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 154, 155, 167 and 171 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. David McGuinty:  With regard to the use of government-owned aircraft by Ministers and Ministers’ staff in the 2009-2010 fiscal year: (a) how many times were government-owned aircraft used by Ministers and exempt staff; (b) on what dates were the aircraft used; (c) who was on board the aircraft; (d) what was the purpose of the travel; (e) what was the origin and destination of each flight; (f) how many of these flights returned to their origin with no passengers on board; (g) what was the cost of each flight; (h) who authorized each flight; (i) what additional costs were incurred as a result of these flights; (j) what are the greenhouse gas emissions from each of these flights; (k) what is the government doing to offset the greenhouse gas emissions from each of these flights; (l) for each flight, what is the principal or usual purpose of the aircraft used; and (m) what is the current government policy on the use of government-owned aircraft for use by Ministers and their exempt staff?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
David McGuinty:  With regard to the use of chartered aircraft by Ministers and Ministers’ staff in the 2009-2010 fiscal year: (a) how many times were chartered aircraft used by Ministers and exempt staff; (b) on what dates were the aircraft used; (c) who was on board the aircraft; (d) what was the purpose of the travel; (e) what was the origin and destination of each flight; (f) how many of these flights returned to their origin with no passengers on board; (g) what was the cost of each flight; (h) who authorized each flight; (i) what additional costs were incurred as a result of these flights; (j) what are the greenhouse gas emissions from each of these flights; (k) what is the government doing to offset the greenhouse gas emissions from each of these flights; (l) for each flight, what is the principal or usual purpose of the aircraft used; and (m) what is the current government policy on the use of chartered aircraft for use by Ministers and their exempt staff?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Richard Harris:  With regard to the Trans-Canada Highway: (a) what does the government consider the total length of the Trans-Canada Highway to be in kilometres; (b) how many kilometres remain “untwinned”, by province (i.e., single-lane highways designated with the Trans-Canada label); and (c) what is the cost per kilometre to “twin” sections of the Trans-Canada Highway that are currently single-lane and, if there is a difference from province to province, how much does it cost by province to twin the Trans-Canada Highway?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Rodger Cuzner:  With respect to the military junta in Burma and the Government of Canada: (a) what measures is the Government of Canada taking to ensure Canadian corporations end all commercial ties with Burma; (b) what measures is the government taking to ensure that no additional commercial contracts form between Canadian companies and Burma; (c) what domestic steps is the Government of Canada pursuing to guarantee those Canadian corporations financially benefiting from economic activity in Burma are restricted from securing any contracts from the government; (d) what steps is the Government of Canada taking to assure the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board does not maintain any direct or indirect holdings in companies conducting business with Burma; (e) what bilateral and multilateral efforts is the Government of Canada using to persuade Burma's military junta to relinquish power; (f) what diplomatic action is occurring between the Government of Canada and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, China, and India to pressure Burma's military junta to end violence against the people of Burma; and (g) what methods is the Government of Canada employing to pressure Burma's military junta to release Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy party?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denis Savoie):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Claude Gravelle: Madam Speaker, Bill C-13 is a good bill and we have to consider it. We cannot say that the situation is resolved because a Conservative MP knocked on a door and met a soldier. It is reasonable for the House to study this bill and refer it to committee, where members can share their points of view and get the government's reaction.
If our government calls on police forces, whether the RCMP, city or municipal, to help other countries within the framework of a Canadian mission, it is the same as sending a soldier. We ask our police officers to take part in such missions, which are quite dangerous. If we ask police officers to go to Afghanistan to help that country's police force, it is dangerous for them as well. They go abroad to do a job on behalf of our country, just as the military does. For that reason they should be included in this group.
Military and police veterans must benefit from the same programs upon their return from a mission. That is why there is a flaw in Bill C-13. All those sent on missions by our country should be treated in the same way.
Clause 3 of Bill C-13 should be amended by adding after line 5 on page 2 the following: 
 For the purposes of subsection (3.01), a member of a police force who is a Canadian citizen in the employ of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a Canadian citizen under contract with the Government of Canada, and who has been deployed as part of a mission outside Canada is considered to be a claimant. 
That is just reasonable. We are not talking about thousands of people. We are talking about a minimum number of people who are sent away by our government. The jobs they do are very dangerous too. They are sent on missions, for example, to help the Afghan police reconstruct their force. They are in a dangerous area.
If they are not sent away, they are not going to be claiming the 52 extra weeks. However, if the government calls upon them to be outside the country to help around the world, they should be in that same category. The reason the NDP wants to make the change is really important. We must treat everyone the same. We believe this would be going in the right direction.
At the same time, there are problems across the country with people losing their jobs. The EI program belongs to workers. All across the country there are workers who lose their jobs. We are in an economic crisis and the government should be able to make other changes, not piecemeal like the way it is being done.
We sat at one time together, all parties, and prepared a report in the human resources committee with 28 recommendations. Those recommendations should come forward. The government should look at the big picture and at all the problems with employment insurance, and why people are not qualifying.
 It should be 360 hours. Why do people who are sick have to have 600 hours to qualify for employment insurance? It is nonsense. No one chooses to be sick. Employment insurance is insurance to help workers. It is not a tax to bring in funds for the government to pay down the deficit and bring it to zero by using employment insurance premiums. That money should go back to the workers. We should work toward that and have the government do the right thing.
Our debate on this bill in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities will be truly important. I hope that the Minister of National Defence heard what was said. I hope that the government heard. I know it heard. The Prime Minister's Office listens to all debates and I am certain that it knows what is going on, and that it is concerned about our police forces.
It would be unfortunate for our police forces and other citizens, who are sent on missions commanded by the government, were not protected by Bill C-13 and did not have these 52 additional weeks of entitlement to parental leave.
It is important to a family that parents be with their children. The Conservative government says that it is pro-family. It should prove it by accepting our proposed amendments.
I want to talk about my own personal case. When my kids were born, my wife was working at the time. She took the time off to be with our kids. It makes a big difference in the future of those kids. The first year of the life of a child is very important. It should be spent around the parents, not in a daycare or with a babysitter. 
Police officers, soldiers and any other foreign aid workers, who are requested by our government to be overseas, in the army, battling crime, helping places like Haiti rebuild, or for any reason, should be treated the same way as other Canadians.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, yesterday, we witnessed an excellent speech by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who properly explained all the issues involved with service personnel and veterans and why the current government was not treating them the way it should. 
This measure is one where we think the government is doing the right thing. It is not a huge expenditure. We are talking about 50 or 60 people at a cost of $600,000 a year.
However, Bill C-13 would specifically enable the Canadian Forces members, including reservists, who had their parental leave deferred or have been ordered to return to duty while on leave due to a military requirements to access EI parental benefits. The measure would extend the period for which they are eligible by another 52 weeks. This is just a common sense provision that they should have had years ago. 
Parental benefits provide income replacement of up to 35 weeks to biological or adoptive parents, while they care for newborn or newly adopted children. We know how important that is in the first year or two of lives, not only for the children, but for the parents as well.
Another good benefit is it can be taken by either parent or it can be shared between them. If the parents opt to share the benefits, there is only one two-week waiting period to be served.
All of us are in agreement with the bill. It is my understanding that the bill will proceed to committee, certainly by the end of today. As far as I know, all the parties are on the same side. The only question remains is whether the amendments proposed by our member and the member of the Bloc will be endorsed and supported at committee.
Yesterday, the minister indicated that she would be willing to look at these amendments. Therefore, we hope our amendment to extend these provisions to members of the police force who are on these missions will be accepted as well as the Bloc amendment to bring in a former retroactivity.
 If that happens, we should be able to do one of the things the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore said should be done for veterans. However, this still leaves a long list of things that the government should do, things it promised in the past and still has not done for our veterans and service personnel.
Would the member like to make further comments on these points? Should we endorse the all party agreement to get this to committee and get these results in play?
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: Madam Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona is absolutely right. The government, the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP agree with the bill. It involves about 50 to 60 people. The government ministers probably waste more money going from Tim Hortons to Tim Hortons to make announcements. We should use that money to help these people. The member is also right that we should also include veterans and do more for them.
 The government is piecemealing these EI bills. We should do it all together and get it over with so we can help unemployed Canadians right across Canada. A lot of citizens in my riding of Nickel Belt right now are unemployed and on employment insurance because of a strike at Vale Inco. This not only affects the miners, it also affects the owners of small businesses, the contractors. A lot of people are on employment insurance.
The member for Elmwood—Transcona is absolutely right. We should extend this EI bill to all working Canadians.
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to ask a further question of my colleague.
The member is aware, as are all Canadians, of the very stressful and dangerous position that we put our service personnel in on their missions. Yesterday a member spoke very eloquently about his trip to Afghanistan and how it was a dangerous situation for him to even exit the plane at the airport. In fact, I believe there were some delays even in landing the plane at the airport.
He also mentioned the fact that the soldiers slept in tents and that there was always a fear of rockets hitting the soldiers on base. There is also the high death rate in Afghanistan right now with people being victims of the roadside bombs.
A lot of people would not want to be in this situation. The personnel could easily stay home, especially the reservists, get regular 9 to 5 jobs, sleep in their beds at night and have weekends off, but those military members put themselves at great risk when they go overseas. When they do have traumatic experiences, many of them come back with post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol problems and drug abuse problems. Suicide rates can also be an issue.
This is a very serious issue. Those people deserve proper benefits. Yesterday, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore mentioned a list of items that the government promised before it was elected government and then reneged on them. He talked about the food bank for veterans in Calgary, which the Prime Minister attended for a photo op just a couple of weeks ago. He talked about homeless shelters for veterans. That should never happen in a country like this.
The government has made promises. It promised to resolve the agent orange issue in New Brunswick. That was not entirely resolved to the satisfaction of the military personnel. The government also made other promises and it took very tentative steps. 
Yet when it comes to the photo ops and the ceremonies, the government is there, right up front, taking credit and trying to present itself as being very supportive of the military and the military personnel. However, when the rubber hits the road, when it comes down to bringing in proper legislation that will help the military and the military families, where is the government? It is not here.
When it does have a chance to do something, it brings in Bill C-13. The argument has been made that this did not have to be a bill, that it could have been done through regulations or order-in-council. It is an important measure, but it only involves 50 or 60 people at a cost of $600,000 per year.
