2011-12-02

Government Orders
Hon. Diane Ablonczy:  moved that Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, be read the third time and passed. 
Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the third reading debate on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act. I would also note that being Friday, I am wearing red today in honour of our troops, never forgotten.
This short title, though a mere six words, says so much and is so apt. At its core, it reflects the June 2011 acknowledgement in the Speech from the Throne that the Government of Canada has no more fundamental duty than to protect the personal safety of our citizens and defend against threats to our national security. Our government takes this constitutional duty to protect seriously.
It is apt because it reflects one of the most important issues that I hear about from my constituents and from Canadians across this country. Since becoming a member of Parliament and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I have had the incredible opportunity to meet with Canadians from all walks of life, from coast to coast to coast.
Whether I am meeting with victims, police, representatives from non-governmental organizations or individual concerned citizens, one issue that is always top of mind is personal safety and the desire to have greater confidence in our justice system, better balance between the rights of the accused and convicted, and a recognition of the effect and cost of crime on victims.
Everyone wants their loved ones to be safe in their homes and to feel safe in their communities. Canadians look to us, to the Government of Canada, and indeed to all parliamentarians to demonstrate real leadership in safeguarding them and in taking concrete measures to realize it.
That is a message that I have heard and continue to hear, and indeed that is the message and mandate delivered by Canadians to this government last May. This is what the safe streets and communities act delivers. Its proposed amendments reflect what we hear directly from Canadians, but let us consider what Canadians have said about Bill C-10 to all parliamentarians.
Bill C-10 will provide important new measures to meet unmet needs of victims. Importantly, it will provide victims of terrorism with a cause of action; that is, with the right to sue terrorists and those who support acts of terrorism, including listed foreign states, and to seek redress from them and hold them accountable.
These are historic measures important to victims and to Canadians generally. What have people said about these reforms to support victims of terrorists?
Maureen Basnicki, founder and director of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, who lost her husband in the World Trade Centre tragedy on September 11, 2001, appeared before the justice committee to express her support for these reforms in Bill C-10. On October 25 of this year she said:
 It has now been seven years since CCAT initiated the campaign for the passage of this type of legislation. During this time, no fewer than 10 such bills were introduced in the House of Commons and the Senate, with Bill C-10 being the most recent iteration. CCAT looks forward to the passage of the eleventh and final version of this bill within 100 sitting days, as promised by the government. 
 I am testifying today on behalf of Canadians who are victims of terror and on behalf of Canadians who are not yet victims of terror. I am here because it is a fundamental right of every Canadian, of every person, not to be a victim of a terrorist attack. 
 JVTA speaks precisely to this right. If this bill is effective even once in deterring a terrorist attack, it will have served its role in safeguarding that right. It will have been worth the thousands of hours of effort invested by Canadian terror victims in getting this measure passed. 
The safe streets and communities act also proposes Criminal Code reforms that seek to consistently and adequately condemn all forms of child sexual abuse through the imposition of new and higher mandatory sentences of imprisonment, as well as some higher maximum penalties, and that seek to prevent the commission of child sexual offences.
I can think of no higher calling than to be able to participate in substantive legislative changes that better protect our most precious resource, our Canadian children. 
What have others said about these reforms? Sheldon Kennedy, the co-founder of Respect Group Inc. and himself a survivor of child sexual abuse, said to the justice committee on October 20 of this year: 
 Is there a parent in this country who would have an issue with protecting their children from this predator-- 
He was referring to the offender who sexually assaulted him. He continued:
 --and others like him? Pardons should be eliminated for all child sexual offenders, period...we need to toughen sentencing for child sex offences. They just don't seem in line with the damage they leave in their wake, not even close. 
I would underscore that this is damage that lasts throughout a victim's lifetime. He continued saying that:
 --the fundamental reason for change to these laws is simple: we can't let these perpetrators walk freely among our youth organizations, our schools, our neighbourhoods, and our workplaces. Children need to feel safe, and parents have to trust that the government is playing a role in protecting them. Criminals need to be held accountable and be dealt with consistently with clearly defined consequences. 
He completed his remarks by saying:
 I want to thank this government for standing up for victims and finally taking action. It's about time someone gets tough on criminals. 
Again, from my point of view, how can such a victim's statements not touch all our hearts? Bill C-10 also proposes reforms to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that include imposing mandatory minimum penalties for the most serious drug offences.
Mr. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, which represents over 41,000 front-line police, had this to say on November 1 of this year:
 To be absolutely clear, the CPA entirely supports the goals and methods contained within Bill C-10...Every day our members see the devastating effects drug traffickers and producers have in all of our communities. Those police officers are the ones who constantly have to arrest the same drug dealers and producers over and over again and stop them from poisoning our children and grandchildren and robbing them of their futures. 
 Whether it is by keeping dealers and producers off the streets and out of business or by serving as a deterrent to potential dealers, Bill C-10 will help our members do their jobs and keep our communities safe. In simple terms, if you keep these criminals in jail longer, you take away their opportunity to traffic in drugs. 
Bill C-10 also proposes much needed reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, so that it can deal more effectively with violent and repeat young offenders and ensure the protection of the public. 
The hon. Marie-Claude Blais, the minister of justice and attorney general of New Brunswick, had this to say about these reforms to the justice committee on November 3:
 Without hesitation, we support the efforts to strengthen these laws aimed at protecting the victims of crime, protecting our children and giving a voice to victims. 
 As for changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, our prosecution branch supports the changes and feels that this bill will give the tools required to effectively protect the public. As per the Nunn Commission of Inquiry in Nova Scotia, we feel that this goal of protection of the public is a must. To that point, I think from past experience and speaking with justice partners, there has been an inability to deal adequately with extremely dangerous behaviour. Police and prosecutors require tools to protect the public and this act provides them with those tools. 
I wish to also point out that, as confirmed by many provincial premiers and attorneys general, these are reforms the provinces have asked for from the federal government in our continuing dialogues with our justice partners.
I have taken some time to highlight what others are saying about specific components of Bill C-10, but I want to close with one last quotation about the overall importance of Bill C-10.
The president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Chief Dale McFee, on October 20 said the following, in part:
 Canadians want to know that if they are victims of crime, the perpetrators will be dealt with fairly by the criminal justice system and will face the appropriate consequences for serious criminal acts. When we talk about terrorism, organized crime, serious violent and/or sexual crimes, producing or trafficking controlled substances, and many other criminal acts related to this bill, let me emphasize we are talking serious crime, and this type of activity simply is not acceptable. 
 In dealing with such crimes, we need to extend protection to the most vulnerable members of society, we need to enhance the ability of our justice system to hold criminals accountable for their actions, and we need to improve the safety and security of all Canadians. 
This is what Canadians want, this is what Canadians deserve, and this is exactly what the safe streets and communities act would deliver. We are proud to stand up for the law-abiding public in Canada. We are proud to keep our commitments to victims.
These measures would help to ensure that our justice system remains one of integrity and that the right balance between the rights of the accused and the convicted are measured against the need for offender accountability and giving voice to their victims.
Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I noted that the parliamentary secretary said that this was a very important bill. I wonder, if it is so important, why are we allowing only three hours of debate at third reading. It would seem to me that it deserves far more.
One of my questions pertains to her remarks regarding the section that deals with child sexual assault. We agree, on this side of the House, that it is very important to protect our children. If it is so important to the government, why, when the opposition agreed to separate this part of the bill so it could have speedy passage, did the government refuse, and is now dragging things through the Senate when we could have had this piece of the act in place long ago and protected our children?
[Interjection]
Kerry-Lynne Findlay: Mr. Speaker, there are really two parts to that question.
As I said in my speech, this legislation has had many previous iterations before Parliament. We have had some 363 witnesses appear at 67 committee meetings, and 261 speeches, before today's speeches, on this legislation. This government feels the time to act is now and the time for talking about it is over.
With respect to the issue of child protection, it is true that the opposition supported the offences and the changes in sentencing with respect to child sexual offences. However, it did not support in any way the aspects of the bill dealing with drug trafficking, which was an attempt, among other things, to protect our children. It would target those who would traffic to our children, yet the NDP was content to have much softer accountability for those criminals and not go after organized crime.
 We are not afraid of organized crime. We are not afraid of standing up for our children with respect to drug trafficking as well as child sex offences.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we listen to the parliamentary secretary, we would think that everything is okay. After all, the Conservatives bring in this bill which should have been eight or nine pieces of legislation and then the parliamentary secretary tries to give the impression that there is some sort of consensus of the stakeholders. The reality is that there is nothing close to a consensus from the stakeholders.
We have provinces that are completely offside, that are calling into question this legislation. We have many different stakeholders raising flags and saying that this legislation is fundamentally flawed. We have had the member for Mount Royal make amendments to the legislation, which the government turned down. Then the government recognizes and tries to amend it at third reading and finds out that no, it cannot do it.
Why will the government members not open their minds and recognize that there are fundamental flaws in Bill C-10, and that amendments are necessary? Why will they not recognize the need to send this bill back to committee so it can be properly amended today?
[Interjection]
Kerry-Lynne Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of that question from the hon. member. As I stated earlier, very pieces of legislation that have been before this House have been studied as much as this bill and its components. Yes, it is comprehensive legislation that brings together nine bills, but those have been studied, they have had witness testimony, speeches and committee hearings, as I have already pointed out.
As to dialoguing with our provincial and territorial counterparts, this is an ongoing matter. This is something we do continuously. It is disingenuous of the hon. member to suggest that we are not listening.
The Premier of British Columbia has praised the legislation. The Attorneys General for Saskatchewan and Manitoba have come out in praise of it. I quoted some of what the Attorney General for New Brunswick had to say. Not only that, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan publicly stated, “These are reforms we've been asking for. We've been asking the federal government to take action, and we're glad they have”.
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, every Conservative went door to door across this country from end to the other and said that we would pass the omnibus crime bill within the first 100 sitting days.
I want to know if the member thinks that is an important commitment that our party should keep.
[Interjection]
Kerry-Lynne Findlay: Mr. Speaker, of course it is important to keep our commitments. This is something that not only did this government campaign on in the last election but in several previous elections. We have consistently said that we will stand up for law-abiding Canadians and that we will protect victims. We pledged to do that within the first 100 sitting days and we intend to honour our commitments to those people. 
Members heard in my statements comments from spokespeople for the victims rights groups. They have been waiting for this. They have been struggling for it. They have been advocating for it. 
It is the right balance. We are the only party that is seeking balance.
Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill always makes me think of the late Italian anti-Mafia magistrate Giovanni Falcone. Before he died, he said that there were three kinds of policies: those that work for the Mafia, those that work against the Mafia and—the most dangerous of all—those that let the Mafia be.
There are a lot of measures in Bill C-10, but there are a lot of things missing too. It does not address the serious crime of money laundering. Where are the regulations against money laundering in this bill? Is there special punishment for people who import cocaine in containers? Will police officers be assigned to the fight against serious crime? The bill does not talk about that.
The government is increasing prison sentences for petty criminals, for people who sell drugs. We all agree that criminals must be punished. But we should start by going after organized crime, after the people who commit crimes, who bring in containers and order assassinations. I would like to know this will affect organized crime, when we know that any small-time drug dealer is easily replaced.
[Interjection]
Kerry-Lynne Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. We need to be serious in our approach to organized crime. One of the very important parts of this legislation is that where someone is convicted of drug trafficking and it is proven that he or she is part of organized crime, then minimum mandatory penalties do come into force. There are aggravating factors set out in this legislation where someone is part of organized criminality, or where there are threats of violence or actual violence, or where our children are targeted in their schools and elsewhere. That is where the mandatory minimum penalties come into force.
Is it everything? No, it is not. However, not everything can be in one particular piece of legislation. This is part of an overall program of this government for greater truth in sentencing, to restore confidence in the justice system and to hold those criminals to account. We take the threat of organized crime very seriously and we will continue to move in that direction.
Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are debating this bill for the first time at third reading this morning and the debate will end this afternoon. This is a massive piece of legislation. This is an outrageous display of lack of democracy on the part of the government. Stakeholders right across the country are asking for more input.
The government, however, at the 11th hour is realizing that it should have passed some of the amendments that it rejected in committee and is now trying to stuff them in at the last minute. The government is floundering about trying to get this right and pretending that it has consulted all stakeholders.
The Canadian Bar Association has 10 reasons that Bill C-10 needs to be rejected. One of them is that this is a rush job. We should be much more diligent. We should be doing research and listening to Canadians. Why is the government refusing to listen to Canadians on the issue of Bill C-10?
[Interjection]
Kerry-Lynne Findlay: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing rushed about this whatsoever. This is the fourth time that the drug trafficking proposals have been before Parliament. The component parts of this comprehensive legislation have been studied, debated and discussed. We have gone through clause by clause in committee. As I said earlier, 67 committee days were devoted to this, with over 261 speeches and 363 witness appearances, 50 of whom we just heard from in the last few weeks. There is nothing rushed about it.
However, what we are in a rush to do is stand up for law-abiding Canadians and keep our commitments to victims of crime who feel they are voiceless in the present system and want those who perpetrate crimes to suffer the penalties that are commensurate with the severity of the crimes.
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I rise here today to speak to Bill C-10 feeling optimistic that I could change things. Instead I have the impression that my speech here today is like our swan song to everyone regarding a bill that is full of flaws and will do more harm than good.
Under these circumstances, as my hon. colleague from Davenport said earlier, we are wondering why we are proceeding in such a hurry, with only two and a half hours of debate here today. It is unbelievable that we are at third reading and we have only two and a half hours to debate Bill C-10 and give it the House of Commons' final seal of approval. At 1:30 p.m., it will all be over and this bill will be sent to the Senate.
This week, the government tried to propose some amendments. Amendments are proposed in order to try to improve the bill or make changes to it. I am a member of the justice committee. The four NDP representatives tried incessantly to propose amendments, not to undermine the bill or its objective of making our streets safer, but to ensure that the objective the government keeps talking about would be achieved. Our proposed amendments were based on the information in several reports we received.
However, people need to understand how this bill was studied. Some have said that the committee conducted a thorough study of the bill, but that is false. I want everyone listening to us here today to know that that is false. Yes, perhaps it was studied in the past, but I was not there, nor were many others who were elected on May 2 to represent their constituents. It is true that the government had announced that it would be introducing a crime bill and that it would pass the House of Commons within the first 100 sitting days.
First, as the Barreau du Québec rightfully says, it is an irresponsible promise. Who can guarantee to Canadians that nine such diverse laws will be changed in the first 100 days? For example, we are talking about terrorism victims, the youth criminal justice system, crimes against children, drug trafficking and so on. These things take time.
I thought Parliament worked like this: at first reading the bill is introduced and at second reading we debate it. We are just scratching the surface with a cursory study. Indeed, some already had the benefit of previous studies from previous Parliaments, but these are not necessarily exactly the same bills.
We saw this with the firearms registry. The government introduced a similar bill, but added a few things. This bill is 100 or so pages long and contains 208 clauses to amend nine acts. We cannot just rubber stamp it because the government says so and that is good enough. As legislators, we have a responsibility, especially when it comes to the criminal justice system. This has an impact on the lives of Canadians. This is not just some bill that changes absolutely nothing. It affects people, victims, families and criminals as well. It affects everyone.
I have said from the start that this has been the most insulting debate I have ever had the opportunity to be a part of in my entire career. This has been the most insulting debate here in Parliament, both when I was here from 2004 to 2006 and now. Why? Because if we did not agree with a single clause in this government bill, we were accused of being pro-criminal, pro-pedophile, pro-whatever. In the meantime, we were just trying to make sure the bill did precisely what it was designed to do.
Can I say mission accomplished? No, not with the shortened debate, not when real experts barely had time to speak. I do not consider myself to be an expert on crime. Far from it. My area of expertise is labour law; but, as a lawyer, I have some knowledge of criminal law. Although it was some time ago, I remember the criminal law courses I took at university. I remember the principles on which this country was built and the presumption of innocence and the fact that the punishment must fit the crime. This is how I analyze things. I study the bill and ask myself if these principles are applied.
In addition, there has been a lot of talk about victims. We also heard from some victims, unfortunately not enough of them to my mind. I would have liked to have spoken a little more at length with some victims about their supposed approval, or endorsement, of the Conservatives' bills.
In fact the beauty of the Conservatives' system is that as soon as someone says it is fine, they immediately stop. They believe that saying it is fine means that there is agreement about everything. However, when we talk one-on-one with people and have a discussion, things are different. I can say that I had more discussions with witnesses who came to see us after the committee meetings because they were only given five minutes at the meetings. That is unbelievable. Our role, our responsibility and our duty, as elected officials and committee members from all parties, is to represent the entire population and not just the 39% of the population who voted for the Conservatives and who may not even have done so because of the promise to enact Bill C-10 within the first 100 days.
Our job is to listen to what these people have to say, have discussions with them and encourage them to think through their arguments to see if they hold water. This also applies to the objections of the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association.
I would have liked to further discuss certain subjects but it was impossible because of the time allocated: five minutes. Members were unable to even finish their sentences without being interrupted. It was the same for those who were asking questions. If this is democracy in Canadian Parliament, I would rather not see how things work in countries that we do not think have a democratic system.
This was one of the problems with the process. Many of these victims told us that they did not know much about issues related to terrorism. I therefore understood that they were there only to discuss their right to have a say before a criminal who had served his sentence was released—when he was being considered for parole, for example. We understood that. When we talked with these people about it, there was no problem. Yet since the debate began on Bill C-10, the Conservatives have been saying that if we are not with them, then we are against them. That is not the way to move the debate forward. 
What must happen will happen. The official opposition proposed a ton of amendments, which were rejected. We even had to fight like the devil for hours and hours just to have the right to propose amendments and to be able to debate for a reasonable period of time. I grew up thinking that I lived in a democratic country, a country that was not afraid of discussion and debate, where people could have differing viewpoints. Thank you dear Lord for granting us two days until midnight to do the work that was given to us and that should have allowed us to return to the House of Commons and tell our 308 fellow members of Parliament that we thought the bill could now be passed.
