2012-06-15

The Speaker: The hon. chief government whip is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that there are no members from the opposition in the chamber. Can we proceed without anybody from the opposition? Here comes a member now.
The Speaker: Order. There is no requirement to have members of different parties present for quorum. It is just an absolute number. They can all be from one party, if necessary.
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):  moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to open debate at third reading on the copyright modernization act. This has been a long process. After 15 years, unprecedented levels of consultations, introduction in two Parliaments, reviews conducted by two legislative committees, over 30 hours of review and debate, 100 witness testimonies and thousands more submissions, and several efforts by our government, it is a great honour to rise today at third reading of the bill. I look forward to seeing this bill move toward the Senate.
I thank the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, who have put a tremendous amount of work into crafting this bill and toward consultations to get us here today. 
Modernizing our copyright regime is one of the key ways to create a dynamic, growing and creative digital economy in Canada that creates jobs, not only today, but for many years to come.
I remind members of the House who are thinking of opposing this bill of what Canadian businesses, entrepreneurs, creators, artists and users have said throughout this difficult process. They have said that they need modern legislation to reflect modern times and that they could no longer wait.
Our copyright laws were last substantially amended in 1997. Compared to the fast-paced world that we live in today, where we have new smart phones every year, we can watch movies on many devices with a screen and Internet connection, and where artists and creators can get their big break through social media, 1997 was a different world.
Indeed, for those of us with young children or teenagers at home, it is fascinating to see the ease with which they interact with digital media. That which we need to learn they have already internalized as part of the world in which they are growing up.
However, our copyright laws are simply not relevant or responsive enough for today's world. Whether it is the everyday online activities of the average Canadian, saving a favourite show on a personal video recorder, updating a music playlist on smart phones or putting a mash-up online, whether it is artists or creators looking to manage the release of their works online or protect their works from online infringements or rights holders looking to ensure that their investments are protected, all need modern copyright laws. This would ensure that the digital web, with its vast database of knowledge, incredible ability to connect people, and its limitless potential to create, innovate and grow, is fully accessible to all Canadians.
Since the current round of copyright reform began, we have seen a tremendous change in the digital world. Social media is everywhere. It is now easy to access copyrighted material online and to do so using hand-held devices. Now cloud computing is looking to completely upend old service models for data transfer and storage.
Over the last few years, many different views have been expressed on how to approach copyright reform. Quite simply, to move forward we need to establish a balance between what is necessary for consumers and what is good for creators. What will support users while protecting rights holders?
This bill finds a fair balance. It gives copyright owners the tools they need to combat piracy, including new provisions enabling them to sue in case of copyright violations.
Under the legislation, consumers will be able to record their favourite televisions shows to watch them later, transfer music from a CD to a digital device, and create digital mash-ups to post on social media sites.
Until this bill is passed, these activities are technically illegal. Consumers who do ordinary activities that are commonly accepted, such as the activities I just mentioned, are now in a grey area with respect to their copyright responsibilities. 
The bill updates the act's exceptions to allow for the use of copyright-protected content for the purposes of satire and parody, according to the provisions of fair dealing. It also expands the notion of fair dealing and provides exceptions for educators to better use digital resources. This will improve teaching, research methods and educational content, through the use of the most recent technologies. It specifies the roles and responsibilities of Internet service providers and search engines.
The bill also supports private sector innovation by creating exceptions for reverse engineering, security testing, encryption research and technological processes. It provides legal protection for companies that, in the context of their operational model, rely on digital locks to protect their copyrighted content.
Finally, under this bill, rights and protections in Canada will be harmonized with the World Intellectual Property Organization treaties signed by Canada in 1997. We will finally join the group of nations that have brought their copyright legislation into the digital era. 
Taken together, the measures in the bill would help Canadian creators and innovators to compete and contribute to attracting foreign investment to Canada, while ensuring that consumers, educators and users would have new protections that would give them full opportunity to engage in their digital world.
As I described at the outset of my remarks, this House has debated the bill extensively, at second reading, during both legislative committees and during the report stage just two weeks ago.
Throughout this process, we have made a special effort to introduce technical amendments that preserve the balance and spirit of the bill.
At the report stage, many of my colleagues spoke eloquently about the nature and purpose of these amendments. In the minutes remaining, I would like to remind the House why we introduced these amendments. I would like to begin by discussing the three main amendments that will strengthen the anti-piracy tools available to copyright holders.
First, members will recall that the bill before us includes a provision enabling copyright holders to take legal action against individuals who knowingly violate copyright online, such as those operating websites that facilitate the illegal exchange of files. I am sure that everyone here agrees that such sites should be the first target of an anti-piracy campaign. 
To ensure that this provision will be as effective as it is meant to be, we introduced an amendment clarifying that the provision will apply to online services primarily provided to violate copyright, even if they were not initially designed to do that. The idea is not to do indirectly what we cannot do directly. To sum up, regardless of the initial purpose of a site, if the site enables copyright violations, there will be consequences.
Second, copyright holders told us that they were worried about the fact that they would not be able to exact pre-established damages from these enablers. Websites that facilitate illegal file-sharing hurt copyright holders and often profit from their pirating activities. Accordingly, the bill was amended to ensure that copyright holders can protect themselves against these enablers and pre-established damages.
Lastly, the committee amended the bill to eliminate a potential loophole. We were told that the liability exemptions, which were intended to protect neutral intermediaries, could become a loophole that enablers could use to protect themselves against litigation. A technical change corrected the situation in order to ensure that enablers would not be able to use these exemptions to protect themselves against litigation.
I would now like to highlight some of the changes we made that will identify some of the exceptions included in the bill regarding innovation. 
Specifically, the bill contains exceptions to support important innovative activities related to software reverse engineering, security testing and encryption research.
On that point, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, for bringing this to our attention and working to better the act.
We were told that someone could use these exceptions to engage in illegal activities. The government therefore has made a balanced change that will ensure that people engaging in such activities cannot get around copyright requirements and that our honest innovators and researchers can pursue their important work, inventing new products and marketing their innovations. In addition to those changes, we have also proposed changes that will support non-profit agencies that work in the interest of people with visual impairments.
As far as consumers are concerned, the bill indeed includes an exception that allows non-profit organizations to create and export material adapted for people with perceptual impairments, under certain conditions, including a limitation based on the nationality of the author.
However, given that the author's nationality is not always easy to determine, there was concern that an organization might have to pay damages for errors made in good faith. An amendment to the bill responds to that concern and recognizes that in many cases, people do make honest mistakes. 
In order to ensure that the non-profit organizations in question are not unduly penalized as a result of mistakes made in good faith, the amendment states that, in such circumstances, an injunction is the only remedy that the owner of the copyright in the work has against the organization. 
With regard to intermediaries, Internet service providers and search engines play an important role in exchanging ideas and information. They make it easier to access the online world and help us to sort through a vast quantity of information.
At committee, many intermediaries informed us of the unintended consequences that the provisions of the bill could have on them. In order to protect these groups from such unintended consequences, we proposed amendments that take their concerns into account without affecting the bill's balanced approach. For example, the bill requires Internet service providers to forward to subscribers the notifications of claimed infringement they receive from copyright owners.
This provision was amended to require Internet service providers to forward notifications of claimed infringement “as soon as feasible” rather than “without delay” as it said in the original version of the bill. Furthermore, it is important that the intermediaries are not held responsible when they play a neutral role. By establishing an exemption for real network intermediaries and new technologically neutral exceptions for consumers' daily activities, Bill C-11 paves the way for an increased use of digital technologies, such as cloud computing, networked personal video recording and other services that have yet to be invented. 
A service that meets the conditions of the exemption will not result in liability under copyright law. Although intermediaries must assume clear responsibilities in the fight against online piracy, we also have to ensure that the requirements imposed on them are not unrealistic or too cumbersome.
The government firmly believes that the provisions of Bill C-11 strike such a balance.
I think all members would agree that this House has debated and consulted for some time now on how to strike an appropriate balance while establishing a modern, responsive copyright regime in Canada. These amendments are the latest demonstration of our government's commitment to strike the right balance between rights holders and users.
 We recognize that copyright in the digital age will always evolve and that efforts to maintain balance are ongoing, whether a bill is before us or not. Such is the complexity of copyright and the many views on what is an ideal regime. 
Our job as government is to ensure that the bill strikes the right balance, that it promotes innovation, investment and job growth in the Canadian digital economy while also preserving the rights of Canadians to use legally purchased copyright material in new and creative ways. For that reason, the bill has a built in five-year review so it does not fall this far behind again.
 I hope hon. members will agree with me that the bill should be passed as amended and moved quickly to the Senate for debate and review. 
This bill will bring Canadian copyright into the digital age. It is long overdue. 
The faster it moves through Parliament, the faster it will benefit creators, the faster we can adopt measures to fight piracy, the faster search engines and Internet service providers will have clearly defined roles and responsibilities with respect to copyright, and the faster users will be able to go about their daily non-infringing activities with confidence and full knowledge of the practices permitted under the law.
We can no longer put off passing this bill. It is time to move forward.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have spent many years on the issue of copyright in our attempt and our willingness to work with the government to improve legislation that is fundamentally flawed. However, like everything with the Conservative government, it will not work with anybody. It sees people as perceived threats, as perceived enemies. Every amendment that we brought forward was attacked or shut down.
I would like to ask the hon. member about clause 47. Clause 47 sets out to punish people with perceptual disabilities. When my daughter, who is deaf, went through school and needed copyrighted material, she had to actually break the algorithm to access materials. That is a fundamental right for students who are so far behind in being able to access what other students take for granted. Under clause 47, the government is telling students with perceptual disabilities that they are responsible for repairing the lock. 
Students who are blind have the right to access material if they need to have the print drawn up. Deaf students need the right to access material if they need something added in as a code so the subtitles can be seen. However, that can only be done if they take responsibility for repairing the lock afterward; otherwise, they are involved in a criminal activity. 
Does the hon. member have any idea whatsoever about how to repair a digital lock? I know the Conservatives think of it in terms of a lock, but it is not a lock. It is a computer algorithm. Why would the Conservatives not work with us on a clear amendment that would ensure that students with perceptual disabilities are not treated as criminals for accessing material in an educational format so they can succeed?
[Interjection]
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, thousands of Canadians from all the different stakeholder groups were consulted on the bill.
We know that digital locks protect innovation. In fact, when creators want to innovate, they need protection. We also know that there is flexibility. Products can be sold and digital copies can be added to different software or other items.
It is obvious that my colleague is referring to an isolated case. In general, the spirit of the law seeks to strike the right balance. It is also for that reason that I did say to my colleague that we need to move quickly to pass the bill because, at this point, everything we are talking about is illegal. We are not in the digital age; we are still in the era of VHS and landline telephones. Therefore, it is time to pass the bill. 
Furthermore, there will be a review every five years to consider technological, digital and other changes.
One thing is certain: we want to strike a balance. Extensive consultation has made it clear to us that this is the way to ensure that there is balance. There are always ways of achieving it, including the example I just gave.
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. minister could please comment on the area of piracy. 
Canada has been criticized on many occasions for harbouring piracy when it comes to copyright. A lot of that has to do with the fact that we have been so late in getting copyright legislation passed through the House, owing to a number of reasons. This legislation takes on that issue. Canada would no longer be seen as harbouring piracy in terms of Internet protection.
[Interjection]
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, this is a great matter of concern. We signed the treaty back in 1997. We have a problem because we are not compliant and our partners are saying that we need to get through this because online copyright piracy is not punishable in the scope of the law. We need to move into the 21st century to ensure these illicit activities are punished. 
The idea is to strike a balance. We have an approach that will protect the rights of the creators and innovators while, on the other hand, we have a balanced approach to ensure that the users, the consumers, know what they can and cannot do. We are providing certainty while striking that balance. 
A huge group of stakeholders has been consulted everywhere around the country. There have been over 8,000. The bill has been tabled in two Parliaments. It has been the object of several hours of debate in committees. I think it is time to get into the 21st century and bring compliance to our 1997 agreement under WIPO. That is over 15 years ago. It is time to move on.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two words I picked out of the minister's comments were punishment and consumers. Many consumers are quite concerned about what the government is doing and the impact the bill would have. 
I, as do many members of Parliament, go to numerous events. Winnipeg is well-known for social events. We call them socials, fundraisers and whatnot. I attend wedding celebrations and so forth. There are a lot of entertainment events, like block parties and special events that happen in our parks, like Kildonan Park and others, in which music is played.
 I am wondering if the minister could provide a comment about how this legislation would impact individuals who are wanting to play music at their event if there are 25 or more people?
[Interjection]
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, when I talk about punishment I have to put the emphasis on punishment for online piracy. This is the concern that was raised by my previous colleagues. Once again, what we want to do is strike a balance. 
Consumers face uncertainty. They do not presently know what computer files can be shared. With this legislation they would know if they are compliant with the law or not, because there is nothing in the law presently.
What we want to do is to take a balanced approach that takes both consumer rights and creator rights into account. We must establish a clear framework for neutral Internet service providers, not those that facilitate illegal file sharing, among other things. That is what we want to do.
Obviously, this will involve punishments. My colleague mentioned the famous punishments for consumers. These will exist in the case of pre-established damages, when someone knowingly shares information or files online. That is where we have added some certainty. The digital age is moving too quickly. That is what my speech was about: the digital age. We must provide some certainty, because this sector is growing exponentially.
Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that is very important in my riding of Parkdale—High Park because we have so many artists and creators who live in our area. 
The minister talked earlier about pressure on us to act. I am wondering why a key aide to a former industry minister urged the U.S. to put Canada on the notorious piracy watch list and why he added that pressure on Parliament.
However, the real issue is that the impact of the legislation is to create the real winners, which are huge corporations, usually American based rights holders. It does nothing for consumers who would face increased taxes on DVDs and CDs, although it fails to take any action on new media, which artists need. In fact, it takes away about $50 million in royalties from creators and does not protect them.
Why would the minister not accept very reasoned, constructive amendments to the bill that were offered in good faith? Why has he been so intransigent with this legislation?
[Interjection]
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, that is very contradictory. First, we want to get rid of piracy. As it is now, people exchanging illicit files online is not covered by the law or within the scope of it. Creators need to be protected, which is why we want to make online piracy illegal. If people are committing piracy, they will face the consequences.
We have to be compliant with WIPO. We are far behind our partners. This is a balanced Canadian approach. When my colleague referred to the approach of the United States, we decided to concentrate on Internet service providers instead of having a notice to take down. Nobody wanted it in Canada, so we decided to go with a balanced and typical Canadian approach, which is notice to notice. This bill strikes a balance. There are also special provisions in terms of fair dealing and education. On the other hand, my colleague pleaded with her party in the past for an iPod tax and consumers do not want it. It was rejected by consumers.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on this issue, which is vitally important for Canada. The need to update Canada's copyright legislation is something that the New Democrats have been pushing the current government and the previous Liberal government on for the better part of the last decade.
The problem is that this bill fails. It fails the rights of artists. It is an attack on the royalty regimes that it created, not just an incredible worldwide industry but also a sense of identity of culture that has created the importance of ensuring we have a voice. That voice is actually created within the marketplace of copyright, which I will get to in a moment. It attacks education, students and people with perceptual disabilities. 
The government did not need to go down this road. We could have worked with the government. We were more than willing to work with it and we said it again and again. There are elements in the bill that are much better than the previous Conservative bill, which looked like a dog's breakfast when we considered how badly it was constructed, but this bill could have been fixed.
At the outset, we said that this did not need to be an ideological fight. We all have a stake in improving copyright. Unfortunately, the government does not know how to do to anything except in an ideological way. The government's idea of balance is that it is its way or the highway. Its idea of balance is that anybody who does not agree with it is a threat, which is why it had to go to such extreme measures as threatening Parks Canada employees, telling them that if they embarrassed the hapless parks minister their jobs would be on the line. It seems that the public servants of Canada, whose job it is to be public servants to Canadians, are to be the loyal soldiers of the Conservative Party or they are threatened. 
We have seen how the government destroyed the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. We know now why. It is because it had—
[Interjection]
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. History shows that the member for Timmins—James Bay tends to wander off on a dozen or more tangents during his speeches, but we are talking about a particular bill. If I am going to sit and listen to him, I would like to have his thoughts on the specific bill because that is what is important. I wish the hon. member would stick to his discussions about the bill. I am sure he feels he has some valid points to make about the bill and I would like him to make them.
The Speaker: The hon. member is making a point about relevance and I will remind the member for Timmins—James Bay that while members may touch on other aspects of policy when making their points, we are at third reading and the rules of relevance are a little tighter at third reading.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I will stay on the issue of what we are dealing with, which is the government's defensiveness. The member is telling me that he will get up and walk out if he has to listen to things he does not want to hear. That, unfortunately, has been the problem with this bill. 
We came forward with numerous amendments. We told the minister that if we could sit down and discuss it, this bill would pass quickly. We were willing to do that. The government has to go to time allocation again and again because it will not work with anybody. It sees amendments as a threat, just as it sees a threat when the issue is raised about how it stripped Fisheries and Oceans and the Kyoto provisions. It tries to shut down debate or—
[Interjection]
Mr. Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, now the member is carrying on about a point of order and is not talking about debate. In that point of order, or in the last parts of his conversation during debate, he has talked about things the member said during his own point of order which are completely inaccurate. The member is trying to distract the House from the topic of the debate. I think all hon. members would like to hear him debate the topic and not carry on as he is doing. 
