2012-03-09

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 6 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts.
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to continue my remarks on Bill C-10, as returned from the Senate by way of amendment.
I had an opportunity on Tuesday to address a number of important points and concerns that had been raised about the consequences of Bill C-10. Today I want talk about some of the issues raised by experts who came to our committee. I will speak specifically to the concerns in relation to the consequences of this legislation on aboriginal people. We are increasingly aware of Canada's failure in that regard. 
We recently passed a resolution in the House to grant equality of funding for aboriginal education. One would wonder why in the 21st century a country like Canada would have to do that. The New Democrats brought forth a motion which thankfully was unanimously accepted. However, the concerns that were raised there have also been raised in relation to the state of justice for aboriginal people in Canada.
Mr. Howard Sapers, the correctional investigator, gave a presentation to the committee on the consequences of Bill C-10.
He stated:
 Some of the amendments will almost certainly have disproportionate impacts on Canada’s more marginalized populations, including aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, those struggling with addictions and substance abuse problems, and the mentally ill. Indeed, nearly all of the growth in the correctional population over the past decade can be accounted for by these groups. 
That is a very strong statement. As we know, in Canada the crime rate is going down. We have the lowest crime rate since 1973, in almost 40 years. At the same time, we have an increase in the prison population, most of which Mr. Sapers said is accounted for by our more marginalized populations, including aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, those with addictions and substance abuse problems, and the mentally ill. That is a very strong indictment of the failure of the Canadian system when it comes to aboriginal people.
We have astonishing statistics on the number of aboriginal people who inhabit our prison system. Canada has a population of aboriginal people somewhere around 3.75% or 4%, yet 21% of our prison population is made up of aboriginal people. If we look at the federally incarcerated population alone, 2.8% of the Canadian population accounts for 18% of the federally incarcerated population. Therefore, we have six times as many aboriginals serving federal time, when compared to the population.
Some would say that must be because they commit more crimes and they should go to jail. That is a simplistic response. The first nations groups and people who work in the north say it is a failure of the system that puts them there. The proven way to deter crime is to resolve child poverty issues, provide treatment for mental health and addictions, deal with particular disabilities such as fetal alcohol syndrome disorder, and provide preventive programs in our communities. That is the way to decrease the number of people who are subject to incarceration.
As the Canadian Bar Association, Yukon branch, said in a release in February, these programs are the ones that help. The effect of Bill C-10 would be to put more aboriginal people in jail. Instead of having the opportunity to take advantage of conditional sentences, they will be away from their communities where rehabilitation, reintegration and all of the services that Correctional Services can provide take place.
There is a big consensus, for example, in the north and the Yukon among the RCMP, the court services, crown prosecutors, defence counsel, judges and wellness court, to try to deal with the healing of people who have serious problems, to try to divert them from a prison system that cannot help them very much.
We have a disconnect between what the government says when it calls it the safe streets and communities act and what the Canadian Bar Association of the Yukon says, which is that we have some of the safest streets in the Yukon, in Canada and in the world. It is not an issue of safe streets. It is an issue of whether or not our policies would achieve the goal that was proposed.
I had a meeting yesterday with representatives of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, who are very closely associated with policing in Canada. They raised their concerns about what Bill C-10 would do to youth justice, and to young people at risk, aboriginal people who are overrepresented in our prison population and those who are mentally ill.
We have a significant problem. The research, according to a brief presented by the Canadian Association of Police Boards to the Senate quoting the correctional investigator, says that the federally incarcerated population in Canada actually declined from 1996 to 2004 by 12.5%. We would see that go up again and we know that. We would be building prisons with provisions for double bunking. This has been condemned by the Correctional Services of Canada Union, experts, international standards and the correctional investigator himself. 
We have had a decline from 1996 to 2004, but at the same time, the number of first nations people in federal institutions actually increased by 21%. The number of incarcerated first nations women during that period increased by 75%. 
That is how we are dealing with the problems of our aboriginal population. They have problems for very significant reasons. It is not because they are more criminal than the rest of the population, but because they are marginalized and disadvantaged in our country.
Aboriginal youth are overrepresented among criminalized young people. According to the Canadian Association of Police Boards, aboriginal young people are criminalized and jailed at earlier ages and for longer periods of time than non-aboriginal young people.
The correctional investigator made a number of recommendations which have been supported by the Canadian Association of Police Boards. The correctional investigator considers that, “in light of Bill C-10, the aspect of new and increased mandatory minimum sentences and removing the discretion of judges will make aboriginal people's overrepresentation in the criminal justice system much worse”.