It is a first step, but we do not want the government to stop there. We want it to proceed and deal in a methodical way with all the other listed issues outlined by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore in his excellent speech yesterday.
Would the member like to make any further comments on that?
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is absolutely right. This only involves 50 to 60 people. It is a minimal amount of money. Instead of this being a bill, it could have been a regulation or an order-in-council and it would be a done deal.
The Conservatives continue to say that they respect our troops and that we should all respect our troops, police forces and aid workers. If the Conservatives truly respect these people, they would have made this an order-in-council or a regulation. It would have been done by now and we would not be discussing it today.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to speak to a bill that is not very long in text, but it does mean a lot for a few people and for the members associated with this, the Canadian Forces and the reservists. 
First, I congratulate all the speakers on bringing up the pertinent matters that surround this. As was pointed out in some of the research, approximately 60 people will qualify for this, costing the government just over $600,000. For those 60 in question, there is no doubt it is desperately needed. Similar attempts were made before but they were not successful. Now we have something on the table that just might provide for these people. 
I assume again, like my colleagues, that everyone will support this bill to get it to committee. It will leave here after second reading, go to committee and return with amendments. We have already talked about some amendments from the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, and I will talk about them a little later. However, one thing I hope this bill will have is a greater degree of flexibility with which people are willing to address this.
If it is cut off at a certain point, in other words, if we are very strict about its regulations, very strict about how this is applied when it comes into force, then we will have missed a golden opportunity for a government bill such as Bill C-13. 
It is not a very long bill. It is not extravagant. It is what we would normally see under private members' bills. However, it is a government bill and perhaps the government will be willing, if the spirit of this is to provide relief assistance to people in need of this, to amend it. There is a perfect situation where Canadian Forces members would be in need of this, especially for parental leave. We can exercise, and I ask all my colleagues to do this, a great degree of flexibility in amending this and allowing the committee to look at this in detail.
Let us take a look at the bill in and of itself, which is one of the greatest social policies over the past while, and there are several, when it comes to the EI legislation. One thing has been parental leave. This has been a fantastic social benefit for the entire social fabric of our nation. In my province and riding parental leave has become a great benefit for the people, especially for young people who are starting families. In a 52 week period, it allows them to claim 35 weeks to achieve an income at 55% of what they earn. It allows parents to spend time with their newly born child or adopted child.
Over the years, we have moved around in the margins of EI legislation. We have tweaked it here and there. No policy is perfect from the outset. Therefore, as social circumstances change, we make amendments or additions to the EI legislation. Some people in the House would like it to go much further than it does, others, not as much.
First, there are several things about the EI legislation that need to be addressed. 
The first one is the waiting period. It has been a highly contentious issue in the House. Unfortunately many members of Parliament have used this as a wedge issue. It is unfair for us to do that because honest discussion gets buried under talking points and rhetoric. It is unfortunate because the two-week waiting period is too punitive in nature. The way it is set out people have to make a deposit, similar to insurance. When people have an accident, they claim insurance, and that deposit goes into it. That two-week waiting period allows for people to find other jobs. When the two weeks are up, they then can claim benefits.
The problem with that is it takes four to six weeks to receive benefits anyway. There is an administrative time by which one should receive the first EI cheque, but that changes based on the resources available in the public sector. If we eliminate the two-week waiting period, that gets reduced to about four weeks.
Remember that the reason it is important to go from six to less than four is that monthly payments are extremely high when it comes to mortgages, child care, car loans and the like. Now more so than before, both parents in a family are working and it is more important for people who lose their jobs or who are temporarily out of work to be able to get that first benefit cheque within that four-week period. It becomes absolutely punitive when people get behind on their monthly payments.
There is the other part of EI. Over the past two years, since the onset of the current recession, which we are now coming out of, we have talked a lot about how to reform EI legislation and make it more beneficial for people suffering because of the recession. One of the ways to do that is to allow more people into the system by providing easier ways to access the benefits upfront. That is what we call the upfront part of EI.
There are several ways of doing it and they have been widely discussed in the House and across the country. We could reduce the amount of hours needed to qualify from 420 in certain regions down to 360. We could also increase the amount of benefits paid; 55% to 60% is one of the measures. Of course, I have already talked about the elimination of the two-week waiting period.
In 2005 several pilot projects were initiated. They were especially beneficial for seasonal workers. It extended on the back end of EI benefits extra weeks to help fill in that area where people go from the end of their benefits to the beginning of their work period. We also made it the best 14 weeks. Effectively, we have eliminated the divisor rule which basically brought people's benefits down. Using the best 14 weeks obviously allowed people to receive more in benefits because of the way the formula works.
There was another thing done in a pilot project regarding the amount people could earn without being deducted EI payments. I thought this was very beneficial for many communities, and I have 170 communities in my riding. If a person is currently receiving EI benefits, 55% of what the person made when the person had a job, the person is allowed to make up to 40% before it is clawed back dollar for dollar.
That is very important. It allowed industries in smaller communities to avail of the workforce that was there on a very short-term basis and the workers were not penalized on their EI payments. They were allowed to sustain a certain standard of living. These pilot projects will expire at the end of this year. It is not germane to this particular bill, but please allow me this opportunity to say that we desperately need to extend these projects beyond 2010.
Furthermore, because we both have the same type of industries, I am sure that my hon. colleague from Avalon will agree that these should be made permanent especially when it comes to us in the fishing industry. We are about to face a crisis one of which perhaps we have never seen before. Come fall, when people are looking to claim EI and are not able to get the weeks to be able to sustain their living within their communities, the communities will be desperately in need. A lot of people will be moving out of desperation. A lot of people will be looking for social assistance out of desperation. 
I would suggest that the government consider making an announcement now so that these people can rest assured that the pilot projects they benefit from will be extended for those on employment insurance. I suggest that we have a fulsome debate about it, because we tend to get whittled down to only talking points and wedge issues. 
We must remember that this country's employment insurance system is a shining beacon of social policy for the rest of the world. It is modelled upon by other countries around the world. The United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Union look to a lot of our social policies. Therefore, we should strengthen them given the fact that so many people benefit from them. I would expect all of us in this House to engage in a decent debate for that reason.
Some of the benefits the Conservative government has put through over the past little while relate to the benefit period being extended on the back end. I would like for it to go further, but let me deal with that for a moment. 
A long-tenured worker gets extra weeks of EI on the end because right now the job market is not as robust as it used to be, and I say that mildly; perhaps it is the understatement of the day. That is what is being brought up in this debate on Bill C-13, which also looks at a smaller sector of the population.
Let me return to the point I made earlier. This is a thin bill but it is an important bill. We should be looking at having a greater degree of flexibility to allow more people into the system.
My hon. NDP colleague from Acadie—Bathurst plans to bring in amendments about police officers so that they too could benefit from this provision. I agree with that. We should be flexible and open to discussing that. Given the fact that they are required to report to duty, or they are pulled back into duty, we should be looking at how they are treated under the system. We have to remember that it is a 52-week period and they can claim up to 35 weeks of benefits, but that gets interrupted by the call to duty. 
Let me juxtapose the two issues: proud soldiers, proud police officers if we wish, and Bill C-13. On the one hand there are proud soldiers and reservists who are being called for active duty and doing what they do best, and I am proud of them for doing that, and on the other hand there is one of the greatest social policies that we have seen in the last 50 or 60 years, meaning EI. Let us bring the two together and make the system flexible for those people. The bill itself is structured so that those people will have the flexibility by which they will receive benefits, and rightly so. 
This is not just about EI, it is also about caregiving. Over the past 10 to 15 years greater elements of caregiving have been brought into the EI legislation, which was essential. We cannot get bogged down with just the details of numbers and qualification periods and hours worked, because it is not just about that. It is also about compassionate care. It is also about how caregivers can avail themselves of a system that would allow them to attain a standard of living and at the same time provide care for those they love.
In the next few weeks I will be introducing my private member's bill which would double the period that people could collect EI sick benefits. Right now that period is up to 15 weeks, which is really minuscule in nature. My bill would double the number of weeks that they could receive sick benefits. I am sure I will have an opportunity to discuss that at a later date.
I also want to talk about flexibility and this bill in committee. My hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona and my hon. colleague from Nickel Belt talked about retroactivity, and they made valid points. At this stage in the game the legislation refers to on or after declaring of the benefit period. Therein lies something that we should really consider.
Clause 4 indicates that these new rules would only apply to those who establish a benefit period on or after the day the bill receives royal assent. A rough estimate from research tells us that 60 people will qualify. That is going to bring in more. There is no doubt about it. The program costs around $600,000. It is going to cost significantly more if we infuse a degree of retroactivity. 
We need to look at it vis-à-vis the soldiers who are currently serving overseas, because if we look at the situation, it is not just the soldiers who are serving overseas, even though they are rightly deserving of the benefits provided by the bill. We should also consider those active forces members who are at home. I think of one example that is near and dear to my heart, and that is 103 Search and Rescue in Gander. If we look at the five bases across the country, people in search and rescue are always on active duty. Search and rescue technicians, pilots, standby, maintenance crew are always on duty. There is no such thing as practising for these people. Whether they are in Comox, Winnipeg, Trenton, Greenwood or Gander, these people are on 24/7 active duty, and they too should be in line for these benefits, which they are.
I only bring that up because I would not want the focus of the debate to shift entirely to what is our overseas operations, and deservedly so. I would also like to debate the issue about that, because some people are talking about other parts of the forces that will be drawn into this, or other parts of active duty, such as the police officers, the RCMP. I believe some of the issues were brought up for those serving overseas, but we should also consider those serving at home.
Yes, this bill could widen in scope to a very large number of people, and it then would become an issue of financing. Is it affordable? Does it cost too much to cover all these people? I will leave that to a later debate, perhaps in committee where I am sure it will be hashed out, as well as report stage and third reading debates.