The Speaker: I am not going to get into a debate about the points of order. I have reminded the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay that we are at third reading on a bill about copyright legislation. While members when making their point may talk about other points, I will ask him to keep his remarks as closely as possible to the bill before the House. 
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that. 
This is the Westminster parliamentary tradition. If the member, who is brand new here, does not want to hear a word that he finds offensive, an attempt can be made to shut down this debate. The government can do it on points of order all day, but this is germane to the issue. 
The issue here is that the willingness to work with the government is continually pushed back and the government has to stand on points of order to shut things down. 
When we are talking about copyright, we are talking about a pattern which has been established, as we have seen in the recent bills and the attacks on the environment. If I mention the environment, I am sure that is going to set people off, but this is what we are talking about. We are talking about the government's attempt to use this House to shut down the parliamentary rights of people who have been here, who represent their regions, who came in good faith. This is the threat, which is why, when we talk about this bill, we see a government that does not understand actually how to do proper copyright legislation because it refuses to listen. Let us go through some of the amendments.
 I asked the industry minister about clause 47, but he seemed to be confused. That is why I thought I would not get technical, because whenever I get technical, the government seems to be confused. 
I will get technical on this. Let us talk about clause 22, which is the obligation of broadcasters on backup. That clause is tied to clause 34. The government actually created a loophole so that artists could be denied their right to be paid $28 million a year, which is what the music industry relies on. The government created a loophole. When we accused the government of creating a loophole, government members said that of course they were creating a loophole because they do not believe that the big giant radio stations should have to pay. This is their intervention in the market.
The government's idea of bounds is to take $28 million out of the hands of artists by creating a loophole. The government did not have the guts to do it face up, so it created this 30-day loophole. Then the industry said that the loophole is not fair because it would actually have to work using this loophole to deny artists. 
I do not know if my hon. colleagues have had the experience of actually being in the industry, but these are agreements, rules and fees that were set by a semi-judicial body. They were adjudicated at the Copyright Board. However, the government decided that big corporate interests should not have to pay artists, so it created a loophole. 
That loophole could have been fixed. I have a feeling the government will find itself in court over this. I sure hope the government is not going to try to shut down the courts next, but we do not know. However, the government will find itself in court because the testimony of government members again and again was that they felt they had to bring this in because they thought it was unfair that artists were being paid. 
Let us talk about the book-burning provisions. Students have been told that after 30 days they have to destroy their online notes. One of the Conservative members said that it is not just notes, that it is videos. This was at committee. He said, “Imagine, if someone made a video”. I do not think video exists any more; that is an analog tape. The member said, “Imagine what would happen if a student had a copy of a class lesson and he gave it to his friends. What would happen?” Oh, my God, education might break out. 
We have such an enormous opportunity and potential through digital education to reach all across Canada. Again, I represent the James Bay region, which is larger than Great Britain. The opportunities of digital education are amazing. What we need to work out are the copyright royalties, how we ensure that the creators who create the books and lessons and the help are paid, and then the students should be able to use it. However, the government's idea is that this somehow has to be limited. 
It gets even more bizarre. Clause 29 is an attack on libraries. This is how it works in the analog paper world. If, for example, I am doing a research paper or a family history and I contact the library, the library will send me a paper copy in the mail. I have 30 days or 60 days to study it, because it takes time to go through a document. In the digital culture, the library could send a copy to me immediately. We would think that is a real benefit and a forward act, but the Conservatives said that the library is obligated to put a digital lock on it. 
The Conservatives think a lock has chains and so on, but it is actually an algorithm. They said that the library is obligated to put on a digital lock and after five days the paper has to disappear, otherwise that is somehow a threat. A threat to whom? It is a threat to education, I would think, if five days is how long a person is allowed to have access, otherwise the person would be breaking the law.
The Conservatives obviously did not talk to the libraries in Canada. They talked to supposedly millions, but I think what they meant to say is that they spoke to people who have millions. They just shortened it and said that they spoke to millions. No, they spoke to the people with the millions. They did not speak to the libraries, because the libraries said that was not how to develop education. This is an issue for the small libraries. 
There is a wonderful little library in my town, Cobalt, which has been voted the most historic town in Ontario. We have a little archives there. Historians want that, but the little town of Cobalt's library will be obligated to put in a computer code to prevent someone from making an extra copy of old Granny McGuire's memoirs of the early days after the fire. Oh, my God, what would happen then?
The Conservatives' idea of the marketplace is to lock up the market. They are the supposed free marketeers, but no, they will lock up the market and that will create a market. 
That is not how a market is made in music and in education and in learning. A market is made by establishing the fees that are paid. In a digital age it is about the ability of people to access works. It is all around us. The Conservatives think they are like King Canute, that they will stand down and tell those digital waves to recede. It is not going to happen. We have access, a multiplicity of access. 
What we need to find out are the methods of remuneration for our artists. It is no surprise that every single arts group in Quebec said the bill was a direct attack. We said we should find the common ground and fix it.
Let us continue on to the other areas where the Conservatives have completely failed, such as clause 47, in particular the WIPO provisions, and the linking of criminality to the circumvention of technological protection measures. The New Democratic Party has made it clear from the beginning that we support the ability for new business models. Whether it be on streaming of music or in the gaming industry, there is a role and a right for corporate creators to have technological protection measures that are not going to be broken so that works cannot be stolen. That is a good provision. We support that. It would make us in compliance.
Our friends over there keep talking about WIPO. We have been pushing the Conservatives to implement the WIPO treaty since the day they came into power. They did not want to touch WIPO. We kept saying that WIPO is essential and that we have to ratify WIPO because it is part of our international obligations.
The Conservatives do not seem to understand that under the WIPO treaty, it is very clear that there are exceptions where the technological protection measure is not a right in itself. It is an adjunct to a right. It enables a right. The right is the right of creators on the one hand to protect their work. The technological protection measure is an adjunct to the basic right that protects the work, but in the balance of copyright, there are other rights as well. There are the rights of people to access that work, and the right to access something that is under a technological protection measure for research and innovation. That is a reasonable goal. 
The technological protection measure should not be there to interfere with research and innovation. We have a right as consumers to access a product. The Conservatives keep talking about legalization so that people know their legal certainties. The government will give us all the rights that we should have, but when we go to exercise them, it will say to talk to Sony Corporation and Sony will decide whether we have that right or not.
There cannot be a two-tiered set of rights. This is what Parliament is about. There are rights that Canadian citizens have and those rights are defined by Parliament. There are rights within the Copyright Act that go back hundreds of years. That is the balance. The creator's right is not absolute. It is not the creator's house that he or she lives in and nobody gets to come in. It is a public good. Creation is changed. People come in and they get ideas. It is not a walled garden. We accept the right of the creator to have certain rights to his or her work, but we also accept the rights of the public to access that work and create new works. That has been in the parliamentary tradition of France, Britain, the United States and Canada for hundreds of years. 
The Conservatives are introducing something new, which is that these rights exist until a corporation decides that one does not have that right. By putting in the absolute protection for technological protection measures, they are saying that people have that right, but when they try to access it, they are breaking the law. If there is a computer code to stop people from doing research and innovation, they are the same as criminals. 
The Conservatives somehow think that is being compliant with international treaties. It is not. The WIPO treaty is very clear. The exceptions for accessing works that exist in the analog paper world have a right to exist within the digital realm. How do we do that?
If the government were not so defensive and paranoid and sometimes just downright weird about suggestions, it would have worked with our amendments. We had a number of amendments on the linking of criminality to circumvention of technological protection measures which made it clear that university institutions that need to access work that is under technological protection measures are not breaking the law if it is being done for research and innovation. The university or the student or the person with a perceptual disability is not a criminal. They are not in the same class as the pirates. 
However, the Conservatives only see a black and white world. They cannot see anything in between. As they said, “You are either with us or the child pornographers.” The government does not see any middle ground between extremes. That is not how copyright works.
That gets us back to clause 47, which I thought was not given much attention, because people with perceptual disabilities, the blind, the hard of hearing, are not a big corporate lobby. They do not get to meet with the minister. They do not have large lobby organizations. Their interests were completely ignored by the government.
 All they were asking for was a very straightforward provision, that for the creation of works for the blind, and we have found that this is of particular importance within Quebec because of the much smaller book market, there is an audience for books created in Braille, but it can only be within the limited Canadian market. What about France, where there are other groups that are making their products available to the blind there? We could have that exchange. We are not trading pirated works. There is no commercial market for taking Braille. This is something that is a service.
It is the same with the issue of the breaking of a technological lock. Again, the government thinks that the lock is like a door lock that is picked. It will only allow the students with a perceptual disability to tamper with the lock. It sounds criminal. It sounds as though they are sneaking around wearing a mask and breaking in through a window. 
This is about when a student is in a classroom and cannot see the board. That student should not be denied that right because someone says there is a technological protection measure, and unless that student with a perceptual disability can guarantee that he or she is going to repair the lock after damaging it, the student cannot access it.
It is a ridiculous provision within the bill. It is ridiculous. There is no way that one repairs that lock after it is broken. It is a computer algorithm. It is about extracting information. 
A practical example is that my daughter was in human rights law and there were lessons she could not hear because of her deafness. We needed to access the visual works so that she could get subtitles. For the university to do that, it had to actually break the digital lock. It is a fairly straightforward thing. Then the university could create a work that the student could access. Under the human rights code, a student has the right to access it. That is a guaranteed right. That is a right recognized by Parliament, but it is a right that is being denied under this bill, because only if those students can guarantee they can somehow fix the lock, that they can somehow stuff all the information back into the CD, put the cover back on the CD, and put the CD back on the shelf, then it will be okay. It is ridiculous.
We had straightforward amendments which the government refused at every step of the way. Then the Conservatives whine and complain that they actually had to sit and debate the bill. If they had worked on those straightforward amendments, this bill would have been through the House months ago.
It is going to be like this with every single bill, unless the government starts to realize that with a little compromise and a little goodwill, we can create legislation that is in the interests of all Canadians, not just in the interests of the Conservative Party and its friends who have millions.
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, good morning, after a long and difficult 48 hours here in the House.
I would like to pick up on some of the comments my colleague made, first of all to suggest that the Liberal Party is interested in efforts to modernize and update our Copyright Act in a fair and balanced manner. We are also deeply concerned about the digital lock provisions in this legislation.
I will ask my colleague the question this way, and I know he is capable of giving a good, fair and objective answer. This really deals with the question of recent disclosures of diplomatic cables from the United States showing that the Conservative copyright plan appears to have been drafted very much to satisfy industry concerns in the United States. I know we will not get into a U.S.-type bashing commentary. We do not need that. We have good friends and neighbours in the United States who have their own interests. 
However, perhaps in the interests of Canadians watching or following this debate, can the member help us understand where the differences lie between the Canadian and the American interests in this regard? Can he give us some insight, because he is so close to the file, as to why the Conservative Party would allow itself to be perhaps influenced too greatly by American interests as opposed to Canadian interests?
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question because, of course, the United States is our biggest trading partner. There is a huge corporate lobby in the United States because of the immense power of the entertainment industry, and I love American culture as much as anybody. The problem is that the American digital millennium copyright act has targeted citizens and attempted to use legislation to shut down any form of cultural development in many areas.
It is important to raise here the issue of the diplomatic cables that have been released. We hear the Conservatives talking about the bad guys and the pirates, and we, in our caucus, strongly believe in being able to take the fight to piracy because it is damaging. However, the image that one of our Conservative members claimed, of Canada being a pirate haven as though it were Yemen or North Korea, comes from the diplomatic cables of the former industry minister, the famous Muskoka minister, who, when staff were meeting in Washington, said to put us on the piracy watch list because it would help us. 
Imagine a government whose idea of trade is to have this made up and have Canada treated as an international outlaw in order to help the government pass its legislation. It is an outrageous attack on our reputation.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his precise overview of this bill and the clear, progressive, smart ideas and propositions to change it. We just went through a couple of days of putting forward propositions that the Conservative government turned down, so it is no surprise when it turns them down.
The member just touched on something that is important for Canadians to know, because we have debated the issue for a long time. It is the notion that somehow Canada is on the wrong side of the tracks, that we are a haven for piracy, and that if we do not do this right away, we are going to threaten the whole industry and Canada will be be on a pirate list forever, I guess, with the Conservative government.
Can the member help us understand why the government insists that this is just an issue about piracy when it is actually an issue that is much more detailed and nuanced? Why does the member think the Conservatives reject our propositions and only want to look at this in a black and white frame?
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are suddenly interested in the international community when it comes to depriving artists of getting paid. They say that otherwise we would be international outcasts. Of course, they trash the Kyoto accord or stand up in this House, talk about the crisis in Europe and ridicule what they call failed European welfare states at a time when the eurozone is in need of international solidarity of some sort. 
The Conservatives create a false dichotomy that their idea is to re-establish Canada's international reputation. Canada's international reputation has been created through the arts. Our international artists bring in more than the oil, gas and mining sectors will bring in, yet the arts are not treated with the same level of importance.
 The fundamental base of copyright is the trade that is established through the Copyright Board, the right of authors in French or in English to be paid for their work. The Conservatives have decided that authors being paid for our right to make a copy is somehow a tax on the consumer. By taking away that market for artists, they are destroying what is one of the greatest entertainment industries in the world.
Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Timmins—James Bay for his excellent speech. My colleague has been working in the industry for many years. He spoke with a number of stakeholders about what would be acceptable for the industry.
One of the points raised by my colleague and the Minister of Industry has to do with the scope of online piracy. But there is another type of piracy that is quite extensive, and that is copying or counterfeiting. When I was younger and played around with a small, independent production group, we would make one or two copies on tape to give to our friends, so they could discover new artists. Now, this is being done on a much larger scale. Hundreds and thousands of copies are being made of both major artists and up-and-coming artists.
Nothing in the current bill prevents small business owners from illegally copying artists' products and works.
What does my colleague think about that?
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Certainly, piracy is undermining the rights of artists. However, we are in a world where there is the potential to make millions of copies and artists are not paid for any of it.
We have said again and again, rather than creating this war between the consumer and the creator, and people make copies because they love the music of their artists, we need to find the remuneration systems that would actually ensure people are paid. It can be done. That is forward-looking copyright. The government has backward-looking copyright.

Statements By Members
Penticton Secondary SchoolMr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, recently, Penticton Secondary School celebrated its 100th anniversary in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla.
Schools can be so much more than just bricks and mortar. In the case of Pen Hi, as graduates affectionately know it as, this school has been the heart and soul of the community, graduating future community leaders, and creating memories and friendships that can last a lifetime.
It was very rewarding to see so many graduates gather from far and wide to pay tribute to a true legacy asset in the city of Penticton.
I would like the House to join me in recognizing the volunteer committee, who put on an incredible anniversary event that made our whole community proud. 
As graduation is again around the corner, may we all wish our future community leaders well, as they pursue their hopes and dreams all across this great country.
The BudgetMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has launched a direct attack on the Canada we know. The omnibus budget bill, as well as other legislation that is being put forward, seeks to destroy the fabric of our country we have all helped build.
Cuts to Heritage and Parks Canada are disconnecting Canadians from our human and natural history. Cuts to health transfers, the environment, pensions, employment insurance, and women in aboriginal programming are eroding the social fabric of today's Canada.
Cuts to science and research are threatening the future of our environment, preventing us from knowing who we are and what we must do. These cuts are selling out Canada's future as a creative, innovative nation.
However, there is hope. Over the past few days we have fought back, supported by thousands of Canadians who have spoken out online, at town halls, through letters and at rallies.
Our message to the government was and is that we will not stand by as it destroys the Canada we have all built. We will not stand by as it makes Canada and Canadians more unequal in our country, and that our voices will not be muzzled by the government's attempt to shut down democratic debate in this House.
Our message is that we will not forget what the government has done and that we will remember as we go on to--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.
Adam BardachMr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Adam Bardach, a highly decorated veteran of the second world war, was unable to go back to his native Poland and immigrated to Canada. He recently passed away in Ottawa. 
I would like to share with this House his testimony on his life in our country: “From the time perspective, my wife was the main motivator and proponent of moving to Canada. She had no problems convincing me. It was a great decision. Krystyna felt that Canadians were generous, friendly people. There is no prejudice against other nationals. We are all equal and welcome. Canada became our home and country. Family was always very important to us. Canada changed since our arrival in 1952. Canada prospered more and more, and so did we. We led a wonderful life and we had lots of friends who enjoyed successes in life. So did we. We can depend on them. They can depend on us. Canada is the country where we began our married life. Our children were born in Canada. We were happy here. This is our home.”
His words still ring true. May Adam Bardach rest in peace.
World Elder Abuse Awareness DayMr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. The purple ribbons MPs are wearing were supplied by the west end seniors network in Vancouver.
This day is in support of the UN international plan of action, which recognizes the significant abuse of older persons in our society. Elder abuse is a shameful reality that far too many of our parents and grandparents endure.
Abuse can be physical, emotional, verbal, financial, sexual, and spiritual. Neglect is also a common form of elder abuse. It often happens within families, or when one person is in a position of trust or authority . Elder abuse occurs in the home, health care facilities, and in the community.