There is a third step called third reading. That is where we are right now. What does the government do once again for a 109-page bill that has 208 clauses and modifies nine fundamental laws that have nothing to do with each other? It allows us two and a half hours of debate.
That is laughable. I do not want to be a prophet of doom. I want to tell those watching at home that the government is claiming that Canada will be safer once this bill passes. Once the House has finished studying this bill, it will go to the Senate and there will be press conferences. I almost feel like a psychic with a crystal ball, since I can predict that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety will go from police station to police station and will use people who have experienced unspeakable things and people who work tirelessly to make our country safer—I am talking about police officers—to claim that this stack of paper will have a positive impact on their lives.
Yesterday, I read a report that said that 94% of Canadians felt safe in Canada. The Conservatives make it sound as though there is a terrorist or a child rapist around every corner. I am not saying that terrorists or child rapists should not get what they deserve and I am not saying that we should not be cautious. But the government needs to stop sounding the alarm and making people believe something that is untrue and that is not based on any facts.
What we ultimately want is to ensure that the Canadian public feels safe and that criminals are punished for what they have done, based on the nature of the offence and the facts in their case. When I read stories in the newspapers and see that someone spent 20 years in prison only to be declared innocent, I feel rather cheap as a lawmaker and I feel that someone did not do their job. We are trying as much as possible to avoid situations like that.
After talking to one victim, I can say that there is absolutely nothing we can do, as lawmakers, to make up for what victims have been through or what they are going through. Money will never make up for what happened. Yesterday I met with people who work with victims of sexual assault. They say that governments must be more open, to ensure that victims of sexual assault are taken care of quickly, that they are believed and that they are not put on the spot and told that they may have been responsible for the assault.
If we could find a way to ensure that they are supported, to help them recover from their experience, perhaps they would feel a little better. If one was to go and see any victim of crime and tell them the government wants to be tougher on criminals, if one was to say that to any Canadian, myself included, I have no doubt that people would say they want these criminals to receive harsher sentences. As one expert told us—in the mere five minutes he was given in committee—sooner or later, these people will get out of prison. But how will they get out?
That is my concern, and I am no bleeding heart or anything. Once they are locked up in prison, can I simply turn my back and assume that their fate is sealed, that this menace, this dangerous individual, is no longer roaming the streets of my community? Prison guards, whom we did not even have time to hear from in committee, have told me that they are stuck with these people. The guards asked me what we are going to do for them, because they are afraid of working in prisons that are overpopulated. What are we supposed to do with that? The government does not care. The government says there is no need to worry about it, that is not the priority, that is not our concern. One day, if they fear a big headline in the National Post, maybe then the Conservatives will listen and do something about it. Maybe something tragic has to happen for them to act. The Toronto Star  is on our side, but perhaps not entirely. 
That being said, when we look at all this, there is no way that the bill has been completely thought out without any mistakes. Even the government acknowledges that. When we talk to the victims and we tell them that the offender might eventually be released, we take care of them and provide them with therapy. There are probation officers. We know how the system works because people are released from prison. 
I do not know whether hon. members in this House know it, but there is now a section in which the word “pardon” will no longer be used. In Canada, we do not give pardons. If a person is guilty, they are guilty for life. It is true that getting pardon is a privilege.
During a committee meeting, the parliamentary secretary said that if a person commits an offence and is released, if he is given a pardon, then it is in fact society that is giving him a chance. Today, the government wants to suspend this chance for a pardon. It also wants to eliminate measures that told the person we were really going to give him a chance, but if he tripped up again, he would be sent back before the judge. These rules already exist. This bill is not inventing anything new. It is simply a mean-spirited way of telling someone that we are going to stamp his forehead because we want everyone to know that he made a mistake and he will have to live with it for the rest of his life.
It is important to note that 96% of people who are pardoned become and remain good citizens. You just have to talk to people, particularly young people. When I was with the law faculty, some of my colleagues had problems becoming a member of the bar because they had made youthful mistakes. If a person has a prior criminal conviction, he cannot become a member of the bar. Often, people do not even think to request a pardon and do not realize that they can until the last minute. Now, the government is making it more difficult to request a pardon, even in the case of summary convictions.
The government will say that we are thinking too much about criminals, but that is not the issue. We have to achieve a balance. The parliamentary secretary was saying that the Conservatives are the only ones who have a balanced approach, who are logical and who are there for everyone. That is untrue. Everyone agrees that the bill is dangerous because it has so many shortcomings. Why? I am not the one who said this but, according to experts, the people who get out of prison will be more hardened criminals. We have witnessed this. The Americans are now doing the opposite of what we are doing. So there is a problem.
Sometimes, I cannot understand how politicians think. When something goes wrong, they do not do anything about it, and when something goes right, they try to cause trouble to the point where things could go wrong but then they do not do anything about it.
Yesterday, I watched the Minister of Justice's press conference. It took eight months to implement two bills that had already been passed. The Conservatives are tough on crime when it suits them and when they want to send a certain message, but forget about logic and consistency. The official opposition has absolutely no lessons to learn from this government, which is completely illogical. The government is so illogical that, in committee, when it was time to propose amendments and do some serious work, the Conservatives did not want to admit, even for a fraction of a second, that there might be problems with their bill. Proposing amendments would be a little like admitting that errors had been made. They tried to do it quietly just before the vote on the final report. They were embarrassed about it.
I am eager to see if they will give some instructions to our friends in the Senate. If this bill returns without amendments, it will mean that adopting a flawed bill within 100 days is more imperative and important than the merits of the bill. This bill will bring shame to the Conservatives.
I carefully read the 208 clauses of the bill and I found absolutely nothing that really helps the victims. It is one thing to go on the road and give the impression of being tough on crime to please victims. Other than sitting down with and talking to people before offenders are released, I can tell you that there is very little that could make the victims feel that they are being looked after.
The Criminal Code is not a tool for taking care of victims. To take care of them, we must try to make them feel less like victims. We have to ensure that the offences are clearly defined. No one is claiming the opposite. All the clauses on terrorism are just smoke and mirrors. No victim will be able to obtain a dime from the countries on the terrorist list. 
These are discretionary lists that change depending on our diplomatic alliances. So much for that. I will now answer questions and ask further questions during the next 10 minutes.
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech. It is very clear that she is opposed to Bill C-10. She talked about statistics, but I wonder if she has seen a poll from Leger Marketing, which was published in recent weeks. This poll shows that nearly 80% of Quebeckers are in favour of a more repressive justice system. Another poll released yesterday shows that one out of two Quebeckers in major cities does not feel safe.
The hon. member was honest. She admitted that, even though she is a lawyer, she is not an expert in criminal law. I would ask her to comment on what Marc Bellemare, Quebec's former justice minister and attorney general, and a criminal law expert, had to say. I quote:
 Everyone agrees with rehabilitation. But first, do we have the right to provide better protection for victims and children? It is time to do that. The polls show that four out of five Quebeckers want our justice system to be stricter. I agree 100%. 
That is an argument in favour of Bill C-10. He absolutely agrees with these measures.
He also spoke about Quebec values and said:
 Minister Fournier did not speak for all Quebeckers in Ottawa. I think this bill is in line with Quebec's values. 

[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. As regards the Léger Marketing poll, it confirms precisely what I was saying. If I were asked whether I want authorities to be tougher on crime, I would obviously say yes. However, I want to mention to the hon. parliamentary secretary that another poll was also conducted, specifically on Bill C-10. It shows that Quebeckers, that people from my province, do not support at all the Conservative government's approach. 
So, which of these polls is the most relevant to today's issue? I would say it is the one on Bill C-10, which shows that this approach, this way of making our streets safer, is not what Quebeckers want.
As regards certain aspects of the bill, it is clear—as was pointed out by an hon. member when she put her question to the first speaker on Bill C-10—that the Conservative government had the consent of the House regarding crimes against children and pedophilia. It could have removed these provisions from Bill C-10 and we would then have had more time to deal with other bills. 
As for the hon. Marc Bellemare, he expressed an opinion. One should understand that Marc Bellemare dealt primarily with victims of traffic accidents. I take his comments as another opinion, like all the others, and I will examine it accordingly. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, under the category of hard to believe but true, I want members to imagine this. 
The member for Mount Royal proposed amendments to the justice for victims of terrorism act. Using their majority, the Conservatives decided not to support the amendments. After the bill went through committee and into report stage, the government used the very same amendments but labelled them Conservative amendments. They messed up, of course, because they could not bring the amendments forward at report stage. They have admitted that the bill itself has flaws. Because of their incompetence and inability to recognize the positive contributions from the Liberal Party through the member for Mount Royal, those amendments were not added to the bill.
Does that make any sense to the member?
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Of course the short answer would be no, Mr. Speaker, but my answers are rarely short. 
It goes without saying that this does not make any sense, and I said it earlier. In my opinion, it is going to be important to see if the Senate does the job that it should do when it deals with Bill C-10, particularly since the Minister of Public Safety himself now recognizes what we all knew, namely that there is a problem, including with certain clauses on terrorism. We think there are problems with many other clauses in this bill.
The government even claims to have listened to Quebec with the three amendments proposed by Quebec's Minister of Justice. The government accepted a cosmetic change whereby the word “promote” is replaced with “improve”. This is totally ridiculous, because the notion of long-term protection of the public, which was the basic objective for Quebeckers, was excluded. It will probably resurface some day.
Now, the Minister of Public Safety is trying to amend Bill C-10 through the back door. He did not want to do it directly in front of opposition members, because he did not want to admit that his bill is flawed. Now, we are going to see if the Senate can be useful. However, as I said earlier, I doubt it. It will send us back the legislation without any changes, because the government is intent on passing it within the first 100 days of this Parliament.
Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on all the good, sound arguments she made regarding this bill.
I wonder if she could tell us why such an important bill is not being given the time needed—an acceptable amount of time—in order to debate it more thoroughly.
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. That is definitely the question we will be asking all day, since it is such a huge bill, with 208 clauses.
The only conclusion I can draw is that the Conservative government is afraid of debating its ideas. Why? Because its argument is very weak and is not supported by any studies. The Minister of Justice told us himself that these are his own personal observations, because there is very little left of any studies. The government spoke at length about the study conducted by Justice Nunn, who appeared himself and contradicted the Conservatives, saying that he agreed with only part of the bill. That is the problem. Everyone agrees with small sections of the bill. However, if I say I agree with one small section, they must not quote me and say that the member for Gatineau supports Bill C-10. 
That is the problem. They are truly afraid of having a real debate. Yet they have a majority. They have no reason to fear that Bill C-10 will not pass. If they were serious legislators, they would have taken the time needed. We have heard this from the Quebec justice minister, the Quebec bar and the Canadian Bar Association. Incidentally, those two associations are not made up of only criminal defence attorneys, as we have heard said in this House. They include lawyers who specialize in all areas of the law. Only a small percentage practice criminal law.
I must say, the Conservatives are laying it on a little thick when they say that if we do not support them, then we must support the criminals. No one here is siding with the criminals.
Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague from Gatineau has to say about one point.
What impressed me in the six-inch-thick document is the number of things it forgets about. It forgets about people like prison guards. I have met some of them. If an inmate spits in their face, they have to fill out a report and get treatment for six months in case they have contracted AIDS or hepatitis B. The inmate who committed the offence is transferred to another section, which is what they wanted. This is used as a weapon for extortion.
I wonder how many things like this have been forgotten about. But this bill should protect honest people, peace officers and prison guards. Not only is it full of errors, but it is also full of omissions. This is a bill I would rather see put into the shredder than into the presses of the Canada Gazette.
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that in my speech. These are people we should have talked to. A lot of work has been done outside working hours, because there was not a lot of time to examine this bill in committee and at first reading. Nonetheless, we were contacted by a number of people who wanted to be heard on Bill C-10. It is unfortunate that we could not hear them. Prison guards, for example, have major concerns about Bill C-10 and their working conditions in detention centres. The ministers of justice from various provinces may agree with some aspects of the bill, but they do not agree with the costs involved in building prisons.
 These prisons have not been built yet, but we know the speed with which these things get built in Canada, except in the riding of the President of the Treasury Board. In the rest of the country, construction is rather slow. That means that the prison guards we now have will be the ones having to deal with overpopulation problems, not to mention prisons for women, where there are even greater problems. There are major concerns. About 100 omissions like these have been identified, because nearly 100 amendments were proposed and were automatically rejected.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: I must interrupt the hon. member because it is now time for statements by members.

Statements By Members
Mayor of QuesnelMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to a wonderful lady in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. Mary Sjostrom is the newly elected mayor of the great city of Quesnel, B.C. 
Mary has been an amazing supporter of her hometown, having been active in business, community organizations, civic politics and just about everything else we can think of to make Quesnel, B.C. a city with an awesome community spirit and a great place to live. It has been my pleasure to know Mayor Mary for many years and to work with her over the last few years. She carries out her civic leadership roles with class, determination and a complete dedication to the people of Quesnel.
I congratulate Mary and look forward once again to working with her as she continues in her leadership role as mayor. I thank Mary for her friendship.
Quebec City Public TransitMs. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in November, the City of Quebec released the final report of the working group on sustainable mobility. Extensive consultation was done on this plan, which is an initiative to make public transit more efficient in the context of a long-term vision of sustainable development for generations to come.
Quebec City is proving that it is sensitive to the needs of families and people with lower incomes who, as the cost of gasoline rises, will be able to benefit from a more efficient and accessible public transit system.
I commend Quebec City's spirit of innovation and leadership in this plan for sustainable mobility. This initiative goes hand in hand with the NDP proposal that Canada create a national transit strategy.
I want to take this opportunity to assure my constituents and Mayor Régis Labeaume that they have my support for this forward-looking project. I wholeheartedly invite the Conservative government to support our municipalities and take part in this project.
Violence against WomenMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery, which represents the global effort to eradicate contemporary forms of slavery, such as trafficking in persons, sexual exploitation, the worst forms of child labour, forced marriage and child soldiers. Tragically, women and girls make up the majority of these victims, even here in Canada. 
The Government of Canada is deeply committed to addressing the problem of violence against women and girls in Canada and abroad. Our government will mark December 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, by encouraging all Canadians to raise awareness about gender violence and taking action to invest in projects that combat violence and abuse against women.
May we all remain steadfast in our determination and action to end violence against women and girls in all of its forms.
Human RightsHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week I participated as a Canadian member of the parliamentary delegation in the annual parliamentary hearing at the United Nations. 
In the session on political accountability, including that of the United Nations itself, I called upon the UN Security Council to invoke its responsibility to protect doctrine to protect against murder, brutality and torture, including the torture of children and hospital patients, forced disappearances and the like in Syria. I called on it to heed the calls of the Arab League for the protection of Syrian civilians, which the Syrian government responded to with more murder and which has since been sanctioned by the Arab League.
In the second session on youth participation, particularly in the Arab Spring, I called upon the United Nations to help secure the immediate release of a young Egyptian blogger, Maikel Nabil, one of the early voices of the Egyptian Arab Spring, who then became the first political prisoner in the post-Mubarak era. Today as we meet, he languishes in prison on the 102nd day of a hunger strike for seeking to do that which the Arab Spring was hoping for. He has emerged as a symbol of the hope yet betrayal of the Arab Spring.
Shipbuilding IndustryMr. Andrew Saxton (North Vancouver, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the immense contribution that our government recently made to the future of my city, my province and our country.
After a fair, transparent and competitive process, the shipbuilding secretariat announced an $8 billion contract to North Vancouver's Seaspan Marine Corporation. This announcement was met with jubilation across British Columbia. I applaud our government for its success in implementing a fair and transparent arm's length process.
As we have heard, this decision has been great news for Canadians, for British Columbians and for Vancouverites. By some estimates, our national shipbuilding procurement strategy will create 15,000 good jobs over the next 30 years, revitalizing our Canadian shipbuilding industry. 
While the parties in opposition have no plan for growing our economy and creating jobs, our government supports job growth. We are delivering on our promise to create good jobs in high tech industries across Canada and provide much needed ships for the Canadian navy and Coast Guard.
I join the people of North Vancouver in congratulating Vancouver's Seaspan Marine Corporation on its successful bid.
Entrepreneurial Excellence in the OutaouaisFrançoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of recognizing entrepreneurial excellence in the Outaouais, particularly in my riding of Gatineau. On November 24, at the Canadian Tourism Awards gala, the Buffet des Continents was awarded this year's Community Service Award for its outstanding contribution to the community. 
At the Gatineau Chamber of Commerce gala held on November 26, the following businesses and individuals were recognized for their excellence, innovation and vision: Sporthèque de Hull; PXL MEDIA; Storeimage; Rochef Chocolatier; Patry, Poulin, Trahan &amp; Associés Inc.; Pedayoga; Impression Charles; the Laiterie de l'Outaouais revitalization committee; Eugène Tassé—the most valuable entrepreneur; and Jean Vaillancourt, Rector of the Université du Québec en Outaouais. The Buffet des Continents was honoured once again. Jean-Claude DesRosiers was honoured as person of the year.
Speaking for myself and for the NDP caucus, I wish the dynamic entrepreneurs of Gatineau and the Outaouais much success and prosperity. The New Democratic Party is a proud partner of our business community and will continue to support its development.
Natural ResourcesMr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Keystone pipeline will create tens of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars in economic growth in the United States and in Canada.
This project is the largest shovel-ready project in the United States. It is state of the art and environmentally sound. It is time to deliver Canadian oil to other markets around the world. The northern gateway pipeline to the west coast, is a stable, secure and ethical pipeline to deliver energy to the world from the most socially progressive and environmentally sound oil producers in the world.
 I thank and salute Suncor, Syncrude, Albian Sands, Nexen, and Canadian Natural Resources Limited.
We are a trading nation in a global economy. We need to seize these opportunities to create more jobs and a better quality of life for all Canadians.
Violence against WomenMr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada and the world are marking the 16 days of activism against gender violence.
We know that women and girls are more likely than men to experience violence and assault in intimate and family relationships. Over 80% of sexual assault victims are women or girls. Dating violence is a growing problem.
Education and awareness are critical tools. Women and girls should always be aware of their surroundings and be prepared to call for help from families, friends or other support options in the community. They should know about their personal rights and their personal boundaries. This campaign is also an important time to remind men and boys of their role in the solution.
