2012-06-08

Points of OrderMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today with respect to the point of order that was raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands a number of days ago. We have heard from the Liberal Party and the government. New Democrats want to add our voice to the conversation in, hopefully, a timely and brief manner.
I rise in support of the motion by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands with respect to her concerns and the concerns shared by many of us in this place about the manner in which the government has moved Bill C-38, the omnibus budget implementation act. My friend made a number of points. Some of them, we would suggest, are stronger than others for your purview, Mr. Speaker, but on the central theme we find ourselves in agreement.
On many of the concerns that were raised, you have heard from the official opposition New Democrats throughout question period, public commentary and in conversations in the House with you, Mr. Speaker, on the nature and form of the bill and the concerns we share with Canadians of its effect on members of Parliament to do our jobs. This is why I appeal to you directly, Mr. Speaker, in the decision that you have to make because, ultimately, it is your choice in the way we conduct ourselves as members of Parliament and the House conducts itself.
Let me take care of one point right away that the government has raised as a measure of defence of the process that we are engaged in with this more than 400-page budget implementation act, extending over more than 700 clauses, affecting as many as 70 acts of Parliament, either revoking them entirely or modifying them significantly. We have never seen the scale and scope of a bill like this before in parliamentary history, from our purview and the purview of experts who have watched this place over many years. Therefore, let us do away with the idea that the government believes that having a number of hours of debate either here or in committee has somehow satisfied the test that Canadians and parliamentarians understand what is in this act. That is, frankly, not the case. It is almost impossible to understand all of the implications that have been brought in with this act because the government is withholding certain pieces of information, which we will bring to your attention in days to come.
The first point that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands raised was around the fact that there is no central theme to the bill, thereby making it inadmissible or detrimental to Parliament and parliamentary democracy. 
The second point raised was that there was little or no link between the budget itself and what the government has called the budget implementation act. In passing conversation with somebody not as familiar with this place as members are, a Canadian would assume that a budget implementation act would be explicitly linked to the budget by its name and form. Yet we find within the budget implementation act many pieces of government policy that are never mentioned at all in the budget. One example is the removal of Canada from the Kyoto protocol. There is no mention of this in the budget whatsoever, no mention of any aspect of climate change policy or anything to do with that particular act of Parliament, and yet in the budget implementation act there are a couple of lines that remove Canada from that international treaty.
Aside from concerns about whether one agrees or disagrees with the government's intentions with respect to climate change and its lack of actions, the point has to be made that if a government is introducing a budget implementation act with all sorts of measures that have nothing to do with the budget itself, it becomes a budget act in name only. In the actual function, the government is piling in a number of initiatives, policies and new directions for the government that should stand alone and independent for discussion by MPs and the Canadian public.
The intervention by my friend in the corner suggests that for members of Parliament to be able to do our jobs, we need to be able, in good conscience, to hold government to account. Her third point was that the bill is not ready and imperfect and she made a number of interventions on that, which I will not touch on too much. 
To your role in this, Mr. Speaker. Ultimately you are the arbitrator of this place and the defender of our privileges and efforts as members of Parliament to do what Canadians send us to Parliament to do, which is to hold government to account. That is not simply the role of opposition members. So too is it the role of government members in this place. They too are encumbered with the effort to hold government to account at all times. 
If we remember parliamentary history, there was a time in this country that, when MPs were elected and then needed to be placed in cabinet, they actually had to run in a byelection because their role had fundamentally changed to one in which they were defending the government's policy, that is in cabinet, as opposed to sitting as a member of Parliament regardless of party affiliation. That role is fundamentally different.
The concern that we have is twofold. We have seen a trend of increasing cynicism from Canadians towards politics in general and towards this—
Mr. Bob Zimmer:  NDP not Conservatives.
Nathan Cullen:  —place in particular. I thank my friend from Prince George—Peace River for his intervention, but it was most unhelpful.
In the growing cynicism that Canadians feel towards our politics, it is—
Bob Zimmer:  You are welcome. You are welcome.
The Speaker: Order. I will just ask the member for Prince George—Peace River to let the opposition House leader make his point, and then we can move on to orders of the day.
[Interjection]
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, confirming my concerns about the growing cynicism about politics is that when attempting to make a point in Parliament that is sound and reasoned, it is difficult to do it without being heckled from the government side.
My point is this, that all members of Parliament have a duty to the people we seek to represent as well as we can to hold the government of the day to account. This bill encumbers that ability. It makes it difficult, if not outright impossible, for members to do our job. This, Mr. Speaker, is your role. I do not suggest that this is an easy role for you to perform on a daily basis, not just in question period as we attempt to have some sort of civility and decorum, but also throughout Parliament's deliberations over important pieces of legislation.
 It cannot be understated how critical this legislation is, how wide-sweeping and profoundly impactful this bill will be on the lives of Canadians, from taking $12,000 away from seniors as they attempt to retire after long service to this country and building our economy, to removing and fundamentally altering environmental legislation and gutting the protections, taking environmental assessments of major industrial projects from between 4,000 and 6,000 assessments a year to perhaps as few as 20 or 30 a year.
The role of MPs is to hold the government to account. The role of the Speaker is to defend this place and defend this institution.
If there is no, or little, link between the budget and the budget implementation act, we continue and actually aid that cynical trend Canadians feel towards their politics and their politicians. The break between who we represent and their hopes and visions for the future is more profound when governments enact bills like this.
What signal do we send to them if we say that an omnibus bill of this wide a scope and scale is permissible, acceptable and even favoured? Can we not imagine a day, and I think of Speaker Lamoureux's point in 1971, where there is no point of return, when governments seek, through omnibus bills, through Trojan horse bills, to move one, two acts of Parliament a year and put absolutely everything into those acts, that Parliament can sit for 20 days, get through 2 bills and that is it? Accountability is impossible under such a scenario, reforms to immigration, reforms to the oversight of the Auditor General, transparency and accountability.
 For a Parliament to sit through two omnibus bills a year is perhaps what the government may be seeking, but is fundamentally against the spirit and nature of this place where we come together to discuss bills before the House and try to seek to improve them, amend them.
Know this, the government is suggesting that in those 400-plus pages the bill is perfect incarnate and not a comma, not a period needs to be altered. At three various times, just in this Parliament, the government has had to modify or completely scrap its own legislation when it faced evidence and pressure from Canadians. So three times on separate stand-alone bills, the government has had to fundamentally alter itself.
Last night we had our 25th vote on closure in this place since the government was elected to its majority. We now have the largest and most complex omnibus bill in Canadian history, and the lack of accountability is breathtaking. We believe that there is a very dangerous pattern of language in this. From the beginning of this process, the official opposition has attempted to work with the government to break this bill into its component parts to allow Canadians to see the aspects of the bill and understand what the implications would be, because that is our job.
From the beginning we have reached out to government and said, “Do the right thing. Split this into bills.” We have quoted, and you have heard me, Mr. Speaker, quote back to the Conservative Party their own principles with respect to omnibus bills, to closure motions, to Trojan horse legislation. When they held the seats of opposition, they strongly stood for the principle that this place should be accountable to Canadians, that governments should be accountable to Canadians.
We have used their own arguments and words, not our own. We do not expect the government to be swayed by what I say here today. However, we thought that the words and principles of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages would mean something powerful enough to them that they would pause and be swayed by their own arguments and principles.
What happened to those principles? There is a certain seeking of convenience from the government, that it finds this whole process difficult or annoying.
This process that we engage in as parliamentarians is critical and essential, not an inconvenience.
We feel no remorse for the government, that it will now face as many as 500 to 1,000 amendments on this piece of legislation in the days to come. It built a piece of legislation that allows this to take place. We warned the government of this from day one and gave it an alternative. 
The motion from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands says this bill has serious flaws and contentions and undermines what this place is about. We find that she has sound reasoning in this and that as Speaker and in your role as an impartial observer and arbitrator of this place that we must have pause. We must send signals to the government from time to time that, yes, while it has the votes to do this, it does not have the moral superiority and the grounds on which to stand because Canadians did not give the current government, or any government, a mandate to do this kind of thing. Canadians never vote a government in and say that, “You will govern by fiat. You will disregard the democratic process and the open and transparent need for conversation.” Because, ultimately, that is what Canadians are about: seeking consensus; seeking the middle ground; seeking some sort of way to live together as we have, harmoniously, for so many years.
Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing. Let us make this thing a proper piece of legislation.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his contributions to this point. I will get back to House in due course.
Protecting Canada's Immigration System ActHon. Ted Menzies:  moved that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill.
 Having listened closely to the previous speaker's presentation on your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will speak to one point on the issue that relates to Bill C-31 and to Bill C-38. 
There are a number of issues in Bill C-38, our budget bill, that have a lot to do with immigration. I appreciate the member's description of what the opposition's role is in terms of keeping the government to account and accountable. However, what he failed to mention was the amount of time allocated in committee for both Bill C-31 and Bill C-38. Bill C-38 was given an unprecedented amount of time for debate, more than for any other bill in recent history. The fact is that the member would not and did not acknowledge the hours and hours spent debating each and every one of these clauses at committee, which is part of the parliamentary process. He did not even want to acknowledge the time given by the government, in agreement with the opposition, to have that debate.
 I have said that because we took exactly the same approach with Bill C-31. We opened the doors at committee and said that we should bring in all witnesses. The opposition members believed that this was a big, fundamental bill that would change the refugee system in our country so they wanted to hear from all the experts in the country. Even though we had gone through the entire process once already, we went through it again. I did not hear an acknowledgement from the member opposite for the efforts made in terms of our parliamentary process and listening to what people had to say, and not just witnesses but all members of the opposition who had the opportunity to present their changes, thoughts and beliefs on what the bill should look like. With respect to Bill C-31, there were two significant amendments that were made at committee. These were not amendments that had to be made. As everyone knows, there are enough votes at each of our committees here on the Hill for us to win without having to make changes, without having to do anything other than that this is what will be moved forward for third reading and this is the bill that will receive royal assent.
 In our case, we heard from witnesses and we made two significant changes. One had to do with cessation. The way the clause could have been interpreted, an unintended consequence could have been the potential for that individual to lose permanent residency if the country of origin had changed status. We made adjustments to that piece of the legislation. We also made a significant change to the detention issue for irregular arrivals. The original clause included a detention period of up to 12 months. Upon hearing from experts and witnesses who presented their case, the minister and the government listened and made a significant decision. We said that individuals who arrive in what is deemed an irregular arrival, as we saw with the Sun Sea or the Ocean Lady in British Columbia, they would have a hearing after 14 days. Subsequently, if they have been determined to have or not have success with respect to their refugee application, they would be given another hearing after six months.
Therefore, contrary to what the opposition members have been saying over the last week about this government's position with respect to listening, it does listen and it has listened. Bill C-31 is a stronger bill today at third reading than when it was introduced at first reading. Contrary to what the opposition members are saying, this government does spend a lot of time listening, understanding and moving toward the best piece of legislation that we can put forward.
In fact, it speaks to our refugee system here in the country. We welcome more resettled refugees than almost any country in the world. Based on the continued implementation of Bill C-31, which encapsulates a number of pieces of Bill C-11, which was our original refugee reform act, we will have an additional 2,500 refugees per year settle into our country, which is a 20% increase.
It again shows that Canadians have always been known to be fair and compassionate. Our country has a long and proud humanitarian tradition. This bill only strengthens that tradition all the more.
However, it is safe to say that our system, and it is no secret, is also open to abuse. We see that abuse on a daily basis. We are a generous and welcoming people but we do not have tolerance for those who take unfair advantage of our country. Canadians have told us loud and clear again and again that they want a stop put to the abuse which exists within our immigration system. By introducing Bill C-31, and where we are today at third reading, we will see and have shown to those people in this country who have asked us to, that we will protect the integrity of immigration and our refugee system.
There are three main areas covered by the bill which are all interrelated.
First, Bill C-31 includes further and much needed reforms to our asylum system. While the Balanced Refugee Reform Act went a long way to reforming Canada's refugee system, further reform is absolutely necessary. The opposition likes to ask why. The answer is very simple but it cannot be found by using political rhetoric. This is all based on a very factual, necessary and purposeful argument. 
We need to look at the cold, hard and indisputable facts. In 2011, Canada received a total of 5,800 refugee claims from democratic, rights respecting member countries of the European Union. That is an increase of 14% from 2010. That number is actually more than the number of claims that we receive from Africa or Asia. There is a simple problem here. The top source country for refugee claims is Hungary, which is an EU member state. Of all refugee claims in 2011, 4,400, or 18%, came from Hungary. That is up almost 50% from 2010.
What is even more telling is that in 2010, of the 2,400 claims made by Hungarian nationals, only 100 of them were actually made in countries other than Canada. They all came to Canada to make a refugee claim from one country, except 100. There is a problem here. There is an obvious issue that needs to be dealt with. It means that Canada received 2,300 claims from Hungary, which is 23 times more than any other country has received from Hungary. The fact that most gets to the core of why further refugee reform is needed is that virtually every one of these claims was abandoned, withdrawn or rejected. Refugee claimants themselves are choosing not to see their claims to completion, meaning they are not in genuine need of Canada's protection. In other words, their claims are bogus.
The reason these claims are bogus is that people are choosing to come all the way to Canada. They have a choice. There are 26 other countries right next door and most, if not all, are part of the EU. These bogus claimants come here to exploit Canada's generous asylum system because of the lucrative and expensive taxpayer funded health care, welfare and other social benefits that are allowed under the current system we have in place. In fact, these bogus claims y cost Canadian taxpayers in excess of $170 million, and that was just last year alone.
Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act, is part of our plan to restore integrity to our asylum system and restore Canadian's confidence in our immigration system. The bill would make Canada's refugee determination process faster and fairer and would result in faster protection for those who legitimately need refugee protection. It would also, and this is the important aspect of it, ensure faster removal of those whose claims are withdrawn, those claims that are bogus and those claims that have been rejected.
We will speed up the refugee claims process in a number of ways. For example, one major component of Bill C-31 is the improvements to the designated country of origin provision. This will enable the government to respond more quickly to increases in refugee claims from countries that generally do not produce refugees, such as most of those that are in the European Union. Claimants from those countries will still have the opportunity to be heard in terms of their application and to be deemed refugees in Canada. 
Contrary to what the opposition has said, there is, for every person who claims refugee status in this country, an opportunity to be heard and an opportunity to have their case determined by the Immigration and Refugee Board. We will change that process so that it will take close to 45 days versus close to 1,100 days that exists now, more than on average three years to process a refugee application in this country.
If 97% or 98% of claims from particular countries are abandoned or withdrawn, we can just imagine how many months and how many years an individual can take advantage of the Canadian system just because of the number of days it takes to get through this process. This will happen no more. We will turn the system around. We will ensure that everyone gets a hearing and we will ensure it is completed within and about as close to 45 days as possible.
The designated country of origin provisions, which I mentioned and are included in Bill C-31, would bring Canada in line with its peers. Countries, like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, all recognize that some countries are simply safer than others and we can presume them to be so based on criteria, both quantitative and qualitative, that are included within the bill itself. Therefore, refugee claimants from those designated safe countries may be reasonably considered under the expedited process, the 45 day process that I mentioned.
We have had some discussion about the UN lately. I am encouraged, or at least listening, when the opposition stands to speak in favour of pretty much anything that the UN does. I thought it would be important this morning to show that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, has acknowledged that by saying: 
 ...there are indeed safe countries of origin. There are indeed countries in which there is a presumption that refugee claims will probably be not as strong as in other countries 
Mr. Guterres also agreed that as long as all refugee claimants have access to some process it is completely legitimate to accelerate claims from safe countries. 
I will take that one step further. Abraham Abraham, who is the former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, also is not opposed to the process upon which we have designated safe countries. He indicated:
 ...as long as this is used as a procedural tool to prioritize or accelerate examination of applications in carefully circumscribed situations, and not as an absolute bar. 
We are not just implementing a process that is being used everywhere in a number of countries in the world. We are using a process that is endorsed and understood to be a correct one. It does not exist in our Canadian system as it is right now.
I want to underscore, despite what the opposition has said, that every refugee claimant will continue to receive a hearing before the independent quasi-judicial Immigration and Refugee Board regardless of where he or she came from. Furthermore, every refugee claimant in Canada will have access to at least one level of appeal. These procedures exceed the requirements of both our domestic law and our international obligations.
I will add this is not the purpose nor the reason for passing the bill, but there is a financial benefit to the process in which we will now receive and determine refugee applications. We will save not just federal taxpayers, but provincial and territorial taxpayers, $1.65 billion over a five year period.
How will we use that money? The premiers, finance ministers and ministers of immigration across this country will tell us exactly how they could use that money, whether it be for settlement services, or whether it be for enhancing health care delivery. What we are offering is an opportunity for savings, an opportunity for that money to be used not to fund bogus claims, not to finance those who want to take advantage of our system, but to actually assist Canadians here in our country.
Unfortunately, what is lost in debate over the bill is what it will mean for genuine refugees who are fleeing persecution and who fear for their lives. Under Bill C-31, genuine refugees will receive Canada's much needed protection much more quickly. They will not be waiting three years in the determination process, but will be waiting as little as 45 days to know that they indeed have a home here in Canada. I cannot for the life of me understand how the NDP and the Liberals could be against that process.
Bill C-31 includes tough but fair and necessary measures to combat, deter and crack down on the criminal act of human smuggling. On this side of the House, we are not scared to face the issues of human trafficking and human smuggling. We will face them like no government in this country has before, and we will continue to do that.
Until recently, most Canadians believed that large-scale human smuggling was something that did not happen here, that it was something they just read about in the paper. They thought it only happened in other countries, for example, Australia. 
That all changed in 2009 when Canada witnessed the arrival on the west coast of the MV Ocean Lady, which carried 76 migrants. It was almost as if it were a test case to see what would happen when the ship arrived, because less than one year later, the MV Sun Sea came, which held close to 500 migrants. This was not a cruise ship. This was not a ship designed to hold individuals. This was a ship designed specifically by human smugglers who take advantage of these individuals and extract as much money as they can, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, from individuals, who end up spending most of their lives paying that money back. The smugglers would put these individuals on not much more than a freighter to come across the ocean and land here in Canada. 
Just as we have new members who are seeing individuals who are not true refugee claimants come to Canada to take advantage of our system, so we have human smugglers who understand the business of smuggling and the lowest common denominator in terms of which country will accept the individuals and how to take advantage of that. Not only are they taking advantage of our country, but they are taking advantage of the individuals.