About 80% of elder abuse goes undetected and approximately 10% of seniors may experience abuse or neglect later in their golden years. 
By raising awareness of this important issue, we can put an end to this abuse. Our seniors need to feel and be safe in their homes and in their communities and never should be victims of abuse.
EmploymentMr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, June is a time of celebration across Canada for high school graduates. I would like to acknowledge all the dedicated teachers and supportive parents who have prepared graduates for their future endeavours. 
To the graduates, congratulations. They have attained this milestone through hard work and dedication. 
The opportunities for employment will be greater than they have been in decades due to past low birth rates and baby boomer retirements.
 Our budget 2012-2013 has allocated millions of dollars to support trades training and scholarship funding for post-secondary studies. Our government's jobs and growth budget would ensure that the opportunities in today's economy will be there when current graduates are ready to enter the labour market.
The budget is not just about spending tax dollars and providing services to Canadians. It is about giving all graduates every opportunity to fulfill their dreams and ambitions as well as building a prosperous nation now and for the future.
World Day Against Child LabourMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, June 12 marked the World Day Against Child Labour. The International Labour Organization estimates that millions of children every year are caught up in the worst forms of child labour, including forced labour, debt bondage and involuntary servitude. 
These children are used to provide slave labour for many products that are purchased by Canadians every day. However, Canadians can do something to combat these modern-day forms of slavery by being aware of the supply chains and urging their favourite brands to ensure their products are not made with forced child labour. 
For example, Canadians can visit free2work.org to download the free2work app that will help them be informed about products as they shop, or they can visit slaveryfootprint.org to find out how they can advocate for slave-free products.
I am confident that, with the action of dedicated Canadians, we can end the modern-day slave trade that remains a terrible mark upon our generation.
Shooting at the University of AlbertaMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last evening a tragic shooting occurred on the University of Alberta campus during an armed robbery, leaving three armed car company employees dead and another seriously injured. 
As the member of Parliament for the University of Alberta, I wish on behalf of all members of Parliament to convey our deepest condolences to the families of the guards killed and a full recovery for the gentleman seriously injured in this incident.
This violent crime took place in the university residence where students were sleeping and studying. It is a blessing that no students or staff were harmed. The incident was discovered by a student volunteer group, Safewalk, that provides a safe escort service in the evening for campus students and workers. 
The university has offered to relocate students, defer their exams and provide counselling.
I have extended my support and sympathy to the families of the officers, the university president, students, faculty and staff. I have spoken with the students' union and the president, both of whom extend their condolences to the families and are ready to provide comfort and support to the shocked university community.
Flooding in YukonRyan Leef: Mr. Speaker, the Yukon has been through some tough times this week. Floods and mudslides around the territory made many roads and highways impassable. The damage has forced road closures and kept stores all over the Yukon with empty shelves.
Eleven homes in Upper Liard were evacuated after being flooded when the dike protecting the community from rising water levels gave way.
As usual, Yukoners have rallied, repairing damage and getting on with business. The territorial government stepped up quickly and purposefully.
 I commend all Yukoners. Their perseverance and industry make me proud to be a Yukoner. My thoughts are with those affected during this very difficult time.
The EconomyMr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week my colleagues and I on the human resources committee went on a very important trip to study labour shortages in Canada. We listened to dozens of witnesses in Vancouver, White Horse, Fort McMurray and Estevan.
I have to underline the incredible energy and remarkable sense of duty of all the witnesses who we had the privilege of meeting. A clear majority of these westerners shared the common view that we need better social programs to support a booming economy.
They asked for affordable housing to retain a labour force for small businesses, which would be good for the economy; for a child care program that would assist single parents to apply for a job, which would be good for the economy; and for more resources to address low literacy so that workers can learn how to read and apply for better jobs, which would also be good for the economy.
The NDP wants to see a prosperous west, not just for the current boom but for the long term, a sustainable west.
The NDP will be there in 2015 to provide answers to westerners' concerns. And yes, that will be good for the economy.
ForestryMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Resolute Forest Products is now the largest manager of Forest Stewardship Council certified forests in the world. This is a globally respected standard for sustainable forest management reflecting the latest in scientific knowledge.
 The total area of Resolute's FSC certified forests in North America is 25.6 million acres, which is an area larger than Portugal. The Thorold mill in my region manufactures 100% recycled newsprint and is certified to the FSC recycled standard. 
Only 9% of the world's forests are third-party certified to those management standards and 40% of these forests are right here in Canada.
Our government is supportive of the forest industry, which is the third largest contributor to the Canadian economy behind energy and minerals. 
As the Prime Minister noted last month while announcing a significant federal investment in forestry research, “...money doesn't grow on trees, but trees can create prosperity...”.
Once again I am proud to note that our government and companies like Resolute Forest Products are committed to sustaining Canada's natural environment for future generations.
Budget Implementation BillMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the past few days have been particularly trying for my colleagues. The mammoth Bill C-38 was passed after more than 22 hours of voting despite many amendments proposed by the opposition parties. The face of Canada has changed.
Now that it is the morning after the marathon, I would like to congratulate all MPs for their perseverance. It can sometimes be easy to feel discouraged, to wonder why we are here fighting for the values we all believe in.
I would also like to congratulate all of the staff who worked tirelessly to keep things rolling on the Hill. A big thank you as well to the people who sent us encouraging messages via social media.
Finally, I would like to most sincerely thank our staff for the professional and moral support they provide for our activities, day after day. 
2012 Olympic GamesScott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, this summer, as we saw in Vancouver, our Canadian Olympic team will participate in the Olympics, and the Olympics are the world championships in many sports.
Our athletes are going to go to London and proudly represent our country, stronger, higher and faster. Our athletes once again will represent us well.
Our women's soccer team has an opportunity to medal. Soccer is one of the proudest sports in the world, one of the most well-attended and well-respected sports in the world. Our women's team is going to compete with the best. 
I want to wish all of our athletes the best of luck when they participate in London. I cannot wait to cheer team Canada on. I cannot wait to see how many medals they bring back. Go, Canada, go.
IranHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight the grave plight of two courageous Iranians emblematic of the criminalization of innocence in Ahmadinejad's Iran.
The first is Ronaghi Maleki, one of the first Iranian bloggers, sentenced in 2009 to 15 years imprisonment for blogs critical of the regime. Maleki has suffered from kidney disease since his imprisonment, aggravated by abuse from prison authorities, and is on a hunger strike to protest his conditions, his life hanging by a thread.
The second is Abdolfattah Soltani, a distinguished Iranian human rights lawyer sentenced to 13 years in prison by a Tehran revolutionary court for co-founding the centre for human rights, on trumped-up charges of spreading anti-government propaganda.
These charges are reflective of the massive human rights violations in Iran today, of the persistent and pervasive state-sanctioned assault on the human rights of the Iranian people, as well as on those who would defend them.
We call on the government of Iran to release Mr. Maleki for urgent medical leave and to drop all charges against Mr. Soltani. 
I hope that members of the House will join in solidarity with these two courageous Iranians and with the courageous Iranian people.
KoreaMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago at the Brandenburg Gate in June 1987, President Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall”.
Germany was able to reunite as a democracy and showed that Soviet communism was a failed experiment.
Sadly, more than 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there remains a place where a nation and people are divided, where one side enjoys freedom while the other side lives under repression. The demilitarized zone between South and North Korea is the last visible scar of the Cold War. It reminds us how the North Korean regime continues to forcibly stop its population from finding a better life. 
The unification of the Koreas will one day become a reality.
Canada calls on North Korea to close this sad chapter in its history and work toward promoting the well-being of its people and stability on the Korean peninsula.
Essential ServicesMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are behaving as though essential services have no impact on the Canadian economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Services that Canadians rely on are key elements of economic stability. The Conservatives have slashed those services without evaluating the consequences of their actions. 
We also need to think about what this means for the future of the thousands of Canadians who work hard to serve the public and who have received vague letters telling them their jobs might be eliminated. Imagine having to spend the summer with this sword of Damocles hanging over your head. Imagine the impact this would have on your family, your children—those long months not knowing what the future holds. Imagine how hard it would be to continue to participate in your community life and in put money into your local economy. 
Entire regions are having to deal with this tough reality. This is a far cry from responsible economic management.
World Elder Abuse Awareness DayMs. Kellie Leitch (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, good morning on the next day of the House of Commons, following Wednesday.
Elder abuse is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. Unfortunately, it continues to happen in communities across Canada. Elder abuse robs older people of their dignity and peace at a time in life when they need to feel secure. That is why our government remains committed to increasing awareness of these serious issues through elder abuse awareness campaigns, such as the new horizons for seniors program, just like the one in Wasaga Beach, the Prime Time Club, in my local riding of Simcoe—Grey. 
In recognition of the seventh World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House to acknowledge and congratulate the latest recipients of the pan-Canadian new horizons funding to combat elder abuse just announced by the Minister of State for Seniors this morning in Toronto. 
Today, on World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, I encourage all members of the House to stand with the government to combat elder abuse in all its forms.

Oral Questions
Bill C-38Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in under 24 hours, the Conservatives voted to scrap the Environmental Assessment Act, end fish habitat protection and sabotage the National Energy Board.
The NDP proudly opposed those measures. Yesterday, despite his arrogance, the Minister of Finance was also unable to explain the link between assisted human reproduction measures and the budget.
Do the Conservatives realize that Bill C-38 will weaken our laws and our economy?
Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC): Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. The facts are clear. This government has the best job creation record in the G7. We have the soundest fiscal situation in the G7. We have the strongest economic growth in the G7. The NDP's policies are to increase taxes, the deficit and spending and send billions of taxpayer dollars to European banks. That party is against developing our natural resources. That is why Canadians trust this government's record when it comes to the economy.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is so proud of these changes, why did he not run on them? 
Yesterday the Minister of Finance admitted that he had not read the whole bill. He could not answer basic questions about how the bill had anything to do with the budget. Then the minister acknowledged that the bill had mistakes and yet he still voted down any opposition attempt to fix those mistakes. It is a shameful lack of accountability. 
When will the Conservatives drop the stubbornness and agree to fix their flawed budget bill?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is flawed is having an official opposition that has no focus on the creation of jobs, prosperity or economic growth. This government has the best job creation record in the developed world since the global downturn and the soundest fiscal situation in the G7. We have the lowest federal taxes as a share of our economy since 1964 and the strongest growth today, all of that reinforced by Moody's giving us the highest credit rating in the developed world. 
This government is delivering on jobs and long-term prosperity for Canadians and we will not accept being lectured on an economic policy by a party that is opposed to development. 
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative finance minister who admitted he had not read the bill. It is really outrageous.
The courts have already pointed out a major flaw in the government's Trojan Horse. The Federal Court has ruled that the Conservative plan to cancel backlogged applications from skilled workers is in violation of the law.
The NDP had warned the Conservatives. The courts are now ordering them to stop.
Will the Conservatives change the law or will they treat the courts as sworn enemies?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, we will take action to speed up our immigration process so that it works for Canadians, our economy and newcomers. It is unacceptable that immigrants have to wait 8, 10 or even 12 years for their applications to be processed. Had we implemented the NDP or Liberal policies, the immigration backlog would have risen to 1.5 million, which would have taken more than a decade to process. We want a system that works well for the Canadian economy.
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it has to sting the Conservatives to be rebuked by the court before they were even able to force their Trojan Horse bill through the House. It must be some kind of record.
The court's decision highlights the recklessness of the Conservative bill. The Minister of Immigration has no plan. He is making it up as he goes and it is Canadians who will pay the price.
 Will the government comply with Justice Rennie's decision? Will it process the outstanding applicants?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the decision, but on the matter of policy, here is a choice we have. We can continue to grow massive backlogs in our immigration system, which is what the opposition parties want us to do. They do not even want us to control the number of incoming applications, so they want endless growth in the backlogs. They were not satisfied with eight year wait times. They want 10, 12, 15-year wait times to get into Canadian. 
We know that is not working for newcomers. It is not working for our economy. New Canadians want an immigration system that works just in time so we can connect them, as much as possible, with the jobs that are available in our economy and so they can come to Canada and realize—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot simply hit the delete button on this problem as he tried to do with the backlog. The people who have waited patiently in the backlog have followed the rules. They have done everything correctly and are being punished because the Conservatives are looking for an easy way out of a problem they and the former Liberal government created.
Will the Conservatives do the right thing, apply the court decision to the outstanding applications and play by the rules themselves?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the member is implying. If she is implying that we suddenly admit a million people who are in the immigration backlog, does she suggest that we do so in one year? I know the policy of the NDP. Her predecessor recommended that we increase immigration levels from about 250,000 to 300,00 and then grant permanent residency to all temporary foreign workers, moving annual immigration levels up to 450,000 admissions per year when 90% of Canadians say that immigration levels are already high enough.
 Our focus is on ensuring the success of newcomers, ensuring their employment and ensuring they realize their potential.
EthicsHon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister, who is speaking on behalf of the government today, and it concerns his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.
 We now have further evidence and revelations with respect to an ongoing systemic investigation that includes the production of bank records. It includes a clear statement by the investigator for Elections Canada that he has reason to believe the documents have been fabricated. It includes a statement saying that the expenses are incompatible with previous contracts signed by the member and his riding association.
Quite simply, why would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister not step aside?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the member for Peterborough has been absolutely clear that he has submitted audited statements, which have been in the public domain for several years. He has not heard from Elections Canada on this matter. He looks forward very much to being able to sit down with Elections Canada and addressing all of these allegations very specifically.
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, an application by an Elections Canada investigator to a court is not something that happens every day of the week. The production of bank records of an individual is not something that happens every day. This investigation has been ongoing for months. It must have been known to the member and it must have been known to the government with respect to this investigation.
I want to ask the minister, quite clearly, why the Prime Minister would not require that someone working for him in a senior function with senior responsibility, who is the spokesman for the government on so-called ethical questions, not be required—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party raises an interesting question. One would think that a member would be contacted by Elections Canada if in fact it was leading an investigation into previous election expenses. The member is looking forward to sitting down with Elections Canada and addressing any concerns, providing any information on his audited financial statements, which have been in the public domain now for several years.
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the documents that the member provided, but the documents that he did not provide. That is the problem.
In my opinion, this is not about whether or not the member is guilty. We do not know that. All we do know is that there is an investigation. It is not a private investigation, but a public investigation by Elections Canada. 
Why has the parliamentary secretary not stepped down? That is the question. He should resign because of this investigation.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. member for Peterborough has said many times that he is prepared to provide Elections Canada with any information about his audited financial statements, which have been in the public domain for several years.
The EnvironmentMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have learned the hard way that there are only two choices when it comes to environmental protection: be responsible and pay now or be irresponsible and pay later.
Canadians will have to pay literally until the end of time for disasters ranging from the Sydney tar ponds to the contamination of Lake Erie. Canadians will have to sign a blank cheque to pay for the environmental sabotage that will result from this bill.
How can the Conservatives justify transferring this debt to future generations of Canadians? Why are the Conservatives so irresponsible?
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if the NDP were allowed to manage any file in this government, its principle would be pay now and pay later.
This government has decided to ensure that there is a balance between economic growth and environmental stewardship. The budget that we have put forward, as well as the budget implementation bill, will provide continued funding for the protection of Canada's environment, including programs like the clean air monitoring system and our oil sands monitoring program, as well as ensuring that our economy continues to grow.
This is a principle that the NDP absolutely does not understand.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives want to understand the bill, they should talk to Tom Siddon, John Fraser, former Conservative fisheries ministers, who agree with us, not with them. They believe this is a reckless and flawed bill.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has serious concerns about how the northern gateway and that pipeline would impact over 1,000 sensitive waterways. Enbridge wants to get a cheap option, which would threaten our environment, our fisheries and thousands of B.C. jobs in tourism and fisheries, and we have a government that just wants to ram it through.
Why are the Conservatives trying to ram this down the throats of British Columbians? Why are they trying to make British Columbians pay the price for their reckless—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite may not have had enough sleep last night. We are talking about responsible and sustainable resource development. We have some of the most sustainable energy development in the world. This government insists that resource development be done in a way that is sustainable and in a way that will protect the environment. Our economic action plan would strengthen that commitment one more time.
Parks CanadaMs. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, after imposing the duty of loyalty on Parks Canada employees, now the Conservatives have adopted a McCarthy-style approach in order to punish dissidence. 
The head of the heritage unit at the Parks Canada Service Centre in Quebec City was sent home last week after 30 years of loyal service. Her only mistake was to criticize, internally, the effects of the job cuts in the regions. Now the Conservatives are punishing people for their opinions.
Do the Conservatives realize that their desire for a single mindset has gone too far?
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have had the privilege of working with some of our dedicated Parks Canada staff across the country, especially those in the Rocky Mountain National Park area. I know personally we have a very close, productive working relationship with these hard-working staff that understand how to protect our natural heritage. There are ways that they work with us to ensure we continue to invest in these great programs. Certainly that is the working relationship we have with them.
However, I think it is right to say it is entirely reasonable for Parks Canada staff to work toward protecting our great national heritage, including visitor experiences for visitors and not on partisan politics.