As an example, and members opposite who represent this area would be startled to know, aboriginal people already represent approximately 80% of inmates in institutions in the Prairies. This is from a population of less than 3% of the population of Canada. The Canadian Association of Police Boards says that Bill C-10 will further increase aboriginal representation in jail. It is astonishing. 
Aboriginal youth comprise the majority of the population in jails and are overrepresented. However, Bill C-10 would have more aboriginal youth in custodial centres before trial. Our youth at risk require intervention support services to prevent ongoing criminal behaviour rather than detention. 
I do not think the Canadian Association of Police Boards can be accused of somehow being in league with the criminals. The Conservatives can say what they want about us. We have broad shoulders and do not take them too seriously. I hope that the Canadian population is sensible enough to realize that is just the mouthing off of people who do not look at the evidence, do not listen to the experts and do not really seem to want to understand the effects of what they are doing. 
That is what the Canadian Association of Police Boards representatives have said. They are from all over the country. Yesterday, in my office, there were representatives from Calgary, Vancouver and Cape Breton. It is a very broad body that is in touch with communities. In British Columbia, for example, all city mayors are represented through the police boards in their communities. It is not a research body. It is a group that is active and in touch with policing in our communities, cities and provinces. It is astonishing that when a group like that has something important to say about the consequences of what the government is doing, the government does not listen. 
The Canadian Association of Police Boards is very worried about mental health in this country and the fact that police are being used as the front line instead of treatment. The first encounter with the system is through a police officer and not a mental health worker or some form of help. It is not that the police are there to hurt people, but for a person who needs help because of a mental health problem, the first encounter with the system ought not to be with a police officer who has a different role in society than that of a mental health worker. 
The Canadian Association of Police Boards is very concerned. It quotes an article on the criminalization of mental illness that was published by the Canadian Mental Health Association. There was also a report on mental illness in Canada that talked about the prevalence of mental illness. However, the criminalization of mental illness was identified by the Canadian Mental Health Association in a report in March 2005. It said that research revealed that a person with mental illness was more likely to be arrested for a criminal offence than a non-ill person. It also talked about the factors related to that. It is estimated that the number of people with untreated mental illness in the criminal justice system ranges from 40% to 50% of those incarcerated. 
Therefore, when we are talking about being tough on crime, we are talking about being tough on people who are aboriginal youth or have a mental illness. They are overwhelmingly the new population in our prisons. When I talk about mental illness, I am also talking about people with addictions who are suffering as a result.
We need a very different approach than what is being presented by the government. It has nothing to do with an attitude towards criminals. I think all of us would agree that those who commit serious crimes ought to be responsible and accountable for their behaviour. We do not want to see criminals go free, but we want a country where we respond to what needs to be done to ensure that these criminals do not reoffend.
 I was telling someone the other day that I would feel safer if the person who broke into my house had something better to do than break into my house. I would feel safer knowing that if the person went to jail he or she would be out again in some period of time. I would feel less safe if that individual was not a better citizen once he or she got out of jail. I would be a lot safer if rehabilitation programs and preventive programs were in place. I would be a lot safer if there were a true response to the needs of our society so that people were not in those circumstances. It is unfortunate that no one listens to that.
I talked about the percentage of aboriginal people in our jails. I have a chart that shows that 3% of the people 18 years and older are aboriginal and 22% of the provincial and territorial sentence to custody adults are aboriginals, which is seven times as many. Twenty-five per cent of the population of Yukon is aboriginal and 75% of the inmates in provincial institutions in Yukon are aboriginal. That is deplorable. It speaks to the fact that prevention is not helping enough. We have taken a punitive approach instead, which will get worse. 
Judges need to ensure that people who come in contact with the law are focused on accountability, that they recognize that they deserve to be penalized for what they have done and that the system wants to see them become productive members of society.
In some parts of the country we have a strong culture of restorative and Yukon is one part. Other provinces have developed an active working of restorative justice where the individual who commits a crime is expected to, if possible with the victim, acknowledge and be aware of the effect of the crime on the victim. The individual needs to recognize the fact that the victim lost something as a result of the crime. The individual needs to recognize that he or she has a role to play in ensuring that the damage done is ameliorated. Members on the other side talk about victims all the time but they do not talk about that. I think victims respond to that. They want justice. 
There are extreme cases but we cannot make one law for everything based on extreme cases. There are extreme cases where there obviously is no possibility of any restorative justice or reconciliation. The most we can hope for is acceptance and peace when someone has lost a loved one through an egregious murder or something as senseless as a drive-by killing. These crimes make no sense at all and are very hard to understand. We sympathize with victims in those circumstances. 