 I do want to bring up another element of how this House works. When we pass a bill in principle and it goes to committee, it is restricted in nature. If an amendment is made that goes beyond the scope of the bill, then the amendment cannot be accepted. We sometimes forget that the will of the committee might be unanimous in saying that it does not matter that a particular amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill, that it should be accepted. All members of the committee agree with it and therefore it should go ahead, but that is not the point. The point is the Speaker has to rule on this. If the Speaker decides that the amendment is outside the scope and principle of the bill at second reading, it will not be accepted. These are the rules of the House, despite the will of the House of Commons. We must bear this in mind as we send the bill to committee. 
One of the things that has not been discussed is that maybe we should have sent it to committee before second reading. In essence, if we want to make substantial amendments that go beyond the principle and scope of the bill, we could do that before the bill goes to second reading. That has not been discussed. I am assuming that we have got to the point where we will pass the bill and send it to committee after second reading. I just hope that some of these principled and well-intentioned amendments will be accepted without being outside the principle and scope of the bill. 
This should be an interesting debate. I am sure there will be amendments galore. I am certainly willing to stand as a member of Parliament and entertain the amendments brought forward by the NDP and the Bloc. I think they are both substantial. 
For the sake of those watching the debate, I would like to clarify exactly what we are talking about in the one minute I have left.
Parents have a 52-week window following the week when their child is born or adopted within which to access the 35 weeks of EI parental benefits. That is a 35-week benefit period within 52 weeks. It gets extended. 
Canadian Forces members whose request for parental leave is deferred or who are recalled from parental leave due to requirements and obligations of the National Defence Act, or call to duty, are often unable to access EI parental benefits because of the limited eligibility window. 
Therefore, clause 2 would extend the benefit period by a number of weeks, up to 52 weeks, corresponding to the number of weeks of their deferment or their recall to duty. That is what is very important because that precise number that when they are either called back to duty or deferred should be looked at within that benefit period. Clause 3 would extend that up to 104 weeks. 
I implore all members to send this bill to committee. Let us vote yes on this.
Claude Gravelle: Madam Speaker, I know the government, the member's party, the Bloc and the NDP are all in favour of the bill. 
Could the hon. member try to explain to me why this bill was not made in an order in council or by regulations? It could then have been passed right away and we could have moved on to deal with something else in this important House.
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has an excellent point. I get the feeling that there are two schools of thought here. On the one hand, yes, it could have been done quickly. A lot of smaller bills come in here and a lot of tweaks into the system could have been done in a simple manner. Yes, this could have been done, as he pointed out, just like that. It has been brought into the House. I am assuming there is an element of public relations involved here where there is not much on the agenda. Maybe the Conservatives are formulating something else. Maybe they would like to put this in as a little stopgap measure at debate. 
However, I do not want to understate the goodness of the bill by saying that. I am glad it is here for a debate. I am glad we are talking about it. I would have preferred that the Conservatives had gone ahead and done what the member said, but this allows us to debate it as well.
I would ask the government members, perhaps when we have had our fulsome debate, maybe other measures pertaining to parental leave and other members of the forces, or other measures therein, they could go ahead and do this as an executive order and that would be of benefit immediately.
Linda Duncan: Madam Speaker, I always love to hear Newfoundland representatives speak, being the homeland of one of my grandfathers.
 I was interested in the member's comments on the issues raised by the Bloc representatives and on the broader issue of providing financial measures to give more access to parental leave. Does the member think it would be important that we give supplementary support to our officers, including the police and the military who serve all Canadians, that would include expanded access to affordable child care, expanded medical support, for example, for post-traumatic stress, for those officers who return and would like to take up their parental leave but are crying out for additional support so they can be a good parent?
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: Madam Speaker, that is a good illustration of why debate is so essential in the House. The member raised a great point, and I will tell the House why. The EI legislation, as I mentioned in my speech, gets amended from time to time and the reason is that it allows that social fabric to expand itself and to allow more people to create a standard of living, not just for them, but for their children as well. 
With respect to child care, there are provisions within EI to help aid this? Personally, outside of that, there should be a child care provision in and of itself for affordable universal child care. However, that is a whole other issue that I do not have time to get into. Nonetheless, I wish the government would take a look at that element in a more substantial way. The Canadian Forces could also look at that as well using the general system of child care.
She makes a very good point about sick benefits but we seem to be tweaking this all the way along. What I fear is that we keep playing catch-up with the EI system. Something drastic has happened. Something has reached the critical mass by which we need to address and then make changes. We will debate them and then make changes.
It almost seems like we have lost foresight in the EI system. My biggest complaint about the government is that it does not possess the foresight in the EI system to see this coming down the road. It is always given short shrift and it is reactive. Whether intentioned that way or not, I will give the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt, but we need to be far more flexible in how we deal with something like the EI system to handle, not just child care and parental leave, but also things like post-traumatic stress disorders and those types of illnesses.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member for his assessment of the Conservative agenda on Veterans Affairs and the military, basically a report card on its last four years.
When the Conservatives were in opposition, they promised to do a number of things. They promised to look into the agent orange situation and to take care of veterans' benefits. What we have seen over the last four years are a lot of unresolved issues with the government, to the point where a couple of weeks ago in Calgary the Prime Minister had a photo op at a food bank for veterans. 
British Columbia has homeless shelters for veterans. This should not happen in a country such as this. Veterans' hospital beds are being reduced or taken out of service and they will not be there for future generations of veterans.
While we see some incremental improvements like this bill, which we are all supporting today, we find that the Conservatives fall far short of their initial promises when they were in opposition, before they became government. It seems that since they have become government, it has been downhill for veterans and the military forces in this country.
[Interjection]
Mr. Rick Norlock: What planet do you live on?
[Interjection]
Jim Maloway: I would ask the member if he would like to comment and, if any of the members opposite want to comment, they can take their turns too.
[Interjection]
Rick Norlock: Yes, but we don't spew untruths.
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: Madam Speaker, I do not know if I should respond or let the members go at it, but, of course, that is not our procedure here, is it?
I get quite a few issues surrounding veterans but I find a lot of it centres around what is called the VIP program and the eligibility within it. Spouses are covered as well.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Order, please. The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: Madam Speaker, the thing is that there is a high demand for this as well and I find that it is almost like we get into a culture where a lot of it is falling through the cracks and a lot of people who are on the edge of eligibility, if I could use that term, get cut off. It is almost like the system that was intentioned to be so spirited and generous we tend to get binary code in thinking. What does that mean? It means that it is either black or white, either one qualifies or one does not. Unfortunately, the flexibility within that does not exist, so a lot of people fall through the cracks.
I agree with the member about what has happened. A good example is agent orange, where funding was provided, but so many people were left outside of that particular package of funding that it got a bad name. A lot of people think the government did not do anything about it. It did something, but, unfortunately, what was encompassed within the promise was not kept. It was always the way it comes back to them.
In order to fix this, despite the fact that it is a well-intentioned program but only few get to qualify, we should really consider providing flexibilities in the system to allow it to be nimble enough to allow some people who are just on the margins and unfairly ostracized by a program that was never meant to cut people off. It ends up gaining a reputation of being cruel in nature, which is unfortunate.
For instance, in my home riding there is the Forestry Corps that was basically involved in Scotland. It was a group of foresters who helped feed the war machine by cutting down trees in Scotland. It got a lot of recognition but there was no funding available to help bring the foresters through the later years. A lot of them are still asking for some kind of recognition financially.
It was only recently, meaning within the last 10 or 15 years, when the merchant navy had problems as well.
Thierry St-Cyr: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-13. If I may, I would like to elaborate on the topic and go a little further than the scope of this bill. My colleagues have already mentioned the strong consensus here. The four parties all agree on this bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act to extend the benefit period when parental leave is interrupted. Parental leave could therefore be deferred if CF members are called back to duty during that leave.
Of course it is a noble intention. We know that parental leave is important for all workers, including military personnel. This bill recognizes the unique nature of military work and the requirements that that work entails. CF members sometimes have to deploy during their parental leave. Employment insurance must therefore be flexible enough to deal with this unique situation.
What concerns me is that, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, the legislation probably could have been corrected by the executive without bringing the matter before Parliament. One might wonder why we are being asked to vote on a piece of legislation, when the government has the authority to make these changes.
It is possible that the government wanted to get some good press about veterans, but in many ways it is abandoning soldiers living with emotional problems or significant physical injuries. It is also neglecting retirees who are real veterans. It is proposing a good measure, but it is only a band-aid solution for a bigger problem. 
The Bloc Québécois has a great deal of respect for soldiers. Even though we do not always agree with the government with regard to the missions, we believe that a soldier's duty is to obey the orders of the government. We live in a democracy. We criticized the strategy in Afghanistan and spoke out against our possible involvement in the war in Iraq not because we do not support the troops, but because we were against these actions in principle. The Prime Minister, who was the leader of the opposition at the time, was for the war in Iraq and so was the current Leader of the Opposition.
While I was saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the troops, I saw some Conservative MPs shaking their heads. They truly do not believe that is the case. According to them, we are attacking the troops when we say that military spending is too high, that we could cut this spending, and that we do not need to by so many weapons or the latest gadgets. They think we are attacking our brave soldiers and our veterans. This is not what soldiers want. They want some consideration and when they return from a mission with physical or psychological injuries, they want some help.
I have some statistics to share with the House. Some 4% of soldiers returning from Kandahar have developed suicidal tendencies, 4.6% have symptoms of major depression, and more than 15% experience mental health problems. These statistics are taken from an article on the Canadian Forces in Le Devoir.
Do we really think these soldiers need the latest tanks, new bombs or higher-performance guns? Is that what it means to the Conservatives to support the troops? Do the Conservatives not think that the troops want us to criticize the government when it hides information about the transfer of detainees in Kandahar although it knew there was a chance the detainees would be tortured? That is not what they want.
What they want is financial and psychological support.
Let us consider the changes made in 2005 by the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, known as the Veterans Charter, which took effect on April 6, 2006. Under this charter, soldiers who are injured on missions abroad do not receive a lifetime pension commensurate with their injuries, but a lump sum.
This policy is a failure for two reasons. First, the lump sum that is paid out according to soldiers' disabilities is not enough for them to live on for the rest of their lives. Second, a large amount is much harder for soldiers to manage, because they have to divide it up in order to have enough to last a lifetime. A further difficulty is the fact that because of the traumas they suffered overseas, many of these people come home with mental health problems that can limit their ability to properly manage the money they receive.