During these 16 days of activism, we can each do our part in preventing violence against women and girls in all its forms.
International Day of Persons with DisabilitiesManon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and we have much to celebrate. Canada is a more accessible, more inclusive and fairer country than ever before; however, there is still a lot of work to be done. Women with disabilities often have a low level of education and live in low-income households.
Even more worrisome, 40% of women with disabilities have been the victims of violence. As we mark the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, I invite all the members of the House of Commons to recognize the violence committed against people with disabilities and to support groups such as the Disabled Women's Network and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities in order to combat exclusion and poverty among people with disabilities and keep them safe from violence.
Persons with DisabilitiesMs. Kellie Leitch (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to celebrate the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.
In March 2007, Canada was one of the first countries to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In March 2010, we ratified this convention.
We continue to promote the full inclusion and participation of Canadians with disabilities in all aspects of society and community life.
It was our government that created the historic registered disability savings plan. There are currently over 48,000 savings plans that are assisting in the long-term financial security of children with disabilities. This is not to mention the improvements to the Canada disability savings grant and the Canada disability savings bond from which many of my patients have benefited.
In budget 2010, we extended the enabling accessibility fund by $45 million over three years, a program that has already implemented over 600 projects.
In addition, we have invested in helping individuals find jobs through the opportunities fund and the labour market agreements for people with disabilities, helping over 300,000 people a year.
We are creating a stronger Canada by investing in the full participation of all Canadians.
Pays-d'en-Haut Food BankMarc-André Morin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to members of the Pays-d'en-Haut food bank. Every year, this organization ensures that everyone will have a Christmas dinner. This is an old Quebec tradition. A group of volunteers used to go out with a big sled, collect food from people who had a little to offer and then hand it out to those who had nothing. They were able to ensure that everyone had a Christmas dinner. These days, people work very hard to uphold these traditions, because food is very important. If no one made sure that everyone had enough to eat, we would all be in trouble. 
La FrancophonieMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for La Francophonie is currently attending the 27th ministerial conference of la Francophonie in Paris. Our Conservative government cares about la Francophonie and promoting the French language, and our actions speak for themselves.
At the conference, the minister reiterated Canada's priorities, namely, the importance of continuing our efforts to modernize the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, to promote freedom of religion, democracy and human rights, and to examine different ways we can use la Francophonie as an economic lever for its member states.
I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his participation at this important ministerial conference and on his ability to demonstrate Canada's leadership within la Francophonie.
Status of WomenMr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next week we will recognize one of the most tragic events in Canadian history. On December 6, 1989, out of the blue, while ordinary women were going about their day at École Polytechnique, 14 lives were tragically ended. One can only imagine what these young women would have accomplished if this tragedy had not occurred. 
The struggle for women and for equality continues today. Each day, hundreds of thousands of women continue to fight for equal pay, safety from violence and equal representation.
In my province of Prince Edward Island, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, led by Lisa Murphy and Diane Kays, has been very successful with its purple ribbon campaign. This year, the P.E.I. purple ribbon campaign has focused on access to justice for families and more options for women and children who face violence in their homes.
Without equal access to justice, the very rights put in place to protect them cannot be enforced and reinforces unequal power. The work the Advisory Council on the Status of Women does in Prince Edward Island and across Canada is invaluable. I applaud it for that work.
Natural ResourcesMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the ineffective NDP is again promoting its ongoing anti-Canada job-killing policies. The NDP's associate natural resources critic for western Canada is attacking projects that will expand Canadian export markets to Asia and create jobs in western Canada.
First a leadership candidate called for a moratorium on oil sands development and the jobs it creates. Then two of his colleagues ran down to Washington to attack good-paying Canadian jobs. Now the member for Burnaby—Douglas feels the need to get in on the act.
Let me be clear: the Canadian regulatory process is very thorough. Consultations and discussions over the northern gateway pipeline have been going on with aboriginal groups and others since 2008.
Natural resources projects like these ones in B.C. create jobs and opportunities for all Canadians, including aboriginals and residents in isolated areas.
We have been clear: Canada needs to open export markets outside the United States and into Asia in particular. Undermining the economy and attacking Canadian jobs demonstrate once again that the ineffective, divided, incompetent NDP--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Davenport.
Search and RescueAndrew Cash: Mr. Speaker, the men and women of the Canadian Forces take pride in their search and rescue operations. All Canadians have respect and admiration for the SAR technicians who put their lives on the line to rescue others. What Canadians do not like, and what lowers the morale of our troops, is when ministers use these precious assets as taxis.
On September 26, the Minister of National Defence told the House, “I took part in a previously planned search and rescue demonstration”. However, the documents from the Department of National Defence show this was not true. There was no previously planned exercise. The Minister of National Defence, at his own request, was picked up in a basket and taken to a waiting Challenger jet.
The minister's excuse was nothing more than “a guise”.
The minister and the Conservatives came here to change Ottawa; instead, Ottawa changed them. 
By using Challenger jets and SAR helicopters as personal limos, they have become everything they used to oppose.
Chinese Canadian CommunityMs. Wai Young (Vancouver South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Chinese media are reporting that a group called the Animal Liberation Front of Canada has sent a threatening letter to Chinese Canadian restaurants. In the letter, this group threatens to poison all Chinese restaurants and uses several racist and extremely offensive words in describing Canadians of Chinese origin.
The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism will be dining in a Chinese restaurant in Toronto's Chinatown this weekend. He will be there to support Canadian businesses and Chinese culture. He will also be there to stand with our Chinese community to stand up against eco-terrorism.
Canadians of Chinese origin contribute a great deal to our country and to our economy. Our government condemns these letters and threats. I want to say to our constituents of Chinese origin that our government is with them as they stand up to fight these extremists and eco-terrorists.

Oral Questions
EmploymentMr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate is on the rise again. For the second month in a row on the Conservatives' watch, Canada has lost jobs. Some 19,000 jobs were lost in November.
Will the government finally accept the fact that its inaction plan is not working?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while we saw full-time job gains in November, we are of course disappointed that the overall job figures show, because of part-time job losses, a drop in employment of some 19,000. We do sympathize with all Canadians who have lost their jobs. 
That said, after we emerged from the recession, we have still seen significant increases in jobs in Canada since the economic downturn took hold. That is in very stark contrast to most of our companion developed economies. That is actually evidence that our economic action plan is working.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, the continuing cost to our economy of this high level of unemployment is in the billions. It is unsustainable, yet the Conservatives stubbornly want to give even more money to non-performing corporations. 
There are 1.4 million people unemployed in Canada, and 19,000 jobs were lost in November. When will the Conservatives stop applauding the loss of jobs?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we are working to implement our low-tax plan for jobs and growth, which is aimed at delivering jobs and opportunities for Canadians.
We recently had votes in this House on the next phase of that economic action plan, seeking to deliver things like a job creation tax credit. That member voted against that job creation tax credit. He is the one who does not care about creating jobs.
We took action by extending the accelerated capital cost allowance that allows Canadian companies to invest in equipment to make them more competitive, to allow them to continue to function, to create jobs, to do better on the world stage, to be able to export more. Again, the NDP voted against that effort to make our workers more competitive. 
We are the ones focused on creating jobs. That is why Canada is healthy.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that the Conservatives' economic inaction plan is hurting Quebec the most. In Quebec, 31,000 jobs have been lost, half of which were full time.
Are the Conservatives going to stop pretending that everything is just fine? People are suffering. There is no cause for celebration.
Will the government adjust its focus and come up with a real job creation plan?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers understand that the global economy is currently facing major challenges. Fortunately, Canada has an economic action plan that has created more than half a million jobs since the end of the depression. That is the success of our economic action plan. We intend to focus on the economy and job creation.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for the last year and a half, first nation chiefs have been asking to meet with the Prime Minister and discuss the housing crisis on first nation reserves. After years of government inaction, it tragically took this crisis in Attawapiskat for him to finally take up the invitation. More than just talk is needed.
Is the government finally prepared to work with first nations and take real action to solve this crisis?
Mr. Greg Rickford (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government works with first nations to deliver real results for their priorities. We have invested heavily in first nation schools, including in Attawapiskat, and in water and waste water infrastructure, health and housing, and we have done this all in full partnership with first nations. 
We have a plan. We will continue to invest in practical solutions and real results.
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden, the Conservatives are waking up and blaming everyone but themselves.
Federal public servants went to Attawapiskat not once, not twice, not three times, but 10 times in the past year. They must have submitted reports on the situation. Has there been any follow-up to these visits or is the department in the habit of leaving reports on shelves to gather dust rather than taking action as required?
Is the conclusion here that the government is completely indifferent to the living conditions of aboriginal people?
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, our first priority is to get residents into warm, dry and safe shelter. Each time we received a request from the community, we took immediate action. Our officials have been working with the community to address substantial renovation for immediate housing needs, and we continue to support implementing their emergency management plan. 
At the same time, we will be working with the third party manager to ensure that federal funding directly benefits community members and that the community's long-term needs will be met.
Search and RescueHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, documentary evidence confirms that the Minister of National Defence is having some trouble with the truth. Military officers say the story about showcasing search and rescue helicopters is “a guise” to hide a minister wrongfully commandeering defence equipment for his own personal use. The definition of “guise” is “pretence, make-believe”, and this one cost tens of thousands of dollars.
When first nations children are living in desperate conditions at Attawapiskat, why does the government defend such waste and dishonesty?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has already answered these questions. There are really no new facts here. The fundamental facts remain the same. The Minister of National Defence paid for air travel to and from his personal vacation; government aircraft were used only when he was called away on government business. 
Our government has reduced average annual spending on ministers' Challenger flights by some 80% compared with the previous Liberal government. It was not that difficult, because that hon. member used to use the Challenger every weekend as his personal taxi to get home.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, David Orchard would recognize what is going on here, as do the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces, and they have blown the whistle. 
Search and rescue equipment was misused. It took not one trip, but a reconnaissance mission too. It cost $32,000 per hour. The chopper could not land. The minister had to be hoisted aboard in a basket, and all the while quick, inexpensive alternatives were available by land and boat. 
Before this guise gets any worse, why will the government not simply accept the honesty of Colonel Ploughman and apologize?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, as I said, none of the facts here have changed. The Minister of National Defence paid for the travel to and from his own personal vacation. Government aircraft were only used when he was called away on government business. 
Without any facts and without any changes, I know the hon. member can make a great deal of noise. I know he knows a lot about the use of government aircraft from his own personal experience. Our practices are very different from those of his government.
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not what the emails say.
Under the pretext of participating in a search and rescue mission, the Minister of National Defence hailed a flying taxi at a cost of $32,000 an hour.
A rescue helicopter is like a fire truck or an ambulance. The Department of National Defence is not a Toys "R" Us. The minister does not seem to understand that this is serious.
Why does he have such contempt for the Canadian Forces?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has already answered all these questions.There are no new facts here. The Minister of National Defence paid for the travel to and from his personal vacation. Government aircraft were used only when he was called away on government business. 
EmploymentMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, another 19,000 jobs were lost last month because of the government's inaction. For the second month in a row, job losses continue to mount for Canadian families. Our jobless rate is at its highest point in five months. 
Canadians do not want excuses, they want action. Will the government sleepwalk into another crisis as it did in 2008, or will it act right now to create jobs?
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we said previously, we do sympathize with all the jobs that have been lost. While November's full-time job gains and Canada's recent third-quarter growth indicate that we are encouraged, we need to do more to ensure we will not face the same challenges that Europe and the United States face. That is why we must stick with the plan we have, which is the economic action plan that is a pro-job creation plan.
What we cannot afford is to raise taxes and kill more jobs, which will damage families. I am sorry but the plan by the NDP is leaving me speechless—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, approximately 19,000 jobs were lost in Canada last month. This is the third drop in four months. Clearly, this government wants to take all the credit when jobs are created, but it refuses to take responsibility when jobs are lost. The unemployment rate, which was less than 6% in 2007, has now climbed to 7.4%, the highest it has been in five months. These figures are still more sad evidence that the labour market is in crisis.
What is this government waiting for to help Canadian families who lose their livelihoods find other employment more quickly and easily? What is this government's plan to create jobs?
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think I had better take over from my speechless colleague.
 November's full-time job gains and Canada's recent third-quarter results were very encouraging. We do sympathize with those Canadians who have lost their jobs recently. It is important to note that while almost 600,000 net new jobs have been created since July 2009 and the OECD has confirmed that we will have the strongest economic growth in the G7 over the next few years, Canada is not immune to global economic turbulence from outside our borders. As we have said all along, the global recovery is fragile and we continue to have our economic action plan in place.
Minister of National DefenceMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Minister of National Defence said, his limo ride on a search and rescue helicopter was not a demonstration. The military says that it only did it at the minister's request. He was lifted from his friend's fishing lodge in a basket. Our troops crossed their fingers and hoped the helicopter would not be needed to respond to an actual emergency.
Either the Minister of National Defence is saying that the military is lying or he is misleading this House. Which is it?
Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times, the Minister of National Defence left personal time to return to work early. The Minister of National Defence paid for his air travel to and from his personal vacation and used government aircraft only when called away on government business.
 The policy for the Prime Minister and ministers requires that commercial travel be utilized for public business, with government aircraft being used when commercial travel is not available or is not compatible with security requirements. 
Our government has reduced average annual spending on ministers' Challenger flights by over 80% compared to the previous Liberal government.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence can go ahead and keep saying the same thing, but when he is contradicted by other reports he will have to change his talking points.
We now know that he was collected from an isolated fishing lodge in Newfoundland under the pretext of an imaginary rescue operation. We could say that the minister's story is nautical miles from reality.
Will he admit his mistake and apologize for using a Canadian Forces search and rescue helicopter for personal reasons?
Julian Fantino: Mr. Speaker, this is all about piling it on. All of these issues have already been addressed many times by the Minister of National Defence. There is no point in repeating the same response which is that he used the aircraft while on vacation to fulfill requirements to do with his job. How much more does the member need to know than what has already been said?
National DefenceMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, all reasonable people agree that the F-35 program is a fiasco. Today it was vice admiral David Venlet, the Pentagon's man in charge of the F-35s, who said that the ballooning costs of the program “sucks the wind out of your lungs”. He then said that the F-35s are riddled with flaws.
Why is the Minister of National Defence isolating Canada from its allies with his blind support of a failed program? Why will he not put the contract to tender?
Julian Fantino: Mr. Speaker, our government is always monitoring our involvement in the joint fighter strike program. In any event, we are doing that very closely. As of now, the F-35 program is on track.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, although the minister is stubbornly defending the F-35 program, a new problem was discovered this week.
We learned today that production of the F-35 aircraft will be delayed because cracks were discovered during testing. These new problems will again increase costs significantly. The F-35 program is experiencing one problem after another.
When will the minister cancel this costly program that is doomed to failure and opt for an open and transparent bidding process?
Julian Fantino: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. member opposite is reading too many headlines, and many of them are her own.
In any event, our program remains on track. We are monitoring the progress very closely, as are our partner nations.
The EnvironmentMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this government's failure to act in the fight against climate change is being criticized as far away as Africa.
A former minister in the Mandela government, Jay Naidoo, said he no longer recognizes Canada and described the Conservative government's actions as a betrayal towards Africa.
The unrestricted development of the oil sands will have repercussions on the entire planet.
Does this government realize that the green economy is the way of the future and will it do its fair share within the international community?
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that on this side of the House we refer to that great Canadian resource as the oil sands.
Canada will participate in Durban in the same good faith that we have demonstrated at all of the pre-conference meetings throughout this year.
As my colleague should know, Canada is working toward a single new international climate change regime that will include commitments by all major emitters. The Cancun agreements building on Copenhagen provide a solid foundation for exactly that.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, Canada's reputation continues to take a beating thanks to the government's inaction on the environment. Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said that Canada's fossil of the day award came from the uninformed and was ideologically driven.
While we already know that the government does not listen to scientists nor environmentalists, now even China is shaking its head at us.
Canada's blocking progress at the Durban conference. If the government is so serious about creating jobs, why has it turned its back on the new green energy economy?
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that this government is proud of the abundance of natural resources with which Canada has been blessed. We are equally proud of the responsible and sustainable way that we exploit those resources for the benefit of Canada and for the benefit of many developing countries and countries that are vulnerable to climate change and require adaptation.
We are also proud of our commitment to the Copenhagen accord and the Cancun agreements, and we are working to meet our 2020 greenhouse gas target reductions.
Government FundingMr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we all stood in the House to recognize World AIDS Day and renew our pledge to beat this disease.
World AIDS Day has come and gone, but the work is not done. For the first time ever, the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria had to cancel its annual funding round because donors like Canada are reneging on their commitments. Despite its promise, the government has yet to transfer even one penny to the fund.
 When will the government make good on its commitment and support the global fund?
Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is very proud to be one of the largest contributors to the global fund. Our contributions are on track and we will fulfill our commitments.
Our contributions are making a difference. For example, the rate of TB infections is down for the first time in decades, more mothers and children are getting access to malaria drugs, and 3.2 million people are getting treatment for AIDS.
When this government makes a commitment, we live up to it.
Aboriginal AffairsKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, under the guise of savings, the Prime Minister killed the Kelowna accord. That agreement had widespread support that dealt with aboriginal issues. Now they are blaming the community. Attawapiskat is being blamed for the government's killing of the Kelowna accord.
Will the government now acknowledge that Canada is facing a first nations aboriginal housing crisis, and what is it prepared to do about it?
Greg Rickford:  Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that we are doing a lot more than the Kelowna accord could ever have hoped to achieved. 
I know, because I was living in those first nations communities throughout the nineties. The members opposite do not have a record on this matter.
Our government works with first nations to deliver real results for their priorities. We have invested heavily in first nations schools, water and waste water infrastructure, health and housing. We did this all in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations and other first nations communities and their leadership.
We have a plan and we will continue to invest in practical solutions with real results.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, under the guise of the government taking action, words are all we hear. 
The Conservatives have had six years. They killed the Kelowna accord. There are children who do not even have running water. In the province of Manitoba there is a need for thousands and thousands of additional housing units.