We all know the stories. On board many of these ships are criminals and terrorists from a country and the human smugglers themselves who, unbeknownst to others, are dressed as if they are also in a position to claim refugee status in our country. 
That is going to change. We are going to let the world know that human smuggling is not only unacceptable in this country, but that there will be a very significant price to pay for those who want to get into this business.
We do not have to look too far back to the past number of short weeks and months to know that we are catching these individuals. They are being sought out. They are being charged and they will be convicted. That is how we will stop this business.
There are so many more parts of Bill C-31 that are critically important, whether it be human smuggling, whether it be the issue of irregular arrivals, or whether it be the system itself in terms of how long it takes. We are moving from a system that takes 1,000 days on average to answer a refugee application submitted to the minister to one in which it will take anywhere from 45 days for those who are coming from designated safe countries, versus those who are coming from non-designated safe countries. There is an appeal process in place for each one of these individuals. 
There is a process in place where we are now responding to those who truly deserve to be in our country. The best part of all of this is it sets in place a process that is fair to Canadians. 
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I would remind him that we heard from various witnesses in committee. They all pointed out that this bill is discriminatory because it unfairly creates two classes of refugees. The witnesses also pointed out that the measures in this bill do not target human smugglers; they target refugees, taking them hostage.
This bill will also deny some refugees the right to apply for permanent residence and be reunited with their family members, including their children, for five years. Why is the government preventing family reunification?
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, it behooves me to suggest that the opposition take one step back into the past instead of taking one step into the future. They should take one step into the past and recognized that there are individuals around the world who are fleeing for their lives. Those people can seek and obtain refugee status in our country to protect themselves, when they flee for their lives from a country that offers them nothing other than torture or death. They come here and within a very short period of time they receive an answer to the question as to whether or not they are true refugees. Under the bill, somewhere in the future, all of them would have an opportunity to have their families come to our country. Their families, if they are fleeing persecution, would also have the opportunity to seek refugee status in our country.
We are going to set in place, with the bill, a process and laws that say to human smugglers, “Not here. Not in this country”.
Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, every legal expert has pointed out that the minister's discretionary power is problematic and should be removed from the bill. That is one of the reasons they say this bill should be withdrawn entirely. The minister will have the discretionary power to define what constitutes a safe country and to determine which countries are safe, as well as to define what constitutes an illegal arrival.
Basically, this means that, based on their country of origin, people coming here will be granted or denied status, will be found to be from safe or unsafe countries, and will be found to have arrived legally or illegally.
Is this discretionary power not the reintroduction and legalization of something much like racial profiling? When these people come here, the ones the minister finds ideologically acceptable will be okayed, while those he does not like will be declared illegal arrivals.
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his contribution at committee. We spent hours and hours, days and days, listening to witnesses and working through the bill. He was probably a little surprised that two very significant amendments were proposed by the government and were accepted. In fact, I have to thank the member. Both of the amendments put forward by the government were supported unanimously by the government, NDP and Liberal members at committee. 
What we have in the bill, and it has been through the legal process in terms of understanding the designated safe country origin, is a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of how the designated safe country process would work. As good as Bill C-11 was, it lacked the accountability of how that designated safe country process was going to work. It was actually going to be in regulation. We are much more transparent in our approach to designated safe countries with Bill C-31 because the process is actually in the legislation itself. 
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has explained in layman's terms exactly what this change in immigration policy is, but one of the concerns out there is the situation surrounding detention. There has been a lot of misinformation, most of it emanating from the other side of this chamber, but there is some misinterpretation from members of the public because of that. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could expand on some of the issues surrounding the detention part of the bill.
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The detention issue has been the one which has been most significantly torqued by the opposition in terms of what it exactly means. 
In our country over the last 8 to 10 years, approximately 100,000 refugees have sought and obtained refugee status. I mentioned in my speech that we have had two irregular arrivals. Arrivals such as those will be deemed to be irregular arrivals if they happen in the future. In those situations, because individuals come over in mass quantities, literally hundreds of individuals and families, we have no method to determine the identity of those individuals or whether they deserve to seek refugee status in our country.
It is important to know that when individuals are detained, they will be treated fairly. They are going to be well taken care of, but they are going to be detained until we can identify them and determine that they are not going to be a harm to Canadian society and until it is determined whether they truly deserve refugee status in our country. The opposition has failed to acknowledge that less than half of one per cent of all of the refugees who have come to this country in the last 10 years would be deemed to be irregular arrivals. Significant as it is, we can see that this is a very special process that will be used very little, but human smugglers will know it will be used once Bill C-31 is passed.
Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech closely.
Once again, the government wants to create two classes of refugees. It wants to divide refugees into two groups.
The other message I got from my colleague's speech is that some countries of origin will be considered good and others will be considered bad. Here again, the government is categorizing things in a way that I find troubling and somewhat arbitrary.
What does my colleague have to say about this approach based on dividing people into two groups?
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: To the contrary, Mr. Speaker, and I wish the member had listened to the speech. It indicates how we treat those who come to this country is going to be enhanced. Refugees will actually have a better opportunity under this process to be determined whether they are true refugees and become permanent residents and Canadian citizens much quicker than under the current system.
I will add that the only class of importance that we have in this country is the class of becoming or being a Canadian citizen. That is what this bill is all about, the importance of acknowledging fairness in a process. Whether it be immigration or anything else that we are responsible for in this country, fairness is what Canadians expect and anticipate. It is why most Canadians support this piece of legislation. They understand it is fair to the refugees coming to our country who, if in fact they are true refugees, will be able to seek and be granted asylum here. Canadians understand that this process upon which one achieves refugee status is going to be fair for them as well.
Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we worked long hours at committee, but we appreciated the couple of amendments that did mitigate the possible damage we saw within the bill. However, as I look at the legislation we already have in place, I wonder why need the proposed legislation.
In 2011, legislation that was praised by the minister of education, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, actually addressed the issues that the government says it is trying to address. In fact, Professor Audrey Macklin had this to say:
 I think that the Balanced Refugee Reform Act seemed to address many of the legitimate policy objectives that the government seeks to attain under Bill C-31. What Bill C-31 adds to it are provisions that are unconstitutional, and from a policy perspective, I think, problematic and unlikely to achieve what they claim. 
There are some significant concerns that the opposition has with the legislation, and not just in relation to this bill. One of the key areas of concern is where the Conservative government seems to be moving, and it is not toward parliamentary democracy. It is becoming very difficult for parliamentarians to debate key issues because more and more power is rested in the hands of ministers, and in this case, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. That is a very dangerous precedent. It is not a road we should go down.
We, as parliamentarians, get elected and the opposition has a critical role to play. The role of the opposition is to hold the government accountable and all members of parliament should be able debate legislation. However, in this legislation, more power is given to the minister. It is more power than the minister already has, which, by the way, is far more than any minister should have, regardless of political party. I am not speaking against the minister, but against the power that would be vested in any minister.
This power used to belong to an independent panel of experts, and the opposition agreed with that. We were in full agreement with that in the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which had an independent panel of experts. It was a panel, independent of government, that would make the designations of so-called “safe countries”.
Here we are once again with the arrogance of the Conservative government. It is trying to put more and more power into the hands of its ministers to escape the scrutiny that any legislation or any changes to areas such as immigration deserve. We have considerable concern with this.
I think we have agreement, and even with members on the government side at committee stage, that none of us can guarantee that there is one country that is absolutely safe for all citizens. Even democratic countries have human rights violations and sometimes incidents that would fall under the legitimate UN resolutions to protect people from persecution. 
For example, Mexico is a democratic country. However, we know that the LGBT community in Mexico comes under considerable persecution and that has been recognized with the number of asylum seekers accepted from Mexico.
Chantal Desloges, an immigration lawyer, had this to say:
 I have major concerns that concentrating the power of the DCO list only within the ministry and not consulting a panel of experts is wrong, because it opens the system to major political influence. 
 In the previous incarnation of this bill, the DCO list was decided by a panel of experts, and as a professional, I would be comfortable with that. However, leaving that decision to the sole discretion of the ministry is not a good idea. 
We are not making this stuff up. We have heard witness after witness say that the concentration of power in the hands of the minister was absolutely the wrong way to go.
When we look at the legislation, it also violates international conventions, to which Canada is signatory, by providing mechanisms for the government to indiscriminately designate and subsequently imprison bona fide refugees, including children, for up to one year.
Liberty is something we value. We will cases in Canada where asylum seekers who, as my colleague pointed out, do not come here on a cruise ship. They endanger their own lives because it is more dangerous for them to stay where they are. They come to our country to seek refuge. By the way, under a UN convention, to which we are a signatory, they are doing something that is perfectly legitimate. They are coming to our country to seek asylum.
Once those asylum seekers, if they should arrive by ship, are in our country in numbers of two or more, what will we do to them? Remember, these people are not escaping from affluent lifestyles. We are talking about people who might have been on the run for a long time and are willing to risk their lives and leave their loved ones behind to escape to find a safe haven.
What does a safe haven do for them? As soon as they land, we tell them that we will imprison them. I will use that word because we do not have enough detention centres. We heard witnesses testify that even, today, on any given day, some people end up in provincial jails. For example, British Columbia has no detention centres, so irregular refugees would be placed in a regular jail. Guess what? If they are 16 years of age or older, they will be placed in jail as well. I do not know about other members, but I know that when my son, who is now close to 30, was 16, I certainly did not think he was an adult. Sometimes I wonder about even now, but that is beside the point.
For children under the age of 16, we were absolutely pleased when we first heard the minister say that accommodations would be made for them. However, when I heard what that accommodation was, I thought, what kind of choice was that. The accommodation is that the parents will have a choice. They can give their child up to provincial agencies or they can keep them with them in prison.
If they are escaping from the kind of life-and-death situations that we have heard about, stories of rape and other horrible situations, then we are telling them that they can give their children to absolute strangers or they can keep them in prison with them. That is absolutely not a choice. It is a shameful way for us to treat arrivals into our country. 
I want to expand on this a bit. The NDP, the official opposition, was absolutely clear. We know that when people arrive, we need to have identification. We also tried to move amendments that once the checks had been done and they were not considered a threat to the country, they would be released. We did not get that. For up to a year, these people will be kept in a prison, and once again we have to trust the minister may do this. 
 If we have learned anything, we should learn from the experiences of others. In testimony from Australia, we heard the kind of emotional and financial costs and also the long-term costs to society to which this kind of a detainment could lead. We cannot ignore the experiences of other countries.
 Being a teacher, I am always very hopeful that we will learn from mistakes made by others. I am pleading that we do not make the same mistakes and then end up with social costs to our communities. It is very difficult to feel welcomed and then to get engaged in nation-building and to really be productive in their community when the first thing people face is prison for up to a year. It is not a way to treat children. Also, as members know, there are other costs to the health care system as well.
The Speaker: The hon. member will have eight and a half minutes to conclude her speech after question period.

Statements By Members
Ride to Conquer CancerMr. Kyle Seeback (Brampton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this weekend I, along with thousands of other Canadians, will participate in the Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer to raise money for cancer research at Princess Margaret Hospital.
Princess Margaret Hospital is one of the top five cancer research hospitals in the world.
Over the course of two days, we will ride in excess of 220 kilometres. In 2011, 11,000 riders participated and raised over $43 million. In five years of existence, the ride has become Canada's perennial cycling event and has been its most successful fundraiser.
This year, I will ride in honour of my father and my mother, both of whom passed away from cancer. As my own family proves, two Canadians in five will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime.
I encourage all Canadians to get involved in their communities to raise money for cancer research.
Children on the Hill DaycareMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the one and only place on Parliament Hill where manners, politeness and respect for colleagues remains the norm. Where is that?
It is the Children on the Hill daycare. For 30 years, the dedicated staff at Children on the Hill have served our community on Parliament Hill. The children frequently walk the halls of power on the Hill. They share their toys and respect their nap time. Many of them have come to Centre Block today to mark this special day.
Let me congratulate the Children on the Hill daycare on their 30th anniversary, and thank the child care workers and directors for all their hard work over the years.
The children in Children on the Hill daycare do not refer to each other as “kids” but as “friends”. Let us take a lesson from them. It is an important lesson for us all. Let us look up to them.
Emergency ResponseMr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I express my sincere congratulations to a young girl in my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.
Nine-year-old Rebecca Baas responded with maturity beyond her age when she called 911 and directed responders to her father, who was injured on their farm. Rebecca showed great courage that day, and she deserves our admiration.
I would also like to congratulate our local firefighters, who volunteer their time to provide 911 training to the students in my riding. They give our youth, including Rebecca, knowledge and confidence to properly respond in an emergency situation.
One example is the Russell Fire Department's annual fire safety checklist program, which encourages children to bring fire safety messages home and complete related tasks with their families.
In conclusion, I express my sincere congratulations to our local hero, Rebecca Baas. She is a hero not only to her family but also to her community and to me as well. We are all proud of Rebecca.
Saint-Léonard FCMr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 2012, I had the pleasure of attending the inaugural game of Saint-Léonard FC, a new soccer team in the new semi-professional Quebec Premier Soccer League.
This game between Saint-Léonard FC, from the Bourassa regional soccer association, and the team from Blainville impressed spectators with its high level of play. This new team will offer high-level soccer to the people of Saint-Léonard and the eastern part of the island. At the same time, the creation of this league will be a huge source of inspiration for our young players across the province, who will probably dream of playing like their idols. 
I would like to personally thank Angelo Scarano, president of Saint-Léonard FC, for his work that will benefit everyone in Saint-Léonard and the entire province. Congratulations to Victor Montagliani, the new president of the Canadian Soccer Association, who also attended the game. I would also like to wish the best of luck to the team's head coach, Andrea Di Pietrantonio, and the assistant coach, Mike Vitulano, who will lead our team to many victories.
Best of luck to Saint-Léonard FC. I wish all soccer fans a good season.
Republic of the Philippines Independence DayMr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House on one of the most significant dates in the history of the Philippines, its Independence Day.
The nation's independence from Spanish rule is dated from June 12, 1898, and it is a nation that I am happy to say has had a great relationship with Canada.
Canada has been very fortunate to have such a large number of people in our Filipino diaspora. They have made great contributions in building our nation. The single largest number of immigrants to Canada is from the Philippines. They take positions such as caregivers and nurses and enhance the lives of Canada's aging population.
I congratulate the Filipino community in Don Valley East, and I invite all members to come and celebrate Independence Day with the ambassador, His Excellency Mr. Leslie Gatan, in room 256-S on June 12 at 5:30 p.m.
Okill StuartSadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the dedication, self-sacrifice, humanity, warmth and commitment to other people's freedom demonstrated by Okill Stuart, who, I am proud to say, lives in my riding. He is one of the brave Canadians who risked his life for the freedom of others.
Mr. Stuart, a pillar of the Saint-Lambert community, fought as part of the Normandy invasion.
In 1946, after returning to Canada, he founded a charitable organization to help those less fortunate in his community and on the south shore of Montreal. Mr. Stuart also contributed to the founding of Canada's war museum in Normandy and the corresponding museum in Ottawa. He is involved in many organizations in my riding and is a founding member of the Saint-Lambert curling club.
These are just some of the reasons the entire community of Saint-Lambert, myself included, is so proud of Okill Stuart.
Here is hoping that his example will serve to inspire many future generations of Canadians.
Republic of the Philippines Independence DayMr. Andrew Saxton (North Vancouver, CPC): Mr. Speaker, mabuhay.
This upcoming Tuesday, June 12, marks the 114th anniversary of the Philippines' independence. In celebration of this great occasion, this weekend Canadians of Filipino decent will be gathering across the country. One such celebration will be taking place in my riding of North Vancouver.
This event, organized by the Metro Vancouver Philippine Arts and Culture Exposition Society, is one of the biggest Filipino Independence Day celebrations in Canada.
Every year thousands of people descend on Waterfront Park at the foot of the north shore to take in all things Filipino. With music, dancing and fabulous food, this event brings together the entire community and showcases the wonderful heritage of the Philippines.
More than celebrating Philippine independence, this weekend lets us celebrate the many contributions the Filipino community makes to Canada. I am looking forward to joining in the celebrations.
[Member spoke in Filipino as follows:] 
 Maligayang Araw ng Kalayaan. 
Parks and Recreation MonthMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize June as Parks and Recreation Month in Canada.
Parks and recreation opportunities are essential for strengthening and maintaining a healthy community, and the positive impacts are evident. Recreation brings people together, encourages safe, clean neighbourhoods and creates a livelier atmosphere.
Parks and recreation facilities also help to improve images, social and economic status and enhance the area's desirability.
Recreation gives individuals of all ages good opportunities to be actively involved. This in turn helps them to learn positive lessons about responsibility and respect for others and gives them the chance to give back to their communities.
In my riding of Oshawa, Lakeview Park is a popular area and a favourite of my constituents.
I salute the parks and recreation community leaders across Canada for the dedication they provide to ensuring all Canadians have access to quality and affordable parks and recreation opportunities.
 I encourage everyone to celebrate park month by enjoying our outdoors and parking themselves in a park.
Festivals in Brome—MissisquoiMr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP): Mr. Speaker, festival season is starting up across the country, and my riding is no exception. Many festivals will be held between now and September all around Brome—Missisquoi.
The Lake Champlain bike day is being held this Saturday. Country music lovers have the first-ever Bromont Country Blues festival to look forward to, and, to round out the month of June, we have the Bromont air show.
This year is also the centennial of the beautiful community of Pike River.
The Potton multicultural festival will be a fun-filled day for people of all ages. The 34th International Crossing of Lake Memphremagog will take place at the end of July and beginning of August.
 Finally, the summer season will close with the Magog-Orford wine and harvest festival in early September. 
I am inviting everyone to come to the Eastern Townships. Once people go there, they never want to leave.
Have a good summer and enjoy the festivals.
Ducks Unlimited CanadaRick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, in 2013 Ducks Unlimited Canada will celebrate 75 years of conservation excellence, and I would like to congratulate it on this upcoming milestone.
Ducks Unlimited has worked with government on conservation programs for 25 years and has delivered measurable results, conserving millions of acres of Canadian wetlands while preserving outdoor and hunting traditions. It is also a key partner in the highly successful North American waterfowl management plan, which helped fund thousands of projects to preserve over 25 million acres across North America.
Some of the most important waterfowl migration habitats are located in southern Ontario along the Great Lakes, and the efforts of Ducks Unlimited volunteers in Ontario are appreciated in the Niagara region.