We are asking the government to go back to the old formula of a pension, which would provide a lifetime of support for our soldiers who have fought, risked their lives and lost some of their health on mission. The government is still refusing to go ahead, even though it claims to be the champion of the military.
Is this not a prime example of the government using the military for its own purposes? Most of us have soldiers in our ridings. Some of them are friends of ours. I know that many soldiers are angry that the government is using the military to hide its reprehensible behaviour toward Afghan detainees. The government is attacking everyone who questions the advisability of combat missions and of spending additional billions on weapons.
Many soldiers have told me that they do not really like being singled out in the political battle that is being waged. They are criticizing the government for using them for political purposes. The soldiers told me that Parliament decides how much to invest in the military sector, it decides which wars we will be involved in and it decides how captured prisoners will be treated. They are simply enforcing the laws. All they want is for us to think about them and give them the psychological follow-up they need as well as the income they need to live out their lives.
To conclude, I would like to draw a parallel with victims of crime. The government is constantly telling us that if we are against their regressive crime measures it means that we are against victims. When someone's family member is killed or when they are a victim of crime themselves, if the criminal goes to prison for 2, 150 or 300 years—the way they do in the United States—the victim's situation is the same. 
However, when the Conservatives vote against a bill that would extend the number of weeks of employment insurance that a victim of crime is eligible for, they are being terribly hypocritical. Victims of crime also need support after the crime has been committed.
They defend victims of crime, but they must also encourage prevention. On one hand, they are dismantling the firearms registry and putting public safety at risk. On the other hand, they are saying that if an individual uses a firearm to commit a crime, he will be put in prison for a long time. That does nothing for victims. 
The government must also stop advancing its regressive policies by exploiting either the victims of crime or our courageous military personnel.
Claude Gravelle: Madam Speaker, our colleague from the Bloc Québécois talked about employment insurance and a lot of things, but one topic he raised which is of particular interest to me is soldiers returning from Afghanistan, who may not have any physical injuries but have mental health issues. There are many out there, and it is likely that every soldier returning from Afghanistan has been injured in one way or another.
Could the member from the Bloc Québécois tell me what he thinks the government could do to help the soldiers who are returning from Afghanistan with mental health issues?
[Interjection]
Thierry St-Cyr: Madam Speaker, much more, and more intensive psychological support and serious follow up should be provided to all of them. The reason for that is twofold. Of course, when someone is physically injured, it is not an issue, the person receives care and treatment. It goes without saying. The same amount of energy, time and money should be put into the care and treatment of those with psychological injuries. That is plain common sense.
On top of that, however, for the government to recognize that soldiers are experiencing problems, that this is normal and that they will receive care is the first step in these individuals' healing process. By refusing to give this issue the importance it has for our armed forces, the government is indirectly sending the message that this is a marginal issue and that perhaps those with psychological problems were not cut out for the army, were too weak or not strong enough, that there is something wrong with them. That has to change. Our brave soldiers returning from combat have to be told that it is quite common and normal, with the kind of trauma they have experienced, to be psychologically injured and that there is no shame in that. We must tell them that there is no more shame in that type of injury than in a physical one and that we will put the necessary energy and financial resources into helping them get through it. 
Roger Pomerleau: Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. It has made me think that wars have changed quite a bit. If we look back 50 or 60 years, or even further, we saw wars between armies. Back in the day, armies would even meet face to face to battle each other. Those were strictly military wars. 
In the past 20 years or so, that is no longer the case. We are seeing civil wars and civilian wars that are nothing like military wars. In fact, our soldiers who are sent overseas end up among civilian populations where the enemy is not easily identifiable. It could be anyone. Children could be carrying bombs, in some cases, for various reasons. Surprise attacks may be carried out by anyone at any time.
This means two things to our soldiers. First, they are under extreme stress, since they cannot identify the people they face. Second, they are under a different type of stress because every day, or nearly every day, they see civilian victims, often children, babies, women, and so on. They have serious psychological wounds. That is what my colleague mentioned earlier this morning, that it could be the soldiers who have returned who will be dying.
I would ask my colleague to explain why the weapons we are purchasing today are less effective than they were during the military wars, and to speak about why we must invest in assistance to our returning soldiers.
[Interjection]
Thierry St-Cyr: Madam Speaker, I have to say that my colleague from Drummond summed things up very nicely and did a good job of explaining the facts, so I will not have to add much. He painted a clear picture. We no longer fight wars the way we used to. Our soldiers are exposed to different kinds of conflicts now. It is only logical that we should do things differently. We need a different approach to psychological issues and difficulties than the one we had 20 or 30 years ago.
He is right that the government needs a different approach to buying military equipment. Our soldiers are more often involved in close-to-ground scenarios, such as hand-to-hand fighting in the streets and alleys. They have to deal with snipers, moving targets and IEDs, all of which make large-scale intervention devices less relevant. 
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, before I begin I would like to take a moment in this House to recognize an event that is being celebrated back home in Halifax and also across the country. The Canadian Naval Centennial is a celebration of the rich history of the Canadian navy from 1910 to 2010. 
 Appropriately, my colleagues are recognizing that right now as well. 
The centennial is a momentous milestone for both our navy and our nation's history. Those of us in the House recognize the need to honour the past, celebrate the achievements, and recognize the navy's obligation to Canada, all of which has been succinctly captured in their naval centennial slogan, “Commemorate, Celebrate, Commit”. I am sure all the members of the House do join me in congratulating the Canadian navy on this milestone of service.
I am pleased to speak to this bill that would introduce a change to EI rules for military servicemen and servicewomen. It would allow our military personnel to take advantage of EI parental benefits upon the birth or adoption of a baby for an extended period of time, up to 104 weeks, if that parent was deployed when the baby arrived. This is a really simple change, but it is very meaningful.
I heard the minister state earlier that this would affect about 60 families per year, at a cost of about $600,000. Despite the small numbers and the low cost, it is a significant change to the EI rules. It gives proper respect to our military personnel. It also acknowledges the really quite unusual circumstances that military families find themselves in, owing to the fact that they are serving our country.
The Department of National Defence is one of the largest employers in my riding, if not the largest employer. Canadian Forces Base Halifax is Canada's east coast naval base and the home of the Atlantic fleet. It is the largest military base in Canada in terms of the number of posted personnel. It is formed from a variety of military properties around Halifax, including the Halifax harbour in Nova Scotia.
 CFB Halifax provides construction, engineering, general and specific mandated safety, environmental management, logistics, harbour support, and emergency response services to Maritime Forces Atlantic and assigned lodger units. 
I have had the distinct pleasure of attending numerous military and community events on the base, and of being a part of that rich community that is at the heart, quite literally, of my riding. One thing that has become clear to me during my time, interacting with the men and women posted to CFB Halifax, is that the military is not this monolithic thing that we can point to as being distinct from the community of Halifax. It is not a body we can point to and say, “That is them, the Canadian military, over there, distinct from me, distinct from us”. 
The Canadian military is us. Yes, they are different, in that our servicemen and servicewomen are in the service of our country and they do not stop being a lieutenant or a petty officer at 5 p.m. when they punch out. They do not punch out at the end of the day. They serve. Service means that they are ready 24 hours a day. Service means that they dedicate their lives to their mission and to their country.
This does make them quite different than most Canadians and from many of us, but at the same time, they are us. They are our volunteer firefighters. They are our kids' soccer coaches. They are our PTA members and our film festival volunteers. They are our community. We are our communities together.
I have had the opportunity to get to know Rear Admiral Paul Maddison, who is the commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, and to see him at work. He has worked long and hard during his tenure in Halifax to ensure that Halifax gets this, that Halifax continues to understand how the Maritime Forces are not just a cordoned-off area on the harbourfront, or that walled-off place in Stadacona.
Admiral Maddison and his team, including Base Commander Newton, have overseen innovative initiatives such as the community mess dinner, which brings together community members to Juno Tower to experience a traditional navy mess. They have brought beer and Beethoven to the base, a really exciting initiative by the Nova Scotia symphony that performs alongside the Stadacona band. The civilian community and members of the forces sit together on the base enjoying some beer, enjoying some Beethoven, and enjoying each other's company.
I would like to take a moment to recognize the Stadacona band, which has always called Halifax its home. This year it celebrates its 70th anniversary representing the navy, the Canadian Forces, and citizens of Canada at home and around the world. Congratulations to the Stadacona band for 70 years of service.
In my time living and working in the riding of Halifax, alongside those serving for Maritime Forces Atlantic, I have come to realize that our servicemen and servicewomen are completely woven into the fabric of the community of Halifax. I have also come to realize that they are our neighbours. They are our sons, daughters, friends and parents.
This bill seeks to recognize their role as parents, their lives as our community members, and their lives outside of service. It also recognizes that life can be pretty unpredictable for military parents. If they are deployed, they could actually miss the arrival of the newest member of their family. They could miss bringing that little boy or girl home, and they could miss seeing them for the first time.
With this bill, they could at least have the advantage of spending some time at home with this new edition when they return from their deployment. This is a really wonderful thing and the NDP will be supporting this bill for this reason. 
However, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who has been a longtime and tireless advocate for EI reform, has raised the possibility of making this bill better and stronger. The minister did indicate that she is open to the idea of amendments and she has asked members to bring their ideas forward.
This is actually in keeping with the development of this bill from the outset, as the subject of this bill was raised by the member for Nepean—Carleton. It is in the spirit of co-operation and collaboration that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst has done a great thing and brought forward some ideas to make this bill better and stronger. He brought forward the idea to amend clause 3 by adding after line 5 on page 2 the following:
 For the purposes of subsection (3.01), a member of a police force who is a Canadian citizen in the employ of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a Canadian citizen under contract with the Government of Canada, and who has been deployed as part of a mission outside Canada is considered to be a claimant. 
What does that mean? It would expand the bill to include members of our police forces who are also occasionally deployed overseas to bring their expertise to other countries and regions around the world, as well as government workers who may find themselves in that situation. I think this is a fantastic amendment. I do not think it would broaden the numbers or costs substantially.
At this time, I would also like to take a moment to suggest to the minister that she consider extending it even further to aid workers. The international community relies on Canadian experience and expertise on a range of issues, whether it is asking our Oxfam workers to go to Haiti to deal with the aftermath of the earthquake, sending the Nova Scotia Gambia Association into the Gambia to help with rapid AIDS testing, or the work of Médecins Sans Frontières at the forefront of human life disasters.