The government has failed our aboriginal people. It has failed the first nations of this country. When will it start dealing with the issues that are facing the aboriginal people of Canada? When will we see a plan to replace the Kelowna accord?
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, whether we are talking about the joint action plan that we embraced and embarked on with the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations; a federal economic development framework for first nations; the water and waste water infrastructure program, which is focusing on capacity; or the reporting, monitoring and maintenance of critical infrastructure, we are prioritizing and objectivizing the critical infrastructure needs in this regard.
Legislation, as the Auditor General pointed out, was necessary to support these kinds of initiatives.
We are getting the job done--
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Bourassa.
Service CanadaHon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the “guise” or “stupidity of the day” category, Service Canada decided that in Quebec, to avoid any criticism, it would remove all Christmas decorations. Imagine the Guy-Favreau Complex without Christmas decorations. It is time to turn the judgment switch back on. 
Since the Prime Minister  likes to lay wreaths everywhere, will he agree to put up some Christmas wreaths as well? What is he going to do about this decision? It is shameful!
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that there is no national directive on Christmas decorations.
In fact, what we do have at the HRSD head office is massive trees and well decorated wreaths. They brighten up the place and brighten up our spirits. As far as the Prime Minister, perhaps the hon. member missed it last night, but he wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
JusticeFrançoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, what shocked Canadians this week was to see the Conservatives rush through their uncosted, ineffective crime bill. They shut down debate and now they are introducing their own 11th hour amendments to fix flaws in the bill.
Provinces, police, municipalities, crime experts and the legal community have all sounded the alarm, and now even the government is admitting that the bill is flawed.
Why has the government left it to the unelected Senate to patch up its failed bill?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is an outstanding piece of legislation, a bill that sends out the right message to those individuals who bring drugs into Canada, to organized crime, to drug traffickers and to people who are in the grow op business for the purpose of trafficking. It also sends out a message to all those individuals who get involved with child pornography or molesting children that this will not be tolerated and that there will be serious consequences.
We went to the Canadian people on this and I am again very grateful to Canadians for all the support they have given us on this issue. 
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why, but I sense that the Minister of Justice is going to hold many press conferences in the coming weeks.
I know this government does not care about numbers that do not support its ideology. If it did care, it would realize that 93% of Canadians feel safe in their communities. Still, it is moving forward with its ill-advised bill on law and order, even though the costs are unknown and the legislation is flawed by the government's own admission.
Why will the Conservatives not stop scaring people and start working with the opposition, to find a more balanced approach regarding the justice system?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, first, our approach is obviously a very balanced one. 
Since we are talking about numbers today, and even though we do not govern based on statistics, I want to mention a Léger Marketing poll that was conducted in recent weeks. It shows that over 80% of Quebeckers support a more repressive justice system, with stiffer sentences. Another survey by the same firm shows that one out of every two people living in large urban centres, which means half of all Quebeckers, do not feel safe. 
International TradeMrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with its poor negotiating skills, the Conservative government is going to be holding the short end of the stick in the European Union free trade agreement. Canadians already pay a lot for their medicines and will have to pay almost $3 billion more to have access to them. This will put $3 billion more in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies without us obtaining anything in return.
Does this government realize that medicines are not a luxury but a necessity for sick people?
Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member that contrary to what she has suggested, this government always protects and advances Canada's interests during international negotiations. We will only enter into agreements that benefit Canadians in the long run. I want to also assure the member that we continue to consult broadly with Canadians. 
This agreement still has a long way to go to be completed. I would ask that member not to prejudge the process, not to prejudge the outcome, and to work with us to build economic growth and jobs in Canada.
Djaouida Sellah: Mr. Speaker, this government's wait-and-see attitude is deplorable. Canada has the fourth highest drug costs and with these EU free trade negotiations may go to the top of the list.
In this period of economic uncertainty do we really want to further burden the sick?
Will the Minister of Health defend the interests of Canadians and ensure that they do not end up paying the price of the EU free trade agreement?
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, again, I want to assure the House and the member that this Conservative government does not sign any agreements unless they are in the best interests of Canadians.
The benefits of a CIDA agreement are significant. A study indicated that we could expect a 20% increase in bilateral trade between the European Union and Canada, an increase of 80,000 new jobs, a $1,000 increase in the average family's income, and a $12 billion increase in our GDP.
It is only this Conservative government that will actually stand up.
Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the people of Windsor understand that less trade equals fewer jobs and more trade equals more jobs.
While we are working to increase trade and remove barriers at the border, the member for Windsor West is fearmongering and opposing our efforts to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians. That member does not get it.
Could the Minister of International Trade explain to the NDP why our government is increasing trade and removing barriers, and why this is good for workers in Windsor and the families they support?
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mississauga—Streetsville for his hard work on behalf of his constituents and the province of Ontario.
The member understands that removing barriers at the border will create jobs and economic growth. But it does beg the question of why the NDP member for Windsor West and the NDP trade critic are blocking our initiative to keep goods moving across Canada's largest trade corridor. It simply drives home the fact that the NDP is not yet ready for prime time.
Service CanadaMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, that is still quite a bad answer.
Today is December 2. It is snowing. It is beautiful. Children are happy. Walking through the corridors of Parliament this morning, I saw a lot of fir trees. There were little ones, medium-sized ones, big ones, with balls and lights and the whole thing. But my problem this morning is not that there are so many little trees here, it is that in Quebec, in the offices of Service Canada, there are none. They cannot have them thanks to a brilliant directive they have received.
Why do the Conservatives want to rob Service Canada employees of the magic of Christmas? What do they have against celebrating Christmas?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we like Christmas, of course, and there is no national directive at Service Canada about Christmas decorations. In fact, there are decorations in the department’s offices in Gatineau.
We have wonderful Christmas decorations over there. They brighten our spirits. They brighten the place up. We like Christmas.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Merry Christmas!
The Speaker: Order, please. I never thought I would hear Merry Christmas used as a heckle. 
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, if there are no national directives, there is a very clear Quebec directive in any case.
It is not just the employees who are deprived of the magic of Christmas in their workplace. The Conservatives also want to deprive hundreds of members of the public of these annual festivities.
By banning any decorations in public areas and in workspaces accessible to clientele”, they are taking away the little joy that sometimes accompanies the too long hours spent waiting in Service Canada offices because there is not enough staff.
One question is bothering me. Did the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development ask the Minister of Justice to include last-minute amendments in Bill C-10 to impose minimum sentences on everyone who dares to celebrate the Christmas holiday?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we have a very long tradition of celebrating Christmas in Canada. Just last night, when the lights on the Parliament buildings were turned on, the Prime Minister of Canada wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
War of 1812 CelebrationsMr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages showed once again that this government is incapable of keeping its spending in check.
Celebrations for the War of 1812 will now cost three times more than planned. One would think it was the President of the Treasury Board drafting the budget.
Could the minister explain what happened between mid-October and December 1 to triple the costs?
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by saying that I will be celebrating my second annual Christmas concert in my riding with local talent. I hope the hon. member might have a chance to come and take a look at some of the spectacular Christmas talent that we have. 
With respect to that story, of course the story he is referring to is false. We will be celebrating and commemorating the War of 1812 because it is an extraordinarily important event in Canadian history. The cost is $28 million over four years. I hope that the hon. member and the NDP will join with us in celebrating all the things that we have to be proud of as a country.
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, then I guess he needs to speak to his minister. In less than two months costs have already more than tripled. 
What is the final price tag going to be for Canadian families? Canadians deserve to know the real costs, not “around $70 million”. That is simply unacceptable. 
Why, in a time of economic crisis and with 19,000 more jobs lost, does the government believe that spending $12 million on military re-enactment is appropriate? 
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, again, we have committed $28 million over four years. We are going to be celebrating Canada and celebrating one of the most important events in Canadian history. It is one of the things that led to this country being as great as it is. It is one of the events that helped make sure that the French factor in Canada is protected. It is one of the things that helped lead us to Confederation. 
We will never apologize for celebrating what has made this the best country in the world in which to live. I only hope that the NDP members will, for once, think of why this country is so great, think about why it is that they are sitting in this place, and join with us and the thousands of Canadians who will celebrate this event. 
Service CanadaMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the guise of finding efficiencies, the minister responsible for Service Canada has carved the guts out of her department. Part-time and casual workers are long gone and nearly 90 permanent employees who have left since July have not been replaced. Add to the backlog of calls that are already there 18,600 new unemployed Canadians this month, and we get a sense as to the backlog of work and the demand on Service Canada workers.
However, this minister has the gall to blame the workers. It is not the workers at Service Canada, it is the management, or should I say the mismanagement. When is someone on the government bench going to wake up and--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, our goal is to help get benefits to Canadians in need just as quickly as possible. To do that, we are overhauling the system. We are automating where we can, so that people can get more accurate service more quickly. We are doing everything we can to help the good employees at Service Canada fulfill their jobs and help Canadians in their time of need. 
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, as Dr. Phil would say, “How is that going for you”?
The call centre industry that is driven by productivity has a standard of 85% occupancy. Occupancy is when an agent is actually on the phone, engaged with a phone call.
 At Service Canada it has been for quite some time at 99%. The people at the other end of the phone, the clients, they are not there trying to upgrade their cable package or order a pizza. They are looking for a cheque. They want to feed their families. They want to pay their bills.
However, the mismanagement we have seen at Service Canada is denying them the money that is their money—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to ensure that Canadians do get their cheques faster, do get their deposits faster. That is why we are changing the system.
We know it needs fixing. We know that the employees at Service Canada need more help to achieve their goal of helping Canadians. 
That is why, in our budget, we included funds to help put in new computer systems that are going to speed up the process. Unfortunately, the hon. member and his party voted against that help.
Canada Revenue AgencyMr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, allegations of corruption at the Canada Revenue Agency have been making the news for six years now.
The Minister of National Revenue refuses to say what is going on at the agency because there is an RCMP investigation. But yesterday, a senior official at the agency confirmed that concrete measures were in place to combat corruption.
Why is the minister refusing to tell us what the measures are? Does she have something to hide?
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, the government does take this allegation of misconduct very seriously. We will not tolerate this type of activity.
We are co-operating fully with the RCMP investigation. It is important to note that many of these allegations go back more than a decade. The RCMP is working its way through the criminal justice system. Of course, the integrity of our tax system is critical to all of us.
I would, please, ask the hon. opposition to let the RCMP do the work. We believe that it can move forward and will get answers in due course.
Persons with DisabilitiesManon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, Canada ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities two years ago, but there is still no independent mechanism in place to ensure that it is complied with, even though that was a requirement under the convention. This Saturday is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. Unfortunately, it will be another opportunity to underscore this government's inaction and empty promises.
Why this refusal to establish independent oversight of the implementation of the UN convention?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish everyone a happy International Day of Persons with Disabilities. It is very important that we help persons with disabilities, and we have launched a number of programs to that end.
For example, the registered disability savings plan has far exceeded our expectations in terms of take up. It will help families with someone who is dependent upon them plan for the future.
We have also provided additional funding for the disabled, so that they can attend post-secondary education, and made it easier for them to get financed. We are doing a lot to help the disabled and we will continue to do so.
Foreign AffairsScott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, Camp Ashraf, in northern Iraq, is a makeshift home to political refugees. Those people are opposed to the nearby regime in Iran.
Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, they have been protected by the U.S. and coalition forces. However, with the U.S. winding down its operations in Iraq, who is going to protect these people? Iraq has demanded the camp be closed by the end of the month. 
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs please inform the House of his opinion on what is going to happen at Camp Ashraf and of our action on this important file?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the member for his efforts as a member of the human rights subcommittee.
Canada encourages the Iraqi government to extend the closure deadline to allow remaining residents sufficient time to take the required steps to seek asylum, and to allow the United Nations Human Rights Council to consider and process applications.
We call on Iraq to meet its obligations under international law. We also want to ensure that Camp Ashraf residents are not forcibly transferred to another country where they could suffer.
I can assure the House that my officials and I will be monitoring the situation very closely.
TradeHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the guise of being a trade-oriented government, the Conservatives have been ignoring our established markets. First the minister is surprised and disappointed when the United States shuts us out of its market. Now Canada's pork producers have a market worth $300 million at risk in South Korea because of government inaction. Just as with jobs, not losing markets is every bit as important as finding new ones.
Why has the minister consistently failed to secure a trade agreement with South Korea? Why?
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, our government is working hard to open up new doors for Canadian farmers, workers and businesses. We recently negotiated further steps toward opening up market access with South Korea on beef and are closely monitoring its domestic implementation process. 
We will only sign trade agreements that are actually in the best interests of Canadians, unlike the Liberals. In less than six years, we have concluded free trade agreements with nine countries. We continue to work on agreements with 50 more.
Public TransitMr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there are many problems with traffic congestion in the greater Montreal area. People are using public transit more, especially in Laval. The regions's public transit commissions are already seeing large increases in their ridership. This trend will continue in the coming years. A national public transit strategy would result in better coordination of services.
Will this government work with us on a national strategy?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. member for asking this question because the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport is studying this matter.
First, we must recognize that public transit is under provincial and municipal jurisdiction. The federal government's role is to support these two levels of government. That is why we have already made record investments to support public transit and other means of transportation in rural communities. 
TaxationMr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many constituents in my riding and across Canada worried about troubling U.S. tax laws that would punish Canadians. For many of these constituents, their only transgression was failing to file IRS paperwork they were unaware they were required to file. As such, our government called on the U.S. government to look upon these individuals with leniency. We were also clear that penalties imposed by the IRS under FBAR will not be collected by the Canada Revenue Agency on their behalf.
Can the parliamentary secretary please update the House on this situation?
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, of course our Conservative government understands that this has been a source of considerable anxiety. We have raised this issue repeatedly with the government of the United States. The Minister of Finance has been working closely with American officials on a common sense solution. We appreciate their engagement, especially that of the U.S. ambassador.
We are happy to report that the U.S. has agreed to show leniency. It will waive penalties for many and allow potential refunds of penalties already paid. More details will follow in the coming weeks. This is a victory for Canadians and a testament to our positive working relationship with our American neighbours.
Canada PostMarc-André Morin: Mr. Speaker, I heard some holiday greetings being exchanged earlier. Like Canada Post workers, I am not feeling the Christmas spirit. I am feeling the spirit of Mr. Scrooge.
The government is trying to pacify us by saying it has adopted the Canadian Postal Service Charter, but the quality of service is not the problem, it is the lack of service when the government cuts hours at the post offices. With the cuts, postal workers in my riding will have to find a second job in order to make ends meet.
Will the government listen to reason and assure the people of Rivière-Rouge and elsewhere in Canada that their post office will remain open?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, all permanent employees will continue to have jobs at Canada Post. The hours of employees depend on market forces. Sometimes there is high volume, sometimes there is lower volume. Canada Post has the ability to change the number of hours depending on the volume of mail. However, it will also abide by all collective agreements. We will ensure that Canadians will have postal service as per the postal charter. I wish the member would stand and support Canada—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
EmploymentMr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the weak economy continues to have a significant impact: 31,000 jobs were lost in Quebec in November, leaving families penniless just a few weeks before Christmas.
When it should be helping unemployed workers and struggling businesses, the government prefers to wrap itself in symbols of Canadian identity and waste $70 million—$40 million more than planned—celebrating a war that was fought two centuries ago.
What is the government's priority: to help thousands of unemployed workers in Quebec or to spend millions of dollars celebrating a war?
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, Canada's economy has now created nearly 600,000 net new jobs since July 2009. However, we do sympathize with Canadians who have recently lost their jobs.
 As we have said all along, we are not immune to the global economic turbulence being felt by our largest trading partners, the United States and Europe. As witnessed by recent events in Greece, the global economic recovery remains fragile. 
Canada will be impacted by these events from outside our borders. That is why we are working to implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan with measures to create and protect jobs, such as a hiring credit for small business.

Routine Proceedings
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 have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition. 
Committees of the HouseHoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Supplementary Estimates (B) 2011-12.
Telecommunications ActGlenn Thibeault:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (universal charger).
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this afternoon to re-introduce this legislation designed to combat the growing problem of consumer electronic waste. This legislation is also designed to try to alleviate the strain on consumers' wallets when they purchase a new mobile phone, especially now that we are in the gift-giving season.
Specifically, the legislation would amend Canada's Telecommunications Act through the inclusion of specific language that would compel cellphone manufacturers to create a standardized charger for newly manufactured mobile phones.
In 2009, the European Union implemented a similar initiative. This resulted in the signing of a memorandum of understanding with 14 mobile phone manufacturers to make their devices compatible with a standardized charger.
As I mentioned earlier, with the holiday season in full swing, I know many people will be buying new cellphones for their family members and friends, and the benefits of this change would be obvious.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting another petition on child care. I have had thousands of them from across the country. Child care is often not accessible or affordable for Canadian families and is often of uncertain quality for young children. Child care creates jobs, makes Canada more competitive, helps achieve women's equality and builds local economies. It is a recognized human right.
The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to legislate the right to universal access to child care and to provide multiyear funding to provincial and territorial governments to build a national system of affordable, high-quality, public, not-for-profit early childhood education and care accessible to all children.
The federal government must establish funding criteria and reporting mechanisms that would ensure accountability for how the provinces and territories use federal funding to ensure quality accessibility, universality and accountability, and that acknowledge Quebec's right to develop social programs with adequate compensation from the federal government.
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is an honour to rise in the House today to present a petition on behalf of many of my constituents in my riding of Ottawa South. I would like to recognize the efforts of members of the Holy Cross Parish and, particularly, Mr. John Dorner of the Archdiocese of Ottawa.
The petitioners wish to build support for positive Canadian action at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Durban.
It is a privilege to table this petition on behalf of my constituents.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I bring forward a petition signed by postal workers.