Annick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, what about freedom of speech? All those who criticize the Conservatives are guilty of treason. Honestly. The Conservatives want to impose a botched budget bill that eliminates jobs and attacks the regions. Naturally people are going to criticize what is happening.
In order to suppress dissidence, the Conservatives are creating a climate of fear among federal public servants and are immediately dismissing anyone who will not drink the Conservative Kool-Aid. This type of ideological bullying is completely unacceptable.
Is this the Conservatives' reaction—to send the thought police to federal office buildings?
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, the millions of Canadians who look toward our government to ensure the success of the long-term prosperity of our country refuse to drink the orange Kool-Aid that party offers.
We tell Canadians that we will ensure their long-term prosperity by promoting jobs and growth through policies, including sustainable development of our natural resources.
I certainly hope the NDP, rather than this rhetoric it continually puts forward, will actually focus on helping us grow the country in a time of global economic fragility.
Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I cut my mullet off a long time ago, so why are the Conservatives acting like it is 1984?
They sent letters to Parks Canada employees telling them to toe the party line, even when the Minister of Finance admitted the budget is flawed. We are talking about Parks Canada employees, not one of the government backbenchers.
Why do the Conservative thought police think they can bully them into submission?
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the member opposite said was cut off.
First of all, our government has protected more of our natural heritage than any other government in recent history. Our government continues to work very closely with Parks Canada staff to protect those lands and ensure great visitor experiences for Canadians and those visiting our country.
Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Conservatives are cutting off is freedom of speech.
Parks Canada employees were told their duty is “to support the elected government”.
Their duty is to protect Canada's parks, something the Conservative government obviously does not understand.
Just because the Conservatives were able to ram their Trojan Horse bill through this House, how can they be so arrogant to think that somehow this gives them a mandate to intimidate Canadians?
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, I have already talked to the House about the great working relationship that we do have with Parks Canada, and I would certainly encourage my colleague opposite to talk to those staff about how the business actually works.
Let us talk about what the opposition has done with regard to Trojan Horse workings. They go out and talk to western Canadians, saying that what they do is a disease. They denigrate entire industries in our country.
What the opposition should be doing is focusing on the long-term prosperity and long-term health of our economy. They should be getting on board with the budgetary measures that we have been putting in place to protect this country through a time of global fragility.
EthicsMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it seems as though a cat got the tongue of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. For several days now, his colleague from Nepean—Carleton has been protesting to anyone who will listen—and no one will—that the member for Peterborough handed over all the documents to Elections Canada. But—surprise, surprise—yesterday evening, we learned that the campaign of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister allegedly fabricated false documents. Those are very serious allegations.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister  step down until the investigation into his questionable election campaign concludes?
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, the member handed over the documents to Elections Canada almost four years ago. These documents were verified and accepted by Elections Canada. Since then, Elections Canada has not even contacted the member for Peterborough or raised any concerns about his campaign. 
Although the member contacted Elections Canada to ask whether there were any problems or questions, Elections Canada said it did not want to speak to him or ask him any questions. The member is available to answer all of their questions.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, given the seriousness, he needs to get his facts straight. Elections Canada did contact him through his lawyer, and they went to court to demand the documents.
The Prime Minister told this House there was no election scandal—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, order. Order. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has the floor.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, we see the tension over there because Elections Canada has come forward now with a document that says there was a forged invoice, a trail of backdated cheques and a bogus cover-up that it says was intentional.
We are talking about a deliberate attempt to break the law in order to win an election. This is way beyond the member for Peterborough. This goes to the Prime Minister.
When will the Prime Minister make the member step aside until the investigation is complete?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, in fact Elections Canada did not reach out and contact the parliamentary secretary. It was the reverse. The parliamentary secretary contacted Elections Canada and said, “Please come forward with any questions you might have about my filing which I gave you almost four years ago, which was audited, verified and accepted.”
Elections Canada responded that it is not interested in meeting with him at this time. He stands ready and available to answer the questions of Elections Canada, if those questions eventually, at some point, ever arrive.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, the member has to stop pretending that this is a case of The Art of War and spend more time studying All the President's Men. What we are dealing with here are allegations of fraud and forgery that have been raised by Elections Canada through court documents. 
The affidavit indicates that the member for Peterborough acted in a manner that facilitated the concealing and the misrepresenting of the paper trail. 
Will the Prime Minister do the right thing in saying that he actually takes these allegations seriously? Will he ask the member for Peterborough to step aside until this investigation is complete?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the member of Parliament submitted his election filings almost four years ago, and those filings were verified, audited and accepted by that agency. Since that time the agency has not contacted the member to ask any additional questions or raise any additional problems. At some point, he actually called Elections Canada to ask if they wanted to pose any questions or seek any additional information.
 He is completely available. However, so far the agency has indicated it does not wish to do that. 
Scott Andrews: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary can no longer fabricate spin around the fact that serious Elections Canada rules have been broken. 
Let us be clear: it is about the documents that he did not submit. The facts are that the member was responsible for filing forged documents; the member took steps to hide the truth about exceeding spending limits. 
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Take it outside.
Scott Andrews:  We will. We will take it outside. This is a serious—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. 
The hon. member for Avalon has a few seconds left to finish his question. 
[Interjection]
Scott Andrews: This is a serious issue, and the government's response must be as serious. 
I ask the Prime Minister, will he act immediately and remove the parliamentary secretary?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member to take exactly the same statement that he just uttered here and the exact same words, walk out the doors and repeat them. 
Scott Andrews: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister stood in the House this week and repeatedly said he had voluntarily given everything to Elections Canada. We know this is not the case. It is bad enough that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister knowingly exceeded the spending limits, but then the member thought he could roll back the odometer and fool Elections Canada. 
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport must come clean now. When did he know there were forged documents, and will he defend this phony election return?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, a lot of people watching may not realize that parliamentary privilege protects this member, so he can say anything he wants without ever having to prove it. He can disparage the reputation of anybody and he never has to back up any of his allegations with facts. He has made some very clear ones. He has no evidence to back them up. 
I would encourage him, if he has the integrity, if he has the courage, to take the exact statement that he just made, walk outside in front of the media and repeat those allegations. It is my bet that he will not do it. 
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the official security unit in the Privy Council Office is very good at what they do. If someone close to the Prime Minister, like his parliamentary secretary, is in trouble, the office knows it. They investigate it and they tell the Prime Minister. 
If there were a risk of election fraud, the Prime Minister would know, or if there were evidence of forged documents, the Prime Minister would know, yet, as he did with his friend Bruce Carson, he is wilfully blind, putting the integrity of his government in jeopardy. 
When will the Prime Minister tell his parliamentary secretary to stand aside, and has he yet notified the RCMP?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, these are the same kinds of false allegations that the Liberal Party threw around for an entire election campaign. The reason the allegations never went anywhere is that the party never had any evidence for the things they were saying. The Liberals spend all their time talking about things for which they have no evidence because they have no agenda for this country, no plan for this economy. They have nothing to offer the Canadian electorate and the Canadian public. 
We on this side of the House of Commons are getting things done. That is why the Liberals are over there in the corner. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
PensionsPeggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives cheered yesterday as they raised the age for OAS from 65 to 67. However, Canadians are not cheering. They are concerned about this major cutback to their retirement security. They are furious that the Prime Minister broke his promise on pensions.
Why did the Conservatives cheer for a move that will unnecessarily hurt generations of Canadian seniors? Why were they not honest with Canadians in the last election?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we were very pleased yesterday to see the passage of Bill C-38 so that we can move forward with our job creation and economic growth agenda.
With respect to OAS, I will repeat what I said earlier this week in the House. First, there will be no reductions in seniors' pensions. 
I will also quote the OECD Secretary-General, who stated:
 Bold action is required. Breaking down the barriers that stop older people from working beyond traditional retirement ages will be a necessity to ensure that our children and grand-children can enjoy an adequate pension at the end of their working life. 

[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear! Hear!
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.
EmploymentPeggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, there the Conservatives go again, cheering while Canadians are worrying about their retirement security.
 Also buried in this Trojan Horse bill is the repeal of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. For nearly a century it has ensured that construction workers could make a decent day's pay for an honest day's work. However, the Conservatives are happy to scrap it.
Why were the Conservatives not honest with Canadians about their plans, and what do they have against hard-working Canadians?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I am mildly entertained by the question because it is the NDP who are against those hard-working Canadians, particularly in western Canada.
We are working and moving forward to make sure there are jobs created in this country so that Canadians have an opportunity to work, and that is what we want them to do.
With regard to fair wages, this change will eliminate red tape for small businesses. Apparently all construction workers in Canada, including workers with federal contracts, are protected by provincial and territorial employment standards.
Employment InsuranceMs. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government will further restrict access to employment insurance.
Thirty-four per cent of Canadians have jobs that do not fit into a little box—part-time, temporary or multiple jobs. These workers typically do not have access to employment insurances. Many of them belong to marginalized groups, and this bill will put them at an even greater disadvantage.
Why are the Conservatives attacking our most vulnerable workers?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, as I have said several times before, the top priority of the government is job creation and economic growth. That is exactly why we passed Bill C-38 yesterday evening in this House. Although the opposition were completely against all those job creation programs, we are moving forward.
The government is making improvements to employment insurance. The reason for this is to make sure we can meet the needs of Canadians. We are being responsive, to better connect Canadians with local jobs with their local qualifications.
Employment EquityMrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Trojan Horse budget is an attack on our most vulnerable workers.
The federal contractors program for employment equity affects over a million workers. The program goals have not yet been achieved. A legitimate economic action plan would include women, cultural communities and first nations.
Why are the Conservatives dismantling a program that fights discrimination?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, as I have already mentioned in this House today, Bill C-38 is a job creation bill. We are moving forward to make sure that Canadians have the opportunity to have a job. In fact, we have created 760,000 net new jobs since the recession.
With respect to the Employment Equity Act, it has been amended to allow greater flexibility in programming to provide an opportunity for more Canadians to have a role, a job and something to improve the quality of life for their families.
The BudgetMr. Kyle Seeback (Brampton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over the past few days we have spent an incredible amount of time on economic action plan 2012. We remain focused on this legislation, as it is the top priority for Canadians: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We remain committed to economic action plan 2012's positive long-term plan for the economy, while the opposition continues to advocate for big government and high taxes.
We look forward to this legislation being passed so we can put these positive measures to work for Canadian families.
 Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please speak to the benefits of economic action plan 2012?
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question and for his hard work on the economic action plan 2012. 
I was absolutely proud to stand with all of my Conservative colleagues yesterday against the attack, by the NDP and other opposition members, on taxpayers and on the economy. We voted nearly 160 times to say yes to a plan that will grow our economy. We voted yes for responsible resource development and for the 750,000 Canadians who work in that sector. We voted yes to the many more jobs we will create for Canada's youth, aboriginals and many more, and we voted yes to getting back to balance and respecting—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Louis—Hébert.
National DefenceMr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is the same old, same old when it comes to the F-35s.
The governance structure for the new F-35 secretariat is made up of the same players who were fingered in the Auditor General's report. In fact, these three deputy ministers had to explain themselves before the public accounts committee.
How do the Conservatives expect to get different results by changing only the exterior, and not the contents?
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, importantly, there has been no money spent on the acquisition of new fighter aircraft for the air force to replace our aging CF-18s. However, we have launched the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat. This arm's-length secretariat will ensure due diligence, oversight and transparency.
The member should know that it is also made up of two independent members, including the former Auditor General, Denis Desautels. We appreciate his commitment to the secretariat.
In the interest of taxpayers, we will not purchase new fighter aircraft until we have received the conclusions and the good work of the secretariat.
Linda Duncan: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister will actually answer this question.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services was given the task of cleaning up the mess, which is the F-35 fiasco. However, only a few short months later, she has broken one of the most important pillars of her seven-point solution: the timely disclosure of the full cost of the F-35s. 
The U.S. government has already completed its review and has disclosed its costs. Why is the minister unable to do the same? Why the delay in releasing the full cost, and where is the accountability we have been promised?
Rona Ambrose: Madam Speaker, I would like to say, at this opportunity, that I am sure that the member shares my concern and condolences for the tragic incident at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Our hearts go out to the victims and to their families.
With regard to that, the secretariat itself has asked, and has recommended to the government, that it take more time to do the due diligence necessary to ensure that the costing that has been put forward by the Department of National Defence is independently validated. We agree with that, and we have given the secretariat more time to do that work.
Rail TransportationNiki Ashton: Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Conservatives refused to deny the coming cuts to VIA Rail. The train that built this country from Toronto to Vancouver will be cut from six days a week to two days a week outside of tourist season. The only passenger rail line that connects communities in the Prairies will be reduced to a placeholder. 
Once again the government is taking the Prairies for granted. When will it stand up for rail service in our part of the country?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the member that in the west, in the Prairies, all but four seats are represented by this government. In think that demonstrates that the people of the Prairies believe in this government.
With regard to VIA Rail, it is a national institution. We support safe, effective and proper rail service. VIA Rail must have the ability to change its routes, depending on demand. We do not really get involved in that if we absolutely can avoid it.
I would encourage the member for Churchill to take that train from The Pas to Churchill. It is a great trip.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, CN has announced its plans to close the rail line linking Moncton and Campbellton. There is currently a rumour that VIA Rail wants to cancel three trains a week between Halifax and Montreal. This will help CN remove the tracks between Moncton et Campbellton. Yet this is an important link that joins the people of Halifax and the Atlantic provinces in the east with the rest of Canada.
What does this government have against Atlantic Canada, the people of rural regions and the economic development of our regions that it would remove such an important economic driver? We need our railways. This government has a duty to leave them alone.
Steven Fletcher: Madam Speaker, again, it is a bit rich, coming from that member. I have said many times that we are committed to effective, safe and efficient rail service. We give VIA Rail enough flexibility so that it can operate the rail system the way it wants. We have made significant investments in VIA Rail. However, when we talk about jobs and the economy and rural Canada, the best thing for the people of Canada is Bill C-38, the bill we passed last night and that the member voted against.
EthicsMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the writing is on the wall. As a matter of fact, it is not just on the wall, it is on the invoice and on the personal cheque for $21,000. The responses we have received from the government on this have more twists and turns and are so contorted that if the Conservatives wanted to bury this issue, they would have to bury it in a saxophone case.
His colleague is defending him today and is certainly staking a fair amount of his own reputation on this case. Does he not see the merit in having the parliamentary secretary stand down until this case is tried?
Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, no I do not, and there is no case. The reality is that the member gave the audited and verified documents to Elections Canada, which approved them almost four years ago, and he has heard nothing from the agency since.
 I disagree with the NDP members' ideas, but at least they have ideas. I disagree with their policies. I think they are terrible, but at least they have policies. The only reason the Liberals ask these questions is that they have no agenda for the country. When one does not stand for something, one falls for everything.
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, one thing that has become clear is that the Conservative government keeps two sets of books. We saw that the pre-election set of books on the F-35s said they would cost $15 billion. Then the AG uncovered another set of books after the election, which puts the cost at about $25 billion. 
There are two sets of books going on here. The one filed with Elections Canada says that it was $1,575 for phone call services for 630 hours. That is about $2.48 an hour. No wonder these guys went out of business.
I have a direct question for my colleague. Was the $25,000 cheque—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member cannot even keep his own numbers straight now. The reality is that the parliamentary secretary filed complete, audited, verified documents with Elections Canada almost four years ago, and they were approved. He has not heard a single thing from the elections agency since that time. 
By contrast, this is a member of Parliament who has been working as part of our government to produce an economic action plan that has led to the creation of 750,000 net new jobs right across this country. We won the first—
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.
Revenue CanadaMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Madam Speaker, things are getting clearer. According to a study by Revenue Canada, the government is considering transferring activities from the tax centres in Jonquière and Shawinigan to the private sector. 
The government would be giving up incomparable expertise. We are talking about 65 full-time positions in Shawinigan and 35 positions in Jonquière. Sensitive and confidential documents could end up in the hands of a private company.
Why are the Conservatives attacking jobs and prosperity in the regions?
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Madam Speaker, we will not comment on rumours or speculation. However, we must ensure that taxpayers' money is spent where it will do the most good. We will ensure that the government programs are efficient and effective in achieving the expected results. Of course, our government's priority is the economy and making sure that Canadians' tax dollars are being spent wisely. Our government is committed to supporting CRA and to offering Canadians a high level of service while ensuring the integrity of the tax system.
Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is unacceptable. These dozens of jobs are vital to my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. A Revenue Canada study tells us that 35 jobs in the SP1 category would disappear from the Jonquière tax centre; more good jobs cut in the region.
Can the government confirm this number of cuts? Can it tell us how these cuts will help the economy of my Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region?
Cathy McLeod: Madam Speaker, we will not comment on speculation and rumours, but we will say that we must ensure that taxpayers' money is spent where it will do the most good, and Canada Revenue Agency must do its part.
Under our Prime Minister's leadership, our government has delivered a low-tax plan for jobs and growth that is working for all Canadians: for individuals, for families, and for Canadian businesses.
We really need to support Bill C-38. That is part of our plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and getting back.
Science and TechnologyMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Madam Speaker, our government continues to invest in science, technology and research across the board in economic action plan 2012 to create jobs, grow our economy and improve quality of life for all Canadians.