Canada is so proud of the work that we do overseas to aid and support local initiatives that combat hunger, corruption, poverty and human rights atrocities. Would it not be wonderful if this bill would open its scope to include those aid workers, workers who are really showing Canada's capabilities to the world? I leave this to the minister to consider, but I urge her to consider that this would be a considerable recognition of all our Canadians who accept the challenge of serving overseas. That service does take place in many forms.
To summarize, this is a good bill and we will be supporting it, but I really think it could be great with the simple addition of other groups. It would recognize the incredible work that Canadians are doing overseas and around the world as stewards of our global village.
Scott Simms: Madam Speaker, I will not take up too much time. The hon. member talked about certain amendments to this particular bill. She made a good point about the aid workers. I also made a point to talk about the diplomatic corps and cases where people are in this country while their spouses are obviously stationed in diplomatic postings in other parts of the world.
I would like her to comment on that. I would also like her to comment on retroactivity. It does state that it is going to take effect, for those qualifying for that benefit period, the day of or thereafter in that benefit period. They are the people who will benefit from this. Has she thought about the idea of retroactivity, who that would include and how wholesome that would be?
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, I have been reading the transcripts of this debate and seen the issue of retroactivity brought up in particular by this member. I think that is certainly a good idea. I do not necessarily have a point of view right now on how far back that should go. I would leave that to people who have more expertise dealing with retroactivity of bills.
It could really be a great thing. The 104 weeks is a long time that a person would be able to possibly use that EI time. Some people could be cut out even though they could perhaps still fall within that 104 weeks of when the child was brought home and they would be excluded because there was no retroactivity for the bill.
Therefore, it makes good sense to me to look at retroactivity and I am supportive of that kind of a motion.
Linda Duncan: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her incredible speech today. As usual she brings it down to the basic community level. It is absolutely beautiful how she always does this.
It reminds us all in the House that our military and our police officers are part of our community. It is very important when we are bringing forward measures, that we think fulsomely of all the support they need.
I am wondering if the hon. member could respond to my inquiry. We are offering extended parental leave and some level of flexibility, but in many cases the officers returning to Canada are severely injured or mentally incapacitated. They may have to live in another location. 
I am wondering if perhaps we should be giving additional assistance and thought to the fact that there might have to be additional support to the family, so they can be reunited and parental support can be given.
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for her kind words and also recognize the incredible advocacy she is doing on behalf of her constituents in the House.
The member raises some really good points about what I said earlier, how the lives of military families are really complicated. They are very unusual. They do not have lives like most of us. We go to work at 9 a.m., go home at 5 p.m., and have the weekends to play ball with our kids. 
Their lives are very complicated. It involves being deployed. It involves being away from their families for long periods of time. It involves, hopefully not, but it does involve sometimes being hurt, returning home, and having to deal with things like post-traumatic stress disorder or physical injuries, and having that kind of recuperation time. 
Having access to different supports like EI can only be a good thing. It can only be a respectful thing to show that we acknowledge the complicated lives that our military families have. I love the ideas that the member has raised.
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Very briefly, Madam Speaker, and it is more of a comment. 
I want to thank the hon. member for Halifax. She represents a very important naval community. I commend her for her very complimentary words about this being the 100th centennial anniversary of the Canadian navy.
I would also take the opportunity to express thanks to all members who have taken part in this important debate, and in particular to the member for Nepean—Carleton for bringing this matter forward to remedy what was an anomaly in the act that will definitely help military families.
At the same time, I think it would be in keeping with the upcoming celebration this weekend, Mother's Day, to acknowledge as members have the important contribution of military families, but particularly mothers, in support of our military. For those who are deployed and for their families, I want to extend greetings to all and a warm thanks for all they do.
[Interjection]
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his kind words and happy Mother's Day to him as well.
Mr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Madam Speaker, I just want to say how pleased I am today to see the NDP support some of the good work that this government does. I know that in the past it seems to be only those on the Conservative side who support veterans, who support the economy, and actually make differences in Canadians' lives. I really appreciate that from the NDP today in supporting this government.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. 

Private Members' Business
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy), as reported with amendment from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC):  moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
John Weston:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure to rise on the last sitting day before Mother's Day to speak to Bill C-475.
The bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act by creating a new offence for possessing, producing, selling or importing anything knowing it will be used to produce or traffic in crystal meth or ecstasy.
Targeted ingredients include the drug's precursor chemicals, such as pseudoephedrine, ephedrine and Sudafed, which are commonly found in over-the-counter cold medications. Other targeted ingredients are legal but certainly not intended for human consumption, such as acetone, rubbing alcohol and iodine.
The bill would give our law enforcement community a powerful new tool with which to confront the growing menace of two drugs which are attacking the health and welfare of Canadians.
The passage of this bill would mark a new era in our fight to protect Canadians, especially our children, from the devastating effects of these drugs. In the battle to protect our communities, we would be providing new tools to combat the methamphetamine epidemic that has swept our country.
I believe this House stands united today in one noble purpose as we rise together and speak on behalf of Canadians who seek to escape the grip of these harmful substances.
We know an idea is one whose time has come when three things come together: first, a consensus surrounds and supports the idea; second, the idea meets an obvious need; and third, in one sense or another, the stars seem to align and the idea's progress seems preordained and unstoppable. In this case, all these conditions have come to pass, and I look forward to elaborating now.
First, we have a large nationwide consensus of people who support passage of the bill. The consensus is most evident in this House where all parties support it. On April 14, for the first time in this session of Parliament, all members voted in favour of a private member's bill. The stage was second reading and the bill was Bill C-475, the one to which I speak today.
The member for Peace River also received unanimous support for a previous version of this bill when he introduced it in a prior session of Parliament, but it died on the order paper when an election intervened.
Broad and growing support for this bill extends throughout the Canadian public as well, starting with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Other endorsers include the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the Crystal Meth Prevention Society of BC, the Baldy Hughes Addiction Treatment Centre, the North Shore Substance Abuse Working Group, the Town of Gibsons, the City of Powell River, the District of Squamish, the Resort Municipality of Whistler, Bowen Island Municipality, the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, the Solicitor General of British Columbia, as well as Chief Gibby Jacob of the Squamish First Nation.
The broad array of rehabilitation centres, law enforcement officials, former addicts and ordinary citizens who support this bill speak to the need for it, highlighting the fact that we in this chamber are not the only people who say that this is an idea whose time has come.
The chief of the West Vancouver Police Department, speaking on behalf of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, Chief Constable Peter Lepine, wrote me earlier this week. I would like to quote from his message. He said:
 As the voice of British Columbia's 5,000+ sworn police officers, the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police, BCACP, is proud to support the legislation and would like to thank [the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country] and his staff for their efforts to reduce the impact of illicit drugs on families and communities across Canada. 
 Every day police officers and our colleagues in the justice system and fields like health care and social work experience firsthand the terrible toll that the production, trade and use of methamphetamine takes: From lives lost and families torn apart by addiction, to the fear and cost of drug-related crime, to the risk of fires and explosions related to meth labs. The public safety risks of methamphetamine are real, substantial, and growing all the time. 
This legislation, which prohibits the possession of methamphetamine precursor materials, will provide police across Canada with a way to help reduce the supply of methamphetamine rather than being forced to simply deal with its consequences.The BCACP is confident that the benefits of early interdiction will include not only a marked reduction in the addiction-related human tragedies that we are all so aware of, but also a mitigation of the growing cost of methamphetamines for our health care and other social services. 
Bill C-475 complements other criminal justice reforms initiated by our government, such as toughening the laws against drug trafficking and illegal firearms. I am pleased, therefore, that the Minister of Justice and the Conservative government also support the bill.
While a large consensus in support of Bill C-475 suggests it is an idea whose time has come, the increasing need for it is an even stronger indication. The need is simply to stop the destruction of the lives of young Canadians. 
The more clearly I examine the problems associated with crystal meth and ecstasy, the more people I meet who have been affected themselves, directly or indirectly, by crystal meth addicts who suffer psychosis, physical addiction, unemployment and an inescapable draw toward criminal conduct. We need to eliminate the use of crystal meth and ecstasy from Canadian society.
 These drugs are affecting an increasing number of Canadians. Serious health implications resulting from chronic use of these drugs include dependence, characterized by compulsive drug seeking and drug use, and a phenomenon known as amphetamine or methamphetamine psychosis, which includes strong hallucinations and delusions. Crystal meth and ecstasy use can translate over the longer term into schizophrenia, a side effect with lasting consequences. Trauma experienced by users includes great physical, psychological and emotional harm.
 According to Canada's Alcohol and Other Drugs Survey, approximately 50,000 people aged 15 and over report having used methamphetamine at least once in the previous year.
In 2003, British Columbia's Ministry of Health estimated that 4% of school-aged children had used methamphetamine stimulants. Around the same time, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission found that 5.3% of school-aged children had tried methamphetamine stimulants. That is a lot.
On a personal note, I know that many of us know someone battling drug addiction. Let us not forget that meth is an insidious drug that can affect anyone in any segment of society.
Meth use is not confined to homeless people. Other users include professionals, doctors, lawyers and first responders. These people are mothers and fathers and tragically, in too many cases, they pay with their lives. 
The crystal meth and ecstasy industry is linked to various forms of criminal activity. The most obvious form of such activity is the pattern of offences committed by people whose lives are ruined by these drugs.
As I have previously discussed in this House, the methamphetamine industry is increasingly controlled by gangs. For example, Marshall Smith at the Baldy Hughes Treatment Centre in Prince George has informed me that crystal meth addiction is increasingly linked to the multi-billion dollar per year fraud and identity theft problem which is devastating to Canadian families and our economy.
Some who can see the need for this bill have expressed concern about the possibility of wrongful conviction should the bill become law. As in all offences included among Canada's criminal laws, the prosecution must prove an element of mental intention to achieve a conviction under the proposed bill. The bill states explicitly what would have been assumed by the courts, that the accused must be shown to know that the product possessed, produced, sold or imported was to have been used to produce or traffic in crystal meth or ecstasy. The emphasis is on the word “know”. The necessity to prove intent, as stated in the bill, and the general presumption of innocence are two definite responses to anyone concerned about wrongful convictions under Bill C-475, once it is enacted. 