Ducks Unlimited is also part of the government's new hunting and angling advisory panel, which will help ensure our government continues to make decisions based on sound scientific advice.
Our government believes in both economic growth and environmental protection and looks forward to working with Ducks Unlimited to preserve the environment for future generations.
It is about the economy and it is about the environment. Ducks Unlimited is helping us get it right.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people, I rise to speak about the massive educational deficit that is an obstacle to transforming the unequal relationship between first nations and wider Canadian society. 
Two ongoing efforts merit attention. Each focuses on tackling gaps in knowledge of non-aboriginal Canadians. One effort is that of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on residential schools. Its interim report calls for comprehensive public awareness efforts on the part of the federal government. A second effort is the Third World Canada Tour this coming November. This joint initiative of the first nation community of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and filmmaker Andrée Cazabon will engage Canadians on the challenges first nations communities face and work toward building deeper understanding through peer-based education.
I hope these two efforts signal the beginning of a paradigm shift in how we think about Canadian education and I hope we as parliamentarians can be part of that shift.
Retirement CongratulationsMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Canadiens had only seven Stanley Cup wins when Red Fisher started his career as a sports reporter. In the almost six decades since, both Red and the Habs have had many successes to their names.
A National Newspaper Award winner for his coverage of the Canadiens and all sports, he has had an amazing career. He started reporting on the local hockey club the night of the Maurice Richard riot. His reporting has chronicled many important moments in Montreal and Canadian sporting life ever since. In terms of longevity, he is the longest-serving beat writer of any national hockey league club.
Since the rise of online sports coverage, hockey fans the world over have been able to read his Montreal Gazette articles. I, like many sports fans in the government, will miss his regular columns. 
My Conservative colleagues and I want to wish Mr. Fisher a long, happy retirement.
Central Development CorporationHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the staff, past and present, of Central Development Corporation for their great work in assisting communities, individuals and businesses with economic development initiatives. The CDC has been instrumental in economic and community development in my riding of Malpeque, but sadly, as with all the economic development organizations, it is being eliminated by this government.
Responsible for managing over $9 million in assets, small industrial development parks and projects too many to mention, the CDC has made an amazing contribution to communities. The local board of directors provided the advice that is in great part responsible for its success. I thank it, indeed. Gone too will be its assistance to the young millionaires program, which for over 20 years instilled young people with the skills necessary to thrive in the business world.
In closing, I have no choice but to condemn the Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie) for gutting the CDC, which will deprive P.E.I. of the localized support for economic development.
The EconomyMr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the indulgence of one becomes the burden of another through excessive taxation. The excess of one generation becomes the yoke of the next through government borrowing. The profligacy of one nation becomes the hardship of another through international bailout. Everybody takes, nobody makes, work does not pay, indulgence does not cost, money is free and money is worthless. 
Such is the sumptuous Euro welfare state that has led nine euro currency countries to be downgraded, including Portugal and Greece, which now have debt levels that are considered junk status by all rating agencies. 
However, no worry. The NDP wants Canadian taxpayers to come to the rescue with a multi-billion dollar international bailout. 
The NDP's policies have led to the kinds of consequences we see in Europe. Canada acted responsibly with low-debt, low-tax and low-cost government. That is why we are not in that situation. Canadian dollars will stay in the Canadian economy to create Canadian jobs.
41st General ElectionMr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadian voters need to be saved from the Conservatives.
New and disturbing information is coming to light about Conservative interference at a polling station in Toronto during the last election. According to new reports, the Etobicoke Centre Conservative campaign manager, Roman Gawur, caused a disturbance at the St. Demetrius seniors residence, blocking seniors from voting for over an hour. The deputy returning officer called the Conservative campaign manager's actions “obstruction”. 
Even more insidious is that it seemed premeditated. There was a bus waiting to leave for a day trip to Casino Rama, but the Conservative-created disturbance went on just long enough to ensure some seniors did not get a chance to vote. 
Conservatives will be even more scared in the next election when seniors have an opportunity to pass judgment on the Conservatives' attack on retirement pensions and security. Dirty tricks at election time have become routine with these Conservatives. Shame on them.
Political DonationsMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, twice in the last year the NDP has been found in breach of Canada's election financing laws.
First, in August, it was forced by Elections Canada to admit it was guilty of illegally issuing tax receipts to a left-wing think tank. On Tuesday, Elections Canada confirmed that the NDP's union sponsorships at its 2011 convention were unquestionably illegal donations. It has been forced to pay them back. Yesterday, I wrote to the Commissioner of Elections Canada to ask him to review what seem to be corporate sponsorships, during the NDP's 2012 leadership convention, found in its leadership convention guide.
 What has been the NDP's reaction to these charges? Have the members come out and apologized? No. In fact, the NDP member for Saint-Jean said that these illegal sponsorships were none of Canadians' business. The NDP members need to come clean and be transparent with Canadians about these sponsorships. Just how much illegal money have they raked in anyway?

Oral Questions
The EnvironmentNathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the former Conservative chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, Bob Mills, took his colleagues to task. He gave a stern warning that Canadians will pay dearly for the Conservatives' imbalanced approach to the environment.
By doing away with the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the Conservatives are losing valuable research and analysis expertise, and this will weaken our economy and our environment.
Do they understand this?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of environmental advocacy organizations, science-based organizations, advocacy organizations and public policy think tanks in Canada and around the world that can inform this valuable policy development. We certainly think that a lot has changed in the last 25 years. 
I particularly liked Bob Mills when he spoke so passionately against the Kyoto protocol. I wonder whether my friend opposite agrees with Bob Mills on that?
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder how bad it has to get before these guys will listen? It is not just Bob Mills sounding the alarm now. There are also former Conservative ministers like Tom Siddon, who warns that the changes to the Fisheries Act are making Swiss cheese out of fisheries protections.
Conservatives are ignoring anyone who happens to disagree with them, ramming through a bill that puts our environment, our fisheries and the communities that rely upon these industries at risk. When will they finally take the good advice of their former friends and split this bill, or are they just waiting until they have no friends left at all?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we have brought forward some common sense reforms to environmental approvals, including in the Fisheries Act, to ensure that we focus on protecting fish habitat and not on over-regulating farmers. We believe that the focus of federal regulation should be on fish and fish habitat rather than making bizarre rulings and whatnot into standard agricultural practices on farmers. That is exactly what we are doing. We think it is the right thing to do. We think it is popular. We think it is important to our economic development. We have seen 7,700 net new jobs created. That is a good start. We remain focused on jobs and the economy.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, what Conservatives would like Canadians to believe is that to protect fish habitat what they need to do is strip the protection of fish habitat out of the Fisheries Act. Canadians will not have a chance to have their say on this bill because Conservatives are ramming it through Parliament. Why are they so afraid of accountability that they used to be such a great fan of? 
The Auditor General's Office has told us that over 95% of environmental assessments will now be eliminated completely. Why are Conservatives doing just about anything the oil and gas lobbyists ask for? Will they split the bill, take a deep breath and finally show a little respect for Canadians?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, we have had an unprecedented amount of debate on this year's budget, on economic action plan 2012, on the budget itself and the debate. After the Minister of Finance gave a speech of less than one hour, the opposition had its opportunity to begin debate. What did it do? It had one of its critics filibuster for three full days. That does not show a lot of respect for taxpayers.
Our budget, budget 2012, is focused on jobs and the economy. Today we saw the creation of 36,000 net new jobs in the manufacturing sector. That is good news for Canada's economy. That is nothing more than a good start. That is why we remain focused, like a laser, on job creation and economic growth and will continue to do so. 
The BudgetMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, people of all political stripes are condemning the budget implementation bill. Conservative provincial premiers, former Conservative ministers and even Conservative backbenchers are opposed to the bill and the Conservatives' approach.
In addition, seniors' advocacy groups are voicing their strong opposition to cuts to old age security. Will these groups be treated in the same manner as environmental protection groups?
Do the Conservatives also want to eliminate groups that represent the interests of the people who built our country?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, let us remind the opposition what is actually in the budget bill, what they claim after a few short minutes. Our finance minister delivered his speech here in the House of Commons. It was only minutes after that, obviously before the NDP members had read the budget, that they said they were going to oppose it. I would like to know if they have actually changed their minds? Are they still going to vote against extending the hiring credit for small and medium-sized businesses? Are they going to vote against funding for skills and job training? Are they going to vote against funding for infrastructure? I would like the answer to that. Most of all, why would they vote against that?
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, after question period I would be more than happy to actually explain to the parliamentary secretary the difference between a budget and a budget implementation act.
Six years ago, when the Prime Minister was out on the campaign trail, he not only promised that he would not cut OAS for current retirees, he said that he would, “fully preserve the Old Age Security...and all projected future increases to these programs.” It is no wonder the Conservatives want to stop seniors from voting when they are breaking their promise to protect the OAS.
Will the Conservatives stop their attack on the OAS or are they prepared to pay the price for it in the next election?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Minister of State for Finance explained, our priority is job creation and economic growth for this country. That includes helping Canadians get back to work.
It also includes making sure that we have the resources to ensure that Canadians, both today and future generations, have access to an old age security system that is sustainable for future generations. We are looking after our seniors today, and those of future generations.
EthicsMassimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, a sworn affidavit filed with the court demolishes the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister  concerning his election expenses.
Copies of the contract and the invoices show that 630 hours of voter identification work were carried out in the riding of Peterborough at a cost of $21,000. The Prime Minister's ethics spokesperson is now facing the stiffest penalty under the Canada Elections Act.
Is this why his government does not want a royal commission on election fraud?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it will not come as any surprise to the member opposite that the member he refers to has been very clear that he followed all of the rules and that his 2008 election expenses were fully within the legal limits, fully reported and fully audited.
While this individual member has been fully transparent, we all work with him and know him to be a person of high integrity and held in high regard. Certainly, if his standard of honesty and integrity were followed by all members of the House, this House would be a better place.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, the court affidavits, sworn under oath, blow to bits the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister's story about election spending. Copies of a contract and an invoice clearly show that the 630 hours' worth of get-out-the-vote calls were done for the Peterborough campaign, at a cost of $21,000.
The Prime Minister's ethics spokesperson now faces the highest possible personal penalties under the Canada Elections Act. Does all of this explain why he and his government oppose a royal commission into election fraud?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada will look into these matters, as it properly should. It operates as an arm's-length body not of the government but rather of Parliament. We will let it do its work.
I can tell members about the member for Peterborough and all of us on this side of the House. We are focused on job creation and economic growth. We are pleased with the 36,000 new manufacturing jobs created last month. That is not enough. We must remain focused on job creation and economic growth. We will continue to do so because Canadian families from coast to coast to coast want more jobs and want to be able to provide for their families.
41st General ElectionHon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly a month since the courts overturned the election results in Etobicoke Centre and the matter has been appealed to the Supreme Court. The Conservatives want to delay these hearings until the fall, while the member in limbo spends his summer enjoying the advantages of being a member of Parliament, including money for mailing privileges, staff and travel expenses.
While the Conservatives delay, democracy is in limbo. Therefore, I ask the Prime Minister this. Will he drop his attempt at delays and commit here and now to a fair fight in Etobicoke Centre?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a fair fight, and it was actually precipitated by the Liberal Party when it voted for an early election. It was almost like a group of turkeys voting for an early Christmas. Its members ended up way over there in the corner where Canadians put them.
We, on this side, are focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. That is why we have an economy that has generated over 700,000 net new jobs.
The EnvironmentMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister vowed to root out and attack any environmental groups opposed to his agenda. If any organization disagrees with the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister will cut them off.
He is supposed to be the Prime Minister for all Canadians. Instead, he only wants to hear from experts and scientists who agree with him, and he showed us that he cannot handle any dissent in doing so.
Is this a way to run a G8 country?
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one of the great things about our country is the capacity we have for research. Our scientists across the country, regardless of where they are employed, develop tens of thousands of peer review journals.
More important, on the environment, Environment Canada produced over 600 reports and journals that were published last year, and we use this in our policy development.
Our government is committed to ensuring that we have great research and that we support research across this country, including within the environment portfolio.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, we hear words from the other side but, when it comes to actions, we know that many scientists have most recently received a pink slip, and we will not be hearing about that kind of research from them any more.
Does the Prime Minister and the government not realize that if they just fire everyone who disagrees with them, they may be the only ones left in the end?
The Prime Minister vowed he would attack anyone who was “doing things contrary to government policy”. In the words of former Conservative MP, Bob Mills:
 ...if you’re smart you surround yourself with a bunch of really smart people and if you’re dumb you surround yourself with a bunch of cheerleaders, 
Do the Conservative believe they can only really surround themselves with cheerleaders?
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite spoke about a pink slip. If the NDP had its way, it would issue pink slips to the hundreds of thousands of people who are employed in our energy sector.
The member talked about comments that do not resonate with Canadians. What the leader of the NDP said with regard to divisive strategies, pitting one worker against another in different parts of this country, is what we should not be supporting in this government.
Our government supports jobs, economic growth and research and development across the country.
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives think they can hide their attack on the environment from Canadians by burying it in their Trojan Horse. However, Canadians now realize the scope of the changes hiding in this bill, which will have huge consequences for an entire generation. They are strongly opposed to this bill. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Assembly of First Nations, four former fisheries ministers and thousands of Canadians have called on the Conservatives to split up this bill.
Will the Conservatives continue to ignore Canadians' concerns?
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being part of the subcommittee that reviewed section 3 of the budget implementation act. We heard from groups that represented millions of Canadian workers across the country. 
The NDP will try to paint this in the context of what we are trying to provide. We should be supporting long-term growth by providing streamlined regulations while supporting environmental protection. That is what the budget bill would do.
We have increases in pipeline safety funding. We have increased penalties for people who break the rules on environment assessment follow-up. This is a great bill and I hope the NDP will support it.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, why is it that when people speak out against the Conservatives, they are attacked and ignored? Canadians deserve better. Communities that rely on the fisheries could be devastated by the environmental--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam has the floor.
[Interjection]
Fin Donnelly: Mr. Speaker, communities that rely on the fisheries could be devastated by the environmental deregulation and the gutting of the Fisheries Act proposed in this Trojan Horse budget bill. 
The Conservatives are gambling with our local economies, gambling with our way of life and they are doing it while hiding it from Canadians.
Will the minister show some accountability and split this reckless bill?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, none of that is true. The changes to the Fisheries Act that are contained in Bill C-38 would allow Fisheries and Oceans Canada to focus more effectively in a practical way on the protection of commercial, aboriginal and recreational fisheries.
There are some additional protections in that act. For example, it would allow the minister to identify some ecologically sensitive areas, which he currently does not have the ability to do, which will provide even greater protection to those fisheries than they currently have.
There are some new tools to identify and regulate aquatic invasive species, which is a serious problem in this country.
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I asked the minister a question about fleet separation, a very important issue for fishers on the east coast, he responded that he had no idea what I was talking about.
Is he really so out of touch with Canadians on the east coast? Fleet separation is essential to the survival of our fishers. When will the Conservatives stop threatening to slash fleet separation?
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, Canada has a very complex system of rules that we use for fisheries management. The rules tell us who may fish, what they can fish for, where they can fish, when they can fish, how much they can catch, the size of the boat, the size of the nets, where they can land the fish and many others.
The minister, in his consultations earlier in the year, was out talking to fishermen about those policies and others, asking if they had any suggestions about how they could perhaps be changed in a way that would allow them greater flexibility to ensure greater prosperity.
Election SpendingMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister  has demonstrated his contempt for democracy time and time again in this House. He handled the biggest fraud in Canadian history as though it were merely a hiccup.
And now he is under investigation by Elections Canada. Apparently, he gave his own campaign 10 times the allowable limit. Not once or twice as much—10 times more.
Will the parliamentary secretary step aside until the investigation of his election spending is complete?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister handed the documents over to Elections Canada almost four years ago. Elections Canada verified and accepted those documents.
However, the member opposite donated $3,700 to Québec solidaire, a party that says in its statement of principle that it wants a sovereign Quebec.
The hon. member gave them $150 last year when he was a federal member of Parliament. Does he believe in Canada?
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, I have three words to say to my Conservative colleagues: in and out.
The man who assists the Prime Minister, his parliamentary secretary, the person who continually rises in the House to say that the Conservatives—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
Alexandre Boulerice: The parliamentary secretary, who rises in the House to say that the Conservatives are squeaky clean, is being investigated for violating the Canada Elections Act by exceeding spending limits and possibly giving his own campaign 10 times more than what is allowed by law. However, no one on the Conservative side seems to have a problem with that.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister do the only honourable thing and step aside?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, speaking of in and out, this party believes that Quebec should be in Canada. Québec solidaire believes that Quebec should be out of Canada. That is what it says in their statement of declaration, “Québec Solidaire Opts for Independence/Sovereignty”
That member donated to the hardest line separatist party in the country while sitting in the federal Parliament of Canada proposing himself as a future cabinet minister.
 If one wants to be minister in the Government of Canada, one must start by first believing in Canada. That is not done by donating—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest.
EthicsDan Harris: Mr. Speaker, reports out today show possible voter interference by the Conservative campaign manager from Etobicoke Centre.
The campaign manager's obstruction at a senior centre poll shut it down just long enough so that many seniors would not get a chance to vote. Every day a new accusation comes out: $21,000 cheques, voter disenfranchisement.
When will the Conservatives start taking responsibility for their actions?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, speaking of electoral financing, I just pointed out that a member of that party's shadow cabinet is giving money to the hardest line separatist party in Quebec.
 The problem that the Québec solidaire has with the PQ and the Bloc Québécois is that those parties are not separatist enough. That member is making donations to that party at the same time as he sits in the federal Parliament in a supposedly federalist party proposing himself to be a future federal cabinet minister.
Can that member actually stand in the House and confirm whether all members of the NDP caucus believe in a united Canada?
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the parliamentary secretary could let us know how he feels about sitting behind a former Bloc member.
Yesterday, it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister with serious allegations and outstanding questions swirling around his head. These are on top of and separate from Conservative voter suppression investigations. 
The problem is that the Conservatives just keep refusing to take action in answer for their crimes. They blame others and ignore the facts.
At what point do the Conservatives start to admit they may have done a few things wrong? Where is their decency and humility?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, every member of this Conservative caucus believes in a united Canada. Every one of us on this side of the House believes in supporting a united country.
On that side of the House that party has a member who donated to Québec solidaire while he was sitting in the federal House proposing himself as a future cabinet minister in this country. One has to start believing in the country before governing the country.