The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to review the role that the federal government played in denying the workers of Canada Post the ability to have a negotiated labour contract based on a free bargaining process. This comes at a time of year when our postal carriers and many other workers within the postal system are busy, ensuring that everyone gets their Christmas mail and parcels and so forth. I think it is an appropriate day to ensure that the government is aware that there still is quite a bit of discontent about what is happening between Canada Post and its workers, and the role that the government played.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions No. 178, 181 and 186 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Ms. Denise Savoie:  What is the total amount of government funding for the fiscal year 2010-2011 and for the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Victoria, specifying each department or agency, the initiative and the amount?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Ted Hsu:  With regard to the Correctional Services Canada's (CSC) Prison Farm Program, which has been terminated and whose assets have been disposed of: (a) what if any studies, documentation, reports or advice did CSC rely on in their decision to terminate the prison farms program, when was it received and who provided it; (b) were financial audits undertaken to determine the profitability, financial status, and/or the financial viability; (c) if so, what information from these audits influenced, affected, impacted or played a role in making the decision to terminate the prison farm program broken down annually and by institution; (d) what were the monetary values of the agricultural products produced at each prison farm over the past 15 years, broken down annually and by institution; (e) what is the annual cost to CSC of outsourcing this food (including transportation costs), which companies have received these contracts, what is their location, what is the value of the contracts to each of the companies, broken down annually and by institution, and how does this compare to the cost of producing this food through the prison farm program; (f) what was the recidivism rate of prisoners who had participated in the prison farm program prior to being released compared to the general recidivism rate of prisoners; (g) was the land occupied by any of the prisons farms sold, if so, to whom and what was the value of each sale, broken down by institution; (h) if the lands occupied by prison farms were not sold, are they currently being leased out, and if so, to whom and at what annual cost, broken down by institution; (i) if the lands occupied by prison farms are neither being sold nor leased, what does the government intend to do with this land, broken down by institution; (j) what was the process by which the land was sold; (k) is the money obtained by the sale or lease of the prison farm land being reinvested in the operating budgets of the respective institutions or is it being used for other purposes?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay:  With regard to the Montague, Prince Edward Island, Claims Processing Centre: (a) what were and will be the total number of part-time, full-time and contract employees in (i) 2006, (ii) 2007, (iii) 2008, (iv) 2009, (v) 2010, (vi) 2011, (vii) 2012, (viii) 2013, (ix) 2014, (x) 2015; (b) will the employees who are losing their positions in Montague be offered other positions elsewhere and, if so, at what locations; (c) how will these job losses affect services offered to residents of Prince Edward Island; (d) since the construction of the Claims Processing Centre in Montague, what have been the economic benefits for the town of Montague and the eastern Prince Edward Island region on a (i) cumulative basis, (ii) annual basis; (e) will the employees losing work due to these cuts be offered severance and, if so, what will the nature of the severance package be; and (f) how many employment insurance claims have been processed at the Montague Centre in (i) 2006, (ii) 2007, (iii) 2008, (iv) 2009, (v) 2010, (vi) thus far in 2011? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Safe Streets and Communities Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, be read the third time and passed.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, as soon as Bill C-10 was introduced, and throughout the shortened debate on this legislation, the government tried to justify its safe streets and communities act as if the title alone of this legislation proved its relevance. Whenever we raise issues or criticize the bill, the government keeps repeating, as a sort of mantra, like it did this morning, that it has the mandate to pass this legislation.
All governments and all parties have a mandate and a duty to ensure that streets and communities are safe. The real issue that needs to be debated is the merits of the approach chosen by the government. Indeed, one can raise the constitutionality of the bill. For instance, we cannot enact legislation that is unconstitutional and say that these measures are necessary to ensure that our streets and communities are safe. We cannot justify bad policy by repeating a mantra about a mandate. The legislation must be reviewed based on its merits and constitutionality. 
Unfortunately, the omnibus bill on crime proposed by the Conservatives will lead to more crime, weaker justice, increased costs, fewer rehabilitation opportunities for offenders, and lesser protection for victims who, and I regret it, will have a harder time being heard.
I want to deal briefly with some of the main flaws in this bill. 
Indeed, when I speak of defects in Bill C-10, I have to mention yet again that we are not talking about one particular bill. We are talking about nine principal bills, each of which deserves, but did not receive, its own differentiated appreciation. A best case study is that which the parliamentary secretary began with this morning in repeating yet another mantra not only that the government has a mandate to put forward this legislation, but that this legislation is organized around the protection of victims, and we of course concur about the importance of that, although the Conservatives continue to speak as if they alone seek to protect victims. 
There is one ironic case study to which reference has been made, but perhaps has not been fully appreciated. It is with respect to the first piece that the parliamentary secretary brought up this morning, justice for victims of terror. I proposed at the legislative committee a series of amendments to this piece of legislation. May I add parenthetically that I support the legislation in principle; in fact, I tabled my own private member's bill several years ago on this matter. When I proposed amendments that were intended to protect the victims of terror, the very thing the government says this legislation was organized around, those amendments were summarily rejected. Discussion was not even allowed on them. They were summarily rejected.
The government did not take the time initially and moved quickly to report stage, but at report stage the Conservatives suddenly had an appreciation of the amendments. They saw the light and tabled at report stage the very same amendments that they had rejected at committee stage. The Speaker, understandably, rejected them for that reason. 
The parliamentary secretary stood today and said that this is historic legislation, and I agree. I referred to it as such at committee when I tabled those amendments. It is historic because we are protecting victims. However, we do not yet have any initiative by the government to implement those very amendments that we now agree upon: the ones that I tabled and which were summarily rejected; the ones the government then sought belatedly to table but were understandably rejected for procedural reasons. We do not yet have the measure and means by which the victims and in particular the victims of terror, can look forward to having those amendments enacted into law as part of the bill.
I will now summarize seriatim and as quickly as possible the main defects in the bill. I sought just by that case study to show how we did not have time for the sufficient appreciation that each of these pieces of legislation warranted in the name of the protection of the victims, in the name of the objective that the government purports to seek by this legislation, namely, safe streets and safe communities. I remind members that the title alone cannot validate the legislation. The fact that the government says it had a mandate from the people, which it did not specifically have for this legislation, cannot validate legislation which may be unconstitutional or which may be bad policy and the like. Let me summarize these lacuna. 
First, even before this legislation was tabled, there was a serious problem of prison overcrowding with some provinces already reporting prisons at 200% capacity. We know that overcrowding at over 137.5% leads to more crime within prisons and more crime outside prisons. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that the overcrowding at 135% can even constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Regrettably, this legislation in its ill-considered fashion will only exacerbate the problem in Canada, both as a matter of policy and as a matter of the Constitution.
I would add that, with respect to corrections policy, the legislation dropped the term and the threshold principle that with respect to prison management and corrections we are to use “the least restrictive measures”. This constitutional principle was excised from the legislation to imbue a form of arbitrary discretion in the exercise of an authority that previously had a constitutional principle for its threshold exercise.
My second concern is a particularly important one. 
I mentioned that prison overcrowding has an attendant concern respecting cruel and unusual punishment. In other words, it raises a constitutional concern. However, it is not the only constitutional concern raised by this legislation, if one looks at the expert testimony that we had before us and does not dismiss it summarily as the amendments were equally dismissed summarily. Speaking as a former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, a minister of justice of whatever party has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that any legislation that is tabled comports with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
When we look at this legislation we see a series of constitutional concerns. We have the problem of excessive, severe, injurious, disproportionate and prejudicial mandatory minimums. We have the problem of vague and over-broadly worded offences. We have the problem of undue and arbitrary exercise of discretion. We have the problem with section 11 concerns and pretrial detention and the like.
When I asked the Minister of Justice about these concerns in debate in the House, and when I asked him to table the legislation by way of the advice in order to demonstrate how it had gone through a constitutional filter, his answer was to refer to the fact that the government tabled legislation to protect against the molestation of children and to protect against organized crime. Surely, we all agree about those specific objectives. 
My point was whether the specific constitutional concerns that I reiterated in the question had been addressed. I asked the minister to address those. His response was, “We have been given a mandate by the Canadian people to proceed in this direction, and that is exactly what we are going to do”. By way of response, I say that mandate does not authorize the tabling of legislation that has unconstitutional provisions, but it mandates the Minister of Justice to ensure that legislation that is tabled will comport with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
When I asked the minister to table the constitutional opinions that the government received in that regard to demonstrate to us that the government had put it through that constitutional filter in order to determine that Bill C-10 comported with and adhered to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I did not get, and still have not received, any response in that regard. 
This leads me to a third concern that I wish to raise. It is with regard to the question of costs.
Not only have the costs of the nine bills not been adequately assessed and disclosed, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has yet to receive, at his request, the specific costing. Members will recall that in the previous Parliament one of the bills which was adopted was costed at $5 billion over five years. Recently, with respect to the issue of corrections, it was determined that the budget with respect to corrections just at the federal level is half a billion dollars more than what was assumed just for the last year alone.
However, it goes beyond the mere question of undisclosed costs. This raises yet another constitutional and policy concern because we, as members of Parliament, have a constitutional responsibility for the oversight of legislation. In particular, we have a responsibility for the oversight of the spending power and the public purse. How can we exercise that responsibility when these costs are not disclosed to us as they must be?
I might add, in case we have forgotten, that the last election was triggered by a contempt of Parliament vote in this chamber. The contempt of Parliament was organized around the fact that the government had not then disclosed the costs with respect to criminal law legislation. Now that the Conservatives have a majority, they consider that they do not have to disclose the costs and can do so with impunity. 
Therefore, this first import is not only a constitutional issue in terms of us having our responsibility to have a constitutional oversight addressed, it also raises a question of ongoing contempt for Parliament as an institution in not disclosing the costs.
That leads me to a fourth concern and one that we have seen throughout the evidence that has been disclosed. There has been insufficient consultation with the provinces and territories that will be assuming these costs at the expense of other government services that they need to dispense and would help ensure also that the focus would have been on crime prevention and not just on punishment. That is what the Quebec minister of justice, Jean-Marc Fournier, attempted again and again to convey to the Minister of Justice. He wrote a letter on September 30 to the minister in which he states:
 ... that, despite much correspondence and one meeting, the concerns I raised with you have not been addressed in Bill C-10. 
That was written on September 30. We know that this pattern of inattention and absence of consultation, particularly with respect to the concerns as publicly and continuously expressed by the Quebec minister of justice, were simply not responded to. 
When I tabled amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, I tabled those amendments both as a Quebecker, as someone supporting the work of the Quebec minister of justice, Jean-Marc Fournier, and as somebody who, as minister of justice, worked with Quebec and other provinces on the Youth Criminal Justice Act. However, all those amendments, again, were summarily dismissed.
This brings me to the fifth concern, which is the bundling of bills together in one omnibus piece of legislation. This in itself showed a kind of contempt for the necessary deliberations of Parliament, which were augmented by time allocation in the chamber on the tabling of the bill, time allocation at the committee stage where all amendments were summarily rejected, and then time allocation at the report stage in the abbreviated debate that we have had here.
This brings me to a sixth concern that I have. Even in its approach to deterring crime, the government complicates the issues on both a constitutional and policy level in the matter of protecting victims and the rehabilitation of offenders with its approach to mandatory minimums. 
In the course of the government's omnibus bill, it introduced both new mandatory minimums and enhanced existing ones even though Canadian studies, evidence from Department of Justice reports themselves, and evidence from international studies from South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and, most recently, from the United States in the comprehensive report of the United States sentencing commission, which was released just a month ago, show that these penalties do not deter crime but have an excessive, injurious and prejudicial impact on the criminal justice system, as well as a differential discriminatory impact on vulnerable groups, in particular, aboriginal peoples where, for example, of the women in prison, 34% of them are aboriginal.
The seventh concern is on the whole question of privacy. The Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, sent a letter to our committee to address the issue of privacy concerns. She did not say that she was opposed to Bill C-10. She simply said that there were privacy concerns that needed to be addressed and she outlined, in six detailed pages, what those privacy concerns were. We were never even able to address them. I raised them in debate, which the committee summarily dismissed.
With respect to evidence, as Jean-Marc Fornier put it, the subjectivity of the government but not actual objective evidence based consideration, as I showed with respect to mandatory minimum issues, was true with regard to other matters.
With regard to mental health, this is a particularly important concern. We had witness testimony from Mr. Trudell and others who came and pleaded for the bill to address the issue and concerns respecting mental illness. We had a debate in this House and adopted a national suicide prevention strategy because we knew that some 90% of the people who commit suicide, tragically, have problems with mental illness. 
We also know that offenders have problems with mental illness. However, when we asked for an exemption with respect to those with mental illnesses that could be treated, which would be better for the offender, better for the criminal justice system, better protection for victims and so on, they were not even addressed in the committee because they were summarily dismissed. 
I just want to add that the whole concern with regard to mental health does not appear at all in the bill. That is a scandal, given all the witness testimony that we heard on this. That is a scandal, given the witness testimony we heard from victims that the government itself spoke about.
In closing, I will just mention that even a recommendation with regard to a national crime--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. Questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Kerry-Lynne Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest when the hon. member talked about there being a lack of consultation with the provinces and then quoted from a letter from the Attorney General for Quebec.
What would the hon. member's response be to the Premier of British Columbia, who is four-square in favour of this legislation as it stands now? What would be his response to the Attorney General of Manitoba, who says the same? What would be his response to the Attorney General for New Brunswick, who is very concerned about crime in that province, particularly the sexual offences against children? What would be his response to the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, who says, “We were at the table with the federal government. We asked for these changes. We welcome them.”?
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I was referring with respect to the principle of consultation with the provinces and territories. 
One can always cherry-pick and single out a particular attorney general. What was Jean-Marc Fournier, the Quebec minister of justice, basically doing? He was trying to propose amendments to improve the legislation. He was not seeking to reject it. He was trying to improve it. In fact, the Quebec model is one that is internationally respected and replicated by other provinces. He was putting forth a model, which has, in fact, been adopted, and saying, “Don't, at this point, jettison this model”. 
The Quebec model is a prevention model, a model with respect to rehabilitation of the offender, a model with respect to the protection of the victim, and that is being replaced by the three Ds model. The three Ds being denunciation, which ends up being the denunciation of the victim through the lack of publication bans and the like, to deterrence, which will not exist because we have less recidivism in Quebec than in any other province, and with respect to the overall concern of this legislation, the third D, which is detention, when we could have had prevention and they would not have had to be in prison to begin with.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. I have also appreciated working with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights over the past two weeks, trying to amend a bill that most experts say will not enable the Conservative government to achieve its desired objective, which is to make our streets safer.
The debate in committee was rather difficult, since we heard inappropriate comments from our colleagues on the other side, who ridiculed us if we did not speak in favour of the bill. I would like to hear what he has to say about that.
All the proposed amendments were cavalierly dismissed. What does my colleague think of the Minister of Public Safety's new idea to propose the amendments that have to do with the Terrorism Act, when it will be unelected members of the Senate discussing them? 
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, we worked together when we were allowed to do so. Most of the time the Conservatives rejected all of the amendments proposed by the opposition, whether they were from the NDP or the Liberals. The Conservatives even rejected amendments regarding the victims of terrorist acts. It is shocking to see that the Minister of Public Safety is now prepared to present these amendments in the Senate, when he had the opportunity to agree to them when we proposed them in committee. I must say that this is a disgusting policy.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Mount Royal. He was probably one of our greatest ministers of justice. He has great depth and credibility, not only in Canada, but also on the world stage. It is probably because of this credibility and depth that the Conservatives have viciously attempted to use quite shameful techniques to try and make people believe that the minister would resign at a time when he is needed. His work is extraordinary.
I would like him to say more about the impact on the democratic institution. By playing this game, the Minister of Public Safety has just shown us how little respect he has for Parliament. Amendments cannot be tabled here when parliamentary committees are not even being respected. I would like my colleague to comment on this.
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
There has been a lack of respect shown throughout the process, not only when it came to the amendments we proposed, which were defeated, but also for the entire process. As soon as the bill was introduced in the House and debate began—only in committee was there a debate, none really occurred here—all of our amendments were defeated without any real discussion.
The same thing is happening today with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice repeating that they have a mandate. They do not have a mandate to show disrespect for this institution, to introduce bills of questionable constitutionality or to put forward bad policy, which we see in this bill.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide some comment on how the government has piled so many of what should have been independent, separate bills into one larger omnibus bill, thereby ultimately denying members and the public the opportunity to provide more comment on what should have been individual bills. 
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, the government believed that the very title of the legislation, the “safe streets and communities act”, alone validated the legislation and made it self-justifying.
The government also believed, as I said, that it had a mandate. It keeps repeating it as a mantra: it had a mandate for this legislation. Therefore, why would it not bundle all nine bills together into one bill?
The government believed we had already debated these bills, so why should it not rush the bill through in 100 days? The very first piece of legislation in that bundle, the justice for victims of terrorism act, had never been presented in this House, regardless of what the government says. We never debated it in this House.
With respect to other bills, there are new members of Parliament, as the member for Gatineau mentioned, who ought to have the right not only to debate this legislation in Parliament for the first time, but also to consult their constituents with regard to this legislation. This was disrespect not only for the parliamentary process in this chamber, but also with respect to consultation with our constituents and to the policy process as a whole.
As well, it is the responsibility of a government, through its Minister of Justice, to certify that the legislation it is proposing has been shown to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
 The fact is that those amendments by the government could have been tabled in this omnibus bill. The constitutionality being as suspect as it is raises for me, as a former minister of justice, some question as to whether they were properly filtered as to their constitutionality, let alone the bad policy contained in them.
I do not want to question the good faith of the government; I want to question the manner in which it proceeded, and that goes to the whole question. The government believed it was acting for victims and believed it was seeking to protect safe streets and communities; however, that cannot be done without appropriate consultation, without appropriate debate, without allowing members to engage with constituents, without filtering for constitutionality and without allowing the evidence-based considerations that underpin such policy legislation to be addressed and, where appropriate, to be acted upon through amendments and the like.
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills.
I am pleased to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act. There is no doubt that this bill is a source of contention, which is pretty obvious, but not everyone is opposed to this bill. Many witnesses who appeared before the committee supported it. For instance, the bill's proposal to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was supported by the law enforcement representatives who testified, as well as some academics and some victims groups.