This bill gives a new opportunity for law enforcement officials to tackle the production of these drugs before they reach our streets. In particular, this will give judges a new tool to use against chronic producers and allow police to arrest these people earlier, thus reducing the supply of crystal meth and ecstasy on the streets.
I have made the case that Bill C-475 is an idea whose time has come based on the broad support it enjoys and the need it satisfies, but many good ideas are well supported and many ideas could satisfy an important need, but are still not ideas whose time has come.
A third factor which crowns an idea whose time has come is an aligning of the stars, a coming together of people and forces in a way that suggests the idea in question is truly meant to be. People and forces have assembled almost magically to bless the passage of Bill C-475. 
The parade began with the member for Peace River whose efforts in introducing a previous version of the bill must never be forgotten. We who appear to personify success in fact stand on the shoulders of giants.
The bill was introduced only six months ago. It could never have reached third reading this quickly without the close co-operation of people such as the Minister of Justice, the government whip, the member for Abbotsford, who chairs the justice committee, the members for Edmonton East and Elgin—Middlesex—London for their willingness to exchange positions with me to expedite the bill through the order of precedence, and the three opposition justice critics, each of whom graciously consulted with me before I introduced the bill.
A moment ago I recited a list of endorsers of the bill. Let me single out one, the Baldy Hughes Addiction Treatment Centre in Prince George, B.C., for purposes of illustrating how the stars have aligned to ensure the passage of the bill. I was on a flight from Ottawa to Vancouver when I chanced to sit next to a board member for the treatment centre, Kevin England, who proceeded to add to and encourage the efforts of the great team of people who support the bill.
When we meet strangers on flights who provide informed support for a legislative initiative, we know the stars are aligned and the idea is one whose time has come.
Linda Duncan: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for tabling the bill. It is very important that we deal with this critical matter.
The question I would like to put to the member is this: Would the member consider also supporting a proposal to tag some of the transfer payments to the provinces so that the long-awaited treatment facilities for crystal meth could be established?
The Government of Alberta quite some time ago under Premier Klein promised to set aside major moneys to established rehabilitation places. This has never happened. That promise was never delivered on to the extent that is needed. As a result, a lot of young Albertans are literally dying from addiction to crystal meth. I speak regularly with parents who are in anguish because there is no place for their children to go, so they resort to crime or simply die or languish under their addiction.
I would like to hear the member's response to that. It is one thing to run around trying to arrest people, but it is another thing to actually try to resolve the problem of addiction.
[Interjection]
John Weston: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her interest in the area and clearly her commitment to helping people who are afflicted by the problem of methamphetamines. It is important to know that this government has increased health care transfers to the provinces by 6% per year since the 2006-07 budget, as well as a 3% increase in social transfer payments. Therefore, the government is standing behind the provinces in their attempts to deal with the problem.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, I am still waiting for an answer to a question I asked the member at second reading. He will recall that I was concerned about the whole issue of the pill making machines, about which the Americans seemed concerned. On one of my trips with the U.S.-Canada committee, the issue of pill making machines came up. Since the Americans regulate pill making machines and the repair of them, they feel there should be a paper trail. They do not think that is the case in Canada. Ever since that happened, Toronto became a big centre for production of methamphetamine partly, in their view, because pill making machines were not regulated.
The member indicated to me that while it was not specified in the bill, he was unclear as to whether it could be included. Where are we with that? We should take an opportunity to do this right. If pill making machines are a big issue, then we should make the rule that anybody who buys one has to register it and anyone who repairs one need to registered it as well.
[Interjection]
John Weston: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to receive such an informed question from the member who is obviously committed to the overall mission of reducing the use of methamphetamines by Canadians. He points to one of the problems that the scourge of crystal meth has created. It has damaged our reputation. American authorities and the United Nations have joined in suggesting that we need new legislation to deal with this. 
I am pleased to report that the drafting of the bill is broad enough to include pill making machines. It creates a new offence for “possessing, producing, selling or importing anything knowing it will be used to produce or traffic in methamphetamine or ecstasy”. Therefore, the “anything” could indeed include pill making machines.
Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, she was bright, active in her community and supportive of her family. She had known past tragedies involving ecstasy and had asked her family to trust her not to take the drug, but a few Saturdays ago, instead of going to a party, she headed to a rave, where the group she was with took ecstasy. Afterwards, she slept 15 hours and by the time the ambulance was called, her heart was beating very slowly. She died in hospital.
Our country strives to reduce these drug deaths and, indeed, the harm associated with alcohol and other drugs to individuals, families and communities. Bill C-475 is therefore an important step in reducing harm by making it illegal to possess, produce, sell or import chemicals with the knowledge they will be used to create crystal meth or ecstasy. Under the proposed legislation, violators could face a prison term of up to 10 years. 
Unlike some street drugs, methamphetamines can be manufactured from chemicals that are available to the public, such as acetone, drain cleaner, iodine, rubbing alcohol and even cold medication. Previously individuals found in possession of these precursors, without the final product, were not breaking the law. The new legislation changes this and therefore makes it easier to prosecute illegal drug makers.
Amphetamine, a synthetic drug that constricts blood vessels, stimulates the heart and respiration and induces sleeplessness was originally marketed as Benzedrine in North America in the 1920s. It quickly became a favourite street drug, known as “bennies” or “pep pills”, and was severely restricted in most countries beginning in the 1950s because of negative effects, including delusions of power, disturbed sleep patterns, hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness and nausea. Long-term negative effects include heart, kidney, liver and lung damage.
Methamphetamine is a chemical variation with a much stronger effect on the central nervous system than the original drug. It is known as chalk, crank, dirt, glass, grit, ice, koolaid, kryptonite, et cetera, and in higher doses is more addictive than the original drug and has a greater rush, followed by increased agitation and possibly violence in some individuals.
Meth became a common street drug and was known as speed in the 1960s. Its use decreased, however, after a number of incidents, with the message “speed kills”. In the late 1980s, however, a smokable crystal form was created, and has increased in popularity ever since. 
Meth stimulates brain cells, enhances mood, physical activity and wakefulness. For some, even low doses can be addictive. With higher doses, specially if injected or smoked, the user immediately experiences a rush or flash, which is intense pleasure that lasts a few minutes. Users can become addicted and dependent quickly, meaning more and higher doses as the addiction progresses.
In street and high doses, methamphetamine causes anxiety, confusion, hallucinations, insomnia, irritability and paranoia. At even higher doses, meth can cause death, which results from rupture of the blood vessels in the brain, extreme fever, heart failure and seizures and coma. There is no specific antidote that can reverse the effects of the drug.
Meth production and use also have social impacts. Communities become vulnerable to increases in drug trafficking, health risks, petty crime, social disorder and violence.
 The UN's World Drug Report 2009 shows that in recent years Canada's traffickers have come to play an alarmingly prominent role. Canada and Mexico have picked up the slack in the production of methamphetamine.
The report says:
 There is evidence that Canada-based...outlaw motorcycle gangs have significantly increased the amount of methamphetamine they manufacture and export, [since 2003] for the US market, but also for Oceania and East and South-East Asia. 
For example, Australia reported that methamphetamine from Canada accounted for 83% of total seized imports by weight. For Japan, the figure was 62%.
Crystal meth has become the most widespread and popular form of the drug, largely because it is so easy to make that anyone can set up a lab. Instructions are commonplace on the Internet.
 Police report that a $150 investment can yield up to $10,000 worth of the drug. However, the drug is often impure and the manufacturing process can be dangerous and cause fires, posing serious public safety hazards to those in and around production operations. Operations can cause serious physical injury from chemical burns, explosions, fires and toxic fumes and environmental hazards. There are also significant health risks and costs associated with dismantling labs and removing processing agents from the premises.
 A recent Statistics Canada survey of teenagers showed that among those who answered questions about drug use, 34% had tried marijuana, 4% had used ecstasy and 2% had used crystal meth. Police say that in some areas, crystal meth is replacing ecstasy as the drug used by teenagers and young adults in the rave scene. In many areas, crystal meth is cheaper, at $10 for about one-tenth of a gram. An ecstasy hit can cost twice as much, at about $20.
Experts say that crystal meth is one of the most addictive street drugs and one of the hardest to treat. Addictions counsellors report that the withdrawal symptoms, especially depression and physical agony, are worse than cocaine or heroin. As a result, addicts often drop out of recovery programs. The relapse rate of 92% is worse than cocaine.
The chemical structure of ecstasy is similar to that of an amphetamine, a stimulant and mescaline, a hallucinogen. It is a street drug that is usually sold as a capsule, powder or tablet and is only made in illegal labs. The tablets vary in the amount of ecstasy they contain, their colour, shape and size. Tablets may not contain ecstasy at all, but rather contain cornstarch, detergents and other drugs, including ephedrine, LSD and methamphetamine.
After taking ecstasy, the drug is absorbed into the bloodstream and travels to the brain. It usually takes about an hour to feel the effects, which last three to six hours. The effects of ecstasy are unpredictable and they are different for everyone. Some may experience closeness to others, empathy, euphoria and friendliness, while others may experience anxiety and panic attacks.
Ecstasy causes an increase in body temperature, which when combined with physical activity such as dancing in a warm environment, the situation can become worse, leading to heart or kidney failure, seizures and strokes. Some people drink too much water to avoid dehydration, which can result in dangerously low salt levels in the blood, leading to confusion, convulsions and delirium and can progress quickly to coma and death.
When the effects of ecstasy have worn off, a user may feel anxious, confused, depressed and may have trouble sleeping. Flashbacks, memory problems and paranoia may also occur.
 People can quickly become tolerant to the effects of ecstasy with regular use and it is not uncommon for the drug to take on an exaggerated importance in a person's life.
Crystal meth and ecstasy are two highly addictive substances against which many agencies and people have rallied. Bill C-475 attempts to attack the problem at its source, dealing directly with the precursors of these drugs.
Finally, in closing one more loop, perhaps we can protect more individuals, families and communities, so more mothers are not driven to the hospital only to find their child has already died of ecstasy, as happened a few weeks ago.