I am hoping that some member of that party will stand and confirm whether its entire caucus is federalist and whether its entire caucus believes Canada should stay united.
The EnvironmentHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the Prime Minister thinks he is a dictator. We just need to listen to what he said in France yesterday. He said, “If it's the case that we're spending on organizations that are doing things contrary to government policy, I think that is an inappropriate use of taxpayers' money and we'll look to eliminate it”.
My goodness, why does the Prime Minister make such outrageous statements whenever he is out of the country? Is he afraid of Parliament?
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister constantly talks about Canada being a world leader on the international stage because we are. We are a leader in job growth and we are a leader in ensuring security in our financial system.
With regard to our environmental regulations, we have a great balance between ensuring predictability and timeliness in our review process and ensuring that the environment is still protected.
We also support research across the country. It is one of the cornerstones of our budget. We are proud of our budget and I hope the Liberal Party will support it.
National DefenceHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in an order paper question response, the Minister of Public Works said that after she received DND's submission on the F-35's she interviewed another manufacturer “to discuss their ability to meet the DND mandatory capabilities”. Shortly thereafter, and with indecent haste, the minister signed off on the F-35's as sole sourced.
Last night on national television it was exposed the powerful and pervasive influence of lobbyists on military procurement.
I have a simple question. Who was the lobbyist and who was the manufacturer?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as has already been communicated to the publicly funded broadcaster for its shockumentary dramatization last night, Canada's involvement in the F-35 program, as the member would know, goes back to 1997. It was in fact under a previous government. The decision in 2010 to purchase the F-35 was based on the advice of officials within the Department of National Defence, the Department of Public Works and members of the Canadian Forces, and, in fact, not lobbyists at all.
The member also knows that we have a secretariat now in place to increase transparency and accountability and reporting to the public. We will wait on that advice. 
No money has been spent thus far on the acquisition. Funding is frozen at this point.
Copyright ActHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, experts have testified that digital lock provisions in the Conservatives copyright bill will be a big benefit to software pirates.
The Conservatives are making it illegal for Canadian companies to conduct CSI-type investigations to prove a crime was committed. Countries, like New Zealand, allow these types of investigations but the bill would not.
Why are the Conservatives aiding and abetting software pirates?
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the copyright legislation that the hon. member talks about has been before the House for a few years now. In fact, it had more consultation probably than any bill that has ever been before the House.
 As we heard during the committee process, witness after witness commended the government for finally moving ahead on something that was long overdue.
Employment InsuranceMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the government decides to fundamentally change a program, talking to those who will be affected by those changes is the least it can do. However, the Conservatives are too scared to talk to seasonal and contract workers and the millions of other Canadians being denied EI through this irresponsible, careless and ill-conceived change. 
Can the minister show a bit of decency and consult with Canadians before imposing changes that are going to turn their lives upside down?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, people need to understand what we are trying to do. There is a labour shortage across Canada. That is why we want to help the unemployed who might not know that there are jobs available at their skill level, near where they live. We want to help them find those jobs. It would be better for them, their employers, their families and for the community. That is what we want to do to help Canadians and their families.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not connecting people to jobs, they are uprooting people from their communities and forcing them to work for less. The ministers across the way, whose lavish lifestyles have upset many Canadians, should come down from their ivory tower. They are sabotaging tourism, fisheries and agriculture, and they are stealing money from seniors. They are doing all this from the comfort of Ottawa, without consulting anyone. 
Does the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development realize that her job is to help people, not ignore them?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, I have travelled across the country to listen to people. What I have heard is that there is a Canada-wide labour shortage. Every worker in Canada is needed to fill that labour shortage and do those jobs.
There are things in the employment insurance system that prevent and discourage people from working. We are going to change that. We are going to improve things so that workers have jobs, which will help both employers and the employees' families.
EmploymentMs. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, summer is approaching and many young Canadians are looking for work. They are looking to put their education to use, get a job and contribute to the economy, but the job market in Canada for youth is very bleak. There are 250,000 less jobs for young people than there were before the recession.
 What is the response from the Conservatives? They pat themselves on the back as they shut down youth job banks.
It is our universal responsibility to leave more to the next generation. Why are the Conservatives so happy to leave less?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to helping young people get jobs, we certainly would not take any lessons from the NDP. Why? Because our government increased funding to the Canada summer jobs program, helping over 30,000 students get the experience they need for the job market as well as funding to help their way through school. Of course, the NDP voted against that.
 We have added an additional $50 million in this current budget specifically to help young people who face challenges finding jobs to get the work experience they need to get the jobs for their future. The NDP is voting against that.
Thanks to our youth employment strategy, over—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.
Employment InsuranceRathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, again, more self-congratulations, but no real help for unemployed young Canadians.
In Toronto, we are still witnessing rising joblessness with an unemployment rate that is higher than the national average. Toronto is home to a thriving tourism industry and many contract workers. However, without any consultations, Conservatives are ramming through EI changes that will hurt tourism and force workers in Canada's most expensive city to take a 30% pay cut. 
Will the minister put the brakes on her reckless EI changes?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, what we want to put the brakes on is the member's reckless misunderstanding of the truth. We are working to help Canadians, whether they are in seasonal jobs, or other jobs or if they have lost their jobs to get back to work sooner. We are providing them with information about jobs of which they may not be aware. We will help them get the skills they need to apply for the jobs and keep them. 
We will also ensure that anyone who works part-time, someone who is unemployed and on EI, will always be better off working than just being on EI.
AgricultureMr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while we know the opposition members vote against food safety funding at every opportunity they get, our government is committed to food safety. Canadian families want to know that when they go to the grocery store, their food is safe. Consumers want more diverse foods than ever before and technology is constantly changing the way food is processed.
Could the parliamentary secretary please explain what the government is doing to modernize our food safety system and to continue to keep Canadian families safe?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Crowfoot for his hard work on food safety for Canadians.
Our government is committed to strengthening food safety for Canadian families and the safe food for Canadians act would create a more consistent inspection regime and would implement tougher penalties for those who would risk food safety. Bob Kingston, the president of the union representing food inspectors, says that the government is “taking the best of each piece and putting it under one roof”.
I ask that the opposition to put politics aside and join with our government and with consumers in supporting safe food for Canadians.
National DefenceMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are shocked to see the extent the military's public relations machine is being used to protect the military instead of helping the public and the family understand the facts of the 2008 suicide of Afghanistan veteran Stuart Langridge. His family members became increasingly frustrated with the lack of information from the investigation, which was supposed to be provided to them. They even had to wait over a year to learn that there was a suicide note addressed to them.
 Why is so much energy and effort put into a communications strategy to hide the truth when the efforts should have been put into finding out what went wrong in the tragic death of this soldier?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it was a tragic death. The loss of anyone, any soldier or any Canadian to suicide is a tragedy. We have expressed our condolences to the Fynes family. I have met with Corporal Langridge's mother. In fact, we have put additional funding into the Military Police Complaints Commission process, which is ongoing. As the member would know, there are funds there, over $2.3 million, to ensure commission counsel and additional funding for the Fynes family into this affair.
Being a lawyer, the member would and should know that this process is ongoing and we should wait for the result.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the amount of time and energy put into this communications strategy by the military to hide the facts as to what happened to one of its own is deeply worrying. The lack of transparency goes straight to the top as the Minister of National Defence is still refusing to release all documents in this case. This is looking more and more like a coordinated effort to damage control, rather than helping to get at the truth.
When will the Minister of National Defence stop trying to combat negative media coverage and instead focus on combatting the lack of transparency in his own department?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that the entire premise of his question is false. He repeatedly puts false information before Parliament and before Canadians.
With respect to protecting clients, the member also should know, being a lawyer, that the Supreme Court has specifically spoken out on this issue. The Blood decision of 2008 said, “Solicitor-client privilege is fundamental to the proper functioning of our legal system”. The decision went on to say, “Without that assurance, access to justice and the quality of justice in this country would be severely compromised”.
The member is the one who is compromising the truth by repeatedly putting false information forward.
Foreign AffairsPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, despite their denials, it would appear that the Conservatives want to abandon the United Nations. When the United Nations points out that there is a lack of access to food for Canadians who are poor, what do the Conservatives do? They throw insults at the rapporteur. When the UN flags government responsibility to prevent torture, Conservatives make vague threats about funding. The Conservatives are in such a rush to bash the UN, they are tripping all over themselves.
Will the minister tell Canadians this? Are the Conservatives planning to pull out of the UN, or are they just playing to their base?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, let me answer that question from my friend from Ottawa Centre very directly. The answer is no. From time to time, we have concerns about actions of certain UN agencies, but by and large we have a very good relationship with the UN.
 Canada has been a strong supporter of the Special Envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan, both diplomatically and financially. We have been a strong supporter of the work of Valerie Amos, the Under-Secretary-General, in her work on humanitarian relief. We have been a strong supporter of the United Nations World Food Programme. Canada is the second largest supporter of the excellent work that program does.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I wish we were supportive of all the institutions in the UN, even those that need work.
 The problem is that it is really unconscionable the Conservatives would play politics with our role in the UN. That is what is happening. It is not just words and insults; it is actually actions. We have seen the Conservatives engineer a steady decrease in our support for UN peacekeeping, as an example. Over 100,000 troops right now and personnel are working in 16 conflict zones, but less than 50 are Canadians. Peacekeepers disarm former combatants and have made it possible for millions of people to exercise their voting rights. That is what the UN stands for.
Why are the Conservatives standing against it?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, there certainly has not been any change in that policy between our government and the previous government. Canada does financially support a lot of missions in Africa by other African countries so they will be African-led and African-sponsored missions.
We have, from time to time, had concern with some UN bodies and some of the actions they have taken. However, the true enemies of the UN are those who sit quietly, watching the decline. We should speak up for the UN and the important values that it represents. When it does not reach the full expectations that taxpayers and Canadians have, we should not be afraid to stand up for what is right, and we never will on this side of the House.
International TradeWayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, as of March 15, the United States has implemented the full range of its free trade agreement with South Korea. The minister should know this is one of Canada's most important and established markets for Canadian pork and beef. The government talks of opening markets, but continues to allow established markets to slip away.
Why is the government failing our beef and pork industry in a market that is worth $1 billion and when will it stand up, level the playing field and negotiate for the benefit of Canadians' hog and beef industry?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has been hard at work, opening new doors for Canadian farmers and Canadian manufacturers. We recently negotiated further steps toward opening market access to South Korea on beef. Our government remains confident that this decision will also help create a favourable climate which will lead to a deeper trade relationship with South Korea, a priority market for Canada.
Wayne Easter: And every single day we fall further behind in that market, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of International Trade, though, attempts to leave the impression of support for supply management. However, impressions do not cover the true facts. The minister fails to answer whether he supports the three pillars that make supply management succeed and he has cut supply management from providing advice on the global trade advisory committee that has been created.
Why has the minister appointed established critics to that trade advisory committee and left supply management out?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the member's statement. I reject his party's position on supply management. 
I can tell members for a fact that there is one party in the House that has consistently stood up for and defended supply management, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada.
The Public ServiceMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' plan to slash the public service has been nothing but total improvisation. They are making cuts without beginning to understand the scope of the mess they are creating. They are incapable of managing their cuts, which are causing morale to plummet within the public service because of the excessive workload. Eventually, they will be forced to deal with a productivity crisis and a crisis in services to Canadians.
Why is the government incapable of managing these cuts in an intelligent and transparent manner?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2012 is our plan for jobs growth and long-term prosperity, keeping taxes low and debt low, while returning to a balanced budget.
We have found fair and moderate savings measures to reduce the deficit that will reduce the size of the federal public service by about 4% over the next three years. Seventy per cent of the savings identified are operational efficiencies. Departments are informing unions and employees about specific changes and will continue to communicate accordingly.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, we know the Conservatives were eager to cut services to Canadians, do not believe in government and were giddier than schoolboys to gut our professional public service.
Now that the cuts are upon us, Conservative mismanagement has created confusion and chaos among civil servants. With these layoff letters, all they will get is low moral, dysfunctional workplaces, overworked civil servants and, ultimately, low productivity.
Are the Conservatives totally incapable of managing cuts intelligently and transparently?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this acknowledgement by union bosses that the current system as negotiated by unions is too rigid and inflexible. We hope we can count on the support of the opposition to streamline the process. 
Economic action plan 2012 is our plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, keeping taxes low and debt low while returning to a balanced budget. 
Citizenship and ImmigrationMrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today we are debating at third reading Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act. Bill C-31 would provide protection to genuine refugees more quickly, while allowing us to remove human smugglers, criminals and bogus claimants faster.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration please tell the House what the consequences would be if the NDP and Liberals have their way and prevent this important and necessary bill from passing?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga South for her question and for her efforts on the bill in her own riding.
If the bill does not pass, there will be no crackdown on abuse by bogus refugees. There will be no crackdown on human smuggling. There will be no ability to offer refugee status more quickly to those who truly deserve it in our country. There will be no protection for Canadians from irregular arrivals whose identity we have not been able to determine. There will be no cost savings of somewhere between $1.5 billion and $1.65 billion over the next five years to the provinces and territories across the country.
What I do know is going to happen on Monday when the bill is voted on is it will pass because of this government.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the Quebec Liberal caucus met with the a group representing all the Radio-Canada unions, Radio Canada International and the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to discuss the impact of the cuts to the corporation.
Since winning a majority, the Conservatives have been minimizing the important role played by the CBC in promoting our culture and identity. Furthermore, they have slashed its budget by 10%.
How far will this government go to destroy our most valuable Canadian institutions? 
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is kind of odd that question would come from that member and that party because when the Liberals were in government, they actually cut the CBC by $400 million without telling it in advance what was happening, and threw hundreds of thousands of people out of work in doing so. 
What we know is that Canadians get up every day, work very hard and pay their taxes, and they have asked us to leave a little more money in their pockets. To do that they have asked all of government to work hard to bring the budget back into balance. That includes the CBC. It has more than enough money to carry out its mandate in both official languages in all parts of the country.
Archives CanadaMr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government's procurement website currently lists an invitation to tender from Archives Canada to digitize our documentary heritage. 
The problem is that the government is doing this right after announcing to archivists that half of their positions would be eliminated. Once again, the government wants to put what belongs to us into the hands of the private sector. Is that not strange? Who is going to do this work—Lockheed Martin?
Why is the government trying to privatize so many jobs and why does it want to hand our archives over to the private sector?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, each and every day we are learning more and more about the priorities of the NDP. Now we learn that they want to give billions of hard-working taxpayers' dollars to bail out Europe. We learned yesterday that the member for Toronto Centre actually wants to use hard-working taxpayers' money to bail out a convicted terrorist and murderer. 
On this side of the House we are going to do all that we can to promote Canadian heritage. We have increased funding to the highest level in Canadian history. 
The National Film Board is digitizing its collection of over 13,000 titles, and Library and Archives Canada is doing the same thing, because people from coast to coast to coast, not just people in the large cities, deserve access to those titles.
International TradeRick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, the NDP members continue to make it clear that they are anti-free traders. Shamefully, they continue to oppose our government's free trade agreement with Panama, a strategic hub. Surprisingly, the anti-free trade NDP and the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour called free trade agreements job destroying.
Could the parliamentary secretary share with the House how, unlike the NDP, our government's pro-trade plan is creating opportunities for Canadians?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the NDP's anti-trade record is clear. The NDP members oppose free trade with Panama. They opposed free trade with Colombia. They even stood in the House to oppose free trade with Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. They opposed the greatest free trade success story, NAFTA. The NDP members cannot hide from their anti-trade record. 
In challenging global economic times, Canadians know it is only our government that has a pro-trade plan to generate jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
Persons with DisabilitiesMs. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP): Mr. Speaker, two years ago the government ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We had hoped that the convention would be implemented, but we now realize that the follow-up report on its implementation has still not been made public and is more than two months overdue. 
What is the Conservatives' excuse this time? Are they simply dragging their feet? 
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, our government is very proud that it ratified the agreement. Supporting persons with disabilities is very important to us. For that reason, we have introduced a number of measures to help them. We will continue to introduce measures and broaden their scope because we want a fully inclusive society.
If the NDP truly wants to support persons with disabilities, why does it always vote against initiatives to help them?
Financial InstitutionsMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not content to rebuff the Government of Quebec again and again on matters such as the reduction of Quebec's weight in the House of Commons, the firearms registry, health transfers, the administration of justice and Senate reform, the Conservative government is opening a new front, this time with regard to banking services.
Why is the Minister of Finance trying so hard to protect banks by infringing on Quebec's jurisdiction over consumer protection?
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to remind the hon. member that, in the past year, our government settled a matter with the Government of Quebec that has been dragging on for over 15 years: the harmonization of the GST and QST. That is a great success.
We announced a new bridge over the St. Lawrence only 140 days after taking office, something that all the other parties had disregarded for years. We are going to continue to work. Not a week goes by that I do not speak with two or three ministers from the Quebec government to advance their causes. We can talk about an isolated case, but our government is a good partner to the Quebec government and we are going to continue to be.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, the minister made me laugh when he spoke about an isolated case. I gave him more than one example.
Since I have only 35 seconds, I do not have time to list all the other disputes that are going on right now between Quebec City and Ottawa. If he would read the letter that the Minister of Finance sent to the Government of Quebec about banking services, he would understand a lot better.
Clearly, the government did not learn anything from its failure on the Canada-wide securities issue. Yet, the Government of Quebec has been clear: it is unacceptable for the Government of Canada to unilaterally decide that provincial laws do not apply to banks.
Why does the minister want to leave Quebec consumers at the mercy of large banks? What does he stand to gain?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, people are not at all at the mercy of large banks. Rather, Canada has the soundest banking system in the world. Our country is doing better than any of the industrialized countries because our financial system is very sound. Of course we will respect the provinces. We respect the ruling given by the Supreme Court in this regard. In our opinion, what is important here is the entire country's economy. We would not have been able to create 750,000 jobs since July 2009 if we were not making good decisions. Of course we are going to continue to work well and co-operate with the Government of Quebec.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Charlene Johnson, Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services for Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Hear, hear!

Routine Proceedings
National DefencePeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to section 96 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998, C35, to table before the House, in both official languages, the second independent review by the Hon. Patrick J. LeSage, CM, OOnt, QC, of the provisions and operations of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
I also have the honour to table, in both official languages, a second document entitled, “Comments of the Minister of National Defence on the Report of the Second Independent Review Authority regarding Bills C-25 and C-60”.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions. 