Before speaking to the bill, I would like to quote from a witness who appeared before the committee in 2009 and testified on Bill C-15. Mr. Chuck Doucette, vice-president of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, had this to say about the drug situation:
 Things have changed from when I first started in drug enforcement in 1977. Over those 30 years, I saw the sentences for drug offences getting progressively weaker. At the same time, I saw the problems related to drug abuse getting progressively larger. I also saw the drug scene in downtown Vancouver increase as the enforcement efforts in that area decreased. From my perspective, I do not see how anyone could possibly examine the past 30 years and make a case that weaker sentences lead to less damaging social consequences. My experience is that the more lenient we got, the more problems we got. 
The provisions of Bill C-10 amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are, for all intents and purposes, the same as the provisions contained in Bill C-15, which died on the order paper, and Mr. Doucette's words are still as accurate today as they then were.
I would like to take a few moments to explain the nature of the problem that the drug-related provisions of Bill C-10 seek to address. The bill is aimed at tackling the problem of drug crimes, particularly drug trafficking and drug production, both of which occur in all regions of Canada. Over the last decade, domestic production and distribution of marijuana and synthetic drugs has dramatically increased, resulting in serious problems in some regions of Canada and often overwhelming the capacity of law enforcement agencies.
These operations pose serious health and public safety hazards to those in or around them. They produce environmental hazards, pose cleanup problems and endanger the health and lives of communities. They are lucrative businesses and attract a variety of organized crime organizations. Huge profits are available with little risk to operators, and these profits are used to finance other criminal activities.
Penalties in sentences are considered by many to be too lenient and not commensurate with the level of harm imposed on communities by such criminal activities. According to Statistics Canada, marijuana cultivation offences more than doubled from 1994 to 2004, rising from approximately 3,400 offences in 1994 to 8,000 in 2004.
According to a study on marijuana grow operations in British Columbia in 2003, approximately 39% of all reported marijuana cultivation cases, 5,414, were located in B.C. Between 1997 and 2000, the total number of these cases increased by over 220%. Although the number of individual operations in B.C. levelled off between 2000 and 2003, the estimated quantity of marijuana produced increased from 19,729 kilograms in 1997 to a seven-year high of 79,817 kilograms in 2003, this because of the size and sophistication of individual operations.
These few observations were made so that there can be an appreciation of the seriousness of the drug crime situation in our nation. The Government of Canada has recognized this. It has recognized that serious drug crimes, such as large-scale grow operations, pose a threat to the safety of our streets and communities, and the drug-related provisions of Bill C-10 are part of the government's strategy to address this problem.
This bill proposes amendments to strengthen provisions in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act regarding penalties for serious drug offences by ensuring that these types of offences are punished by the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty. With this bill, the government is demonstrating its commitment to improving the safety and security of Canadians and communities across Canada.
As has been stated before, the government recognizes and acknowledges that not all drug offenders and drug offences pose the same risk of danger and violence. Bill C-10 recognizes this reality, and that is why the bill proposes a focused and targeted approach to dealing with serious drug crimes.
Accordingly, new penalties will not apply to the offence of possession, nor will they apply to offences involving all types of drugs. What the bill does is focus on more serious drug offences involving more serious drugs. 
Overall, the proposal represents a tailored approach to the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences, such as trafficking, importation, exportation and production involving such drugs as cocaine, heroine, methamphetamine and cannabis. In my view, this bill contains a seamless approach to dealing with serious drug offences.
I should note that the drug-related provisions of the bill were amended in committee. Indeed, the government moved an amendment to clause 41, which deals with the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment of at least nine months for the offence of producing one to 200 plants inclusively where the production is for the purpose of trafficking and where there are certain aggravating factors. The adoption of this motion narrowed the offence such that the minimum penalty would now apply to instances in which more than 5 plants but fewer than 201 are produced, the production is for the purpose of trafficking and certain aggravating factors are present. Accordingly, the minimum penalty would no longer apply for the production of five plants or fewer. 
The government's position on drug use is clear: offenders involved in serious drug crimes need to realize that there are serious consequences for their actions. I believe that reasonable Canadians agree that this approach should be applied to drug offenders whenever these offenders are involved in trafficking dangerous drugs, growing drugs like marijuana, or producing synthetic chemical drugs. 
I am satisfied that Bill C-10 has been thoroughly examined by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and that we are rapidly approaching our goal of seeing this legislation passed into law. This bill is part of the government's continued commitment to take steps to protect Canadians and make our streets and communities safer. Canadians want a justice system that has clear and strong laws that denounce and deter serious crimes, including serious drug crimes. They want laws that impose penalties that adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes. This bill accomplishes that objective.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
Attempts to amend Bill C-10 were denied by the Speaker because those amendments should have been proposed during consideration in committee. These amendments had to do with compensating victims of terrorism. There had already been strong reactions with regard to victims of terrorism and the amendments we were trying to make to the bill. Everyone needed to grasp the importance of addressing this issue. There were flaws and problems in the way that victims could seek compensation from foreign countries. It is not clear that they will get money from foreign countries. 
Can the parliamentary secretary confirm to the House that these amendments will go to the Senate so that it can at least consider them before returning the bill to the House?
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit concerned by the fact that the question is on procedure and not on the substance of the bill.
This bill is substantive. It includes 208 measures for protecting the public. Public protection is the very purpose of the bill. Canadians gave us such a strong mandate in order to protect people. That is what Canadians wanted. 
Instead of talking about procedure, let us talk about the real purpose of the bill: to protect the most vulnerable.
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, I have a particular concern with the safety in our communities. I represent the community of Newmarket--Aurora. A lot of young families live there, and I have a real concern for the children in those families. 
I was reading some of the quotes that we had from the discussion of this bill. One of them was from Superintendent Eric Slinn. He said:
 When we are dealing with synthetic drugs, we are dealing with volatile chemicals and the danger is extreme. The same is true for marijuana grow operations. We are concerned about children inside these grow operations or clandestine labs. We need to emphasize the danger to public safety. 
There is another quote from Peter Sadler, a sergeant with the Vancouver Police Department. He said, “I believe the mandatory prison sentences will give a tool to law enforcement that is currently lacking. It targets criminals who are operating the business of drug trafficking”. 
There are many others here who talk about public safety. Could the member speak directly to the issue of children and how we are going to be protecting them? 
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the very relevant question.
 Obviously, the bill is geared directly toward protecting children from drug offences. These are very vulnerable individuals and the trafficking to children is going to attract more severe sentences. Why? Because they are people who are in greater need of protection. The enforcement officials have long understood that these types of measures have to be put in place. This is why witnesses have come to the committee and expressed their unwavering support for what we are doing here in Bill C-10.
 People are saying that offences in general are down and while that may be true, there has been an increase in sexual offences. Pedophilia is up 36%, drug offences are up 11%, sexual offences are up 10%, and criminal harassment is up 5%. We are very happy that homicide has gone down, but it is a moving target among the issues of crime and this bill addresses those issues.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I find that the member is off to a bad start in his position. At some point, the truth will out. We are talking about immediate safety, and no one here is against protecting people. We are all in favour of immediate safety. I invite the member to come with me to the Centre des jeunes in Montreal. We are talking about rehabilitation and long-term, sustainable safety.
Does he realize that a 15-year-old who is in jail for 20 years will be 35 years old when he gets out? He will attend the school of crime for 20 years. What will happen in society then? Will the member be there to protect society? Instead of spouting nonsense and repeating the party line, he should talk about what he knows.
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member was present when I was asked a question earlier.
According to a recent Leger Marketing poll, 80% of people in Quebec, the member's province, are in favour of a stricter justice system. In addition, another poll has confirmed that one out of every two people in major Quebec cities does not feel safe. 
The hon. minister—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please.
The hon. member for Bourassa is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Denis Coderre: Is he referring to the poll indicating that 42% of Quebeckers believe that the bill will have no effect on crime?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Since this is not a point of order, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to continue with his response.
[Interjection]
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not govern based on statistics, because you can make them say whatever you want. I want to quote what former justice minister Marc Bellemare said when he made his plea about Bill C-10. Since the member raised the issue of rehabilitation, I am going to quote Mr. Bellemare.
 We all agree with rehabilitation. But first, do we have the right to better protect victims and children? It is high time we did so. Studies show that four out of five Quebeckers would like our justice system to be more strict. I agree 100%. 

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be in the House today to talk about the important changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that are included in the safe streets and communities act. 
Through this package of amendments, this government is taking action to strengthen the ways in which the youth justice system would deal with serious repeat and violent young offenders. The package of Youth Criminal Justice Act amendments responds to issues raised during cross-country consultations led by the Minister of Justice, to key decisions of the courts, to recommendations put forward by the Nunn commission, to concerns raised by the provinces and territories, and to positions put forward by witnesses who appeared before the justice committee during its study of the proposed amendments.
The reforms reflect the widely held view that while the Youth Criminal Justice Act is working well in dealing with the majority of youth who commit crimes, there are concerns about a small number of youth who commit serious repeat or violent offences, including those youth who appear to be spiraling out of control toward more dangerous and harmful behaviour.
The proposed changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act would amend the act's general principles to highlight protection of the public; clarify and simplify the provisions relating to pre-trial detention; revise the sentencing provisions to include specific deterrents and denunciation of sentencing principles; broaden a range of cases for which custody would be available and require the Crown to consider seeking adult sentences for youth who commit serious violent offences; require judges to consider allowing publication in appropriate cases where young persons are found guilty of violent offences; require police to keep records of any extrajudicial measures they use in response to alleged offences by young persons; define violent offences and offence in the commission of which a young person causes, attempts to cause, or threatens to cause bodily harm, and includes conduct that endangers life or safety; respond to the Supreme Court of Canada 2008 decision of R. v. D.B. by removing the presumptive offence and other inoperative provisions from the YCJA and by clarifying the test and onus requirements related to adult sentences; and require that no youth under 18 sentenced to custody would serve their sentences in an adult prison or penitentiary.
In recent weeks, we have often heard it suggested that with the changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act proposed in Bill C-10, the government is moving the youth criminal justice system toward a more adult punitive system that would not sufficiently allow for the rehabilitation and reintegration of youth. However, this is simply not the case.
In fact, when the proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act are viewed in the proper context, it is abundantly clear that the youth criminal justice system would remain separate and distinct from the adult system, would be based on the presumption of a diminished moral blameworthiness of youth, and would emphasize the rehabilitation of youth and their reintegration back into society.
As I have already stated, the comprehensive review and consultation process undertaken by this government found that while most provinces, territories and stakeholders believe that the current youth justice legislation works well in dealing with the majority of youth who commit crimes, there are concerns about the way the system responds to the small number of youth who commit serious violent offences or are serious repeat offenders who may need a more focused approach to ensure that the public is protected.
For the most part, the changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act in Bill C-10 would target this relatively small group of offenders by providing the courts with more tools to deal with them while leaving most of the current act as is.
Let me focus on a few of the proposed changes that some have used as the basis of their criticism that Bill C-10 would dramatically change the existing approach to youth justice.
First, during the justice committee hearings on the former Bill C-4 and on Bill C-10, some witnesses expressed the view that highlighting protection of the public in the declaration of principle found in section 3 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act would move us toward a more punitive youth justice system and away from a system that emphasizes rehabilitation and reintegration.
However, the proposed amendment actually states that the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by holding young persons accountable through proportionate measures, by promoting the rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons, by supporting the prevention of crime, and by referring young persons to programs or agencies in the community to address the circumstances underlying their offending behaviour.
Clearly, the amendment recognizes that rather than being mutually exclusive objectives, rehabilitation and reintegration are key to the protection of society.
Further, Bill C-10 would add to the Youth Criminal Justice Act declaration of principles a fundamental principle of justice articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 2008 case of R. v. D.B.; namely, that the youth criminal justice system must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability.
It is important to recognize that this statement of fundamental principle would apply throughout the act. I am pleased to acknowledge that this proposed amendment received widespread support among witnesses who appeared before the justice committee on the legislation.
It is also important to point out that most of the principles set out in section 3 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act would not be altered by Bill C-10. Section 3, which again applies throughout the act, would continue to emphasize the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration; fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity; enhanced procedural protection for youth; the importance of timely intervention; repair of harm done to victims; the involvement of parents, families and communities; respect for gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences; and the needs of aboriginal young persons and young persons with special needs.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the declaration of principles reflect a balanced approach that, together with the preservation of the existing principles, will guide those within the youth criminal justice system to respond to youth offending in a fair and effective manner. 
Bill C-10 also proposes amendments to the principles of sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act by adding specific deterrence and denunciation as possible objectives for a judge to consider in sentencing young offenders. Under the current law, the courts have said that deterrence and denunciation are not included as objectives in youth sentencing. Bill C-10 proposes adding specific deterrence and denunciation as possible objectives of a youth sentence, but makes it clear that a youth sentence may, not must, have these objectives.
In addition, the proposed amendment also makes it clear that a sentence must still be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence. That means, for example, that judges would not be able to give a young offender an extra long sentence just to send a message that the unlawful behaviour was wrong.
Moreover, it is important to recognize, in proposing this addition to the principles of sentencing, the government is not amending the other sentencing principles in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The existing purpose and principles of sentencing, which clearly emphasize the importance of both proportionality and rehabilitation, remain intact.
In my view, the proposed amendment, taken together with the existing purpose and principles of the sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, represents a balanced approach that would give the courts more tools to respond to youth crime in an appropriate and effective way.
Another amendment that has been subject of criticism is the provision that would allow for the publication of names of young offenders who have been found guilty of a violent offence and given a youth sentence.
Let us be clear. Currently, the act allows for a judge to lift a publication ban. This is not new.
Bill C-10 would amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act to require a judge to consider lifting the publication ban if he or she is satisfied that the young person poses a significant risk of committing another violent offence and the lifting of the ban is necessary to protect the public against that risk. This threshold is not insignificant, and in determining whether to order the lifting of the publication ban, the court is required to consider the principles set out in section 3 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as well as the purpose and principles of sentencing to which I referred a moment ago. Furthermore, the onus of satisfying the court as to the appropriateness of lifting the publication ban lies with the Crown.
Therefore, once again we see that the proposed changes, together with the application of existing principles in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, reflect a balanced approach toward responding to youth crime.
Finally, in examining the allegations that Bill C-10 would move our youth system toward a more adult system, I think it is important to remind the House that this bill would change the Youth Criminal Justice Act to make it clear that no young persons under the age of 18 will serve their sentences in an adult prison or penitentiary, regardless of whether they are given an adult or youth sentence.
Youth justice is in the area of law that generates a great deal of debate from a wide variety of perspectives. While I certainly respect everyone's right to his or her opinion, I urge all interested parties to examine the changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act being proposed in Bill C-10 in a full and proper context. 
These changes represent a balanced and focused response to concerns identified through a significant consultation process. The amendments would provide additional tools to respond more effectively to a relatively small number of young offenders who commit serious, repeat or violent offences, while protecting the elements of the Youth Criminal Justice Act that have been working well.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Chief Government Whip's speech.
I would have liked to examine only the youth criminal justice system, but when we study a bill that amends nine laws, we cannot choose. It is a package deal. 
When listening to the member opposite, I had even more difficulty understanding why the government did not accept the amendment proposed by Quebec and tabled in committee by the NDP on the long-term protection of the public. Since the hon. member spoke extensively about rehabilitation and public protection, what is the problem with the word “long-term”? In addition, the burden of proof is being shifted from the judge to the Crown. I would like to know what the problem was with judges in the previous program.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, through all of the parts of Bill C-10, we have striven to find balance in everything, balance between rehabilitation and balance with punishment. Various areas of the previous bill had gaps that needed correction and we have proposed changes to the bill. We will have the final vote in the House of Commons on Monday.
We have heard hundreds of hours of comments on these bills, even going back to the last Parliament, and no matter how many times people talk about having a chance to speak to the bill again, there have been no new ideas. We have heard the ideas and they have been resolved and the government is committed to the course that it has taken.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the government whip. He said that the government has heard no new ideas. The member for Mount Royal, on behalf of the Liberal Party, introduced specific amendments, some of which dealt with the justice for victims and terrorism portion of the act. The government decided to vote against those amendments so they did not get passed at committee stage. At report stage, the government tried to make those very same amendments that the member for Mount Royal tried to get passed in committee, but the government found that it was outside of procedure. The government whip likely should have known that.
I have a question for the government whip, who sits on the House leaders' working group. When does the government anticipate bringing in those original Liberal amendments that were proposed at committee stage? Does the government have any intention of passing Bill C-10 without making the amendments that the member for Mount Royal first suggested? We believe the government has now conceded that the Liberal Party was right.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, we have again another process question, and I will just go to process for a minute at the highest level. As members know, when a bill is introduced in the House it goes through three stages. When it is passed in the House it goes to the Senate where, in turn, it goes through another three stages. The bill then goes to the Governor General and is then issued in public as a law. 
Whether amendments will be introduced in the Senate is up to senators. If amendments are introduced and whether they are passed or not is again up to senators. That is not an issue for us in the House of Commons.
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, from previous questions I was almost tempted to believe that somehow the judicial discretion in the question of young offenders had been fettered. It was my impression that the judicial discretion of judges in cases involving young offenders had been bolstered.
I wonder if the hon. member could comment on whether my conclusions are correct.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, that is the way I interpret it. 
There are very few musts in the part of the bill dealing with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Judges have a lot of latitude. We have put some boundaries on the act with respect to violent offenders. Violent offenders are a small class of offenders who need special rules and we have provided those special rules. However, it is up to judges as to whether they apply them or not.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before resuming debate, I must inform the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques that I will have to interrupt him at 1:15, since that will be the end of government business.
The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has the floor.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, it seems I have the honour of being the last speaker on the very important question of Bill C-10. 
If there is one thing the debate on Bill C-10 has shown us, it is that this Parliament is dysfunctional. In a democracy like ours, particularly in a majority government situation, we have to make sure that the best legislation is presented and passed in the House, which is comprised of all elected members from everywhere in Canada. Given that the government is obviously in favour of this bill, it must hear the arguments put forward by the opposition, from whatever party it may be, in order to improve it. To do that, it must be able to swallow its pride and admit that it does not have a monopoly on the truth and that the opposition’s arguments may be valid and may prevent mistakes that would otherwise be made in a totalitarian government.