Meili Faille: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the members' speeches. There seems to be unanimous consent for the bill to be sent to the Senate. I would like to thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for having introduced such a bill. I would like to direct the members' attention to the purpose of the bill, the creation of a new offence: the prohibition of the possession, production, sale or importing of anything knowing it will be used to produce or traffic in methamphetamine or ecstasy, a crime more serious than simple possession. This bill provides for a maximum sentence of 10 years less a day. The fundamental purpose of this bill is to create an offence for possession of substances found in these chemical drugs with intent to manufacture methamphetamine or ecstasy.
I would like to point out, on behalf of the people in my riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges and many other places in Quebec, that the ease with which young people can obtain methamphetamine or ecstasy has raised a lot of concerns in the Vaudreuil-Soulanges RCM.
The average age in my riding is very low compared to the average age in Quebec. Consequently, youth -related issues have been raised from various perspectives. In my remarks, I will address certain issues and describe as best I can my constituents' comments about the challenges that young people must overcome.
I am convinced that the consumption of methamphetamine and ecstasy is a serious issue. Given the detrimental effect of taking these drugs on the health of the population, particularly young people, I empathize with the families living with a victim, a person who has become addicted to these drugs. 
In terms of legal amendments and law enforcement, the production of all illicit drugs is already on the books. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle of the bill. I hope that it will quickly pass in the Senate and that it will reduce the use of these stimulants by young people.
Last week, the Canadian Police Association made us aware of the difficulties currently experienced by police forces in gathering evidence to bring serious charges. Not only must they find these substances at someone's home, but there must also be circumstances to establish that these substances were collected with the intention of manufacturing drugs, and the intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I might bring a different point of view to this bill, because of the volunteer work I have done with young people and the special ties I have to community organizations in my riding. I do not believe that the provisions of the bill alone are sufficient. We also need to work on awareness and prevention. We need to encourage comprehensive initiatives. 
I am convinced we can do much better. I am particularly proud of two organizations in my riding and I hope they will pursue the important work they are doing. For instance, one organization in my riding, Comité Jeunesse La Presqu'île, founded 10 years ago, has introduced a number of projects for the well being of youth aged 11 to 17. These projects are carried out in partnership with youth centres, the school board, street outreach workers, the municipalities and the Sûreté du Québec. They are achieving real results in terms of youth crime rates.
Here is another example of co-operation. Any child who attended an elementary or secondary school in Beauharnois-Salaberry, Jardins-de-Napierville, Roussillon, Haut-Saint-Laurent or Vaudreuil-Soulanges in the last 20 years has likely had the opportunity to meet the people involved in the “Liberté de choisir” organization during one of their visits to the schools. The organization is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year and has successfully adapted to the changing times. Today that organization offers young people various workshops on adopting healthy lifestyle choices and the development of social and personal skills to learn how to deal with the problem of drug use. It meets with young people who want to take part in social and professional integration programs in youth centres. A program for parents called “Roller Coasters” has been developed to help them better understand and deal with drug use among young people.
Once again, any effective strategy to combat the scourge of drug use must include awareness and prevention.
These drugs, which are stimulants, are becoming more popular in all milieus in Quebec and young people can access them very easily in schools, sometimes even in elementary schools, much like cigarettes. According to the stakeholders in those two organizations, the sharp increase in the consumption of energy drinks and the appearance of stimulating drugs like speed and ecstasy are enough to justify increased efforts. The content of these drugs is often unknown and studies show that the tablets are often altered.
Young people do not know the risks they are taking or the long-term effects on their health. I found something that perfectly sums up the danger to our young people. An article in the July 6, 2009 edition of the Journal de Québec said:
 —you want to try it again? You are playing with fire...What appeared to be the gateway to heaven could in fact be the gateway to hell. 
Ecstasy and methamphetamine are harmful to health and highly addictive. Methamphetamine or MA is also known as chalk, crank, crystal, fire, ice, jib, meth, speed, gak, glass, tina, yaba and crystal meth.
These drugs are made in secret labs from ingredients that are easy to get in pharmacies, hardware stores and other retail outlets. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin gave a list of products used to make these drugs.
Like all the other Canadian provinces, Quebec is active in prevention and intervention, which come under its jurisdiction.
Specifically, Quebec's actions are guided by five principles: adapting the intervention to the individual's situation; determining the individual's ability to take charge of his or her health; sharing collective responsibility; taking actions based on knowledge and experience; and working with the community.
What is disturbing about drugs like methamphetamine and ecstasy is that what goes into them can be found in every household in Quebec and Canada. The ingredients needed to produce these drugs are available in stores: rubbing alcohol, iodine, lithium batteries, matchbooks, paint thinner, aluminum foil, glassware, coffee filters, propane tanks and so on. 
Most households in Canada and Quebec already have some of the ingredients needed to make methamphetamine.
I still believe that proper, adequate support for an integrated, youth-focused intervention plan can not only reduce addiction problems, but produce much better outcomes in terms of young people's health, how they function in society and the criminal justice system.
We have to do everything we can to prevent people, especially young people, from obtaining these harmful drugs.
The money for the drug strategy must not be put toward law enforcement initiatives alone. Prevention and awareness activities must be eligible for funding as well.
Megan Leslie: Madam Speaker, currently, under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the CDSA, it is illegal to produce, traffic or import methamphetamines and ecstasy, as it is for all illegal drugs. Bill C-475 would extend to the ingredients of methamphetamines and ecstasy and changes the act to make it illegal to produce, sell or import anything that would be used to produce the final product. 
It is really a reincarnation of Bill C-428 from the 39th Parliament, only this version was changed to include ecstasy and a few other very minor wording changes. It is important to let people know that this bill does not include mandatory minimums, which is not like other crime bills that we have seen introduced by government members. 
The main point about the bill is that it would not do very much to enable the justice system to deal more effectively or efficiently with methamphetamines or ecstasy. It may seem like it would because it talks about the ingredients of meth and ecstasy, but it would appear that the justice system already has an adequate way of dealing with this through its organized crime provisions in the Criminal Code.
At committee I was able to ask legislative counsel from the Department of Justice about the bill. I will like read from the transcript. The member from Halifax said:
 Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have one question for you. Hopefully you can answer it. Do you see this amendment capturing any situation that isn't already covered by the organized crime provisions, or is it just the provision in and of itself that it's illegal to produce? Do you see this as actually having an impact? 
The lawyer answered:
 In terms of the production, I don't think so; nothing comes to mind. In terms of the impact on organized crime, I don't think it has an impact either. 
The member from Halifax said:
 Do you mean no impact positive or negative? 
The Justice lawyer answered:
 Hopefully it will have a positive effect in the sense that it will act as a deterrent, but in terms of the relationship between this offence and other offences, I don't think there is any. 
The member from Halifax said: 
 Those are all my questions. Thanks. 
Ultimately, it seems like it would not have very much of an effect. The lawyer did mention deterrence, however, the House has heard reams of evidence showing that deterrence is not really an effective strategy when it comes to drug crimes.
Should we support a bill that does not seem to have very much effect? Is this an example of the maxim, no harm, no foul? It is a private member's bill, so I submit that there are two considerations. First, I do respect any member's attempt to respond to the needs of his or her constituents by bringing forward a private member's bill. Our ability to bring forward legislation is a special privilege and it is a very challenging thing to see realized as there are so many steps to getting a piece of legislation through the House. Private member's bills are usually a direct response to the needs or the demands of constituents in a riding, so I tend to give a lot of weight to private member's bills, provided they are not harmful. 
Therefore, I do congratulate the efforts that the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country has made to see this bill through the House.
The second thing to consider when deciding how to vote on a private member's bill is the fact that it is a free vote and all members get to make up their mind on whether they will support it. If other members of the House were to ask me for my advice on whether they should support it, I would say that it was their choice. It does not seem to have much of an impact but it does not seem to have a negative impact either.
 I would like to use the rest of my time to talk about what good drug policy would look like. Would it not be exciting to debate intelligent drug policy for Canada? First, with regard to drug labs, we have seen some really interesting non-criminal ways of dealing with labs in the U.S. The U.S. has seen more successes with commercial and consumer regulation which limits the quantity of over-the-counter medication that a person can purchase and it questions the reason for the purchase. This kind of regulation can serve to limit the production of drugs like methamphetamine and ecstasy and it can act like a preventive measure, unlike this bill. 
The existing legislation that we have in the Criminal Code or in the CDSA, the CDSA serves more as an after the fact punishment if a person is caught rather than effectively trying to reduce the ability to produce.
Regulations like the U.S. legislation requiring photo ID and a signature also provide ways to track, identify and police offenders who purchase over-the-counter drugs for meth and ecstasy production. Therefore, why are we not looking at U.S. solutions that have worked like consumer and commercial regulations, instead of adopting solutions that have failed, like a bloated prison system?
Why are we not looking at harm reduction? We have Mainline Needle Exchange back home in Halifax and Vancouver has Insite, a safe injection site. Despite the life-saving successes of harm reduction measures, such as needle exchanges, successes in reducing the spread of HIV and hepatitis C among drug users and successes in increasing access to treatment, in 2007, the Conservatives introduced a new anti-drug strategy for Canada that removed all references to harm reduction.
Instead, the government has put greater emphasis on law enforcement. What a big surprise. It moves Canada closer and closer to an expensive and failed U.S.-style drug system. Right now, Canada spends 73% of its drug policy budget on enforcement. Still, drug use continues to rise. If we look at the numbers, there is 73% to enforcement, 14% to treatment, 7% to research, 2.6% to prevention and 2.6% to harm reduction.
In 2008, the National Framework for Action to Reduce the Harms Associated with Alcohol and Other Drugs and Substances in Canada convened a working group. Members included federal agencies and provincial health agencies like Health Canada and the Nova Scotia Department of Health Promotion and Protection. It also included related agency representatives from the Correctional Service of Canada, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. That is quite the team they put together.
The working groups points out:
 Research findings suggest that providing appropriate services and supports across a range of systems not only reduces substance use problems but also improves a wide range of outcomes related to health, social functioning and criminal justice. Such a spectrum of services and supports is also a good investment for government, because it returns economic benefits that far outstrip its cost. 