Committees of the HouseMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Health, entitled, “Drug Supply in Canada: A Multi-Stakeholder Responsibility”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.
PetitionsPhilip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that more than 400 Quebeckers have signed this petition from the Fédération québécoise pour le saumon atlantique, against the changes to the Fisheries Act, and in particular against the elimination of section 35, which protects fish habitats.
Since the depletion of fish stocks in the 1990s, people in the Gaspé and Magdalen Islands are very aware of the fact that we must protect all elements of the ecosystem to achieve sustainable development. 
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski:  Mr. Speaker, Question No. 609 will be answered today.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach:  With respect to drug regulation and approval: (a) does the 2012 Economic Action Plan provide for decreases or increases in the financial and human resources allocated to (i) drug approval services, (ii) regulatory activities to evaluate and monitor the safety, efficacy and quality of drugs before and after they enter the marketplace, (iii) activities related to the review of submissions by drug manufacturers for market authorization and post-market changes, (iv) activities related to enforcing compliance with existing regulations, including those concerning clinical trials, drug manufacturing and the reporting of adverse drug reactions, (v) activities of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, (vi) services such as the Patent Register, Drug Product Database, Notice of Compliance, and Progressive Licensing Project, (vii) various areas of Health Canada such as the Marketed Health Products Directorate, Therapeutic Products Directorate, Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate, and the Veterinary Drugs Directorate; (b) for each of the programs and directorates listed in (a), (i) what is the estimated extent of the decreases or increases in human or financial resources, (ii) are positions expected to be cut and, if so, how many will be eliminated; (c) was a value-for-money assessment conducted for the drug approval process; and (d) what is the government’s financial allocation plan regarding drug regulation? 
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the 2012 economic action plan proposes changes that will give Canadians quicker access to drugs that have gone through Health Canada's rigorous scientific drug review process. This new proposed approach will not impact the safety and efficacy of drugs in Canada. All drug submissions to Health Canada will continue to be subject to rigorous safety, efficacy, and quality assessments prior to approval.
With respect to the questions (a) to (d) above, and subject to parliamentary approval of any required legislation, with regard to (a)(i), (a)(ii), (a)(iii) and (a)(iv) there will be no impact.
With regard to (a)(v), for the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board, PMPRB, there are no changes planned for the price review process. By 2014-15, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board’s financial resources and human resources will have been decreased, as explained below. 
First, the special purpose allotment to be used for external costs of public hearings will be reduced by $630,000 from a budget of $3.1 million. To date the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has not used the full amount in any given year. Any unused funds at the end of the fiscal year are returned to the consolidated revenue fund. The reduction of $630,000 will not limit the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board’s ability to conduct hearings.
Second, funding of studies on non-patented prescription drug prices will be reduced by $374,000, including three positions. This may not necessarily result in layoffs of employees, owing to potential vacancies and internal budget re-allocations. The PMPRB will retain capacity to undertake research, including on non-patented prescription drug prices if required, through the national prescription drug utilization system program. 
With regard to (a)(vi), patent register, drug product database, notice of compliance and the progressive licensing project will not be impacted. 
With regard to (a)(vii), the therapeutic products directorate will be impacted, as described below in the responses to (b)(i) and (b)(ii). 
With regard to (b)(i), the proposed removal of the requirement for a regulatory amendment to schedule F and maintaining the list of prescription drugs administratively would result in the following decreases in financial resources: $32,000 for 2012-13; $270,700 for 2013-14; and $388,400 for 2014-15 and ongoing. 
With regard to (b)(ii), there will be a reduction of four positions in the therapeutic products directorate from 2013-14 and ongoing. 
With regard to (c), there was no value-for-money assessment conducted for the drug approval process as there were no reductions in this area. 
With regard to (d), as per the above, the 2012 economic action plan had no direct impact on drug regulation, with the exception of proposed changes to the Food and Drugs Act for schedule F. 
With respect to the government's financial allocation plan regarding drug regulation, Health Canada updated its cost recovery fees for drug review and approval of drugs in April 2011. These fees were increased to reflect rising costs and will increase annually by 2% to help ensure that sufficient resources are available to support these activities.
Revenues from revised fees will provide stable, long-term funding for Health Canada's core regulatory activities, including efficient drug product reviews, enhanced drug safety monitoring and inspections. Revenues have also been invested in hiring new scientific experts, replacing antiquated IT systems and improving business processes and systems. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 613, 616 and 619 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Mr. Matthew Kellway:  With regard to the government response to Chapter 2 of the 2012 Spring Report of the Auditor General: (a) when did the departments of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC), National Defence (DND), and Industry Canada provide their final responses to the Office of the Auditor General (OAG); (b) when did PWGSC and DND inform the OAG that they disagreed with the conclusions of Paragraphs 2.80 and 2.81 of the report; (c) was the disagreement with those two paragraphs approved by the Minister; (d) if this disagreement was not approved by the Minister, who were the officials who approved this response; (e) what was the rationale for disagreement; and (f) how was this disagreement communicated to the OAG?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Matthew Kellway:  With regard to formal communications received by the government of Canada from the United States Department of Defense (DoD) regarding the Joint Strike Fighter/F-35 program: (a) what were the dates of all formal communications received from DoD regarding project costs and/or overruns; (b) what was the content of the communications; (c) who in the government received these communications; (d) were Ministers informed of these communications; (e) was the Prime Minister informed of these communications; (f) if not, why not; (g) if yes, how were these messages given to Ministers and on what date; and (h) what actions were taken in response to these communications? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Wayne Marston:  With regard to the budget for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev) from fiscal years 2009-2010 to 2014-2015, what is: (a) the total budget for each year; (b) the amount disbursed for each year, by program and initiative; (c) the amount of lapsed funding, by program and standard object; and (d) the number of budgeted full time equivalents versus the number of employed full time equivalents? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, be read the third time and passed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): When the House last left the debate on the bill, the hon. member for Newton—North Delta had eight and a half minutes remaining for her speech, and of course the requisite time for questions and comments. 
The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, I finished off by talking about the mandatory detention of bona fide refugees just because of the way they arrived here in Canada and the impact that would have on children. I want to expand on that a little bit.
I talked earlier about the emotional and the social costs, but we also have to look at the financial burden that the Canadian public would have to pay, because to keep people, legitimate refugees once they arrive and have gone through identification and security checks, in a provincial prison will be a costly matter. The last time I looked at those numbers, we were looking at anywhere from $60,000 to $80,000 a year to keep somebody in a provincial jail.
Besides that, we have to look at the human cost. Here we would not only be fiscally irresponsible and break UN conventions, conventions to which we are signatories, but we would also be fiscally irresponsible at a time of restraint, and it would be a cruel way to treat some of the world's most vulnerable people when they arrive on our shores.
I have heard a lot about how the bill will punish smugglers. I look on the bill as the “punishing refugees bill”, because that is what it does. Under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, we already have $1 million in fines and life imprisonment for smugglers. If we really want to go after smugglers, we have to work with the international community and get to the source. It is my belief that all these smugglers we are supposedly going to catch will not be on the ship or boat when it arrives.
The current detention and security check system that we already have actually led to charges being laid against some of the people on the boat that arrived from Sri Lanka, but over 90% of the people who arrived on that boat were accepted by Canada as legitimate asylum seekers. However, under this legislation, we would be putting them in prison, and that just makes no sense to me.
There is another aspect we have to look at. We all know the importance of family. All of us like to have our family around us. We can imagine refugees arriving here after running away and putting their lives at risk to get to this new country where they will seek protection. Their number one goal will be to have their family members join them also . Sometimes it will be a mother who might have been able to run away with only two of her kids and might have had to leave a kid behind. Sometimes the whole family remains behind, and only one person escapes. 
In those cases, under this legislation, once again we have a two-tiered system that would prohibit legitimate asylum seekers from applying to have their families join them here. They would not have any travel documents. That again goes against the UN convention.
We are not talking about going away on cruises and things like that. For example, if somebody gets here, they might have some family just over the border in the U.S. and they might be able to go there and meet them. If they have arrived here from Mexico, maybe they cannot go back to Mexico but some of their family can get into Guatemala, and they could meet with them there. In these cases, we would once again be limiting and denying some very fundamental rights to people. 
This five years of forced separation, by the way, is before they can apply. We know, given the way processing goes in this country right now, two or three or four years could be added to that. We can imagine the impact that kind of separation would have on families. 
Once again it would not just be the mental torture that the families would suffer in knowing that their children and other family members were in danger; it would also be the social impact. 
There would also be health care costs. Just imagine the impacts it will have on health care. Not only do we keep people in prison for up to a year, but now we will keep them separated from their families. 
The impacts cannot be underestimated. We had witness after witness tell us about the impacts of incarceration on children and on adults. Every one of them said that it interferes with the settlement of families and becoming productive, and we heard as well about the costs to health care that I just raised.
Also, we are concerned about biometrics. We are not concerned that biometrics will be used in two areas, fingerprinting and digital photos. Rather, what we are absolutely concerned about is that the committee has not had a chance to study the privacy impact assessment. That is very important for all of us. Obviously, these reforms are not clearly consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
At this time I have an amendment.
 I move, seconded by the member for Saint-Lambert: 
 That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, because it: 
 (a) gives significant powers to the Minister that could be exercised in an arbitrary manner, including the power to designate so-called “safe” countries without independent advice; 
 (b) violates international conventions to which Canada is signatory by providing mechanisms for the Government to indiscriminately designate and subsequently imprison bone fide refugees—including children—for up to one year; 
 (c) undermines best practices in refugee settlement by imposing, on some refugees, five years of forced separation from families; 
 (d) adopts a biometrics programme for temporary resident visas without adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the privacy risks; and 
 (e) is not clearly consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The amendment is admissible.
Questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the member's position and her speech this morning on Bill C-31. Of course, I disagree with just about everything she had in there. 
However, there were two amendments that the government moved, and I would thank her and the other members on the committee from the NDP and from the Liberal Party for agreeing and voting unanimously in favour of both amendments that the government passed. While we heard a lot of opposition to the bill today, there was a faint hope within the context of the bill, and we did see some support. 
This leads me to believe that once the bill is passed and we have moved forward, a number of members from both the Liberal Party and the NDP who will see the light of day and see that this is in fact the right bill. Bill C-31 is the right legislation in terms of reforming our refugee system.
The member spoke for a couple of moments on designated safe countries. It should be made very clear that the transparency about the method and scope of how safe countries would be designated is now in the bill. It was not in the prvious bill, Bill C-11, but it is in the current bill now. 
Most importantly, the member spoke at great length about the issue of children and that a decision would be made for those under 16 years of age. That is an addition to the bill that did not exist under Bill C-11. I know she was not here back when we were talking about this issue, but when the government passed legislation on the issue of sexual consent of a minor, we moved the age from 14 to 16. I would like the member to comment on why her party argued so vehemently against raising the age of consent to 16, yet today she says that 16-year-olds are not in a position to make the types of decisions that she is talking about. 
[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear that we supported a couple of amendments that were brought forward by the government side because they mitigated the extensive damage that we see in the bill. 
One of them was an unintended consequence, as the minister said. I felt good that once he realized there was an unintended consequence whereby people could be deported after many years of living in Canada because the country they had fled from would become considered safe, the government side actually addressed that unintended consequence. I acknowledge that there was some movement. 
However, I want to get back to the detention issue. I absolutely cannot, as a mother, a parliamentarian and a teacher, stand here and say that being kept in detention would be okay and would not have a devastating impact on young children, no matter whether they were 3 or 9 or 16 or 17 years old.
 Once again, these are the reasons we are so adamant that the bill goes way beyond. It is not only we who see the bill as draconian; expert witnesses agree. It is actually a “punishing refugees bill”, because there is nothing more in it that would punish smugglers than there already is in Bill C-11.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.
We were obviously together on the same committee and we heard the testimonies regarding similar legislation that was passed in Australia and regarding its proven ineffectiveness.
Furthermore, in November 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of two Sri Lankan refugees, who said that the laws prohibiting them from appealing to the Australian courts were unfair. The same thing could happen in Canada if this bill is passed.
Could my colleague speak to that?
[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Lambert for working tirelessly on this bill. Since we finished the committee stage, she has been doing stellar work in her community and in other areas because this is a topic she feels very passionate about and is very concerned that the compassionate face of Canada is being changed so dramatically.
As I said earlier, arbitrary detention is a violation and I am absolutely convinced that there will be legal challenges.
 I also want to talk about learning from the mistakes made by others. When we looked at the omnibus crime bill motion, the United States was telling us over and over again that mandatory detentions did not work in the United States but we still passed a bill that is basically a prison building agenda.
Now we are dealing with the world's most vulnerable people. When they land on our shores, they could be identified as legitimate asylum seekers but they will be incarcerated in provincial jails.
[Interjection]
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her response.
I would also like her to expand a bit on an issue she touched on in her speech, the psychological impact of detention, both on adults and children.
[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, in my previous life I often had the privilege of working with children who had come from camps in which there were terrible circumstances and I saw the kind of psychologically damage that has on young people. What we are talking about here are families or parts of families arriving on our shores from some very devastating situations. What we will be telling them is that we will keep them in prison for up to a year. We need to think about the psychological impact that will have on people who are looking for a place to provide them with a safe haven and the first thing they will face is prison. Even after their identity has been made and Canadian authorities know they are not terrorist threats, they and their children will still be kept in prison. 
We need to look at the social impact of this, the health care costs and the long-term social costs that we will pay well into the future. The cost of incarceration, as we all know, is going up every year. The last time I looked there was a shortage of prison cells in some provinces.
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the designated safe country issue. The member continues to say that the only place in the world that a designated safe country will exist in its refugee legislation is Canada. The United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, just to state a few, are countries that have implemented designated safe country status. We have moved it from outside of the bill, in terms of where it was before in regulation, into legislation. It is a two-step process, one that will require additional departmental officials to determine the outcomes as to how and when a country will be designated. 
Why in the world would she and her party not support legislation that designates safe countries? They are happening and have happened all over the world. We are simply catching up.
[Interjection]
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, the NDP did support the designation of safe countries in Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, because at that time there was an independent panel of experts making the decision.
I want to put it on the record that there are countries the government could designate as safe, Hungary being one, and yet the government accepted over 160 refugees from there and we know that both the Jews and the Roma communities are being targeted in Hungary right now.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act.
The latest version of this bill is a slight improvement over the original thanks to some amendments. I would like to thank the government for that, but the fact is that many experts strongly criticized the bill, leaving the Conservatives little choice but to make amendments. Even though the amendments improved the bill, it is still problematic in many respects.
One of the many problems with Bill C-31 is that it will create two classes of refugees: those arriving through regular channels and those arriving through irregular channels. This classification will have serious consequences because individuals will not be treated the same way. According to the Barreau du Québec, this measure is “possibly discriminatory, illegal and contrary to Canada's international commitments”.
There is a real danger that people will be deported to countries where their lives are in danger. This two-tier system will actually increase the risk of error. Yet Canada is bound to protect the right to life, liberty and security of every person in this country, including so-called illegal refugees. 
For example, if one person comes from another country by sea and another person comes by air, they can be treated differently. We feel that such a situation is not really acceptable.
Another major shortcoming of this bill that was not amended is the fact that it gives the Minister of Immigration additional powers for no good reason. Under Bill C-31, the Minister of Immigration will decide which individuals qualify as regular arrivals and which as irregular. That puts too much power in the minister's hands. Not only does this bill create a two-tier system, it also politicizes it. This part of the bill has been strongly criticized by many experts, including the Barreau du Québec. 
The system was working fairly well, but now the Conservatives are trying to exert even more control over it. We must not oppose the politicization of the immigration system just because the Conservatives are the ones in power. No party or politician should have such powers. There is no reason for it, and the Liberal Party has been clear on that.
If for example, a group of individuals arrive from a country that we have good relations with, but the circumstances are such that the safety of the group is indeed compromised, what will the minister do? He might base his decision on the current state of relations with that country instead of basing it on an objective opinion, as some have pointed out in the past and in committee. Will the minister declare these people as irregular arrivals in order to preserve good relations with their country of origin? If we do not have good relations, a different decision might be made that might not suit the people involved. Will the minister acknowledge the threats against them and declare the arrival regular? Why politicize the matter? It is a bad decision regardless of the minister's intentions.
What is more, the initial bill prevented illegal refugees from being heard before the end of a 12-month mandatory detention. The bill has since been amended to allow refugees to be heard within 14 days, then heard again after six months. Why wait six months? The Liberal Party is wondering why the government would not allow refugees to be heard again every month. We proposed 28 days. I think the government should implement an even more flexible system because, once the identity of the people is known and we know that they are good people and true refugees, why should they have to stay in detention and incur costs for the system and the government? 
There is still a two-tiered system at play. The Conservatives should at least withdraw the unreasonable, arbitrary six-month review period. 
The safe countries designation also poses a problem since, once again, the minister has the power to decide which countries are safe and which are not. Again, by politicizing the immigration process, we will have to choose between our relations with other countries and protection for refugees. The unfortunate refugees from so-called safe countries will have to go through a much more complicated process and might be sent back to their country of origin for political reasons. That is unacceptable and certainly unjustifiable.
The Conservatives must leave it to the experts to decide which countries are safe and which are not, while reviewing the files case by case. It is not up to the minister to decide. The parliamentary secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the bill does not contain a list. We do not know which countries will be safe and we do not know the criteria for designating them.
Mandatory detention for so-called irregular arrivals is highly problematic, especially when it comes to children. Once again, a number of experts opposed this measure and challenged the legality of this bill. Indeed, Bill C-31 will subject 16- and 17-year-old children to mandatory detention if they are considered irregular arrivals. We know the Conservatives like to beleaguer our children, but why not exclude children from mandatory detention? They are too young to have decided to immigrate to Canada; it would have been their parents' choice. Why punish these particular children? This measure smacks of Conservative ideology, which makes no distinction between adults and children. The Conservatives would always rather punish than prevent.
The question of children aged 15 and under also poses a problem. Two choices are being proposed regarding their fate: either they are separated from their parents and sent to another institution while their parents are detained, or they are detained with their parents. Neither option is acceptable, in my view. If the arrivals present no danger to Canada or Canadians, there should be no mandatory detention, and this is especially true when children are involved. Several experts confirmed that the psychological effect on children in both cases would be devastating. This measure will likely be challenged before the courts, and I doubt it is even constitutional. In short, this bill represents another step backward for Canada.