 In this case, we have seen the problems and the aberrations of a dysfunctional Parliament. The government is proposing nine bills dealing with the Criminal Code and putting them all together. Some of them might have been supported by the opposition parties, whether the NDP or the three other parties represented in the House, and passed quickly. I am referring, for example, to the bill dealing with sexual offences against children. We are all reasonable people. We can understand that there is a strong consensus among Canadians that there should be longer sentences for that. But the government refused and then blames us for supporting the criminals who commit those heinous crimes.
 Certain other bills had fairly major structural problems, which were raised on multiple occasions. The government refuses to address the structural problems raised by the opposition, claiming that the arguments have been heard and we can now move on to the vote, which will probably be held on Monday. The arguments may have been heard, but they were not understood, or they were dismissed out of hand without any further analysis.
 I would like to talk about one problem in particular. It has been said that the government refuses to work with the opposition parties, including the NDP. I would like to note the excellent work done by our two justice critics, including the member for Gatineau, who is the deputy critic. They have done phenomenal work, as have the critics for the other opposition parties.
 If the government refuses to work with the opposition parties, it should at least work with the provinces. We know that a majority of provinces, including Quebec, have serious reservations about several parts of this omnibus bill. Manitoba, one of the rare provinces the government relied on to give its bill some credibility, has also stated serious reservations about several parts of it. Most of the provinces do not agree with the way the bill is presented.
 I am proud to say that we have worked with the provinces, particularly with Quebec, to amend some much more critical parts of this bill, including the part about young offenders that we were just discussing. 
 One of the changes suggested by the Minister of Justice of Quebec, with whom we have worked during this process, relates to the concept of the long-term protection of the public that the Conservatives want to remove. The concept of the long-term protection of the public was in the previous young offenders legislation. The Conservatives are removing it and refuse to include the concept of the long-term protection of the public.
 In a previous life, I worked for a youth centre, Ressources alternatives Rive-Sud, in Longueuil. I saw the work that was done on rehabilitating young offenders and raising their awareness. This bill is concerned with young persons who have committed more serious crimes, fine. But the solution proposed for this will send these young persons to crime school, and there will be no hope of providing long-term protection for the public.
 A second point in the bill would make the rule that bans the publication of any information that would identify a young offender who has committed violent crimes less stringent.
 At present, that limitation exists for serious crimes for which, for example, a young offender will be referred to adult court. But by making it possible for these young offenders’ identity to be disclosed in relation to investigations of violent crimes, whatever they are, it is systematically stigmatizing those young people and creating one more barrier to their potential rehabilitation and reintegration. Quebec, most of the provinces and the opposition parties did their homework. The only ones who did not do it are the federal government. The provinces are going to pay and the public is going to pay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, November 30, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion, the nays have it.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, December 5, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Could the House see the clock at 1:30?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is it agreed that we see the clock at 1:30?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Democratic Representation ActMr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP):  moved that Bill C-312, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (democratic representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, the assembly of publicly elected representatives is at the very heart of a representative democracy. In our country, this group of people is responsible for looking out for the entire population and protecting individual rights and freedoms.
This group passes laws that govern all of our daily activities and sets priorities when allocating collective resources. In order to ensure that this process is fair and just for everyone, we must ensure that there is proper representation of all of the different interests making up our Confederation.
The introduction in the House of Commons of a bill to readjust the number of seats is extremely important if we consider the changes that have taken place over the past several years. Indeed, readjusting the number of seats in the House of Commons is a delicate exercise. It is normally done based on an existing formula and on formulas that were used previously, on the completion of every decennial census.
In addition, in accordance with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the following must be taken into account: the community of interests or community of identity; the historical evolution of previous boundaries; the electoral quotient for the province and the concern that the size be manageable. Adding representatives to the House requires the review of certain characteristics and an assessment of the merit and necessity of considering specific evaluation criteria.
The Supreme Court also provided guidelines for our electoral system in 1991 in the Carter decision. The Supreme Court indicated that the vote of every citizen must be as effective as possible. To be effective, our electoral system must find the right balance between ensuring that the weight of each vote is similar and providing adequate representation of the various communities of interests and geographic characteristics.
Since Confederation, members elected to the Parliament of Canada have reflected our Canadian realities, which are shaped by geography, demographics, identity, history and culture. That is why it is important to categorically admit that this is a tedious, difficult, perhaps even divisive exercise, but that its ultimate and final objective must be to ensure that it is a unifying element. 
The first question is: why change the current formula? The answer is that this formula enhances the inequalities between the provinces when it comes to their representation in the House of Commons. Over the past few years, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia have experienced unprecedented demographic growth as a result of immigration and economic development. While some less populous ridings in Canada have 40,000 voters, some ridings in these three provinces have more than 100,000 voters. These regions of Canada deserve an adjustment of their representation in the House of Commons in order to better reflect the changes in their population.
When we consider changing representation within a democratic system like ours, we must do so with caution in order to reflect the understanding and demographic reality of the country. The historic weight of the Quebec nation is of capital importance in calculating these changes to electoral representation.
The purpose of my bill is to correct the flaws in previous attempts to give Quebec the weight it deserves in Canada's Parliament. Quebec wants nothing more and nothing less than before.
There is a historic value to the recognition of Quebec's place in Ottawa. Let us never forget that Quebec is one of the founding nations of this country. Also, millions of Quebeckers are unique in North America because they speak French. This must also be taken into account when the time comes to identify the characteristics of this population.
With this bill, the NDP is taking concrete action in response to a Conservative initiative brought forward during the 39th Parliament. A motion, drafted by the Prime Minister himself, was passed with a large majority in the House of Commons on November 27, 2006. The fifth anniversary of that event was just last Sunday.
Has everyone already forgotten that? I would like to read the motion to the House:
 That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada. 
I would like to point out that the NDP recognized this fact when it adopted the Sherbrooke declaration at its national convention in Quebec City in September 2006. Also, for the past 30 years, all governments in Quebec have recognized the importance of taking a different approach with the people of Quebec because of that nation's distinct nature and status within the complexity of the Canadian community. Technically speaking, I would remind the House that the subject of a motion in the House of Commons calls for dialogue. Once adopted, it becomes, depending on the case, a resolution or order of the House. The November 27, 2006, motion brought forward by the Prime Minister was passed in the form of a resolution. One could therefore deduce that by adopting the motion to recognize the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada, the House of Commons made a formal commitment. 
This support does not necessarily involve obligations, but that motion may imply support for initiatives designed to bring it to realization. That is the case with my Bill C-312, and if the House does not respect this motion, the impact might very well be political.
Meanwhile, the government treats democracy poorly, divides Canadians even more on issues of national importance, and tries to split voters who are already concerned about the country's economy. Canadians just cannot understand the Conservatives' attack on young people, whose 15 to 25 group has an unemployment rate of close to 15%. It offers no alternative to their angst regarding the environment, and wants to criminalize minor offences and send them to jail, instead of working to rehabilitate them, a process which begins with the creation of stable jobs.
The government then targets seniors and veterans, leaving them all to fend for themselves. These people cannot believe the government's lack of involvement in the issues of financial security and health care. My bill seeks to unite Canadians from coast to coast around a process that is unavoidably piecemeal, but which respects the diversity and changes that have occurred in Canadian demographics. Indeed, over time, and with a growing country, the population spread itself out unevenly between the provinces, thus creating significant gaps that have led to compromises and concessions to make up for the shortfalls in terms of voters' equality. I am talking about representation by population. 
Under section 51 of the Constitutional Act of 1867, the number of seats allocated to each province in the House of Commons is calculated by dividing the total population of each province by a fixed number called the electoral quotient. The number of seats in the House of Commons was to be revised by using that method following each decennial census, beginning with the 1871 census. The Constitutional Act of 1867 also provided that a province could not lose a seat following an electoral redistribution, unless the percentage of its population to the country's total population had diminished by at least 5%, or one-twentieth, between the last two censuses. That is why this requirement was known as the “one-twentieth rule”. 
 However, during the years following Confederation, people started to fear that the trends in population transfers would lead to a significant loss of representation for certain provinces. To prevent this, in 1915, Parliament introduced the first-ever amendment to the original representation formula by adding section 51A, the senatorial clause, to the Constitution Act, 1867. This provision, which is still in effect, stipulates that a province cannot have fewer seats in the House of Commons than in the Senate.
 The Representation Act, also called the “amalgam formula”, was passed in 1974 in order to guarantee, among other things, that no province could lose any seats. This new formula increased Quebec’s seat allocation from 65 to 75 and ensured that four additional seats would be automatically allocated to the province at each subsequent readjustment so as to take into account Quebec’s population growth. The formula also created three categories of provinces: heavily populated provinces, provinces with medium-sized populations, and provinces with small populations. The heavily populated provinces were to be allocated seats in strict proportion to Quebec, whereas different and more generous rules were established to calculate the number of seats allocated to the provinces with small or medium-sized populations. 
 The amalgam formula was applied once in 1976 to increase the number of seats in the House of Commons to 282, but the formula has not been reapplied since because projections showed that any further readjustments would increase the number of seats more than is desired.
 The formula currently used to calculate the distribution of seats in the House is set out in the Constitution Act, 1985 (Representation). This was the last time the calculation rules were changed. The method currently used to calculate the number of seats allocated to each province is as follows: the Constitution Act, 1985 (Representation) provides that 279 members shall represent the provinces in the House of Commons. Moreover, it allocates one seat to the Northwest Territories, another to the Yukon, and yet another to Nunavut.
 The 279 seats allocated to the provinces are the basis upon which the electoral quotient is calculated. The electoral quotient is obtained by dividing the total population of the 10 provinces by 279.
 The number of seats allocated to each province is calculated by dividing the population of each province by the electoral quotient.
The Representation Act, 1985, also includes a further guarantee against a province losing seats as a result of a readjustment by supplementing the senatorial clause with a grandfather clause. The latter stipulates that a province is guaranteed no fewer seats in the House of Commons than it had in 1976, during the 33rd Parliament. The current number of 308 members in the House is the result of the readjustment that followed the 2001 decennial census.
In conclusion, Bill C-312 is very simple, but it sends a clear message to elected members of the Canadian Parliament. The citizens of every region of the country want to participate in this democratic exercise called the electoral representation in the House of Commons. We can reach a milestone in Canadian history by finally acknowledging not only Canada's demographic reality, but also its multicultural identity, which elected politicians, both in the federal Parliament and in provincial legislatures, are so fond of.
I thank hon. members for their attention.
Long live my country, Canada, where I can freely express myself, so that democracy remains intact, and also Quebec, in this great country which, ultimately, may be a mix of many small nations simply seeking the place that they deserve in a country that is very large, but also slow to move into the 21st century.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, with respect to seat redistribution, we have seen the Conservatives' plan in terms of the number of seats and where those seats would be. The Liberal Party of Canada has also provided a plan that sees no increase in the number of members of Parliament. We believe that is what the majority of Canadians would desire, especially in these economic times. We do not need to increase the number of members of Parliament.
Does the NDP actually have a plan that it is prepared to share with the House as to what it would like the make-up to be province by province? After listening to the member's comments, it is very apparent that the NDP does not support representation by population.
[Interjection]
Jean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
In my speech, I mentioned the various formulas used throughout Canada's history. The differences between large and small provinces must be acknowledged. The provinces must keep their weight and place in the Canadian Parliament. If we do our calculations only on a percentage and a per capita basis, we are going to have distortions. Some provinces will always be overrepresented.
Finally, we must recognize that Quebec is one of the founding people that built this country, and that it is entitled to the representation that it was allocated on previous electoral representation readjustments. 
Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Bill C-20 , the fair representation act, laid out very clearly how many seats each province would receive and how those seats would be distributed. After hearing the member's speech, it is not very clear how many seats the provinces would receive. 
The member focused on Quebec, but I still do not have any numbers. What are the numbers? Why is he not talking about how many seats each province would receive? Why is he not being clear about the numbers?
[Interjection]
Jean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, as I already explained, the process is so complex that even the Conservative Party's calculation may be subject to interpretation.
A bill must ensure that each province is well represented, that Quebec's weight is maintained and, more importantly, that the demographic growth of certain provinces, such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, is recognized.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.
He spoke about the Supreme Court's ruling in Carter and also about communities of interests. We want to ensure that Quebec and all communities of interests are effectively represented in the House.
I would like him to expand on the idea of communities of interests and to tell us which communities could be effectively represented in the House.
[Interjection]
Jean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
A community of interests is a community that can be defined by geographical boundaries and also by its identity. Quebec is one example, but there is also Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and the Prairies, where the people have distinct identities. Communities of interests help clearly identify a population and its democratic weight. These communities make up a very diverse country.
To have a diverse country, we must ensure that these distinct and different communities participate in democracy and in the legislative exercise in this House. 
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-312, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (democratic representation), introduced by the hon. member for Compton--Stanstead. 
House of Commons representation is a subject that I am pleased to discuss, especially since addressing the significant and increasing under-representation of the fastest growing provinces is a long-standing commitment of this government and the Conservative Party of Canada.
In restoring fair representation in the chamber, our government is focused on three objectives. First, increasing the number of seats now and in the future for the faster growing provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. Second, protecting the seat counts for the smaller provinces. Third, ensuring that Quebec's representation is proportional to its population.
On October 27, 2011, we delivered on our pledge to Canadians with the introduction of Bill C-20, the fair representation act, which seeks to update the formula allocating seats in the House of Commons in a way that is fair for all provinces. The fair representation act offers a principled approach that delivers on our government's three key representation promises. It is fair for all provinces.
The fair representation act currently before the House of Commons, and even though the bill moves every Canadian closer to representation by population, members on this side of the House are the only members who are standing up for all Canadians by voting in favour of the fair representation act. 
Today, however, we are debating private member's Bill  C-312, the democratic representation act, which also proposes to amend the formula for allocating seats in the House of Commons. While our government's fair representation act presents a nationally applicable formula that brings all provinces closer to representation by population, Bill C-312 cannot make the same claim. Therefore, I cannot speak in support of this bill. 
Bill C-312 seeks to amend the formula in the constitution for allocating seats in the House of Commons. Taking cues from our government's legislation from the last Parliament, Bill C-312 proposes that electoral quotient for the first redistribution be set at 108,000. This reflects the approximate average riding population at the 2008 general election. Since we are now in 2011, almost 2012, those numbers are clearly out of date.
Bill C-312 also proposes to add a new rule to the formula that would provide the province of Quebec with a fixed percentage of seats based on Quebec's representation in the House of Commons when the motion recognizing that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada was adopted. This means that, under Bill C-312, Quebec's representation would be set at 24.35% of the seats in the House of Commons. 
Although I appreciate my hon. colleague's effort, I have concerns that prevent me from supporting Bill C-312. I will explain.
The primary motive of addressing representation in the House of Commons is to deal with the significant and increasing under-representation of high growth provinces. I have concerns that the bill would not adequately address the under-representation of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. Due to the requirement to fix the representation of Quebec at 24.35% of seats in the House of Commons, the representation for Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario would only marginally improve. 
Additionally, I find that the concept of fixing the representation of a single province in the House of Commons is contrary to our constitutional history and principles. The Fathers of Confederation believed that the provinces should be proportionately represented in the House of Commons, meaning that the basis for allocating the seats for provinces should reflect their share of the population.
As a result of this belief, our Constitution provides for the proportionate representation of the provinces, which has become a fundamental principle of our democracy. At the same time, the importance of ensuring protection for slower growing provinces has been recognized through measures such as seat floors. For example, our Constitution currently provides that no province should have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it does in the Senate. While it may be that only certain provinces currently benefit from these guarantees, the protection is provided to all provinces should the situation arise. 
Our position on representation in the House of Commons is clear: Any updates to the formula allocating House of Commons seats should be fair for all provinces and nationally applicable. 
After reviewing the proposal set out in Bill  C-312, I can firmly say that our government's fair representation act is stronger in all areas. The formula proposed in the fair representation act is a principled, nationally applicable formula that brings every province closer to representation by population, because, on this side of the House, we are governing for all Canadians, not just some provinces. 
As a result, the fair representation act provides better relative representation for the faster growing provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario than Bill C-312.
Our government's proposal also provides a reasonable increase in the number of seats in the House of Commons, compared with Bill C-312. Following the first adjustment on the fair representation act, the total number of seats in the House of Commons would be 338. Under Bill C-312, it may be as high as 351 members. We make no apologies for addressing the significant and increasing under-representation of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta but we are all conscious of the need to manage the growth of our parliamentary institutions. Growth can be responsibly managed without pitting region against region, Canadian against Canadian, while still moving every province closer to representation by population. The fair representation act would achieve both objectives.
Additionally, our government bill introduces a representation rule. This representation rule would ensure representation by population for slower growth provinces. If a currently over-represented province becomes under-represented as a result of the application of the updated formula, additional seats would be allocated to that province so that its representation is equal to its share of the population. This rule, which would apply equally to all provinces, means that Quebec would be the first province to benefit from this application. The province would receive an additional three seats in the next re-adjustment. Under the fair representation act, Quebec has 23% of the population and would have 23% of the seats in the House of Commons. 
When compared to Bill C-312, the fair representation act would provide better relative representation for faster -growing provinces, would ensure protection for slower growing provinces and would guarantee that Quebec's representation is proportional to its population, all while managing the growth of the House of Commons. Simply put, the formula put forward in the fair representation act is better than the proposal we are considering today.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party does not support the bill. I will explain why the bill is unconstitutional and impractical.
Let us begin with the first point, that Bill C-312 is unconstitutional. 
In permanently fixing the percentage of seats for a province, the NDP is asking Parliament to contradict the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons. This principle is well entrenched in our Constitution. We should all be proud that our Constitution affirms rep-by-pop. That is a fundamental principle of democracy. 