The group is calling for a national treatment strategy. This national treatment strategy would look at building capacity across a continuum of services and supports. It would look at supporting that continuum of services and supports. It would look at developing a research program and would also consider reducing stigma and discrimination. How we would do that and what that would look like?
That is intelligent drug policy and that is the kind of drug policy that we can get behind. The NDP is calling for better and more prevention programs directed at at-risk youth. We are calling for more resources for prosecution and the enforcement of existing laws. We are calling for more officers on the street, as promised by the Conservatives but not yet delivered. We are calling for an overall co-ordinated strategy focused on gangs and organized crime and also toughened proceeds of crime legislation.
Mr. Daniel Petit (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, who introduced Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy).
He is very concerned about the problems caused by the use of methamphetamine and other similar drugs in Canada. I would like to congratulate him for introducing this private member's bill targeting these drugs.
I would like to say a few words about these two drugs. The chemical name for ecstasy is methylenedioxymethamphetamine—that word is not easy to pronounce—or MDMA. The chemical structure and the effects of MDMA are similar to amphetamine—a stimulant—and to mescaline—a hallucinogen. 
What is sold as ecstasy often contains drugs other than MDMA, which may or may not be similar in effect to MDMA. Some of the other drugs include caffeine, ephedrine, amphetamine, ketamine or LSD. Ecstasy sometimes contains highly toxic drugs, which can be lethal even in low doses. MDMA affects the chemistry of the brain, in particular by releasing a high level of serotonin. Serotonin is a chemical in the brain that plays an important role in the regulation of mood, energy level and appetite, among other things. 
The possession, trafficking, importing and production of MDMA have been illegal in Canada since 1976.
Ecstasy is made in illicit labs with chemicals and processes that vary from lab to lab. What is sold as ecstasy often contains unknown drugs or other fillers. Ecstasy is usually sold as a tablet or capsule that is swallowed. It may also be sold in powder form, or the tablets may be crushed and then snorted. Although rare, there are also some reports that the drug is injected. 
Ecstasy tablets come in different shapes, sizes and colours, and are often stamped with a logo, such as a butterfly or clover, giving them a candy-like look. This branding of ecstasy tablets should not be mistaken for an indication of quality, as manufacturers may use the same logo, and low-quality copycats are common. Tablets that are sold as ecstasy may not contain MDMA. 
The increased use of ecstasy as a recreational drug began in the 1980s in the U.S. The group most commonly associated with ecstasy use is young people at "raves" or all-night dance parties. More recently, ecstasy has attracted a wider range of users, including urban professionals, and is used in a variety of settings, including mainstream nightclubs. 
How ecstasy affects you depends on several things: your age and weight; how much you take and how often you take it; how long you have been taking it; the method you use to take the drug; the environment you are in; whether or not you have certain pre-existing medical or psychiatric conditions; and if you have taken any alcohol or other drugs—illicit, prescription, over-the-counter or herbal.
In low to moderate doses, ecstasy can produce feelings of pleasure and well-being, increased sociability and closeness with others. Like all stimulant drugs, ecstasy can make users feel full of energy and confidence.
Even at low doses, ecstasy can also have strong negative effects. Higher doses are unlikely to enhance the desirable effects, and may intensify the negative effects.
These effects include grinding of teeth and jaw pain, sweating, increased blood pressure and heart rate, anxiety or panic attacks, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting and convulsions.
After the initial effects of the drug have worn off, users may also experience after-effects such as confusion, irritability, anxiety, paranoia, depression, memory impairment or sleep problems.
The effects of ecstasy usually begin within an hour, and may last four to six hours. The duration of the after-effects cannot be predicted as precisely, though they may last for days or weeks. 
Although some people regard ecstasy as a relatively safe drug, a growing number of deaths have been associated with it. As with many illicit drugs, these risks increase with the amount taken and frequency of use. 
A major factor in many ecstasy-related deaths is the dehydration and overheating that can result when ecstasy is taken in conjunction with all-night dancing. Ecstasy increases body temperature, blood pressure and heart rate, which can lead to kidney or heart failure, strokes and seizures. Ecstasy may cause jaundice and liver damage. 
People with high blood pressure, heart or liver problems, diabetes, epilepsy or any mental disorder are the most vulnerable to the potential dangers of ecstasy. Part of the danger is that people may not be aware that they have these conditions, and the effects of ecstasy can trigger symptoms. 
As for the long-term effects of ecstasy, animal research has established that ecstasy use can damage the brain cells that release serotonin. Research on humans is limited, but there is some evidence to support that ecstasy can damage the cells and chemistry of the human brain, affecting some functions of the brain, including learning and memory. Research suggests that the risk of damage caused by ecstasy use is linked to the amount taken and the frequency of use.
Methamphetamine is a neurotoxin that alters and damages the brain. It is a drug that is highly addictive and has a high potential for abuse. The abuse of methamphetamine can cause serous behavioural problems, psychotic symptoms and dangerous medical complications, such as vascular problems, strokes and even death. Methamphetamine addiction is a chronic illness, one that is characterized by relapse and that is difficult to treat.
The illicit production and trafficking of this drug has caused terrible harm to thousands of Canadians. Methamphetamine and other synthetic drugs cost us millions of dollars in health care and tens of millions of dollars in law enforcement. Even worse, they have led to the loss of many lives and have been a cause of heartbreak for many families and friends.
There are plenty of recipes for methamphetamine on the Internet, and it is easy to buy books from popular online bookstores that explain how to make it. It is relatively easy to get the dozen or so ingredients and the equipment needed to produce it from neighbourhood pharmacies, grocery stores and hardware stores.
I believe we all agree that nobody wants a meth lab in their neighbourhood. Nobody wants people manufacturing methampthetamine near our schools and playgrounds or on the farm down the road.
And I am sure that nobody wants this relatively cheap and easy-to-produce but deadly drug to fall into their children's hands.
Another issue is the fact that producing methamphetamine is dangerous. The ingredients can cause chemical burns and can easily explode if handled inexpertly. First responders on the scene of an illegal lab are exposed to serious health hazards, as are the neighbours. The environmental risks associated with methamphetamine production are very real. 
We also have to take into account the social costs—in dollars—of illegal drug use. I am sure that the direct and indirect costs to the Canadian economy resulting from harm associated with illegal drugs, such as methamphetamine and ecstasy, add up to hundreds of millions of dollars per year. That includes costs associated with health care, law enforcement and loss of productivity due to illness and premature death.
I want to emphasize that, for all of these reasons—the insidious nature of production, the use of toxic chemicals in the manufacture of methamphetamine and its cost to the economy—our government is taking these problems very seriously.
The government is committed to fighting drug production and addiction. Over the past few years, Canada's primary objective in the war on drug abuse has remained unchanged: to make Canadians safer by protecting them from the damage caused by drugs.
We must not underestimate the complexity of fighting this deeply entrenched problem. We have to tackle illegal drug use on a number of fronts. We have to examine it as a social phenomenon.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, once again I have to congratulate the member for his Bill C-475. I know how much work he has put into this bill and how he has followed it through the process. It is certainly a lot of effort on his part.
While we recognize that this is probably a bill that the government itself should have introduced to this House, in some respects it is probably better that it arrived the way it did because it gives this member an enhanced role in the House. At the end of the day, if we can fulfill public policy by going that route, I see nothing wrong with it. As a matter of fact, we should probably be making more laws that initiate as a result of private members' efforts.
I did ask the member a question the other day about the pill-making machines and I want to deal with that in a few minutes. The member for Halifax talked about having a good drug policy. Some of the elements that she talked about actually make a lot of sense. I do not blame the government or the previous government or any government for the problem, but it is an observation that I have that generally governments everywhere are sort of the last to know about the problem.
We wait as a society until people are dying before we recognize there is a problem and try to deal with it. Most members in this House are my age or older, and they would not know crystal meth if they were looking right at. I would not recognize it. The fact of the matter is that it takes a while. The kids seem to be right on top of issues. These things come about and the next thing we know we have a big problem, and then we have to deal with it.
In the United States, as the member for Halifax has pointed out, the Americans have actually done some things that are preventative, and that is what we should be doing, too. They have a policy that limits the amount of ingredients someone can buy at a store. They have to give a reason for the purchase. In fact, that is where this pill-making machine idea comes in.
It is no secret that in the past the United States required the pill-making machines to be registered when they were purchased and reported when they were repaired. It has been said that the traffic of production of methamphetamines moved north. It moved to Toronto. It moved to Canada because we do not have any regulation or registration of the pill-making machines. 
It seems obvious to me that a proactive government that is interested in solving the problem with this particular type of drug should do what the Americans are doing in this case; that is, institute a procedure to limit and track the amount of ingredients that can be purchased, and require identification and reasons for why these ingredients are being purchased, including the pill-making machines.
 One could argue that, yes, it will probably drive the manufacturing from Toronto to somewhere else, to a jurisdiction or a country that does not regulate the pill-making machines. However, that certainly makes a lot more sense than dealing with the problem after the problem has attacked us.
Fundamentally, the real problem here is the fact that criminal organizations and criminal gangs are the ones that are making the money out of the whole drug scene. Until we can come to grips with that, until we can cut off their money supply, they will never go away. Over the years since the RICO laws in the United States started to apply pressure and crack down on the mob, we have seen a dismantling of many of the mob's infrastructure because of that.
Once again, as usual, Canada seems to be following, almost a generation behind, the United States. We now have similar types of legislation that have worked. 
All we have to do is look at the situation in Quebec and Montreal. The police in Montreal have been very effective in dismantling the biker gangs and thereby getting to the root of the problem. Members of these biker gangs do not even own bikes any more. They do not know how to ride bikes any more. They are upstanding business people, dressed in suits, living in million dollar houses. They stay out of the action and they hire drug dealers to carry the drugs. They hire low level traffickers to sell the drugs. They have lawyers. 
Whenever a low level drug trafficker is caught, they are always in the background. They are always in the shadows. They have their lawyers. They are so organized that there are instances where people go to jail for the gangs. A low level drug person takes the fall, takes the sentence, and goes to jail. The gangs making the money fund the families. They pay for the families to live while the person is in jail. We have to take these gangs apart and take away the money to solve the problem.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member will have about three and a half minutes left when this debate resumes. The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). 
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)