Furthermore, the people who are deported after their application is rejected will not be able to apply for permanent resident status in the following five years. When that is added to mandatory detention, a person might have to wait more than six years to immigrate, sometimes just because of a purely political—crassly political—decision. This measure is not necessary and, I repeat, it is arbitrary. Are there studies that prove this approach should be adopted? Our immigration system is working rather well, so why change all of it?
We have spoken at length about this bill, but one question remains: what is its true objective? The government says that it wants to give priority to regular refugees. And yet irregular refugees will be subject to mandatory detention whether or not they pose a risk to Canada. These two categories of refugees are dealt with in the same manner.
Of course, Canadian taxpayers will foot the bill for detention, even though it is pointless. We have become used to the Conservatives wasting public money on incarcerating people while cutting services to the public. What is most contradictory about this bill is that the government wants to incarcerate more people in order to prevent delays in processing so-called regular refugees.
However, we all know that detaining these people will cost Canadian taxpayers a lot of money. Why not just spend the money on hiring more staff to process the applications? It would be a little more efficient and perhaps would allow these refugees, who have probably filed legitimate applications, to start anew. The Conservatives' logic does not stand up. In the interest of fairness and cost savings, detention should not be mandatory.
The Conservative government says that it also wants this bill to serve as a deterrent to illegal immigration. Yet, the Conservatives are targeting the refugees and not the smugglers. Why have the conservatives chosen to attack such an easy target—the refugees? They should be targeting those who make money by exploiting human misery and breaking our laws. Illegal immigrants already take huge risks to escape misery. The threat of penalties will not dissuade them from entering Canada illegally.
As I have said in the past, most of these immigrants do not look up Canadian laws on the Internet before coming here. If they are exploited, if they are in a precarious situation and are forced to come here, they do not come because they want to be detained or because they are familiar with Canadian laws. They come because they are fleeing poverty in their country of origin. They know nothing about our laws. They are prepared to risk their lives to escape poverty. In other words, this bill will only create more problems for refugees and will have little impact on smugglers.
Must I remind the Conservatives that these same smugglers will usually turn illegal immigrants into slaves once they arrive in the country? The bill should target the people who profit from the crime and not victims and desperate people. As I have already said, with this bill, we will just add to the stress these victims are already suffering.
For all these reasons, my Liberal colleagues and I will vote against this bill. The amendments made by the minister are not enough and only partially fixed the many shortcomings in the original bill. As many experts and officials stated when the bill was studied in committee, the law works as it is. This bill will only create more problems for immigrants, before it is contested and likely declared unconstitutional in court.
I repeat: this bill will not achieve its goal, simply because its focus is not in the right place.
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech. On a number of occasions, I do not even mind saying I agree with him on some of his issues that he brings forward. Obviously, today, he is in the wrong. He and his party's non-support for the bill will in fact do nothing to change the system we have. It is a system that is abused around the world by individuals, especially human smugglers who traffic in getting individuals to pay huge amounts of money to get onto an unsafe vessel to come here to Canada. That is the way it still is under the current legislation. He and his party believe it is okay to have that happen. We on this side of the House do not believe that. That is why we are moving to ensure that human smugglers pay a significant price. We are seeing them being charged already. 
My question is, why on earth would they not want to pass a piece of legislation that is going to go after and detain human smugglers under the Criminal Code and just keep it as it is now? It just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have worked together on other issues. Sometimes he is reasonable on certain things. I think on this that it is just a matter of interpretation.
I, and the Liberal Party, in no way support human smugglers. My whole speech was based on the fact that this particular bill should probably have more emphasis on damages against human smugglers, penalizing them and finding more ways to make sure this does not happen.
The problem we have with this particular bill is the fact that the refugees become the victims, as I said in my speech. They are the ones who leave a place where they are not happy. I do not think anybody who is living a good life is going to put themselves on a boat or in a container for days on end, paying a smuggler thousands of dollars to get here.
Most of the people who decide to come here are in a desperate situation. I do not think those people, before getting into that container or onto that boat, are going to go on the Internet to look up the laws of Canada and then realize that they will be detained for a year if they do not have the paperwork.
I am not sure how this is going to deter refugees from coming to Canada. It is the human smugglers we should be going after.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's concerns about this bill.
I would like to know what the primary source of his doubts is. Is it the 25th gag order, ministers' constant interference in routine business, the government's culture of secrecy or the many ethics-related issues that have him doubting the appropriateness of giving discretionary powers to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism?
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, usually Liberal Party of Canada MPs are the ones who ask the best questions. The member asked a very good question, but I do not know how to answer, so I will say yes to all of it.
The member counted 25 closure motions, but personally, I think there have been more than that. But we will not get hung up on the number of closure motions. We have been through two wars. We would need two or three calculators just to count the number of closure motions we have had this week.
The Liberals' biggest problem with this bill is the fact that the minister will have too much discretionary power.
Ms. Lois Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week when I had an opportunity to speak to this bill, I spoke extensively about the part of the bill that talks about biometrics. Many other countries around the world are already using biometrics as a means of identification, so that is included in this bill.
 I wonder if the member could tell us why it is that he wants to put in jeopardy the safety and security of Canadians?
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall ever saying that. Maybe it is in the translation, but they do a good job in this place so I do not see how she thinks I said that Canadians were going to be put in jeopardy.
If anything, I said that when these supposed refugees come in, they should be given a chance to prove who they are. If we can use biometrics, that is better. It would probably be a quicker method of getting these people out of detention.
The Conservative government has said that if people cannot identify themselves, giving us proof within 14 days, then they are going to be stuck in detention for 6 months. After that, they will never have a chance to become a permanent resident, no matter who they are or how valid the reason is that came here, even if they had been forced to come here.
I am not sure how this member decided that we were against Canadians.
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, the member and I usually have pretty close views on a number of issues in this country. I am a little surprised. He is saying that the bill is, from his perspective, going to hurt refugees. I am not quite sure why. In the current system, it takes an average of over 1,000 days, over three years, for a refugee fleeing persecution from his or country to achieve refugee status here in Canada. This piece of legislation would mean that some will receive that application and approval within 45 days, others within no more than 246 days.
While he says he is on the side of refugees, by not supporting the legislation, the member is actually telling all legitimate refugees in the world who have been approved to come to Canada that they are going to have to continue to wait upwards of three years to achieve the status of refugee here.
I am asking him, I am imploring him, to support the bill. Help refugees in this country who are trying to stay here in Canada and achieve that status. Vote in favour of the bill. It is much better than keeping the current status. I would like the member to try to explain how on earth he could imagine that the system we have now is better than the one we would have under Bill C-31.
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, the member across is a parliamentary secretary. He was at the committee meetings, I just read some of the minutes, and heard from experts. I am not sure what he actually listened to. Sometimes he is a pretty good listener so I give him the benefit of the doubt.
I never said that a thousand days, on average, for refugees to get processed was acceptable. I think a refugee is actually lucky if he or she is able to get his or her papers in order in 1,000 days and get acknowledged. My office is seeing people who have been here five, six, even seven years, and there is still no progress.
There is no question that the system needs to be improved. However, the problem is this bill, in particular, would give too much power to the minister and putting these refugees in detention for years on end is going to cost Canadian taxpayers thousands and millions and billions of dollars, as the Conservatives would say.
The parliamentary secretary just said some of these refugees would be processed within 45 days. If some of them do get processed in 45 days, more power to them. That is exactly what we want. That is how we want this system--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please.
Questions and comments.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra:  Mr. Speaker, I am hearing from the member--
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: We're almost there, Rick. Come on.
[Interjection]
Rick Dykstra: Yes, we're getting there.
Mr. Speaker, he does, I think, in his heart of hearts, want to stand up to support the legislation. His leader may be telling him he has to vote against, but I am hearing from him that there is room to say that this bill would be better for Canadians, it would be better for refugees.
 I want to give him one more opportunity to stand in his place to say he is going to do the right thing: support the bill and help refugees from around the world when they come here to this country.
[Interjection]
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that I am a member of the Liberal Party. We do not need our leader to tell us what to do. We are free to do what we like. In these cases, it is normally our critic who has a big voice. I think there is general consensus that we feel the bill is just not acceptable. We have presented our amendments. If the member is willing to put forward amendments, it is not too late. It has been done before. The government can send them to our Liberal senators. We can amend it in the other place. It is not too late. We are almost there. The parliamentary secretary has been reasonable on other bills. We still have a chance in the other place, because I know that at this third reading stage, we are not going to be able to amend the bill.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Crowfoot.
 I am pleased to rise in the House today and offer my full support for Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act, which would strengthen Canada's immigration and refugee system and better enable Canada to maintain its significant humanitarian legacy while also ensuring the public safety of Canadians. 
Until recently most Canadians believed that large-scale human smuggling was something that just did not happen here, that it happened somewhere else, maybe in countries like Australia, or they read about it in the paper. That all changed in 2009 when Canadians witnessed the arrival on the west coast of the MV Ocean Lady carrying 76 migrants. Less than one year later, close to 500 migrants arrived on a second vessel, the MV  Sun Sea. Shortly after that, a sea container was uncovered at the port of Montreal concealing yet more individuals who had tried to enter Canada illegally.
In response, Canadians told us they wanted our government to act decisively to crack down on criminal human smuggling. 
We must act before another tragedy strikes, like the one that occurred off the coast of Indonesia just last December when close to 200 irregular migrants destined for Australia perished when their vessel capsized in rough waters.
Even more recent events remind Canadians that human smugglers continue to target Canada to this very day and we must remain vigilant.
Many Canadians may not know about this, but very recently a human smuggling operation was dismantled in Togo. A large number of people were in Togo waiting to board a ship to come to Canada. With the hard work of authorities there and other countries, including Canada, this trip never took place.
Just a few weeks ago a human smuggling operation in Ghana was dismantled thanks to intelligence provided by Canadian officials. Our officials are working incredibly hard and are to be commended for their work to crack down on these despicable criminal organizations.
The recent capsizing of a small boat off the coast of Nova Scotia reminds us that these dangerous voyages too often end in tragedy. Every year countless people die before they reach their destination.
Bill C-31 includes mandatory minimums for criminal human smugglers and would hold shipowners and operators to account for the use of their ships in human smuggling operations. The bill also includes the mandatory detention of anyone who arrives as a participant in an irregular arrival. 
I would note that in response to experts and opposition colleagues, our government has amended Bill C-31 to include detention reviews at 14 days and 6 months. These amendments were supported by the NDP at committee, but despite our government's efforts to work in good faith to amend the bill to ensure it is as effective as possible, the NDP has chosen, as it often does, to be blindly partisan and continues to oppose and delay the bill.
Detaining individuals who arrive as part of a criminal human smuggling event and whose identities are not known is what any responsible government would and should do. Oftentimes the boats that arrive on our shores carry the criminal smugglers themselves and who knows who else. These are not just people who are perceived threats. For example, to date, of those who arrived on the MV  Sun Sea, four have been found to be inadmissible due to security concerns, and one has been found to be inadmissible due to war crimes. Even more striking, in regard to the Ocean Lady, to date, 19 have been found to be inadmissible due to security concerns, while 17 have been found to be inadmissible due to war crimes.
I would like to take a moment to congratulate the RCMP for its hard work in its human smuggling investigations and for laying charges on six of the alleged criminal smugglers to date.
To be frank, I am shocked that the NDP and the Liberals believe that unidentified individuals, who could be terrorists, violent criminals or criminal human smugglers, among others who could victimize innocent Canadians, should be allowed to roam the streets before their identity has been established. Our government will not allow this to happen. Unlike the NDP and the Liberals, Canadians can always rely on our Conservative government to protect their safety and security and that of their families.
Experience around the world has taught us that only dealing with the push factors of criminal human smuggling is not effective. The pull factors must also be addressed.
That is why Bill C-31 includes provisions and disincentives to prevent those who come to Canada as part of a designated irregular arrival from applying for permanent residence status for a period of five years and prevents individuals from sponsoring family members for five years.
Again, we acknowledge that these measures are tough, but we believe they are necessary and fair. Unless both push and pull factors to criminal human smuggling are addressed, this despicable and dangerous activity will continue.
By not supporting Bill C-31, the NDP and Liberals are sending a clear and, to be frank, shameful message that if people can afford tens of thousands of dollars to pay a criminal smuggler to bring them to Canada, they can jump the line, but if they are poor, they can languish in a refugee camp. They are telling criminal human smugglers that Canada will continue to be a doormat.
Unlike the opposition, our Conservative government is sending a clear message that our doors are open to those who play by the rules, including legitimate refugees. However, we will crack down on those who endanger human lives and threaten the integrity of our borders.
Human smuggling is a despicable crime. Canadians think it is unacceptable for criminals to abuse Canada's immigration system for financial gain.
Recently, the Government of New Zealand introduced legislation to enhance its ability to deter human smuggling by making it as unattractive as possible to human smugglers and the people to whom they sell their services. Its proposed measures include the use of mandatory detention and streamlined refugee and protection claims processes. This is sounding fairly familiar. Other policy changes include reassessing a refugee claim three years after it is first determined, with permanent residence not granted unless this reassessment is approved. Family reunifications have also been restricted so that those who do gain residence after three years can sponsor their immediate family members to join them in New Zealand, but not their extended family members.
The fact that other governments, such as New Zealand's, are proposing similar measures shows that this is truly an international concern that needs to be addressed.
Indeed, human smuggling networks in Southeast Asia have proven their reach and determination. We know that they continue to actively target Canada as a destination. This is why the Government of Canada is pushing forward with reforms to strengthen the immigration and refugee program in this country.
We must be tough in order to prevent human smugglers from taking advantage of our generosity and from putting vulnerable people's lives at risk. We must be fair to those who follow the rules and come to Canada through legitimate channels seeking peace and prosperity.
However, the system must also be fair for all Canadians, who expect that our borders and shores to be safe and secure, and who expect this government to protect our generous systems from abuse. That is why the Government of Canada introduced this piece of legislation, which I am supporting today.
We will continue to take all necessary action in the future to deter the ugly practice of human smuggling while continuing to meet our humanitarian obligations.
 I strongly urge all of my colleagues in the House to support Bill C-31 and ensure its swift passage.
Jinny Sims: Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by some of the comments made by my colleague, so I have a couple of questions which I hope he can answer.
Is he aware of Bill C-11? Not only was it passed by this House but it was actually praised by the minister. Its actually known as the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. That act actually has all of the needed elements for the safety and security of Canadians. All of the features that would be required are in there.
Also, the member talked about people jumping the line. We are not talking about people arriving here on a holiday. We are talking about people who are escaping life and death situations. They are asylum seekers under the UN conventions. They are coming here in a legitimate way to escape persecution.
Is the member aware of Bill C-11 and what is in it, a bill that has not even been acted upon yet?
[Interjection]
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, of course I am aware of that bill. I think it was a good start. Given the situation, it addressed some of the issues in terms of streamlining the processing of refugees, but it did not go far enough.
As I said in my comments, the pull factor was not addressed adequately in that bill. We need to put in place some disincentives so that people on the other side of the world, in Southeast Asia for example, do not think Canada is the place to come in an irregular fashion. When we allow that to happen and put our resources into processing them, there are legitimate refugees in refugee camps around the world where those resources should be going. That is what we are doing in this legislation.
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary hosted a town hall meeting in his riding on this very issue. Being from British Columbia, he can speak with great knowledge, because that is where the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady arrived. In his community there was quite a reaction when both of those ships arrived in Vancouver, British Columbia.
With respect to the work that he did in terms of the town hall meeting and the input he sought from his constituents, have we listened and included that within the context of the bill and addressing the issue of human smuggling?
[Interjection]
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his assistance in that town hall meeting we held.
My riding is even more significant, not just because it is in British Columbia, but because those irregular migrants, particularly the 500 in the last arrival, were actually detained in my riding. My son works in the institution where they were detained. He told me they received very good care, and I am sure Canadians would be pleased about that.
I can tell this House for sure that my constituents are pleased with this legislation. Although it is tough, it addresses the issue that we need to address.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the House that the quality of a society or a civilization is measured by its respect for the weakest and most vulnerable. That includes refugees.
Speaking of designated countries, I would like to ask the minister how he will go about designating these countries impartially. How will he do that?
[Interjection]
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have the most generous and humanitarian refugee system in the world. I believe that to be true. In fact, we need to make sure it stays that way by addressing abuses and this legislation does that. 
It should concern us that, for example, the total number of refugee claims from the EU in 2011 was close to 6,000, more than Africa or Asia. We need to have the ability to designate certain countries where the numbers are going up every year. The number from the EU, for example, increased 14% from 2010. It is a necessary action.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and support Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act.
Many hon. members have already had the opportunity to participate in this debate. In fact, a number of constructive suggestions have been brought forward and the government has acted in good faith and responded with several amendments that address concerns that were raised about the bill as it originally had been tabled. Nevertheless, it is important to step back and put one aspect of this debate into perspective. Among other needed measures, Bill C-31 would help bring about some very important reforms to the refugee system.
Clearly, Canadians are the most generous people in the world. They want to provide protection to those who need it. Unfortunately, our asylum system is not just being used by those who need our protection. Too many people are abusing our refugee system to gain quick entry to Canada and to jump the immigration queue. Nothing illustrates this abuse better than the fact that one-quarter of all asylum claims in Canada come from democratic, rights respecting European Union member countries. That is more than from Africa or Asia. Canadians are generous people, but we rightly have no tolerance for those who abuse our generosity or take advantage of our country. Canadians have told us, loud and clear, that they want to put a stop to this abuse. Have an asylum system, but let us use it, not abuse it.
Bogus claimants clog our refugee system and make those who legitimately need protection wait far too long, on average almost two years, before they can get a decision on their claim. Bogus claimants are undermining and eroding the faith of Canadians in our system. They are also costing Canadian taxpayers, who are left to foot the bill for the generous and expensive taxpayer funded health care, welfare and other social benefits that draw these bogus claimants.
 The measures in Bill C-31 would help curb that abuse. This bill's measures would help protect the integrity of our refugee program. There is no better way to demonstrate our great humanitarian tradition in Canada than by ensuring we can provide protection more quickly to those we genuinely need it.
 The reforms in Bill C-31 would help prevent abuse of our system by ensuring human smugglers, violent criminals and bogus asylum seekers would be removed from Canada more quickly.
However, my remarks today will be more to the positive results of Bill C-31, which is something that is getting lost in this debate as we hear the opposition members and their questions. Once Bill C-31 is passed, genuine refugees will receive Canada's much needed protection more quickly. This is a goal and outcome that I think all members in the House of Commons would like to support and see achieved.