We now have a brain gain in Canada, and our international partners agree. Yesterday, the National Academies released its report to the U.S. Congress, entitled “Research Universities and the Future of America”.
Can the Minister of State for Science and Technology and the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario please update the House on what the report had to say about Canada?
Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC): Madam Speaker, I was very happy to see this U.S.-based report that noted that the United States of America must, as a priority, be more proactive, both by recruiting students, post-doctorates and scholars and by following the practices of other nations, such as Canada, and that the U.S. should create a program similar to our Canada Research Chairs.
We continue to invest in science and technology, and I want to thank the Prime Minister and my Conservative colleagues as well as the member for Brampton—Springdale for voting yes to science and technology.
Parks CanadaMs. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the government takes extreme steps to silence critics who disagree with its flawed ideology.
The disturbing pattern of gag orders continues, with the government now sending a letter threatening Parks Canada employees who speak out against its regime in any way.
This letter is so intimidating and anti-democratic that I am actually hoping that it is just another forged Conservative document. If it is not, why is the government shutting down free speech?
Michelle Rempel: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier in the House today, our government has an excellent working relationship with Parks Canada employees. We work hard together to continue to protect our country's great natural heritage. 
We have protected more parkland than any other government in Canadian history. When it comes to our scientists, Environment Canada scientists have taken over 1,100 media interviews this year. We have published over 624 journal articles. We continue to fund R and D.
However, the foreword of one of the books by my colleague opposite actually talks about how she took media interviews, solely, as opposed to her science team.
SportsMr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP):  Madam Speaker, we know that the Trojan Horse, Bill C-38, will have serious implications for future generations. The Minister of State for Sport now has the discretionary power to stop registered Canadian amateur athletic associations from issuing tax receipts, even though they promote participation in sports and the associated health benefits. We know that our young people are spending less and less time playing sports, but the Conservatives are not taking the situation seriously.
When will the Conservatives come up with a credible plan to promote physical activity among our young people?
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Madam Speaker, I was very proud last night and over the last 22 hours to stand up 160 times with the best caucus in Parliament, the Conservative caucus, to vote in support of continued funding for our amateur athletes. 
We heard in committee not too long ago that the Canadian Olympic Committee and the Canadian Paralympic Committee were praising this government for the investments it has made in sports.
We will continue to make those investments, despite the fact that the opposition will vote against every single one of them. What I am really excited about is the fact that we have brought back Participaction and the fact that we are bringing the Pan Am Games to Toronto. I am really very excited--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
CopyrightMr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Madam Speaker, Canadians deserve copyright laws to protect jobs and ensure that our economy remains strong. Our government's copyright reform is widely supported by creators, consumers and the businesses that drive Canada's economy. 
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage please tell the House why copyright reform is so important, not only for artists and consumers alike, but also for the creation of jobs and growth?
Paul Calandra: Madam Speaker, the member for Kootenay—Columbia has been a tireless advocate for copyright reform because he understands how important it is for creating jobs. He also has some very important criminal justice legislation in front of the House. He is another strong Conservative member.
With respect to copyright, we understand how important it is to unleash the digital economy for the future. It creates jobs and opportunity. We hope that the opposition will support us, as artists and creators do across the country. It is important that we get this legislation passed.
Fisheries and OceansMr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): Madam Speaker, we learned today that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will make cuts to facilities working to protect the environment. They will be closing the brand-new, $2 million Mont-Joli laboratory. A laboratory in Sydney, British Columbia, will also be closed, along with the Experimental Lakes Area station, resulting in the loss of valuable expertise.
Why are the Conservatives spending millions of dollars to destroy new facilities dedicated to improving the environment?
Hon. Keith Ashfield (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Madam Speaker, our priority is science. It is one of the mainstays of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and we will continue to do that.
In terms of the Experimental Lakes Area, research priorities change in scope and location. Government needs to respond to the priorities.
 In the case of the Experimental Lakes Area, we recognize the good work it has done in the past, but we no longer see a need for whole-ecosystem manipulation. We look forward to transferring the facility to an organization that has a more appropriate research body.
Bill C-38Mr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): Madam Speaker, that is a strange response from a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Over the past few hours, the focus has been on the marathon voting session in the House of Commons. Now, we must direct our focus to the very real consequences that the budget will have not only for citizens, workers, employers and the unemployed, but also for the environment and the regions; all will pay the price for the forced passage of this bill.
 My colleague talked about the closure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' brand-new laboratory at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute in Mont-Joli, which will be sacrificed for the sake of ideology, even though it plays a key role in environmental issues. 
How can the Conservative members from Quebec shut their eyes to the damaging consequences that Bill C-38 will have for all Quebeckers?
Christian Paradis: Madam Speaker, on the contrary, Quebeckers expect economic prosperity and job creation, and our budget includes targeted investments in research and innovation. These investments give us hope for a brighter future. We must not close our eyes. We can find efficiencies in government. That is what we are doing: we are providing high-quality services in an efficient manner.
We must not close our eyes to the things that have to be done. People want to hear about the Plan Nord and responsible resource development. They can complain if they want, but we are going to take action for Quebeckers.
The EnvironmentMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.): Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are attacking science again. The Minister of the Environment is dumping our Experimental Lakes Area, saying that research will just move west to study oil sands' impact on water. World-renowned scientists such as Dr. David Schindler say that makes no sense scientifically or financially. For example, the Alberta oil sands research program has been doing oil and water research at the ELA since 1976. 
What is the real reason the minister is closing the ELA? Is it to drown freshwater science in Canada to avoid inconvenient truths?
Keith Ashfield: Madam Speaker, absolutely not. We are focusing our efforts on new and emerging challenges such as aquatic invasive species and the impact of development in various locations across Canada, just as the member opposite indicated. Departmental scientists and biologists will continue to conduct research on freshwater ecosystems in priority areas.
Business of the HouseNycole Turmel: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying, and I am sure the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will agree, that we all had a very long day yesterday.
However, it was also a day when Canadians saw the opposition stand up and vote for 22 hours against a tyrant and against this government's reckless and regressive agenda.
Yesterday, the opposition asked the government to accept the challenge of taking a break in order to have a question period. We lost our opportunity to ask the government the Thursday question. I appreciate the fact that we are being given that opportunity here today. I would therefore like to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons if he is prepared to tell us what the government has planned for next week. Specifically, we would like to know what bills the government plans to spring on us next week, without any real public consultation.
I would also like to point out that today is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. It is ironic that Bill C-38 passed yesterday, considering that it will raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. It is a funny coincidence—although I do not find it very funny.
In March, the government introduced a bill on seniors. We had just two and a half hours of debate. Many members of the official opposition want to work on this bill in the House, with the government.
In the spirit of working together with all parties on this very important day, would the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons be willing to put this bill on the orders of the day this afternoon? If he did, and if this bill could be referred to committee this afternoon, we would have a speaker prepared to take part in the debate.
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to start my one-day-late Thursday statement with the Conservatives' deep gratitude to all of the staff and pages of the House of Commons, who were forced to endure a rather long Wednesday sitting. I thank them for that and I apologize that they were subjected to it.
On to the remaining business of the House, this afternoon will we complete third reading debate of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. On Monday we will have the third reading debate of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, now that we are past the opposition's theatrical and ideologically driven delay tactics at report stage, which caused you, Madam Speaker, to have to spend an undue length of time here, in particular during the unfortunate act of slow votes, which really achieved nothing but inconvenience to the staff and pages of the House of Commons. 
If we have extra time on Monday, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. For the remainder of the week, I want to see the House dispose of the many bills that are still awaiting our work and attention. To accommodate the House, we have voted to sit into the evenings next week. 
I would welcome any co-operation from my counterparts on moving these bills forward efficiently. I would like to start with securing second reading and referral to committee before the fall sitting of the following bills: Bill C-24, the Canada—Panama economic growth and prosperity act; Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act; Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act; Bill C-15, the military justice bill that I mentioned moments ago; Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act; and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. 
Of course, this is only the start of my list, but it would be a good message for us to send to Canadians to show that we are actually willing to do our jobs, the jobs they sent us here to do, and actually vote and make decisions on the bills before us. A productive last week of the spring sitting of our hard-working Parliament would reassure Canadians that their parliamentarians are here to work.
 To get on in that direction, since today is World Elder Abuse Day, I want to draw attention to our Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act. I believe this bill to combat elder abuse has the support of all parties. I have heard the suggestion of the opposition whip, but I would like to suggest we go one step further. I know the opposition has shown it likes to talk about things; we actually like to make decisions and get things done on this side of the House. With that in mind, and in recognition of this day, it is appropriate to advance this important bill right now and send it to committee for study. Therefore, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse) be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent to propose the bill?
The hon. member for Hull--Aylmer.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: The NDP wants the bill to follow the legislative process. If the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wants to introduce it, we want to discuss it. Then it will be referred to committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Michelle Rempel: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to correct the record on a statement I made in question period earlier.
 I made a statement referring to my colleague from Etobicoke North and the foreword in her book. It was actually from a book review that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on her book called Hunting the 1918 Flu: One Scientist's Search for a Killer Virus. The quote out of that review was, “At one stage of the work at the exhumation site, [ the member for Etobicoke North] ordered that no one should talk to the media except herself.”

Routine Proceedings
Public Sector Integrity CommissionerThe Deputy Speaker:  I have the honour, pursuant to section 38 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, to lay upon the table the report of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.
This report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
Commissioner of LobbyingThe Deputy Speaker: I also have the honour to lay upon the table the annual reports on the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act of the Commissioner of Lobbying for the year 2011-12.
This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Finally, pursuant to subsection 10.5 of the Lobbying Act, it is my duty to present to the House a report on investigation from the Commissioner of Lobbying.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 41 petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsShelly Glover: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie respecting its participation at the bureau meeting and the XXXVI ordinary session of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, held in Dakar, Senegal, from July 4 to 8, 2010.
Civil Marriage ActMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-435, An Act to amend the Civil Marriage Act (divorce and corollary relief).
Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Civil Marriage Act (divorce and corollary relief). 
Members will know that on February 17 the government introduced a similarly titled bill which has as its main purpose to guarantee the validity of all same-sex marriages entered into in Canada, something we on this side of the House have never questioned.
My bill aims to provide the same legal guarantee but has two additional provisions. The most important is to add a clause to allow Canadian courts, if asked, to assume jurisdiction for corollary remedies. This would allow them in non-resident same-sex divorce cases to deal with important matters like child custody and division of property. Without this provision, which is not in the government's bill, non-resident same-sex couples would be able to get a divorce but they would have no way of dealing with outstanding legal questions connected with that divorce, including child custody.
The other provision would correct a technical flaw in the government's bill that would require one member of a same-sex couple seeking a divorce, where the other was missing or unreasonably withholding consent, to get a declaration stating this from a court in the home jurisdiction. This is obviously impossible if the same-sex marriage is not recognized in that jurisdiction.
Since creating the furor over the question of validity of same-sex marriages, the government has not proceeded beyond introducing its bill. Today I call on the Conservatives to either proceed with their bill, and I will offer them the amendments from mine, or if they prefer, as of today we could proceed with my bill.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsLinda Duncan: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present two petitions from citizens of Edmonton.
The first petition brings the concern to the House that Canada is the only OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy and that it is estimated over the next five years there will be an $18 billion gap in transit infrastructure needs.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to enact a national public transit strategy to provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit, to establish federal funding mechanisms and to work together with all levels of government to provide sustainable, predictable, long-term, adequate funding and establish accountability measures to ensure all governments work together to increase access to public transit.
Linda Duncan: Madam Speaker, my second petition is from Edmontonians who raise concerns to the House about proceeding with hydraulic fracturing of shale gas in the absence of any kind of proper regulatory framework. The petitioners are concerned that the process injects millions of litres of water laced with large numbers of chemicals underground, at high pressure, potentially causing environmental and health effects.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to entertain an in-depth analysis immediately on the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and that companies be required to publicly disclose chemicals used. The petitioners ask that a study on the risks to and effects on human health be undertaken by Health Canada, that a cross-Canada public consultation be held, and that federal legislation be reviewed, especially the Canada Water Act and the CEPA, to ensure provisions to protect water for Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. 
I would just remind all members that petitions are not to be read verbatim, but should be summarized.
The hon. member for Brampton West.
Kyle Seeback: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure today to introduce a petition from Bramptonians, calling upon the government to create a national survivors and victims day for those who are survivors and victims of child abuse. Survivors of child abuse have endured the stigma and have been shunned and, therefore, we have a day for survivors and victims of child abuse. 
The petitioners call upon the government to make July 20 a day of acknowledgement.
Kirsty Duncan: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition regarding physical activity. There is a robust body of evidence that lack of physical activity is a major public health issue in Canada. Canadian children are getting more than six hours per day of screen time and are spending more than half their waking hours sitting down. Only 9% of boys and 4% of girls meet the Canadian physical activity guidelines.
The petitioners call upon the government to work with the provinces and territories to develop a comprehensive, pan-Canadian strategy to promote physical activity, to commit to the resulting strategy and to make the necessary investments.
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP):  Madam Speaker, I have two petitions that support my bill, Bill C-322. The petitioners state that horses are ordinarily kept and treated as sport and companion animals, that horses are not raised primarily as food-producing animals, and that horsemeat products sold for human consumption are likely to contain prohibited substances. The petitioners therefore call upon the House of Commons to pass my bill to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act.
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to present two petitions from residents of communities throughout my riding—St. Isidore, Dunvegan, Clarence Creek, Casselman, Rockland, and others. These petitioners are asking Parliament to examine Canada's 400-year-old definition of a human being that says that a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth. 
I would also like to point out that 20,000 Canadians came to Parliament Hill to support a motion to that effect.
Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to table a petition today from residents of Winnipeg North. The petitioners recognize the issue of elder abuse. They also recognize that one of the forms of elder abuse is poverty and that OAS is one of the ways in which poverty is combatted.
These residents ask that the government recognize that people should be able to continue to have the option to retire at the age of 65 and that the government not, in any way, diminish the importance and the value of Canada's three major programs: OAS, GIS and CPP. That is one of the ways in which we fight poverty.
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Madam Speaker, on this World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, I have the honour of tabling a petition from the people of Acadie—Bathurst on the old age security program.
The petitioners are saying that the old age security program helps to combat poverty among seniors and that increasing the age of eligibility for those benefits would have a direct impact on seniors living close to the poverty line.
They are therefore asking that the age of eligibility for the old age security program be maintained at 65 and that the guaranteed income supplement be increased to help lift seniors out of poverty.
Bruce Hyer: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition from citizens in places like Nipigon, Red Rock, Thunder Bay, Kakabeka Falls, Terrace Bay, Rossport and Schreiber, all in my riding.
The petitioners call on the government in the wake of Thunder Bay losing the only stand-alone blood plasma clinic in Canada. Aside from the loss of 30 jobs, the petitioners note that we will now have to import U.S. blood plasma to make up the supply. This will be sourced from paid U.S. donors, putting the supply at risk.
The petitioners call on the government to take action on this.
Bruce Hyer: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a second petition signed by fellow Canadians who are concerned that the recent cuts to CBC Radio-Canada will endanger more services and the long-term viability of our national broadcaster.
Radio-Canada plays an absolutely vital role in providing Canadians with a voice to express our ideas, concerns and opinions.
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have three petitions, mostly from members of my riding of Toronto—Danforth.
The first petition calls on the Government of Canada to create a Canadian energy strategy which focuses on transitioning to a new energy economy based on conservation and renewable energy, with many good ideas actually presented in the petition itself.
Craig Scott: Madam Speaker, the second petition concerns mounting evidence of election fraud in the 2011 federal election. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister to set up an independent, fully empowered royal commission into election fraud.
Craig Scott: Madam Speaker, my third petition is on behalf of residents of Toronto—Danforth and relates to Bill C-38, which I would remind everyone has not yet passed this House.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to allow for greater study, debate and public scrutiny on the budget implementation bill.
Yvon Godin: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from residents of Acadie—Bathurst.
Seniors are worried about changes to old age security. That is why they are petitioning the government to maintain funding for old age security, to make the necessary investments and to increase guaranteed income supplement benefits to lift all seniors out of poverty.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 640 and 641.
Glenn Thibeault:  With regard to government expenditures related to the travel of cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries on April 27, 2012, to promote the proposed Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement: (a) what was the total amount spent for each minister, parliamentary secretary, and staff person on (i) travel expenses, (ii) hospitality expenses, (iii) accommodation, (iv) alcohol, (v) beverages, (vi) food? 
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, these expenses will be made available according to proactive disclosure guidelines. When posted, they will be found at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pd-dp/gr-rg/index-eng.asp. 
Ms. Hélène Laverdière:  With regard to the Office of Religious Freedom: (a) who was consulted regarding the creation of the office, (i) when did the consultations take place, (ii) what are the names and affiliations of those who were consulted; (b) what are the names, positions, and religious affiliations of the guests who attended consultations on a new Office of Religious Freedom in October 2011, (i) how many people from religions including, but not limited to, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, Buddhism were invited to the meeting, (ii) how were the panellists and participants chosen for the meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, (iii) who made the final decisions on panellists and participants chosen for the meeting, (iv) what discussions were held at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) about inviting Amnesty International and why was this organization not invited; (c) who are the employees responsible for the development of the Office of Religious Freedom within (i) the Prime Minister's Office, (ii) the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ Office, (iii) other Ministers’ offices, (iv) DFAIT, (v) other government departments; and (d) how will this office work differently from other sections of DFAIT already working on human rights issues? 