Parliament has some leeway in how it applies the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces when dealing with the effective representation of communities and provinces that are in relative decline. In a 1987 ruling, the B.C. Supreme Court stated, “The principle of representation 'prescribed' by the Constitution does not require perfect mathematical representation...”. A year later the B.C. Court of Appeal said that what must be preserved is “the principle, not a specific formula”. That leeway has its limits. Parliament cannot run afoul of the principle of proportionate representation. That would be unconstitutional. 
Section 42(1)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that to amend this principle we need the agreement of Parliament and the legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population, the famous 7-50 formula. 
Bill C-312 mentions a Supreme Court decision of June 6, 1991, but this ruling applied to the delimitation of ridings, not to the representation of a whole province. 
All democratic federations try to accommodate communities while delimiting ridings, but no democratic federation gives extra representation to a whole constitutional jurisdiction on the grounds of its culture or national character. That would be an extraordinary decision requiring a constitutional amendment that Parliament cannot do alone without the consent of its constitutional partners, the provinces. In other words, the NDP and the Bloc are asking Parliament to show disrespect for provincial constitutional jurisdiction.
 The NDP and the Bloc are asking Parliament to exceed its jurisdiction regarding the House of Commons reform with Bill C-312.
The Conservatives are asking Parliament to exceed its jurisdiction regarding Senate reform with Bill C-7. 
Only the Liberals are consistently respecting the Constitution. We urge all our colleagues in the House to show respect for the basic law of the land, the Constitution of Canada.
This brings me to my second point, that Bill C-312 is impractical. Bill C-312 is not only unconstitutional, it is impractical. It is so impractical that the NDP chose to not release the number of additional seats that would be required in order to fulfill all the rules included in Bill C-312. Those members well know that it would be a very large House indeed.
The first rule is with respect to equitable representation of fast growing provinces. Today, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta are likely to be the most under-represented jurisdictions in the world of democratic federations. This is unfair for the Canadian citizens living in these provinces. Furthermore, this under-representation is now so substantial that it is likely to be unconstitutional. We need to redress this issue.
The second rule is the Senate clause, “The right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators by which the province is entitled to be represented...”. This section of the Constitution can only be changed through our federation members' unanimous decision.
The third rule is the grandfather clause. Like the government, the NDP does not have the courage and the wisdom to revise this rule enacted by Parliament in 1985, which stops us from reducing the number of MPs representing a province.
The fourth rule is that the proportion of members from the province of Quebec shall remain unchanged from its current representation, which constitutes 24.35%.
Let us try to figure out how these rules would work together. In order to address the fastest growing provinces' under-representation while respecting the grandfather clause and the Senate clause, the government through Bill C-20, proposes to add 30 new seats. That would bring the House to 338 seats. In order to bring Quebec's share to 24.35%, six new seats would need to be added. We would be at 344 seats. Then Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta would be too under-represented again. Once we added seats for them, Quebec would need more seats to stay over the 24.35%, and so on and so forth. Even with the House at 350 seats, we would not reach a fair House with the combination of these rules. 
This is for 2011. Let us imagine what it would be like for 2021 or 2031. What kind of ballooning would occur in the House? What would Canadians have to pay for it? If the NDP members claim that we are wrong with our numbers, we challenge them to release their own numbers. I bet they will not do it because they know full well that their numbers are far-fetched.
There is another reason the Liberal caucus cannot support the bill. Both the 308 seat Liberal plan and the 338 seat Conservative plan accept the rules that ensure that any currently overrepresented province does not become under-represented. However, Bill C-312 does not include this rule. Does that mean that for the NDP it would be acceptable that perhaps Manitoba or Nova Scotia would be under-represented? If so, why? Would it be because they are not nations? If this is the case, I want to hear from our colleague from Compton—Stanstead. Can he confirm that he is speaking on behalf of his NDP colleagues from Manitoba and Nova Scotia and that they are okay with the view that their provinces may be under-represented in this House since they are not nations?
Each national party has the obligation to say the same thing in English and in French through our great country. I challenge the NDP to do so on this matter, to start by releasing its numbers. 
By the way, if the NDP and the Bloc thought that the motion passed in the House on November 27, 2006, meant that Quebec as a nation within a united Canada should have more weight than other provinces, since those provinces are not nations within a united Canada, why did those two parties not say so when they voted for the motion in the House on November 27, 2006?
In the meantime, we Liberals will, as always, remain consistent. In principle, we will oppose the bill because it is unconstitutional and impractical. We urge all members of Parliament to support the Liberal plan for a fair and balanced House of Commons without adding any seats. Three hundred and eight seats will suffice. Put in the proper context of what is happening in the world today, 308 seats will, in fact, work.
Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of Bill C-312,  the democratic representation act, introduced by my NDP colleague from Compton—Stanstead.
Over the past few weeks we have heard a number of competing views on how to move forward in regard to seat distribution in this fantastic House.
It seems to be accepted by all the parties in the House, and that is something that is very positive, that we need to ensure that the citizens in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario have their relative representation in the House of Commons increased. However, the views and the opinions on how we move forward from this point are a little more diverse.
We in the NDP fully believe in representation proportionally, albeit while recognizing the diversity of our country and the founding principles of Canadian Confederation.
It is important to point out that this premise is not only held by the NDP, but it has been recognized by the Supreme Court in its ruling of community of interests. This ruling signifies that Parliament must be mindful that any new electoral law must respect not only the demography of our country, but also its history, culture and geography. The precise wording of the Supreme Court ruling states:
 Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic. 
It is because of this fact the NDP bill will create the same number of new seats for the under-represented provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, therefore ensuring that the ratio of constituents per MP is significantly lowered, and bringing them much closer to the Canadian average.
However, in designing seat redistribution, we should not try to pit region against region, province against province. Seat redistribution should meet the goal of building a stronger Canada. Because of these, any legislation which deals with seat redistribution must also bring forward legislation which deals with that seat distribution and be mindful of the fact that back in 2006, this House unanimously adopted a motion that recognized Quebec as a distinct nation within a united Canada.
Unfortunately, I am aware that all too many motions pass through this House with overwhelming support, and yet government action never seems to follow. I can think of my own motion on credit cards which passed in 2009, and the motion by my hon. colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek to strengthen pensions. There really has never been anything done to fulfill the will of this House.
I do not believe that this should be the way Parliament operates. While motions are not binding on the government, the government should recognize that they represent the will of democratically elected members, and because of this, I think that the 2006 motion should hold some weight as we now move forward.
Because of this, we in the NDP do not feel that Quebec's proportion of seats in the House of Commons should fall below the level that was represented on the date the Quebec nation motion was passed. Belatedly, the Conservatives have recognized the role of Quebec in a strong, united Canada, but it is far too little and much too late.
The Conservatives' new proposal after the NDP raised this issue would add just three new seats in the House of Commons for Quebec, meaning that the proportion of seats for Quebec would still fall. We need to ensure that Quebec's unique role in our country is recognized and this simply does not do that. Only this NDP proposal would ensure increased representation for the fastest growing provinces, while also recognizing this fact.
I know that some members of Parliament, specifically those in the Liberal caucus, have expressed concern with the cost of introducing new seats into the House of Commons and would seek to redistribute the current seats into a new formula. This, in my opinion, is a dangerous way to move forward. To start, Canada's population is increasing, so keeping the number of seats the same actually has the effect of reducing representation but making each MP represent a higher and higher number of constituents each year.
In my riding of Sudbury, I receive countless requests to attend meetings and events and to help with casework in my riding. My staff and I work tirelessly to ensure that we can meet as many of these requests as possible, but I worry that if we increase the number of constituents each MP represents, this becomes harder and harder for representation. This, I fear, will lead to people becoming more disconnected from representatives and less engaged in the political process as a whole.
We can look to the last election, where we had our young people engaged in the political process. They were so excited to get involved, and we know on this side of the House that the NDP had that involvement. We are thrilled to see them, but if we actually take away this representation, take away their opportunity to meet with their MPs and to meet with their elected officials, we will see this political process start to detiorate. 
Second, the cost of adding these additional democratically elected representatives is far less than the government spends each year on the undemocratic and unaccountable Senate. To suggest that adding seats to the House of Commons costs too much but that it is appropriate to pay hefty salaries and provide budgets to an institution filled with mostly partisan insiders is simply absurd. 
Democracy is something that Canadians from coast to coast to coast believe in. Of course there is a cost associated with that. However, I believe that in this case the increased cost, which I should point is not a dramatic rise because so much of the infrastructure of Parliament is already in place, is justifiable. If we feel that the overall cost of the institution of Parliament should not increase, I can think of a way to lower the overall cost substantially, although I am not sure that our friends in the other place would be happy with it.
One of my constituents in Sudbury talked about the triple-E Senate and he had a great line. He said he was in favour of a single-E Senate. When I asked what that was, he said “Empty”.
In conclusion, democratic representation is something that is fundamental to us as Canadians, but we need to ensure that people continue to have their voices heard here in Ottawa. This proposal is the only way to ensure people across Canada have effective representation while still recognizing the unique cultural diversity within Canada. I am very happy to support this bill.
Manon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, today is the fourth time I have spoken in the House. This time, it is to support the bill introduced by my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead. I thank him for having introduced such a fair and clear bill. The aim of Bill C-312 is to give each province equal representation. The bill takes into account not only representation by population, but also geographic representation and the notion of communities of interest. Demographics, geography and communities of interest are all factored in.
The Supreme Court recognizes the principle of communities of interest. Democratic representation is more than a matter of numbers. Factors such as geography, community history, community interests and minority representation should be taken into account. This is particularly important in Quebec. Bill C-312 respects the diversity of our nation and recognizes the Quebec people as a nation. Moreover, this House unanimously adopted a motion in November 2006 that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada.
At that time, Quebec held 24.35 % of the seats in the House. I think that we can all agree on the importance of this proportion and accept that it must remain unchanged in order to maintain Quebec's status. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the point of view of some Conservatives. The Conservatives voted for, and agreed to, the proposition that Quebeckers form a nation five years ago. Since then, we have seen no concrete action on the part of the Conservatives to protect the principles of that motion. We now see what scant importance they attribute to these principles.
Now that they have a chance to protect the Quebec nation and to ensure that the status of Quebec will be protected forever by the principles of the 2006 motion, they are turning their backs on Quebeckers. The NDP is showing leadership, not only by respecting the motion, but also by putting its weight behind the recognition of the Quebec people as a nation.
I want to stress that this seat redistribution bill does not affect just Quebec. In fact, first and foremost, this bill aims to recognize demographic growth in a number of provinces including Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia. These provinces are growing rapidly and this House must respond to demographic change. Moreover, the government has been dragging its heels for several years. It avoided introducing legislation on this issue in the previous Parliament. If only that time had been used to create a bill that would balance the interests of all and make the distribution of seats fairer, then we would have been in agreement. Alas, no. The government has introduced a bill that ignores the unique status of Quebec.
Fortunately, the opposition has done its homework and is introducing a fair and clear bill that reflects everyone's interests. Our proposal for seat redistribution is much better because it considers the interests of growing populations, in addition to maintaining and protecting Quebec's unique status.
The approach proposed by the Conservatives would pits regions against one another, as was the case with the gun registry. This government's modus operandi is to favour one region at the expense of another without considering the rest of Canada. This tactic divides Canadians. The bill presented by my colleague from Compton—Stanstead is quite the opposite. It will move Canada forward and make our country stronger and more united. I thank him for it.
Canada must respond to these significant demographic changes. My colleague, the member for Brampton West, knows this better than anyone because he represents more than 170,000 people. The riding covers 109 square kilometres. It must be a real challenge to represent so many people and I congratulate him for his efforts to date.
Our bill would allow the people of Brampton West to be better represented, but not at the expense of the other provinces. First and foremost, Bill C-312 is based on the principle of fairness. It does not favour one province at the expense of others. The legislation would be fair and balanced and would not put any region at a disadvantage. Once again, the NDP is exercising leadership by proposing a sensible solution that takes into account the interests of Canada as a whole.
According to the 2006 census, there were 123,000 people in my riding of Montcalm. I know that this number has increased because the riding is always growing.
I would like to speak a little bit about the riding of Montcalm, which is located in the Lanaudière region, northeast of the greater Montreal area.
It is important to understand that there are two distinct parts of the riding. First, there is the regional county municipality of Montcalm, which has a population of close to 45,000 people. Agriculture is the main activity with over 60% of the area protected by the Quebec Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land. The future of agriculture and food sovereignty are therefore priorities that cannot be ignored. I know some farmers personally, such as Mr. Anctil, who owns a dairy farm, Mr. Tousignant, who has been a grain farmer for many years, and Mr. Levasseur who is a market gardener. We must ensure that these farmers can live off the products of their farms, but we must also implement a Canadian food strategy.
Second, in Mascouche and Terrebonne, there are areas that are urban, semi-rural or agricultural. One of the major issues is the proposed Train de l’Est, which will address the lack of permanent public transit infrastructure serving the area east of Montreal and the northeastern part of the metropolitan area. This is a major project that will include the construction of 11 new stations, various highway and railway bridges, tunnels, footbridges, and several kilometres of train tracks.
The one thing I want to point out is that there are two distinct realities in the riding of Montcalm, each with very different issues.
Now, back to the national level. I cannot imagine what the members from British Columbia and Ontario must do to ensure that their constituents are well represented. They deserve to be represented fairly and properly since everyone has the right to fair representation in the House of Commons. 
The member for Compton—Stanstead understands. Now is not the time to be confrontational. Democratic representation is much too important for us to work against each other. We must be united and consider the interests of all regions of Canada. The NDP recognizes that we must allocate more seats because of demographic changes across Canada. We want to move forward to ensure that every citizen is represented in the House. That way, someone in British Columbia will be just as well represented as someone in Quebec, for example. This is important and I hope that the government will take the NDP's clear, fair and balanced plan seriously.
Our plan is not based on the notion of winners and losers. Everyone wins with Bill C-312.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of the bill introduced today by my colleague from Compton—Stanstead. Everyone should support it.
 Representation in Canada is not about each riding having exactly the same population numbers. That is the way things are in the United States. The electoral districts there are nearly equal in population. Each electoral district, from California to Maine, has exactly the same number of people. In Canada, things are not like that; there are differences. This is very important. In a country as vast as Canada, with so many communities of interest, we cannot have a Parliament with perfect representation. It is understood that in Canada, there is no direct representation by population. If that were the case, every Canadian citizen would vote over the Internet. But that is not the way it works; voting takes place in Parliament. There are representatives in Parliament. We are here to represent our communities and our ridings.
 A riding like mine, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, is not, however, a single entity. There is not one, single community that lives in the Gaspé; there are several. There are anglophones, francophones and aboriginals. This is also the case in other ridings, and even more apparent in urban ridings where there are many communities. All of these people must be represented effectively in Parliament.
Representation will never be perfect. In the Carter decision dealing with an appeal regarding provincial electoral distribution in Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court gave us some excellent terms of reference. Once again, I repeat, this was a Supreme Court decision. That decision came from a very prestigious institution, and it has significant meaning. We need to reflect carefully on that and understand the objective of the Carter decision and its repercussions. That decision pointed out that there are communities of interests in Canada. However, we must also have geographical representation. In the end, we need to take several factors into account when creating Canada's electoral ridings.
I must come back to the fact that we cannot have strictly direct representation by population. The Carter decision points out that when we are dealing with communities of interests, they must be properly represented in the House. Canada has several founding nations. Let us not forget that the anglophones are a founding people. And so are the Quebeckers, the francophones. Let us not forget that the francophone community in Canada is not made up of Quebeckers alone. There are also the Acadians, Franco-Ontarians, Franco-Manitobans and Franco-Albertans. Francophones from across Canada must be properly represented.
When creating ridings, even in Alberta, it is not simply a question of population; it is also the fact that the representatives of Alberta must also represent Franco-Albertans. There is a reason the Supreme Court decision in the Carter case in 1991 clearly refers to special communities of interests. The decision was not necessarily referring to Quebeckers. That decision was talking mainly about aboriginal communities in northern Saskatchewan, but the principle is the same across Canada. In the end, what we want is for all communities to be properly represented.
My colleague's bill proposes a kind of balance in the House. It is true that we will never have perfect representation in Canada. What we are really seeking is compromise. We discuss things in Canada. Canada has always been based on the principle of creating consensus. We want to move forward. We will never have a perfect union, but we have a satisfactory union that works quite well.
Canada is probably one of the least uniform countries in the world. It is multi-ethnic and not at all monolithic. Many communities have to be represented in the House.
The bill proposes that communities of interest and community groups be represented in the House. We have to think about that and offer them our support.
In 2006, the government declared that Quebec was a nation. That decision must not be an empty gesture. The House decided that Quebec was a nation because it believed that Quebec deserved that title, which comes with certain obligations. Quebec is very important and carries a lot of weight in Canada. This province represents one of the founding peoples of Canada. That cannot be ignored. We must ensure that Canada's demographic reality is represented. We must also take Canada's history into account in our discussions in the House. Canada's history is very important. 
All cultural groups in Canada are here and participate in our democracy. These are very important elements of our democracy. They are what make our democracy so vibrant. Canada has a rather high participation rate, but it is on the decline. The cheap shots that are made in advertisements unfortunately make some people uncomfortable. We absolutely want to get people involved once again in the democratic process in Canada. We must tell them that their member of Parliament is here to represent them in the House. Saying that representation is simply a matter of population completely disregards Canada's history and its cultures, which are so vibrant and vital and which must be represented in the House.
In 2006, the House decided to recognize Quebec as a nation. Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. It is important to remember that, at that time, Quebec had a certain percentage of seats in the House. Quebec is of the opinion that this decision must be given some weight. If the House decided in 2006 that Quebec was one of Canada's founding groups, it should be properly represented in the House. The bill introduced by the member for Compton—Stanstead clearly explains the value of this decision.
We in the NDP firmly believe in the principle of representation. We firmly believe that the people must be well represented in the House of Commons. We must take into account the Supreme Court's decision in Carter. Our bills must clearly reflect this decision. For that to happen, the hon. member's bill must be supported.
I urge all the members of the House to think carefully so that, when the bill comes back to the House for further debate, we will be prepared to tell all Canadians that we are there for them and that the House is here to represent them. We must pass this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): 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.
The House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:16 p.m.)