 In their comments about these particular measures, some hon. members have unfairly accused the government of trying to undermine Canada's tradition of humanitarianism and compassion when it comes to refugees. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our government and all Canadians take great pride in the generosity, fairness and compassion of our immigration and refugee system. Indeed, nothing in Bill C-31 would ever diminish that.
Even with these reforms, Canada will still have the most generous asylum system in the world. We will be number one. In fact, because these reforms will enable those who need our protection to get it even faster, I would argue that they will make it better.
 For generations, Canadians have opened our arms to those who need our protection. More than one million refugees have been welcomed to our country since the Second World War. Our Conservative government is proud of and looking forward to continuing that tradition. Just this past December at the United Nations in Geneva, Canada committed to further concrete actions in order to provide protection to those in need.
I urge all hon. members in the House to join me in supporting this important bill and to ensure its speedy passage to make certain that genuine refugees get the help they need in our country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Tuesday, May 29, 2012, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House. 
 The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, June 11.
[Interjection]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is it agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Accordingly the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Transboundary Waters Protection ActMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC):  moved that Bill C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to begin second reading debate on Bill C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act. It sounds like a mouthful, but the subject matter of this legislation is straightforward and simple. It is simply to strengthen protections at the federal level to ensure that our waters are protected from bulk water removals.
I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Mississauga South, a relative rookie MP but a great colleague and a member who has a riding that borders on one of the Great Lakes and who realizes the importance of our water. I would like to thank her for her work on that.
Preserving and protecting Canada's freshwater has been a concern of mine for many years. Representing my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, a riding that is defined by Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, which surround it on three sides, I understand very well the significance of freshwater to Canadians.
 I am often asked what prompted me to put this bill forward. There are many who have said that I could have waited for the government to put this forth rather than introduce it as a private member's bill. However, I saw a need for the protection of our water and decided to act. I personally live on Georgian Bay and our lakes and waters are extremely important to me. I want to ensure that our freshwater will remain where it belongs: in Canada. I am hopeful that my granddaughters will be able to grow up and know the water in Canada will not be leaving. 
For Canadians, water is more than a natural resource. It is one of the symbols that defines our country. Whether it is water found on our glaciers, on the Great Lakes, our large and small rivers and the almost countless lakes, ponds or fishing holes across this country, our freshwater is an important part of who we are and the protection of Canada's water is of paramount importance to Canadians in all parts of the country.
Our government has been committed to protecting our water and has introduced many measures to ensure that our water remains safe. We recently announced measures to protect our Great Lakes from Asian carp. Over the next five years, $17.5 million will be allocated to systems of prevention, early warning, rapid response and management and control against the invasion of Asian carp. We have also created tougher laws on the dumping of ballast water and introduced many other measures to protect our lakes.
Canadians want us to ensure that our waters are well protected. They want to know that Canada's freshwater will remain in Canada, supporting healthy ecosystems and communities. They want to know that both the federal and provincial governments have strong protections in place to protect waters under their jurisdictions from schemes or projects to remove them in bulk. After all, bulk removal would be a permanent loss of water from their ecosystems and communities and would risk upsetting delicate ecological balances, as well as depriving communities of an essential resource.
Before getting into the details of the proposed changes to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act that are found in this legislation, let me provide some background on the protections that are currently in place to ensure that our water remains within Canada and protected from the harmful impacts that bulk removal would cause.
I am pleased that the waters in my back yard, Lake Huron, Georgian Bay and all the Great Lakes, are already protected from bulk removals. However, under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, bulk water removals are prohibited from boundary waters. Boundary waters are those waters through which the international boundary passes. The statute is explicit in this regard. Section 13 of the act states, “no person shall use or divert boundary waters by removing water from the boundary waters and taking it outside the water basin in which the boundary waters are located”. 
Looking at the Great Lakes, I should also add that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and our neighbours in the United States share the view that bulk diversions of water from the Great Lakes Basin are not desirable and that these waters should be protected. The Great Lakes compact, signed into U.S. federal law in 2008, contains strong protections against bulk diversions of water outside of the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes Basin. The eight Great Lakes states signed a related side instrument with the governments of Quebec and Ontario as part of that compact and they now work closely together on this and other Great Lakes issues.
Our provinces are focused on protecting water resources within their territories and for some time now provinces have had laws, regulations or policies in place to prevent the bulk removal of water. Going forward, therefore, they have a vital role in continuing to protect and maintain this important natural resource. The provinces recognize this. They have different ways of protecting waters under their jurisdictions, but are all committed to ensuring that water resources are protected and maintained for Canadians. I recognize that any way forward involves the federal government working closely with the provinces. 
 I have provided some background on the protections already in place to prevent the bulk removal of water. However, as I have said, we have good protections but there is an opportunity to go further. Public policy advocates have identified the lack of federal protections for waters, other than boundary waters, and have brought these concerns to our attention. For instance, there are no federal protections to prevent the bulk removal of water from transboundary waters. Transboundary waters are those waterways, such as rivers, that flow across the international boundary with the United States. This area was a focus of our government's previous legislation, Bill C-26, and is now found in Bill C-383. Everyone will know that Bill C-26 died on the order paper when we were forced into an unnecessary election a year ago.
A major focus of the legislation is to bring a coherent federal approach to covering boundary and transboundary waters. The foundation of our existing legislation is the view that water is essential to the functioning of healthy ecosystems and, by extension, to supporting healthy communities. Therefore, any removal of this water in bulk is deemed to be a permanent loss from the basin. Given the dependency of ecosystems and communities within a basin on its supply of water, we consider bulk removable to be unsustainable and having the potential to cause great harm to the environment. 
First, Bill C-383 would amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to provide transboundary waters with the same bulk water removal prohibitions as those currently in place for boundary waters. By bringing transboundary waters under the same protections as those for boundary waters, all waters that are covered by federal jurisdiction are brought under the same prohibitions against bulk water removals. In so doing, I must stress that the role of the provinces is respected. As a natural resource, the provinces maintain that jurisdiction over water within their territories. Some criticism of the bill was why it did not go into provincial jurisdictions. I deliberately stayed out of there. Provinces, like Alberta and Quebec, have always been sensitive to intervention by the federal government. When it is unnecessary, as in this case, we should stay out of there. We will leave that up to them. Our waters are protected.
For water on the international boundary, or for those crossing the border, the federal government maintains a jurisdiction as well. Taking this step, the federal government is ensuring that its current jurisdiction is exercised and that all waters under federal jurisdiction are treated equally.
Second, the bill makes further changes to strengthen the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. Amendments to this act bring some of the definitions and regulations currently found in the international boundary waters regulations into the act itself. This is an additional strengthening of the act because it would now entrench key definitions, such as what constitutes the removal of water in bulk. Moreover, any exceptions of bulk removal would have to be approved by Parliament. By being in the act, the exceptions are clear. They cannot be changed or weakened unless it is the will of Parliament to change them. 
I should be clear that the exceptions considered have to do with water used for such things as ballast or water used in a vehicle that transports animals or people outside the basin. The exceptions also allow for the removal of water temporarily for emergency or humanitarian purposes, such as firefighting, but not for commercial purposes. These exceptions are understandable and do not violate the purpose of the bulk water prohibition. I want to ensure that nothing in the act prevents those important exceptions from taking place. 
Moving some of the definitions and exceptions from the current regulations into the act incorporates some of the changes promoted by two former senators, Pat Carney and Lowell Murray, who were long-time strong advocates for protecting Canada's waters. 
In bills that those two senators introduced in the other place, they expressed the position that these exceptions were reasonable, but they worried that they could be too easily changed if they existed in regulation only.
In former Bill C-26, the government's bill during the last Parliament, these provisions were included, and I believe they should be included in the bill we are debating today. These provisions make the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act a stronger statute. I thank the two senators for their hard work on this issue over the years.
To further strengthen protection, Bill C-383 includes a provision not found in former Bill C-26. We have included an amendment to the International River Improvements Act that would prevent linking non-transboundary waters with a waterway flowing across the border for the purpose of increasing the annual flow of this waterway. This is significant as it would prevent an international river, that is a river flowing from any place in Canada to any place outside of Canada, from being used as a conveyance to move water out of this country.
Finally, I will take a moment to discuss the enforcement and penalty provisions in this bill. Bill C-383 would amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to authorize the minister to designate inspectors for the purpose of verifying compliance with the act. Furthermore, it introduces a sentencing and penalty regime to the act, puts in place minimum penalties for certain offences and substantial maximum penalties, and directs courts to impose additional fines on offenders when the offence involves aggravating factors, such as damage to the environment and when the offender has profited from the offence.
 I am pleased to present this bill for debate to the hon. members of this House. While protections currently exist at the federal and provincial levels, there is an opportunity to make these protections stronger.
It is my firm belief that Canada's water should remain in Canada for the use of Canadians. I am committed to ensuring that Canada's water cannot be removed in bulk from our transboundary and boundary waters, and believe that the amendments introduced in the legislation serve to achieve that purpose.
It is fair to note that a lot of members from all parties across the House have indicated their support for this bill, even some individuals who represent small parties, and I appreciate that. I think everyone realizes the importance of this bill and I hope everyone takes due consideration of it. It is a bill in which politics has no part. 
Some critics of the bill have expressed concern about there being nothing in the bill that would stop the bottling of water, which would include not just water itself but breweries, soft drink companies, fruit drink companies, et cetera. I deliberately left that out because, in my opinion, that kind of thing is not what one would call bulk water removal. We know the flow of drinks of all kinds, alcoholic and non-alcoholic, make their way across the country and, indeed, around the world and it would be foolish to include that in here.
 I thank all my colleagues who have indicated their support for this bill. I again thank the members from the other side of the House who have indicated their upcoming support for this bill. I encourage everyone to get behind this bill.
Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, our party does intend to support the bill at second reading and I applaud the member for introducing it. It is important legislation that would contribute to safeguarding our water.
The member mentioned the $17.5 million put toward protecting Asian carp and yet the parliamentary secretary travels to a foreign capital to urge it to loosen its ballast water regulations. There is a bit of an imbalance in terms of the approach the government is taking, which leads me to my question.
Protecting our water resources requires strong environmental regulation. We have seen from the omnibus legislation that is coming down that those regulations will be loosened. While I applaud the member for this legislation, I wonder how the government will be able to deal with protecting biodiversity, protecting the integrity of our soil, our air and our water. Could the member speak to this? Maybe he has other legislation prepared to fill in the gaps that would be created by Bill C-38?
[Interjection]
Larry Miller: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and for his positive comments on the bill. As for his comments about a minister's comments on ballast water, I am not familiar with the comments he is referring to. However, I can tell the member that his wording of “loosening” certainly would not be a true statement because we have tightened the ballast laws on incoming foreign ships into the Great Lakes system and other lakes and rivers in Canada, not loosened them. Therefore, he is certainly mistaken there.
As far as Bill C-38, there are all kinds of good stuff in there and fear-mongering by the opposition and others about some of those changes are simply that, fear-mongering.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I also thank the member for bringing forth this bill. It is very useful legislation.
In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a number of years ago there was a proposal to ship water in bulk out of a place called Gisborne Lake.
One of the concerns raised, and this might fall into his fear-mongering category but it was believed by us, was that once we start exporting water in bulk by shiploads, it then becomes a commodity and perhaps subject to the NAFTA rules and then we cannot stop doing it and we turn water into a commodity, which we feared at the time and it was a grave concern.
Does the member share that concern? Is that one of the reasons that he is bringing forth this particular legislation?
[Interjection]
Larry Miller: Mr. Speaker, the member is exactly right. I agree with him that water is a resource. However, like oil, timber or gold, it is not a commodity and should not be treated as such. The Prime Minister has been very clear on that in the last five or six years.
That is a question that I could have written myself. I thank the member for allowing me the chance to clear that up. I appreciate his support and thank him for realizing that water is not a commodity to be traded like other resources.
Stella Ambler: Mr. Speaker, I also thank my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for bringing forward this very valuable legislation.
Does the member believe that this is a bill that would benefit just rural Canadians or would it also benefit Canadians living in urban area, the banning the bulk water transfers?
[Interjection]
Larry Miller: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga South for her work in support of the bill. She is absolutely right in pointing out that there might be different meanings to our freshwater from rural to urban, but urban ridings and communities like her own probably in some ways have more to gain from that. My drinking water, even though I come from a small community on Georgian Bay, comes directly out of Georgian Bay. Therefore the protection of both its quality and quantity is of the utmost importance, by all means. 
We welcome people from her riding to come to my riding and enjoy the water in other ways.
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for this legislative initiative intended to better protect Canada's fresh water. The member dares tread where his government has refused to go, namely, toward protecting Canada's fresh water from the future threat of export in bulk.
Bill C-383 highlights the government's continued and stubborn inaction on this vital national issue. However, the fact remains that Bill C-383 is a timid response to four years of Liberal pressure on the Conservative government to show robust federal leadership on pre-empting bulk water exports. In the end, I believe Bill C-383 is intended as face-saving legislation meant to inoculate the government against charges it is not protecting Canada's fresh water.
Liberals nonetheless support sending the bill to committee to examine its shortcomings, of which there are at least five. 
First, the bill is incomplete. It fails to cover the vast majority of Canada's fresh water. It leaves out of its scope more than 90% of Canada's water resources. 
In retrospect, the government should not have combined with the Bloc Québécois to defeat Liberal Bill C-267, which was comprehensive and watertight legislation covering all water basins in Canada. For the record, two courageous Conservative MPs broke ranks and voted for the Liberal bill.
 Bill C-267 was developed by Canada's foremost water policy experts and would have protected Canada's water from export in the event a province decided to lift its own internal prohibition on selling water in bulk outside its borders. At the moment, any province could lift its prohibition against bulk water exports at any time in future in response to economic or political pressures. Unlike Bill C-267, Bill C-383 does not provide a backstop against such an eventuality. 
Bill C-383 fails to create an over-arching national prohibition against moving water from anywhere in Canada to the United States or elsewhere that would fill the void should a province lift its ban on water exports. Bill C-267's prohibition on taking water out of its home basin anywhere in Canada so as to protect aquatic ecosystems was such over-arching legislation.
Second, Bill C-383 may be dangerously counterproductive. It may unwittingly leave Canada open to a trade challenge under NAFTA should a province together with, say, an American entrepreneur decide at some point in future to challenge the bill's putative prohibition on water exports by pipeline. In other words, rather than resolving the current uncertainty surrounding the status of fresh water under NAFTA, Bill C-383 may amplify this uncertainty. I will explain in a moment. 
In the meantime, I should mention that Bill C-267 avoided the possibility of a NAFTA challenge because it was primarily environmental legislation, not an attempt to create a trade barrier.
Third, Bill C-383's prohibition on moving water to the U.S. through transboundary rivers does not break new ground in protecting Canada's water security and sovereignty. It merely formalizes the core principle in the 1909 Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty which stipulates that neither country shall do anything to affect water levels on the other side of the border.
Fourth, while Bill C-383 has intuitive appeal because one can visualize rivers flowing into the U.S. acting as conduits for water exports, the fact is that most water export projects will likely involve tanker trucks, tanker ships, water bags, or pipelines. 
The grandiose water diversion schemes where northward flowing Canadian rivers are reversed and diverted south to the U.S. appear to be a dream from the past. For example, the GRAND Canal project developed in the 1950s by Newfoundland engineer Tom Kierans is perhaps the most well-known and iconic of these unrealistic water export schemes. It envisioned among other things using transboundary rivers to channel water normally flowing northward toward Hudson Bay southward to the U.S. Not only does Bill C-383 merely consolidate prohibitions on water diversions implied in the boundary waters treaty of 1909, its approach appears to be outdated.
Finally, it bears mentioning that Bill C-383 does not prohibit water exports by tanker truck, tanker ship, or water bags from non-boundary waters, or even possibly by pipeline. For example, Bill C-383 would not have stopped Sun Belt Water's attempt in the 1990s to export water from B.C. coastal streams to Goleta, California in the absence of the fortunate provincial action that followed to block the company's efforts. Nor would it prevent the export of water from Newfoundland's Gisborne Lake should the current provincial prohibition on bulk water exports in that province ever be lifted.
Some would argue that exporting the water from coastal streams carries no negative consequences because such water is lost to the ocean anyway. Coastal streams do support sensitive coastal ecosystems, including spawning grounds.
As Ph.D. student and water expert Janine MacLeod has said, “The outflow of fresh water into the oceans at deltas and estuaries is not 'wasted'”.
With respect to pipelines, which are perhaps a viable means of someday exporting water to the U.S., Bill C-383's attempt to block water exports by such means could prove problematic. It is difficult to fathom that a Canadian law eliminating the possibility of building a pipeline from, say, a Canadian inland body of water into the U.S. would not be viewed by a NAFTA tribunal as a barrier to trade. It is one thing, as the bill does, to ban the construction of a pipeline into a transboundary river that would change the river's water levels in violation of the Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty, but it is quite another to, as the bill also claims to do, legislate a ban on building a pipeline to carry water for export across the Canada-U.S. border and pretend that such a conduit, at the point where it crosses the border, becomes de facto a transboundary river—in other words, like water flowing in its natural state—and hence falling outside of NAFTA's provisions against erecting barriers to trade, according to some experts. 
While some would argue that water in a pipeline is not a product in the strict sense, it is not really water in its natural state either. It is water that definitely has been captured. In conjunction with the fact that in the U.S. water in its natural state is viewed legally as a good because it is used to produce goods, it is not outside the realm of plausibility that a NAFTA tribunal would rule that water crossing the border in a pipeline should be seen as having entered commerce and that any attempt to prohibit such commerce constitutes an illegal barrier to trade under the agreement.
We have had mixed signals from Conservatives on the issue of bulk water exports for years. The current Conservative government, as well as previous incarnations of the governing party, have a history of sending contradictory signals with respect to their interest in and desire to prohibit bulk water exports, beginning with the Mulroney government through to the Canadian Alliance to the current government. Let me explain.
In order to allay fears that free trade with the U.S. would result in Canada eventually having to export its water south of the border, the Mulroney government introduced Bill C-156, which would have banned large-scale water exports. The bill died when Parliament was dissolved for the 1988 free trade election and it was not revived after Mr. Mulroney was returned to power in that election. No wonder there are those who believe the bill was merely a symbolic gesture meant to blunt opposition to the impending Canada-U.S. free trade agreement from those who feared a sellout of Canada's water resources if the agreement came to pass. 