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the promotion and protection of human rights is a key component of Canada’s foreign policy, and the Government of Canada believes strongly in the ability of all people to be free to practice their religion of choice. Canadians enjoy the rights and privileges that come with living in a free and democratic society in which human rights are respected. 
The government is also keenly aware of the struggles that religious minorities face around the world. That is why, during the most recent Speech from the Throne on June 3, 2011, and again at the United Nations General Assembly, the government committed to creating an office of religious freedom. Since taking office in May 2011, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has met both domestically and internationally with a wide variety of individuals, organizations, like-minded countries, religious leaders and academics to discuss the protection of religious minorities. They include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, the Aga Khan, the Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch, the Secretary General of the Baha'i International Community, Ahmadiyya religious leaders, ambassadors and many others. 
With regard to (b), owing to section 19 of the Access to Information Act, DFAIT cannot disclose the names of those present at the October 2011 stakeholder consultation session. It can confirm, however, that invitations were sent out widely to a broad range of faith-based, civil society and academic organizations, including, but not limited to, members of the Baha'i, Buddhist, Christian, Falun Gong, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh communities. Those unable to attend in person were given the option to participate via teleconference. It is important to note that this is but one of many consultations the government has undertaken, both here and abroad, on the creation of this office. Both the department and the minister’s office were involved in organizing the consultation. As with all initiatives, officials make recommendations; final decision-making authority rests with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
With regard to (c) and (d), as previously stated in response to order paper question Q-410 in the first session of the 41st Parliament, tabled on March 12, 2012, no formal announcement has been made and work is ongoing. Therefore, it would be premature to speculate on the staffing structure of the office. It is expected that the office will focus on areas such as advocacy, analysis, policy development and programming related to protecting and advocating on behalf of religious minorities under threat; opposing religious hatred; and promoting Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance abroad. The government will have more to say on this important initiative shortly. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 639 and 650 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Mr. Dany Morin: With respect to cuts to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission outlined in Budget 2012: (a) what is the breakdown of expected savings for each department, agency and organization for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017; (b) what programs and services are expected to be cut; and (c) how many jobs will be lost?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Alexandrine Latendresse: With regard to the use of Canadian military aircraft on January 28 to 31, 2012, for each date: (a) what are the flights that took place specifying (i) date and time of request, (ii) flight time, including time of take-off and landing, (iii) location of aircraft, (iv) destination, (v) nature of aircraft’s use, (vi) all passengers in the aircraft, (vii) name(s) of authorizing official; and (b) what are all requests for flights, including those denied, and multiple requests from the same source, specifying (i) date and time of request, (ii) location of aircraft, (iii) destination, (iv) nature of request, (v) was the request accepted/approved, (vi) name(s) of authorizing official?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Copyright Modernization Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the third time and passed. 
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, discussions have taken place among the whips. I think if you seek it you will find unanimous consent of the House for me to split my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Ottawa South. 
The Deputy Speaker: Does the member have unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague and friend from Halifax West asked me to stand and speak. He serves as the industry critic and is certainly much more involved in this topic and piece of legislation than I am. But I have been able to form an opinion after following the debate, after having an opportunity to speak with a number of persons whose lives and livelihoods are impacted by the passing of this legislation, and after having read some of the testimony given in committee hearings. I am very comfortable with my party's position on this particular piece of legislation.
This is not the first time we have seen this type of legislation. For the most part, Bill C-11 is a carbon copy of what we saw in the previous Parliament, which was Bill C-32. The Canadian economy is in the midst of a transition to a digital economy. We know that cultural institutions are going to be impacted through this transition. The music, cinema and education sectors are going to be profoundly impacted by this piece of legislation. 
From what I have been able to read through the development of the legislation and the testimony in committee, there is some support for the legislation. There are some solid principles in the legislation and the direction of the legislation was embraced by the vast majority, but there are a number of specific aspects of this bill that are very contentious and are going to pose harm to a great number of Canadians. Amendments that were brought forward that seemed to be logical and reasonable were totally dismissed, and I am going to talk about that a little later on.
We know that things have changed. Let me take the music sector, as an example, and talk about how that has changed over the last number of years. My caucus colleagues and I would have grown up in an era in which our first experience with music probably would have on vinyl. I do not think it would have gone back to the time of 78s, but certainly 45s and long-playing albums.
Mr. Chris Alexander:  Yours was Vaudeville.
Rodger Cuzner:  I am being heckled that mine was vaudeville. That is a good heckle, but it is not true.
At that juncture, artists would go into a studio, record an album and receive benefits from the sale of that album. Regardless of the format, that template had been set and pretty much followed through the age of cassette players and CDs. There was a revenue stream realized by the creators of the music. They would go out on tour, and their concerts were opportunities to promote the music and hopefully sell some of their product at merchandise tables afterward or hope that people would be motivated to buy their music in various stores.
At one time there was a great Canadian institution like Sam the Record Man and today we have seen the downscale of HMV. Many independent record stores have closed their doors because the industry has changed so much. There were companies that invested in artists over the years. Sony Music used to have branches in the country. It would work with and invest in up-and-coming artists so they could hone their skills and bring their music to a broader audience. There is no longer that type of investment, because the industry has changed so much.
I have a young fellow who is fairly musically inclined. He is studying music at Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick, but he also plays in a little rock band, Back Pocket Material. 
Number one, a person can go into a studio now, and the digital technology is there. A group can go to a friend's house and record absolutely excellent-quality sound. At one time, only professionals could create that kind of sound, but with the digital technology now, it is really at everybody's disposal. 
Rather than laying down tracks and creating an album, the band wants to get music recorded so they can put it on the Internet and get it into the hands of potential fans so that they can hear the music and get it for nothing. Hopefully, if fans get it for nothing, they'll get excited about the band's music and will come out to the shows and pay admission. That will continue to come back to the band; the band will continue to grow and improve, and hopefully it will pursue a career in music. However, it is just a completely different approach to developing this craft than we would have seen even 10 years ago, and certainly 15 years ago. 
As I said, there has been some contrary opinion. Just reading through the testimony from committee, we have seen contrary opinion being shared by a host of individuals and groups. The Canadian Research Chair, Michael Geist; the Retail Council of Canada; the Canadian Council of Archives; and the Documentary Organization of Canada strongly oppose this legislation. 
The main aspect of the legislation is the digital locks provisions. They find it overly restrictive. They believe that similar restrictions that have been placed in the United States have proved detrimental to the development of artists, so they are very concerned about that. The critics would have liked some amendments brought forward. 
On the other side of that, large business groups, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives have expressed support for the bill, which doesn't surprise me. We have seen a tendency on the part of the government that when the Canadian Chamber of Commerce sort of barks, then these Conservatives tend to jump, whether that is on the skills development agenda, EI reform, or whatever it might be, and that seems to be the path the government follows.
Still, big players in the industry: Google, Bell and Rogers have all expressed support for the bill, in principle, but again, concerns around the digital provisions and the digital lock-out provisions. 
Really, with the digital lock-out provisions, there is potential to make criminals out of ordinary Canadians. If a mom buys a DVD and has a movie for the kids, and she wants to put that on her iPad or she wants to put that on her computer and play it in the van, and many of the new vans are now equipped with that type of technology, she compromises herself and puts herself at risk for being charged for making a copy of that. Taking any kind of recording and having it burned onto a CD, after paying for the music, but just taking it and putting it in a different format now places an individual at risk of being charged criminally. 
There was a chance to step back from those measures. Amendments were put forward at committee that would have averted that, but those amendments were totally disregarded.
I should not be surprised. I have been here long enough now and nothing about this should surprise me. The fact is that we were here for 23 hours, voting on amendments to a 450-page budget bill, a bill that impacted on the environment, on fisheries and oceans, on natural resources, and on many different sectors with changes in 70 different pieces of legislation, which went through. Not as much as a comma changed during the course of that debate. There were 800 amendments put forward. They were grouped into 150-odd groups for voting purposes, but there were 800 amendments and the government found none of them worthy. 
When the government brought forward the omnibus bill on crime, my colleague from Mount Royal put forward a number of amendments in particular areas. There was one aspect of the bill that he was in total support of, and he offered the amendments only to enhance and improve that aspect of the legislation. They were totally dismissed by the government.
When the bill came back here for report stage, we know that the Minister of Justice tried to enter those exact same amendments at report stage and was ruled out of order by the Speaker. We know that when the bill went to the Senate, those amendments were put in at the Senate. Those changes were made, I believe, because they were in contravention of the charter. They did improve the legislation.
 Therefore, the government used the back door. It used the Senate—
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member can wind up through questions and comments.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.
Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech and some of the important aspects he is trying to get across. We have to realize that this is a very important piece of legislation that has to address an entire industry. We can only do that by trying to find a balance. That is what this legislation has effectively done, provide a balance with flexibility built in, so that when individual concerns come up, we are able to address them.
With respect to the legislation, we want to strengthen our ability to compete in the global digital economy. This is important for Canada because it is a global digital economy. 
I hope the member understands that while the aspects he is bringing up are important, as the minister stated earlier, there is flexibility within the bill to deal with situations as they may arise, as the bill goes forward, and it attempts to provide the protection that is required by both the consumers and the industry to make us competitive globally.
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and the comment from my colleague. These issues have been brought up and addressed, and amendments have been proposed at committee. 
I will read into the record a quote from U.K. Professor Ian Hargreaves. He is the author of a 2011 report to the British government on intellectual property. In his presentation he states:
 I don't think there is any doubt at all that there is a substantial online infringement problem. My own view is that a substantial online infringement problem will not be satisfactorily addressed until the law makes reasonable sense to reasonable people. Therefore, in the UK case for example, the continued unlawfulness of copying a song from a laptop to an MP3 player is something which has not been tenable for really quite some time. The law needs to be sensible. 
That is what we are talking about here when we see a mom taking something off her laptop and burning it onto a DVD so that the kids can watch it in the van. She puts herself at risk of being charged criminally, and that is the reasonableness that I think we were hoping to attain.
Paul Dewar: Madam Speaker, my colleague touched on something that is very important. We have to strike a balance. We have to protect creators. We have to ensure that they will get paid for their works.
I remember doing a press conference with Billy Bragg here in Ottawa. He was saying that as an artist he wanted to ensure that his fans would not be locked up and that they should be able to share music. However, we have to find a way to find that balance.
The government has put digital locks forward as a means of protection when we know the locks will not do so. They will actually interrupt that exchange that should be there.
Therefore, I would like to ask the member, could he share with me what he thinks would be a good balance? I think the government has it wrong. It is locking up that relationship between the artists and those who want to use the information. What is the balance, how do we get there, and how would he ensure that there is an equal playing field? 
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, my colleague cites the essence of the problem. It is in the balance. I am certainly no expert on this, but I have had an opportunity to speak to artists as well. 
Rex Goudie, a fine upstanding young singer-songwriter from Newfoundland, a Canadian Idol runner-up, is driving a truck to supplement his income and develop as an artist. Artists are very concerned about the provisions in this legislation. Bruce Guthro, who has his own career, is concerned about it for other up-and-coming artists. 
Certainly from the testimony I read, I do not believe the balance has been struck. I am comfortable where our party stands now, that we will not be supporting this legislation because there is an absence of balance in the legislation.
David McGuinty: Madam Speaker, good morning, after a marathon of debate and voting in the last 30 hours.
I would like to focus on some of the practical everyday aspects and impacts of this bill, legislation which the Liberal Party of Canada will not be supporting.
There are a few things that viewers and people reading Hansard might want to know. This bill is a carbon copy of a previous copyright bill, old Bill C-32, which had been brought before the House. The government has refused to amend the bill in any way, shape, or form, either through legislative amendments put by parties, or based on the sound evidence and testimony given by folks who deal with this sector day in and day out. 
Let us look at some of the testimony we heard at the industry committee just in the last seven days. 
It deals with the question of digital locks. As my colleague said, it would say to families, housewives, fathers and single moms or dads that when taking their kids to a soccer tournament, for example, they would not be able to copy a film to play in the car during the eight-hour ride to Windsor. If they did make a copy, they would be subject to prosecution.
There are a couple of other elements.
We heard from the CEO of UBM TechInsights, which is an Ottawa-based world-class company. Its job is to protect intellectual property for creators and owners. It is sort of like a CSI crime lab. It helps inventors and owners in the intellectual property area.
Mr. Harry Page, the CEO of the company, explained to the committee that his company employs some very extensive reverse engineering technologies, so-called forensic techniques. They are used to help people identify instances where there is an infringement. It helps them prove that to enforce their intellectual property rights. 
The problem, of course, is that the digital lock measures in the bill would prevent that company from breaking a digital lock even if it is placed on a device by someone who is pirating another company's hardware or software. 
Why would the government want to make it illegal for a company like UBM TechInsights to break a digital lock to prove a theft, for example, on behalf of a client? It makes no sense. Why would the government aid and abet software pirates? Why is the government not protecting companies like UBM TechInsights that have hundreds of employees and carry out this work on a global basis?
There is another practical example of the impact this legislation would have.
Campus Stores Canada testified at committee. It is a major supplier of books in the academic settings across the country, in colleges, CEGEPs and universities. Its representative said that the bill would have a negative impact on more than 100 vendor and supplier associates. The Campus Stores Canada representative testified that the new copyright act would increase the cost of Canadian textbooks by as much as 15%. 
I am blessed with four kids at home, three of whom are in college and university, and I can attest to my own kids' struggles with the cost of textbooks. They work at part-time jobs and search long and hard for used textbooks, which are often not available. They have to buy new textbooks every year. That is the way the teaching system works. It is hard for young people.
 Why, as the Campus Stores Canada representative testified, would it want to bring in a 15% increase on the over one million students that it serves? Of course, the company does not want to do this, but this is another practical impact of what the government is pursuing.
There is a third example, and it was picked up on by my colleague a moment ago when he read into the record some testimony from Professor Ian Hargreaves. Professor Ian Hargreaves is not just another professor in the area of intellectual property. He was the person who conducted the definitive study in Britain last year on intellectual property. It is the number one study in the United Kingdom.
It is important for Canada to look to other jurisdictions to determine how they have done it comparatively. They are struggling with the same thing.
I want to re-emphasize what Professor Hargreaves said in committee in the last several days. It was basically that the notion that informs this legislation, which is something that the conservative movement has seized upon now in its present form for many years, is about tougher enforcement. The government is going to be tougher about enforcement. We often hear that, and we often ask why the government would not want to be as tough on the causes of crime, for example, as the government says it is on the crime itself. 
Professor Hargreaves said that the United Kingdom has a law in place making it unlawful to copy a song from a laptop to an MP3 player. He basically said that this was a big mistake. It has not worked in the United Kingdom. He went on to say, “The continued unlawfulness of copying a song from a laptop to an MP3 player is something which has not been tenable for really quite some time. The law needs to be sensible.” The law he referred to as making “reasonable sense to reasonable people”. 
We have a situation where the government, with full knowledge of other experiences in other jurisdictions, is simply saying it does not want to change or improve this bill. Perhaps the Conservatives are motivated by such partisanship that they cannot accept good amendments from other parties. It is very unfortunate if that is the case. Perhaps they are under inordinate pressure and undue influence from the United States, which has a very powerful entertainment industry. Perhaps they are under pressure from forces in Los Angeles and Hollywood that are very worried about the growth of Canada's film industry, of the success in Toronto and Vancouver and even in cities like my city, Ottawa, where increasing numbers of films and recordings are being pursued. 
I do not know what the motivation is, but it is unfortunate that the government does not see fit to work with Parliament. That is why we come to work here every day. We come to work to improve things. We have here a case where the definitive author of the biggest study in the United Kingdom in years testified that it just does not work, so why do we not actually pursue another way?
That is why we put forward a number of amendments to try to overcome these difficulties. We ask again, why will the government not amend Bill C-11 to allow consumers to break a digital lock for personal use, for what we call non-infringing purposes? Why would the government want to send a signal to the millions of Canadians who occasionally copy this kind of material for personal use that they had better watch out because they are going to be hunted down? It sort of portrays, and I am not sure if it is ignorance or just an unwillingness to see where society is on these issues. 
I have four teenage kids who spend a lot of time doing creative work, listening to creative work, participating in creative work. It is now part and parcel of what they do in school. It is part and parcel of what they do in society. 
Seniors are increasingly turning to online solutions. Very many seniors in my riding of Ottawa South are now doing online banking. They are pursuing online entertainment searches. Some of them have mobility problems, or perhaps are disabled. 
I do not understand why the government has this pig-headedness, this hard-headedness about not wanting to improve the bill based on these practical issues that have been raised and practical solutions that have been proffered by both the U.K. experience and by parliamentarians here on the floor.
I would like to close by saying that, yes, it is important to improve and modernize our Copyright Act, but it is not a serious venture when the government carbon copies the previous facsimile of it, brings it to the floor of the House, and says, “Here, do it again. We are not interested in improving this,” when there is goodwill and good faith to do so.
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.
Does he agree that this copyright reform has a lot in common with the policies of our neighbours to the south, and that it is basically a cut-and-paste job? Is the government essentially copying the American vision, adding nothing more than a “Royal Canadian” sticker?
[Interjection]
David McGuinty: Madam Speaker, first, we have to be very careful. Our American neighbours have their own interests at heart, and we have to respect that. In this case, it is clear that the Americans have had a major influence on the Conservative government.
Diplomatic cables recently revealed information showing that some parts of the Conservative bill were drafted to address concerns expressed by the American industry rather than issues of interest to Canadians. That is what is going on.
We have responsibilities here as Canadian lawmakers. We have to protect our own creative sector. Quebec, for example, has world-famous producers, filmmakers and writers.
We have to protect our own interests. I am not here to criticize American society, which has to protect its own interests. Still, it is outrageous that this bill has been influenced by so much pressure from the United States. 
Linda Duncan: Madam Speaker, one issue in the bill is of direct concern to people in my riding and across Alberta. We have a wonderful university called Athabasca University where everybody learns online. Students need to access materials online. The bill would digitally lock material, which would self-destruct within five days, and the course materials would have to be destroyed after no more than 30 days. 
Could the hon. member speak to that? Does he think there should be accommodation? We want to protect creators. I have been an academic. We value the work of writers, but at the same time we want to try to encourage the people, particularly in aboriginal communities and isolated rural communities, to beef up their skills.
 Surely there should be greater provisions to support those people who make an effort to further their education. They should be able to access that information for a longer time period. 
[Interjection]
David McGuinty: Madam Speaker, when I first read these provisions in the bill, I was reminded of the beginning of the famous Mission Impossible series of films, in which the Mission Impossible person is asked to take on a mission, if he agrees to do so, at the end of which, once he agrees, the tape self-destructs in 30 seconds.
As a former university teacher, that is just not how learning works. Young people today use information of this kind that is available online and elsewhere and they learn in learning blocks. They often have to return to foundational learning blocks to build on them to make progress, particularly in our trade sector.
Information, when it comes to trade skills, learning skills that build one on the other to provide a good workforce for our Canadian economy, it is just not realistic to ask them to destroy material in that kind of timeline.
Again, it is not steeped in reality and perhaps not even steeped in the real interests of Canadians.
Scott Armstrong: Madam Speaker, if there is time left, I will split my time with the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale.
I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. I am proud to say that our government is moving ahead with copyright modernization legislation that addresses the challenges and opportunities of the Internet and other digital technologies, and will bring Canada's copyright laws up to international standards.
I would like to thank the hon. members of the legislative committee. We all sat together and worked hard in studying the bill. The amendments we adopted at the committee have strongly enhanced this bill.
Before I discuss the copyright modernization act, I would like to emphasize that until we pass this legislation, we will be stuck with a copyright law and regimen that are long and overdue for reform. 
The last time Canada's Copyright Act was substantively updated was in 1997. That was 15 years ago. Back then, VCRs and CDs were the norm. Words like “blog”, “tweet”, “iPad”, “WiFi” and “app” were not part of Canada's everyday vocabulary.
 Since then, the Internet has radically transformed the way in which Canadians produce and access copyrighted material. Apps for mobile devices continually improve our access to content. Tablet devices allow readers to access e-books, e-magazines and other content. It seems like every day there is something newer, faster or better out there for creators and consumers.
We need to catch up and keep up with the rapid pace of technological change that touches upon all of our lives. The fact is that while Canadian businesses and consumers are making use of all kinds of new and innovative technologies, our copyright laws have simply not kept pace. An update is drastically needed. That is why we are modernizing the Copyright Act to bring Canada's copyright laws into the digital age.
We are taking a common sense approach to this modernization. We are taking a balanced approach that considers how Canadians create and use content, an approach that gives Canadians and Canadian creators, the innovators the tools they need to protect their investments. It is an approach that is responsive to the ever-evolving technological environment, I would like to stress, it is an approach that protects and helps create jobs, promotes innovation and attracts new investment to Canada. In short, we are taking an approach to copyright modernization that is going to help us succeed in a digital economy.
The challenge in modernizing any copyright law is striking just the right balance between the needs and interests of the various users, creators and intermediaries. We believe we have this balance just right.
 Bill C-11 would give Canadian creators the tools they need to remain creative, innovative and competitive internationally. It contains a number of important provisions that would help Canada's creators reach new markets. It would also help them roll out new business models.
One way we will do this is by allowing creators to benefit from the full range of rights and protections that are established in the World Intellectual Property Organization Internet treaties, better known as WIPO. These treaties represent an international consensus on the standard of copyright protection, which is needed to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the Internet and other digital technologies. Implementing these rights will bring Canada in line with its G8 partners and most of the economies for the OECD. In short, implementing these rights will allow Canada's creators to compete on the global stage.
Beyond implementing the rights of the WIPO treaties, Bill C-11 would continue a number of measures that would help legitimate online businesses flourish and challenge illegitimate ones. For example, Bill C-11 introduces a new civil liability for those who enable online piracy. It does this by supplementing the existing provisions of the Copyright Act with new tools that make liability for enabling online piracy even clearer. I would note that this measure has been enhanced by the amendments that were adopted by the legislative committee studying Bill C-11. Thanks to the work of this committee, the bill clearly targets those who enable online copyright infringement.
Bill C-11 also ensures that Canadian Internet service providers will play a key role in curtailing online infringement. Canadian Internet service providers have developed a practice in which they forward a notice to their subscriber when a rights holder notifies the ISP that one of their subscribers has allegedly infringed upon their copyright. This practice is known as “notice and notice”. It is a Canadian solution to a worldwide problem.
Bill C-11 would formalize this notice and notice practice into law. Again, the committee that was studying Bill C-11 adopted an amendment that would improve the clarity of this provision. I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their hard work to ensure the effectiveness of the bill. 
Let me emphasize that all of these measures, along with many others in the bill, would give creators the rights and protections they need to flourish in the digital economy of today and tomorrow. 
Because Bill C-11 is about balance, it also includes a number of copyright exceptions. These exceptions allow Canadian consumers to legally benefit from digital technology. They serve the public interest and are responsive to the challenges and opportunities of the digital age.
There are a couple of exceptions in the bill. In particular, there are the exceptions that recognize the incredible potential that technology offers to Canadian educational institutions and students.
 As an 18 year experienced educator, I can say that this copyright legislation will make massive improvements in the ability of teachers to instruct their students. It would allow teachers to connect with students in remote communities across the country through technology and enhanced learning opportunities. This would open the door for digital learning. It would enable students in rural and remote communities to access the same lessons as those in metropolitan centres. Furthermore, Bill C-11 would allow educators to make use of publicly available material from the Internet in their teaching activities and it would allow teachers to enjoy the flexibility to use copyrighted materials, together with innovative new classroom technologies such as smart boards. 
Let me emphasize that these exceptions would contribute to an enriched educational experience for our students. Let me also emphasize that these educational exceptions are complemented by a number of other exceptions that legitimize many everyday activities for Canadian consumers in the digital age. For instance, the bill would give consumers the flexibility to copy legitimately acquired content, such as songs, to devices such as smart phones and MP3 players.
These exceptions are a key part of the government's approach to copyright modernization, an approach that is fair, balanced and relevant to today's technological world. In today's global economy, Canada must keep pace with the world as it races forward. Bill C-11 would help put us in the winning position in this global economy. It would contribute to an environment that fosters creativity, innovation and economic growth.
However, Let us not forget that we will have none of this until we pass this legislation. 
The committee studying the bill has now completed its work. It has listened to Canadians, has reviewed the bill, has amended the bill and now we need to pass the bill. We need to complete our work on copyright modernization. I invite my colleagues to contribute to the swift passage of this legislation so we can bring Canada's copyright laws into the digital age. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, a great number of Canadians would be offended with the government's legislation and what it proposes to do. It is interesting how the government wants to make criminals out of so many members of our population. 
[Interjection]
Ryan Leef: Like the long gun registry.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: This is much more severe than that.
The government is proposing, through this legislation, to make it illegal for people to take a music disc and transfer it to their personal iPads or MP3 players, even though they purchased that disc from a music store. Many advocates have said this is the case. The government is telling 15 or 16-year-old students that they are not allowed to do this and if they do, they are committing a crime.
Why has the government neglected the consumer in advancing this bill?
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Madam Speaker, what the hon. member across the way is talking about is digital locks because his party does not support digital locks. Anyone who has ever downloaded a movie or video from iTunes, or a song, knows that we need digital locks to enable the companies to sell and get profits from their goods. That is how—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to ask for some order while the hon. member has the floor to allow him to speak.
The hon. member for Cumberland.
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your intervention.
We are talking about digital locks, and that is how companies are going to make money and how creators get money for the objects they create. For example, when we download a movie from iTunes we have options. One option may be to purchase the movie and another may be to rent it. To do that, the company has to have a digital lock so it can have us either purchase it for $20 or rent it for $6. We have to be able to control the technology so the companies that are producing this, hiring people and creating jobs, can make a profit. That is also how creators of content make money. All we would do is set up a legal process so that companies can make money and creators can get paid.
Paul Dewar: Madam Speaker, I want to get into this digital lock issue a bit more. Granted there is the case, as my colleague pointed out, where we do have options of renting or buying, but there is an issue around sharing, and people believe there should be an ability to share.
 However, my question about digital locks regards education. My colleague brought forward the idea of having an amendment so that people in education, particularly those with certain disabilities, would be able to access content. Right now in the bill, there would be a limit on that and the digital lock, as was explained by my colleague, is not a lock in itself but it is an algorithm. So after the content is used once, the student would have to get rid of it and could be charged. It is the same with libraries.
Does the member not think it would be a reasonable amendment to accommodate those who need to use this for education, particularly those who need it because of a disability?
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Madam Speaker, we have to make sure that those in our society who have disabilities have access to content the same as people who are hearing, seeing, who are not disabled. That is why we have some of these exceptions in the bill to support them. What we are asking is, if people break a digital lock in order to get content, particularly if they are disabled, that the provision would be that they repair that lock, so they could not just share it with other people, and the creator or the company would not get paid.
This legislation has gotten a lot of support from the education community. Paul Davidson, the president of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada says:
 This bill reflects a fair balance between the interests of creators and users of copyrighted works and is a positive step forward for university communities across Canada. It clarifies the important questions and will help ensure students and learners have access to the content they need, including digital material. 
It modernizes the educational industry so that we have the ability for creators and companies to make money, but also the students have the ability to get digital material.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1:15, pursuant to an order made Tuesday, May 15, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
 The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Deputy Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Deputy Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Deputy Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the deferred recorded division shall be deferred to Monday, June 18, 2012, at the ordinary time of daily adjournment.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Madam Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 1:30.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Criminal Code[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Madam Speaker, once again, in my speech regarding the bill to amend the National Defence Act, I will discuss some socio-cultural nuances that are important as we study the proposed legislation.
My experience in criminal law and, particularly, my years of professional experience in the itinerant court—the circuit court—in northern Quebec, have given me some perspective to be able to look at the underlying causes of juvenile delinquency and why young people identify with criminal organizations.
I am well aware that this bill has to do with suppressing criminal organization recruitment. I will now take my speech in another direction. I would like to discuss where the group mentality among young people comes from, and why this kind of organization appeals to young people.
I have seen first-hand the devastating consequences of targeted groups being marginalized, most often because of their ethnicity, so today I would like to discuss the highly questionable reasons why criminal organizations operate within legal jurisdictions that have a high ethnocultural population. 
As I have said in the past, I worked at the legal aid office in my riding for two years. During those two years and few months, I was expected to travel with the itinerant court north of the 52nd parallel, particularly to the communities of Kawawachikamach, Matimekush and Unamen Shipu, one being a Naskapi community and the other two Innu communities. 
Given my youth when I started working at the legal aid office, the young people who were facing criminal charges under the youth criminal justice system, were almost always inclined to turn to me. I learned early on to apply the principles of social intervention in the handling of my files. I soon realized that many of these young people were naturally drawn to stick together in groups out of an instinct for self-preservation, because they lacked means and parental role models. They had to turn to alternative means for their own survival and subsistence. To these young people, coming together in groups and joining forces was the obvious solution.
By now it must be clear that my argument focuses mainly on highlighting the circumstances that lead to juvenile delinquency. As members are aware, an approach based on identifying, preventing and correcting elements of deviance must be applied at the first signs of deviant behaviour in the individual.
At the time, I put a great deal of effort into social intervention with young people, because the positive impact this can have is particularly noticeable among that age group. It is less noticeable among older clients, considering the fact that individuals who have adopted a deviant or criminal lifestyle for some time are less likely to change their behaviour, depending on the age and willingness of each individual, of course.
Principles linked to an ethnocultural analysis of factors underlying the appearance of gangs of youth—street gangs—invite us to consider a number of elements having to do with the image of particular ethnic groups as they are portrayed by the mass media. 
I would now like to discuss the attraction of the gangster-rapper lifestyle for young people. In my community, it is very noticeable, since many kids walk around wearing t-shirts celebrating street gangs and bearing the images of well-known rappers in the United States. 
I know the media rely heavily on these images, because they are big sellers. If young people in a community on the 52nd parallel are walking around wearing these t-shirts, I imagine they are popular around the world. Since the early 1990s, the media have been promoting this African-American model. The message that is being sent and the image that is being reflected is that it is possible to live a similar lifestyle if one gets involved in crime and joins a street gang, whether it be the Bloods, the Crips or any other such gang. 
The goal of all this is to sell CDs, although now, in 2012, it is more about selling the promotional material that goes along with them.
That message really resonates with young people in my community, in my riding, because the images they see in those videos often mirror their day-to-day experiences. I am not necessarily suggesting that the South Central Los Angeles lifestyle is the same as that in Uashat, but there are similarities, and that resonates with young people because they can identify with the messages those images are sending. The media therefore have some responsibility in this.
That is why it is important to stop sending young people messages that glorify the criminal lifestyle associated with street gangs. In addition, the media have to re-evaluate their portrayals of situations that exclude and marginalize a particular cultural group. I am more than happy to criticize the media. 
There are newspapers in my own riding—I know that this comes up in Montreal and other places too—that, when a young Innu person commits an offence, write about “Innu youth” breaking into a business or “Innu youth” assaulting another individual. The newspapers make a point of identifying the person's ethnicity. But if a young Quebecker commits a similar offence, there is no mention of his ethnicity. I just wanted to point that out. That kind of information ostracizes young people and further marginalizes them.
Even though gang recruitment activities have been reported across Canada, criminal organizations appear to target marginalized youth who are more likely to buy into the role and fate society has created for them. Young people who belong to targeted minority groups are more likely to be ostracized because the media have already shaped public opinion about their ethnic group.
The acceptance of this stigma and the defeatism that accompanies it makes it that much easier for these young people to adopt a group mentality and join a street gang. It is therefore essential that, when creating legislative measures to prevent the establishment of organized crime cells in the country, the government focuses on the real reasons why these small groups hold such an attraction for these young people, who have to deal with the media's negative portrayal of their ethnic group. 
The adversarial conditions experienced every day by many young people from traditionally ostracized social classes are a fertile ground for the formation of groups of young people who struggle with people's negative image of their identity. I spoke about how the young people in my community came together and joined forces. It is a phenomenon that I experienced first hand, since there was a time in my life when I, too, did not have much and I turned to peers who were a bad influence. That is behind me now, but I just wanted to mention it today.
Too often, Innu and Naskapi youth, particularly those who end up in prison, could technically be considered members of street gangs. They were forced into it out of necessity or spite or ultimately, because of a lack of means. Because I grew up in this environment, I can talk only about what I experienced in my daily life and about the experiences of others that have been brought to my attention. Even having enough food to eat is a problem when you do not have a parental figure and you do not have any money. I submit this respectfully.
David McGuinty: Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to participate in this debate today. This is a really important issue for Canadians and for our communities.
I want to commend the member who has put forward Bill C-394 as a very sincere and thoughtful effort to do something about the proliferation of gangs and gang membership across Canadian society. I think it is a very well-motivated and good-faith initiative.
It tries to make it an offence to recruit, solicit, encourage or even invite a person to join a criminal organization. It would change the penalties if such a person did join a criminal organization. That is where we part ways with the member and the government. It is with respect to their position in this regard.
We strongly support efforts to combat and criminalize the recruitment of individuals, particularly young people, into gangs and criminal organizations. However, we are just as strongly opposed to mandatory minimum penalties. Studies everywhere on the planet prove that such sentences do not deter criminals or make Canadians safer.
However, we do support in the bill the expansion of the definition of “criminal organization offence” to include gang recruitment. This, we believe, would be a very good step toward dealing with our challenge, which is improving the situation of gangs and gang membership.
As I said, we are alarmed about the increasing number of Canadians, particularly young people, who are recruited into gangs. We support the criminalization of this activity.
However, with regard to this question of mandatory minimum sentences for gang recruitment, all the evidence from Canada, the United States, state by state by state; New Zealand; Australia; the United Kingdom; and everywhere this has been tried is overwhelmingly that mandatory minimums do not work. They are ineffective. They are often constitutionally challenged. They are problematic, because they remove the discretion from judges, who are best placed to assess the situation based on the evidence and the facts of the case in front of him or her.
We also know that mandatory minimums do not deter crime. 