Later, in opposition, the Canadian Alliance admitted that NAFTA leaves Canada vulnerable to market-driven bulk water exports. Speaking in the House of Commons at the time, the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs thus advocated for reopening NAFTA to insert a specific exemption for water, similar to that which the agreement granted to Canada's cultural industries.
More recently, in its 2008 Speech from the Throne, responding to the earlier introduction of Liberal private member's Bill C-535, a predecessor to Bill C-267, the Conservative government promised to introduce legislation to ban bulk water exports by prohibiting interbasin transfers of water within Canada. This commitment reversed the government's position to that point that federal action on the issue of bulk water exports was unnecessary because of existing provincial prohibitions. However, the government never followed through on its commitment, reversing itself yet again, arguing as recently as this past fall that federal legislation to ban bulk water exports remains unnecessary.
In conclusion, Bill C-383 is a very modest step in the right direction by a member who has obviously grown weary of his government's procrastination on an issue of prime national importance involving our most vital natural resource. The bill appears to have serious shortcomings, including the fact that it could even weaken Canada's ability to control its water future.
We look forward to exploring these possible shortcomings in committee.
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in my constant quest to convey the viewpoint of members of isolated communities, I would like to take the opportunity presented by our examination of this bill in order to inform the entire Canadian population of the destructive impact of indiscriminate extraction of natural resources in remote areas.
I represent a riding that covers over 220,000 square kilometres. It begins at the 50th parallel and goes all the way up to the 53rd parallel. It is also important to understand that my riding is completely covered by forests. There are 22 watersheds—I checked this number—in my riding. I thought it was important to share certain information that has to do with preserving the integrity of this resource.
Industrial vitality is palpable in my riding on a daily basis, as equipment, heavy machinery and workers are forced to roll through the urban centres before heading off onto the land. The urban centres are the cities of Sept-Îles and Baie Comeau. There is only one highway, highway 138. The drilling equipment used for all mining and forestry initiatives—basically, all equipment—comes through on highway 138. The road has suffered the consequences of this heavy traffic.
It is crucial that we pay more attention to the real environmental footprint of these extraction initiatives on traditional Innu and Naskapi lands. I would like to reiterate that these are traditional lands, and I will expand on these comments a little later on. 
When I returned to my riding after my university studies, I did legal aid work for two years. After that, my band council, the council of the Innu Takuaikan Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam nation, approached me and offered me a position as a legal advisor to the community management organization, the band council.
Early in my mandate, I was tasked with handling consultation requests from Quebec's provincial department of natural resources and wildlife. About two or three times a week, my band council received consultation requests regarding various mining and forestry development initiatives.
I used the services of a cartographer, Carole Labarre, who is from my riding and my own community.
Each request was recorded and placed on a map to make it easier for everyone in the community to understand. Each initiative that targeted the traditional lands of designated families was placed on the map.
I was asked to carry out a rather summary analysis. When we looked at the map, we saw that these initiatives were mostly located in areas with water resources or watersheds. We realized that the mining industry was putting its equipment and facilities near waterways because it needs water, especially for drilling and lubricating drilling equipment. That is one of the issues I am attempting to highlight. 
Over the years, and based on my observations, I criticized the poor management of natural resources by provincial authorities.
I would like to note in passing that the provinces are primarily responsible for the water within their boundaries.
By extension, the shortcomings with respect to the guidelines for and monitoring of the construction of industrial infrastructure in areas with significant water resources lead me to doubt the true extent of government efforts with respect to freshwater resource management.
To support my comments, I will refer to the specific case of Lake Kachiwiss. When I was working for my band council, it received a request for consultation regarding uranium exploration near Lake Kachiwiss, which is located about 10 km from Sept-Îles.
I was asked to go to the site with other representatives of my community to verify the extent of the real footprint of drilling and prospecting in the area. Photos were taken. We were accompanied by experts. We carried out analyses. We also took water samples, which were sent to Quebec City for analysis.
When we arrived at the site, we could clearly see that the drilling sites were very close to water supplies.
There were drilling sites in the mountains and every site was linked to a stream. We also noticed that many containers of fuel and oil had been left at the site and some had spilled. Oil had spilled into the basins on the mountainside. This is an example of the negative impact of the absence or lack of follow-up in these undertakings.
There were risks at the mining exploration stage, not to mention the risks involved in drilling to the water table, since we were talking about uranium. Radon gas might reach the water table. Things were already problematic at the exploration stage. 
I thought it would have been better to address the challenges of maintaining the integrity of the surface water in the north before dealing with the issues related to bulk water exports. Even though the bill concerns bulk water exports, I wanted to highlight the fact that preserving the integrity of the resource is essential because, in the end, water is vital to human existence. To even consider economic development, we have to safeguard the quality of the resource.
I do hope that the Conservatives are duly noting what I am saying since they are in charge of the situation.
Considering how vital this prized resource is, it is essential to safeguard its integrity, and to exclude any notion of profit associated with a hypothetical economic potential. We know that this resource has economic potential. However, as I was saying, it is best to make the efforts needed to safeguard the quality of the resource. I submit this respectfully. 
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to lend our government's support to my hon. colleague, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, and to take a few minutes to discuss what I believe is an important subject for all Canadians. The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has a long history of working to protect Canadian waters and has been an advocate on behalf of the Great Lakes, for instance, going back many years.
Bill C-383, transboundary waters protection act, aims to prohibit the bulk removal of water from Canadian transboundary waters, which are waters that flow across the border, and to further strengthen protections against bulk removal from boundary waters, which are waters like the Great Lakes that straddle the border. The bill would be an important improvement for protecting Canada's water resources. A similar version of this legislation was tabled in the previous Parliament by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and in the 2008 Speech from the Throne. Our government committed to introduce legislation to ban all bulk water transfers or exports from Canadian freshwater basins. Bill C-383 would achieve just that.
My hon. colleague mentioned earlier today that previous legislation unfortunately died on the order paper as a result of that unnecessary election in May 2011. I have to say, the result was a good one: a strong, stable, national majority Conservative government. It has brought a number of good members to this House, such as the member for Mississauga South, who spoke earlier today, the member for Simcoe—Grey, the member for Yukon and many others. For that, I guess I am grateful for that unnecessary election.
As my hon. colleague pointed out, there are already protections in place at the federal level under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to protect boundary waters such as the Great Lakes, but there are also possibilities for improvement. This bill strengthens these protections in several ways.
First, as I have already said, transboundary waters would now be protected in the same manner as boundary waters. Bill C-383, by expanding the protections to transboundary waters, also expands the area covered by a bulk water removal prohibition. Now the protections would extend to transboundary waters throughout the country. The legislation would amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to have these basins named in the act itself and not just in the regulations.
The second area of improvement in Bill C-383 is that the penalty provisions and enforcement mechanisms would be tougher. The bill would provide the Minister of Foreign Affairs the power to designate inspectors to verify complaints with the act. As my colleague previously stated, there are provisions in this bill, including minimum and maximum penalties, for violations of the law.
The bill would improve on current protections by moving certain definitions and exceptions from the regulations into the act itself. This would codify them into the act, ensuring that parliamentary approval would be required to make any future changes to the exceptions. 
I carefully watched the House debate on Bill C-267. I know that several members in the NDP expressed their concern about a government being able to rewrite exceptions or definitions almost at will. Well, by moving exceptions and definitions into the statute, Bill C-383 would make it much more difficult to make any such changes. As a matter of fact, it would require parliamentary scrutiny.
Long-time water advocates, such as former Senator Pat Carney and other senators, pressed for this while they were in the other place. These senators, like many others who follow water issues closely, recognize that the exceptions in this act are reasonable. For example, an exception for short-term, non-commercial bulk removal in order to supply water to put out a massive forest fire is not unreasonable, but rather a humanitarian need. 
We need these exceptions in the act. We would not want to stand in the way of a humanitarian action by telling our neighbours that we would not allow the removal of water to put out a fire because it is against the law in our country. Instead, we want to ensure that there is a place for reasonable exceptions and that those exceptions are stated clearly in the act and cannot be changed in the same manner that a regulation can be changed.
As I stated earlier, Bill C-383 is similar to Bill C-26, introduced by our government in the last Parliament. However, in this bill, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound added an important new provision that was not previously found in Bill C-26, which is an amendment to the International River Improvements Act. 
The purpose of the International River Improvements Act is to ensure that international rivers, water flowing from any place in Canada to any place outside Canada, are developed and used in the national interest and assures that Canada meets its obligations under the Boundary Waters Treaty.
The specific amendments to the International River Improvements Act proposed in Bill C-383 define international river improvements to include pipelines and prohibit the issuance of a licence for an international river improvement that links non-transboundary waters to an international river, the purpose or effect of which is to increase the annual flow of the river. This is a significant improvement and protection. 
We can look at risk areas for potential bulk water removals or transfers and determine areas where we find the greatest risk. One could be the Great Lakes, which some would consider the El Dorado of freshwater in North America, but, as I mentioned earlier, the Great Lakes are already protected from bulk removal by the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. 
Incidentally, I should add that the Great Lakes are also protected on the U.S. side of the basin due to the Great Lakes compact. Ontario and Quebec are partners with the Great Lakes states as part of a side agreement to that compact. Both of these provinces have legislation to prevent bulk water removals from their territories. Thus, all eight Great Lakes states are in agreement with us in Canada. No one wants to see Great Lakes water transferred out of the region. The Great Lakes are protected by the provinces on the U.S. side and federally in Canada under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. 
Besides bulk water removals from the Great Lakes, another worry could be the potential use of a river flowing across the international boundary as a means of conveyance to transfer water in bulk outside Canada. Although this type of transfer is not occurring, we have been told that this is a potentially efficient way to move water across the border. The fear is a possible scheme that would seek to link, for instance, a body of water to an international river and this increased flow of water would then be the bulk transfer. To prevent this, Bill C-383 would amend the International River Improvements Act to prohibit the issuance of a licence for this type of activity.
I once again would like to thank the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for introducing this legislation. This is in keeping with the direction that the government pursued during the last Parliament and remains the best way to proceed to protect Canada's water from bulk removal.
Bill C-383 would respect the role of the provinces in protecting water within their jurisdiction. By supporting it, members of the House can ensure that water under a federal jurisdiction, boundary and transboundary waters would also be protected from bulk removals and that this protection would be consistent throughout the country.
I am thankful for this opportunity to discuss Bill C-383. We understand the need to protect this vital resource and this legislation would do just that. I urge all members of the House to support this bill.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, according to a report by the Conference Board of Canada, Canadians use an average of 300 litres of water a day. Three hundred litres a day when, according to one report, the world average is 20 litres per day.
Of the 16 OECD countries, only Americans consume more water than Canadians. The Conference Board of Canada gave Canada a D for its feeble efforts to conserve its water resources.
If it seems we have an insatiable thirst for water, our thirst for energy and profit is just as bad. It takes 3 to 4.5 barrels of water to produce one barrel of bitumen. This figure does not include the water that is used to refine the crude oil. Shale gas uses 4,000 cubic metres of water for each step of the hydraulic fracturing process, not to mention the other types of energy we use.
Southern Canada's streams, lakes and rivers are polluted. Municipal waste water infrastructure cannot meet the demand. Waste water that is untreated or that has received only primary or secondary treatment is dumped into our watersheds. This has disastrous consequences for aquatic life and the entire ecosystem. Urbanization and surface impermeability also have an impact by increasing the amount of polluted water that runs off into waterways or is directed to overburdened infrastructure. The intensification of agriculture has also increased the erosion of farmland and agricultural runoff, which carries sediment that is high in phosphorous. As a result, cyanobacterial blooms are suffocating our lakes and waterways.
This is what Canada is doing with one of our greatest resources, which is now called blue gold. Canada has a large percentage of the earth's drinking water, 9% of which is considered renewable. Some of that water is trapped in glaciers, which, by the way, are melting into the oceans. An abundance of precipitation means that this resource is renewable in part. However, water is not like other resources. It is essential for life, like the air we breathe.
The reason why this bill is so close to my heart is that, when I worked as an agronomist, I was a project manager responsible for improving the quality of water for agriculture. I was able to see first-hand the state of our waterways and the challenges Canada faces in preserving this valuable resource.
Furthermore, the southern border of my riding of LaSalle—Émard runs along the St. Lawrence River and the Lachine Rapids, the largest rapids within an urban environment. The Parc des Rapides, which surrounds the Lachine Rapids in the LaSalle borough, is one of the six main urban parks in Montreal and is part of the greater Montreal parks network. The park, which has an area of 30 hectares, is the perfect place to view the famous Lachine Rapids and has been a refuge for migratory birds since 1937. The site has remarkable diversity and has more than 225 species of birds, including the great blue heron, which is a protected species, and 1,000 nests of three species of herons. The biodiversity does not stop there, since the park also houses 80 species of fish, including some that are at risk. 
The Lachine Rapids are located in the St. Lawrence watershed. The St. Lawrence is the cradle of our history, and also a hugely diverse aquatic and shoreline environment. I believe that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound thinks that the Georgian Bay watershed in his region must also be preserved.
Bill C-383 would amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to prohibit the bulk removal of water and to improve current protections.
 This bill would amend the International River Improvements Act by prohibiting the issuance of licences for projects that link non-boundary waters to an international river where the purpose or effect of the project is to increase annual flow to the United States. This amendment will prohibit the issue of a licence to construct, operate or maintain a canal or pipeline channeling Canadian water into an international river.
 We know that large-scale removal of water from lakes and waterways would negatively affect their ecosystems by increasing pollution concentrations. Water removal will dry up waterways, upset ecosystems and endanger plants and animals that depend on water and shorelines. This bill is a step in the right direction, a step toward preserving and protecting Canada's transboundary waters.
Still, the Canadian Water Issues Council is critical of the fact that this bill covers just 10% of Canada's fresh water while Bill C-267 went farther. This bill also fails to prohibit bulk water exports. This private member's bill proves once again that the Conservative government does not consider water to be a national priority and is not at all interested in developing a national water strategy in co-operation with its provincial counterparts.
New Democrats have been consistent in calling for a ban on bulk water export. We see a ban as an essential part of a comprehensive national water policy, something Canada lacks. Such a policy would establish clean drinking water standards and strong environmental protection for Canada's water resources, including recognition of water as common right. Passing forward-thinking legislation that recognizes a healthy and ecologically balanced planet is the most important gift we can give to future generations of Canadians.
A number of massive bulk water diversion plans, in the form of water corridors, have been proposed over the past four decades. These water corridors would have transferred massive amounts of water to the U.S. from Canada. For various reasons, none of these projects has gone forward, but the potential for such projects remains, hence the need for strong legislation to prevent them. 
My message is clear. First, water, the source of life, is not like other resources. Second, we must urgently reduce our consumption of water and preserve the quality of our watersheds. Third, we must prohibit bulk water exports. This should begin with the establishment of a national water strategy with our partners to ensure that we have standards for safe, potable water, solid environmental protection measures, and conservation measures for Canada's water resources.
Bill C-383's intentions are valid and that is why I support sending this bill to protect boundary waters to committee for examination. This bill calls on the political class and thus all Canadians, reminding us of our responsibility to use water rationally and conscientiously in an overall vision, an ecosystem vision, of our watersheds. We are the guardians of water, which is a public good and a fundamental human right. We must demonstrate leadership in preserving and conserving water, the source of life.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before I recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour on resuming debate, I will let her know that we will need to interrupt her at about 2:18 p.m., about four minutes from now, this being the end of time allocated for private members' business today.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour.
Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to lend my support to the private member's bill of my colleague, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, which seeks to ensure that all waters under federal jurisdiction are protected from bulk water removals. Protecting Canada's water resources is an issue that I believe in strongly and that our government is committed to. I believe all of us in this House agree that Canada's sovereignty extends to our natural resources, including fresh water. This is the position of the majority of Canadians. It is something I hear from my own constituents in Simcoe—Grey, especially those bordering Georgian Bay.
Water is an emotional issue for Canadians. It is something that defines us. There is a reason we and visitors to our country see images of crystal blue lakes and pristine mountain streams when we think of Canada, and it strikes us as the essence of Canada. 
However, beyond the symbolic issue, there are numerous reasons to prohibit bulk removal of waters. First, the ecosystem and the people who live in a watershed are best served by keeping water within the basin from which it originates. Removal of water in bulk deprives that basin of that water, potentially causing harm to the environment and to ecosystems as well as to the people living in these areas, now and in future generations. The prevention of bulk transfers of water between basins along international boundaries is also an important environmental concept to help in the fight against invasive species.
 Although there are several different ways to approach preventing the bulk removal of water, Bill C-383 works to amend two acts: the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act. In crafting this legislation, there is the recognition that the federal government cannot do this alone, as water in much of Canada is under provincial jurisdiction, so in order to ensure the protection of water, it is necessary for the federal government to work together with the provinces to prevent bulk removals of water. The good news is that the provinces understand very well that we need to protect waters under their jurisdictions, and they oppose the concept of transferring water in bulk outside of their territories. 
It is important to note that Bill C-383 is aimed at waters within federal jurisdiction, namely boundary and transboundary. This bill would strengthen protections in place against bulk removals from boundary waters, those bodies of water through which borders run, and create a prohibition against the removal of water in bulk from transboundary waters, waters which flow across the border.
 These prohibitions would be backed by strong penalties and enforcement provisions in this bill that are in line with those in the Environmental Enforcement Act. 
Provisions found in Bill C-383 amending the IBWTA closely follow the regimen from the Environmental Enforcement Act in terms of the fine schemes, sentencing provisions and enforcement tools available. These provisions would include minimum and maximum penalties for violations of law and would create categories depending on whether the offences are committed by individuals, small-revenue corporations or corporations. 
Each of the categories would face stiff penalties for violations. For examples, an individual could face up to $1 million in fines and a corporation up to $6 million. Fines for contravening the law would be cumulative, meaning a violation that continues for more than one day would be seen as a separate offence for each day that it continues.
I make it abundantly clear that the Government of Canada will not allow a project aimed at increasing the flow of an international river at a boundary as a means of transfer of water in bulk outside of the Canadian basin, and, for the sake of this clarity and to ensure that this prohibition is solid and covers all bodies of water where the federal government has jurisdiction, this amendment to the International River Improvements Act has been added to Bill C-383. 
Once again I offer my thanks to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for introducing this legislation. As I have said, this is a great bill. It reflects our government's long-term policy and delivers on the promises we have made to Canadians. I hope all members of this House will support Bill C-383.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey will have six minutes remaining for her remarks when the House next resumes debate on the motion.
 The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:18 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:18 p.m.)