On the other hand, we know for sure that what mandatory minimums do is increase recidivism. They actually make it more likely that a person who gets a mandatory minimum sentence comes back and offends again. How can that be good when we are talking about dealing with young people, in particular? 
Half of gang membership in Canada is under the age of 18. When we increase recidivism, we get into a vicious circle that in turn increases crime. That has a more discriminatory impact on more vulnerable groups, notably, in Canada, our aboriginal young people, among whom gang recruitment is higher than it is in other parts of our society.
In my own community of Ottawa South, I deal with community police officers all the time. These are front-line officers, men and women, who are charged with the responsibility of dealing with so-called hot spots. All of us as members of Parliament deal with these in our ridings, particularly in urban spaces. 
They tell us that the ticket now, the key, is to get to kids between the ages of 8 and 12. That is the time to get to kids with activities, particularly post-school activities, that keep them on the right track.
Let us talk about that for a second. What are the circumstances that lead kids, young people in particular, to join gangs?
We know it is linked to, for example, neighbourhood crime. We know it is directly linked to poverty levels. We know it is partly about peer pressure and peer influence.
We know it is sometimes about the lack of vigilance by parents, teachers and community members and leaders. We know it has to do with a lack of opportunities for positive after-school recreation programs, for example, or homework clubs. We know it is linked to substance abuse and alcohol use. We know that this is altogether tied into a large challenge. 
We think the government should be investing more in activities that engage our kids, rather than forcing mandatory minimums on judges and then downloading to the provinces the responsibility to build more jails. By the way, that is a strategy that was tried in Texas and California. Is it not interesting that the governors of both of those states have now publicly denounced that experiment? In California, the state legislature is now struggling with the weight of the cost of prisons. This is a huge part of California's teetering right now on the verge of bankruptcy.
Liberals believe that we should be investing more in soccer fields and music groups and in making our recreational spaces more available for kids. It is not a bad idea, especially when we are dealing with a childhood obesity epidemic and all kinds of health challenges related to sedentary lifestyles. 
We are alarmed by the increase in the number of kids joining gangs. We support the provisions of the bill that actually go a ways in criminalizing the recruitment of kids. However, we just do not understand the government's fixation on mandatory minimums. We know that it is a narrative the government uses for its base, but it flies in the face of all experience. It flies in the face of our community policing. Front-line officers tell us that it is not working. We are scratching our heads and asking why the government wants to spend all this money on incarceration, when we know that every dollar we spend up front saves us $40 afterwards in terms of costs for criminal enforcement, incarceration, parole and beyond. 
We think the bill is good in a halfway respect, but unfortunately, it goes the wrong way when it comes to mandatory minimums. As a result, we will not be supporting this bill.
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate on this bill, which seeks to respond to a practice that is critical to the success of organized crime activity in Canada: the recruitment of persons to join criminal organizations. 
Colleagues have heard so far during debate on our second reading of this bill that those who are most likely to be recruited to join criminal organizations are most often young and marginalized in society. They suffer socio-economic inequality, and they come from difficult family circumstances. 
These vulnerable young persons need to be protected from the tactics of organized crime. That is what I understand private member's Bill C-394 to be trying to do. 
This bill, which would amend the Criminal Code to explicitly prohibit the recruitment of others to join a criminal organization, is a welcome contribution to tackling the practices of gangs. I want to congratulate the member for Brampton—Springdale for bringing it forward. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!
Robert Goguen:  I am obviously in favour of such a proposal and urge all members to support its passage into law. 
The issue of gang recruitment is a serious one, and it requires a multi-faceted response. Neither I nor my colleagues are naive enough to think that this bill, by itself, will solve the problem of gang recruitment. However, we believe that a criminal justice system plays an extremely important role in the overall strategy to respond to organized crime. 
It is also obvious that prevention efforts must be put in place so that those newly involved in organized crime, or those who are thinking about joining a gang, are meaningfully deterred from these opportunities. This is particularly true when those efforts are targeting young people who have not yet gone down the path to a life of serious crime. 
As has already been said, this government has, through budget 2011, invested $10 million to support youth gang prevention activities. It is also important to recall that the government, in 2009, amended the Criminal Code to strengthen the gang peace bond provisions. As members may know, peace bonds require an individual to agree to specific conditions to keep the peace. They can be issued when it is feared, on reasonable grounds, that persons will join a criminal organization and commit a criminal organization offence. 
I am told that these provisions of the Criminal Code are frequently relied upon by police in cities such as Winnipeg and Toronto and are an important prevention tool in the fight against organized crime. The government recognizes the value of prevention, but we must do more. 
There is, however, a need to recognize the limits of prevention. Many of those involved in organized crime are hardened criminals who will not be dissuaded by prevention activities. Frankly speaking, many of these same individuals are not dissuaded by the possibility of jail time. They see that such a possibility is part of the cost of doing business. 
In such cases, the criminal law must respond clearly to behaviours society has deemed unacceptable. In this respect, the proposal to create a stand-alone offence to target gang recruitment is appropriate. In doing so, we ensure that there is a full spectrum of responses to recruitment practices. We also make clear our disapproval and our belief that such conduct must be denounced, deterred, and punished, given the increased threats to society posed by larger criminal organizations. 
In looking at the proposed offence, it is important to be clear that it is not targeting the mere association of individuals. Rather, the focus of the offence is recruitment done for the purposes of enhancing the ability of criminal organizations to facilitate or commit an indictable offence. 
The proposed offence's focus is consistent with the purpose of the existing participation offence found at section 467.11 of the Criminal Code and is now well understood by the courts in Canada. In this respect, the jurisprudence under this existing participation offence will likely be helpful in informing the correct interpretation of the proposed offence as it is used by police and prosecutors. 
For example, the concept of facilitation has been interpreted on many occasions to mean “to make easier”. Accordingly, I expect that this new offence will be quickly relied upon and will be familiar to many in the criminal justice system. 
I would also like to take a moment to address the concerns expressed by some that the new offence is not required, as the existing participation offence already addresses recruitment. As my colleague from Delta—Richmond previously stated, laws must not only be clear, but must be clearly understood. This is an important principle and one that I will strongly support. Our laws must be accessible to all Canadians, police, prosecutors, and the courts. Clearly written and clearly understood laws make the identification of relevant evidence easier for police and make the job of the prosecutor easier. 
Clear laws benefit accused individuals as they help to ensure that they properly understand what is and is not legal. And of course, clear laws help the courts in determining guilt or innocence. 
This is particularly important in the area of organized crime. I am aware that a common concern expressed by police and prosecutors, in investigating this type of crime, is that the laws are complex. While the proposed amendments will not address all of the complexities, they will certainly assist in making obvious to all that the act of recruiting someone to join a criminal organization is a form of participation and is therefore liable to sanction.
I would also note in passing that terrorism offences, which are modelled on the organized crime offences, also deal with the issue of recruitment. For example, the participation in activity of terrorist group offences found at 83.18 of the Criminal Code makes explicit that participating in the activities of a terrorist group include recruitment. While this is all included in one single offence, in my opinion, there is nothing different, from a policy perspective, in making this explicit in a single offence, as is done in terrorism, or in two offences, as is proposed through Bill C-394. The result is the same.
In addition to establishing a new offence, this private member's bill, Bill C-394, makes a number of other consequential amendments to ensure that the new offence is subject to the same special rules in the area of criminal procedure, evidence and sentencing as are the existing organized crime offences. This makes perfect sense and I support these proposals.
Let me close by noting the following as stated in the recently released seventh report, of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, entitled “The State of Organized Crime”:
 Organized crime poses a serious long-term threat to Canada’s institutions, society, economy, and to our individual quality of life. 
We must take all steps possible to ensure that our responses to these threats constantly evolve, so that our children are safe to grow and play in their communities, our businesses thrive, and our quality of life is preserved.
I urge all members to support Bill C-394.
Craig Scott: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-394 going to committee. 
I think we have an opportunity here for some serious cross-party co-operation with respect to this private member's bill. That said, I have some of the same concerns I always do with private members' bills being the vehicle for criminal law reform. They have serious limitations, limitations I will address a little bit in my remarks, and that is why I was very pleased to see that one of the parliamentary secretaries to the Minister of Justice is involved in the file. I hope that as much as possible, a broader, more holistic justice department input to this private member's bill can be forthcoming.
We are all aware that street gangs are becoming more and more of a problem in this country. My own city, Toronto, is ranked among the cities having the largest growing problem. We all know recent events at the Eaton Centre in Toronto, which is actually linked to ongoing gang violence within an area very close to my own riding, although not exactly in my riding, of Regent's Park where, at the end of March on one evening alone, five different incidents occurred producing 90 bullets flying around a housing community in that one evening. The escalating gang violence in that area of Toronto was what, it appears, led to the shooting at the crowded Eaton Centre food court.
Clearly something is wrong, if not terribly wrong, and we must act now, so I welcome the member's private member's bill. It is completely consistent with what the NDP has been calling for since the 2011 election, when it was part of our campaign platform to create an offence for gang recruitment.
That said, we recognize that it cannot be viewed in isolation as an ad hoc measure, which brings me back to the concerns I have with private members' bills and their limitations.
It is important that we rely, as we move forward to committee, on serious, expert studies about what works and what does not and how this one provision will and will not fit with a broader, more holistic strategy.
There is a 2010 report from a leading academic, Scott Wortley, of the University of Toronto, called “Youth, Gangs and Violence: Characteristic Causes and Prevention Strategy”. In this report he notes a few things that are very important for us to keep in mind, because I would like to focus mostly on the issue of youth. He says, “Gang violence is more likely to occur in public spaces, involve weapons, especially firearms, and involve multiple victims...and is more likely to result in the victimization of innocent bystanders”. 
He goes on to speak more generally about the involvement of youth gang members in much higher levels of crime and violence than non-gang youth as something that studies in Canada and in other countries have consistently shown.
He finally notes that youth gang members are much more likely to themselves become victims of serious violence, including homicide, than youth who are not involved in gangs, and I think this is really important for us to remember. In this respect it helps us consider the fact that members of gangs themselves can be viewed as, and are, victims. 
One of the issues that will be coming up in committee, I hope, is youth recruiting youth. It is not simply a matter of youth being recruited, but as youth as recruiters. It is not entirely clear what a criminalization provision will do to that very important complex social fact. We have to keep in mind that members of youth gangs are, not surprisingly, youth. They are used for the recruitment of their peers, and simply criminalizing that behaviour would not get us very far, I submit.
We have to counter the flaring up of violence and what looks to be the increase in gang activity not only by clamping down on violence in a pure Criminal Code mode but also by looking for more long-term solutions. As Professor Wortley said in his report, “Enforcement alone is not going to stop this problem”.
We have to focus on prevention. Members opposite sometimes feel that the NDP overdoes its focus on prevention. They think that somehow this means the NDP is soft on crime. Far from it; it simply means we understand the most effective ways to root out crime before it starts and to prevent it from occurring again.
There is a whole continuum of measures that need to be put in place by a society to give opportunities to those who might otherwise turn to crime or, in this instance, those who might be susceptible to being recruited. If they fall off the wagon, so to speak, they end up being put in jail. We have to make sure that downstream measures within our jail system do not recreate the tendencies to engage in criminal behaviour. This more holistic, long-term and continuum-like approach of the NDP is perfectly consistent with a hard-on-crime approach; it is just a smart-on-crime approach as well.
Gangs have always targeted young people, but they seem to be doing so increasingly. As the member for Brampton—Springdale, who introduced the bill, stated in his own introduction, criminal organizations do appear to be targeting youth as young as eight years old and quite commonly in the age of 12 and 13 to participate in criminal activities and to become actual members of organizations. Members are even hanging around boys and girls clubs just, for example, hoping to recruit innocent children. 
As we have already heard from the member for Ottawa South and the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, the most vulnerable to be recruited tend to be young people who are marginalized, those who are from lower socio-economic groups, those who are from tougher family situations and some who in a more long-term sense are looking ahead to their future prospects in society and are in some despair about where the opportunities do and do not lie for them. These background social facts are as important as the immediate goal of preventing recruitment or preventing organized crime youth gang activity itself.
The NDP's priority is to approach this using a balanced approach. We want to make sure that people live in safe, non-violent communities by putting the emphasis on more programs to prevent young people from being recruited into gangs. I am speaking of programs like the Remix Project created some five years ago in Toronto to serve the needs of young people who are vulnerable to being recruited to gangs.
I have had the opportunity with colleagues to have an early meeting with boys and girls club representatives, knowing the bill would be coming forward. I urge other members to listen to their perspectives and the perspectives of other organizations that work closely with youth.
Among the concerns we heard in what was at this stage still a fairly casual discussion was exactly what I have already raised. The youth being recruited by youth issue cannot be ignored. It has to be directed head on. Youth themselves can be recruiters, and this will criminalize their behaviour as well as anybody else who is recruiting.
The second part of the strategy is that we need to have programs and measures that take a positive approach and create bright options for youth looking into the future. These two messages I took away from our early conversations as being absolutely key.
The NDP has called for an offence of gang recruitment, but we have also put it in the context of a long-standing defence of such measures such as putting more police into communities and creating dedicated youth gang prevention funds and activities.
Let me now go to three concerns about the bill that have to be taken into account. We cannot simply say that we are in favour of it in principle and would like to see it in committee and that therefore everything is fine. It is not entirely fine. 
The first point is that the nature of the private member's bill means that at least from the beginning, the justice department is not involved. We do not have anything resembling a whole-of-government approach to the bill. It is one of the classic areas that I hope I have already outlined in my remarks that needs a more holistic, continuum-like approach to the issue. 
That does not mean that something like this cannot go forward on its own, but it will be a real shame if we lose the opportunity to build this initiative into a much broader understanding of what else is out there and, most importantly, what needs to be put in place for this not to be simply a punitive approach to the problem. It is an approach that is necessary as part of the solution, but on its own, it will only make us feel good but get nothing done.
It is important to note, and I do not mean to make this sound too partisan, but the Conservatives have not been generally favourable to the preventive side. In January 2011, a scarce year ago, the Conservatives announced severe cuts to the youth gang prevention fund, and it was only a push-back from the NDP that had that reinstated.
The Conservatives need to approach this more holistically. We have to focus on the mandatory minimum concern that was already brought up.
Finally, we really have to look at the issue of youth recruiting other youth, and make sure the committee process hears from witnesses who know about that and have real ideas on how to deal with it.
The Deputy Speaker: Seeing no other member rising on debate, I recognize the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale for his right of reply.
Parm Gill: Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleagues from all sides for participating in the debate on this important piece of legislation.
Bill C-394 is the legislation that Canada needs in order to make our streets and communities safer for everyone to enjoy.
This is not about politics or partisanship. It is my belief and hope that when it comes to protecting our youth and our most vulnerable citizens, we are all on the same side. Our youth are our future, and it is our responsibility to provide an environment in which they can reach their greatest potential. This bill is a necessity in today's environment.
Recently, the necessity for this bill has been made even more clear. Two heartbreaking and tragic examples of gang activity have instilled horror and fear in communities across this country.
The tragic shooting which took place at the Eaton Centre in Toronto seems to have been fuelled by an internal gang rift. The shooting claimed two lives and injured numerous others. The shooter's father said that his son was changed by his involvement in gangs at an early age.
This incident put the security and safety of law-abiding citizens in jeopardy. My most heartfelt and deepest condolences go out to the families and loved ones of those affected by this horrific violence.
This week Canadians were horrified by the story of a 16-year-old girl from Winnipeg. This young girl was taken around to different lawyers' offices by a street gang in hopes of her signing a sworn statement falsely pinning the blame of operating a crack house solely on her.
This highlights the brazen lengths to which gangs will go to manipulate our most vulnerable citizens without a care for their well-being, safety or future. Gangs have absolutely no regard for the lives of innocent Canadian citizens. We need to do something about this, and the time is now.
It has been noted by the RCMP, CSIS and front-line service workers that gang recruitment is a growing problem in our neighbourhoods. These entities have cautioned that Canada's gang population will continue to grow as a byproduct of aggressive recruitment.
While restorative and preventive programs and measures are needed, there is a legal void that needs to be filled. Bill C-394 would fill that void. There are far too many youth today who are coerced, manipulated and at times forced to join gangs.
The realities of the gang lifestyle are heartbreaking. Death, guns, drugs, violence, substance abuse, criminal activity and prostitution are all too common in this environment. It is a lifestyle in which no person should ever find himself or herself, yet far too many do. 
It is our responsibility not only as elected representatives but as citizens of this country to work together in an effort to make our future safe for all.
This proposed legislation is an important tool that our criminal justice system needs in order to address this growing concern. The act of gang recruitment does not just affect those directly involved, but it also is a danger to families, communities and the safety of every Canadian.
Young Canadians, regardless of where they grow up, should be able to grow and explore their potential in a safe environment. It is an unfortunate and disheartening reality that youth today are targeted by active and violent gangs. The means by which these gangs recruit our youth are inhumane and life altering.
This reality necessitates the quick passage of Bill C-394, because one person recruited into a gang is one person too many. It is time to take action so that families do not need to live in fear in communities across this country and can enjoy the safety and security that we all deserve.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Deputy Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Deputy Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Deputy Speaker:  In my opinion, the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 20, 2012, before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 2 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2 p.m.)