We want to ensure that those who commit crimes that involve the loss of life, the loss of someone's loved one, a deliberate, premeditated murder pay a severe penalty. We have had horrendous examples of serial killers in Canada but that, thankfully, is not the norm. We can see by the crime statistics that it certainly is not the norm. In fact, it is likely that more violent crimes were committed in the past than are committed today. We need to ensure that proper justice is done for individuals in those cases.
We also need to recognize that our system is moving toward incarcerating people who are stuck with addictions, who are suffering from mental health issues, aboriginals who may be suffering from a disability related to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder or youth at risk who need better education. 
If we look at one issue alone, the aboriginal population in Canada is seriously undereducated. We can make up all kinds of reasons for that but one of them is consistent, persistent underfunding of aboriginal education in Canada by the Government of Canada. 
There were a lot of people, young people in particular, getting involved in the Shannen's dream movement. What did she want? She wanted a safe and comfy school. This was a 14 year-old asking if she was not entitled to that because she was aboriginal. Unfortunately, that has been the reality for far too many aboriginal students in Canada. 
Where does that leave them when do not have a proper school to go to? They drop out of school and, therefore, do not get an education. They have no opportunities. They end up being what the justice system calls youth at risk and they end up in jail. We just went through some of the statistics. They are then in jail with other young people, which may be far away from their community. They have gone down the wrong road. What are we doing? Are we recognizing that we have a serious problem that needs a different solution? 
The Government of Quebec came to Ottawa and showed what it had done over the last 40 years. It has emphasized rehabilitation. The justice minister, Jean-Marc Fournier, spoke with great passion when he looked around the room and said that when he was talking about the Youth Criminal Justice Act he was not dealing with people who had the same opportunities as our sons and daughters. He said that he was dealing with people who were dealing with situations.
 He did not talk about aboriginal Canadians very much, but about people who had a very different situation than the children of the people in that room. The room contained members of Parliament, staff of the House of Commons and reporters who were looking on, all of whom were in a better position to provide for their children in terms of a safe, warm home, proper education, extracurricular activities, opportunities for parents to keep an eye on them and to help them if they go astray, and to provide guidance to them. Those were not the people he was dealing with in the youth criminal justice system. He was dealing with people who did not have those opportunities or advantages. 
He said that the Quebec justice system tries to save them from a life of crime and that it does that by taking an approach that it has taken for 40 years. He said that Quebec has consistently shown over the last number of decades to have the lowest rate of recidivism in all of Canada for its youth criminal justice system. No one questioned that, not even government members on the committee. 
The minister talked about ending the revolving door of going in and out. That is what recidivism is. Recidivism is when people get out of prison and then go back in. The minister's idea is to close the door when they are inside so there will not be any revolving door. What will that do? It will lengthen the incarceration for young people and, when they get out, because they will get out, they will not be rehabilitated. They will not have the opportunity to be better citizens.
If we look at what has happened in Quebec, there is a model that could have been ceased upon by the government and tried. We will not guarantee success but let us try to replicate that in Alberta, in Yukon, in British Columbia, in Manitoba and in the Northwest Territories.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Nunavut.
Jack Harris:  Yes, in Nunavut and in Newfoundland and Labrador. We should try to replicate that model so we are not just seeing one province lead the way. We should all have an opportunity to lead the way.
I know I have taken up a lot of time in the House and I appreciate the encouragement to continue. I see the government House leader encouraging me with his nods and smiles. I could continue because there is a lot to talk about this legislation, but I know there are other members in the House who may wish to participate in this debate. I did have unlimited time and I was not threatening to use it all, but now that we have time allocation I see that the more time I speak it will actually be taking away from other members. I know some of my colleagues wish to speak and perhaps we will have some questions and comments from the other side.
I know we have another couple of hours today under the time allocation, which is a shame because this seems to be a real opportunity. We know it has gone through the Senate, through the House and the politics of the matter. We had a little dust up about that Wednesday afternoon when the government's plans for the public relations tour on Wednesday was sidetracked. The minister went out with Sheldon Kennedy, who is a fine man, a great hockey player and a great role model for young people. In fact, I think he is a hero to people who are victims of child sexual abuse.
 I know very much about that. I spent seven or eight years in the 1990s working with the victims of the Mount Cashel Orphanage sexual abuse scandal. I represented them on the civil side trying to get redress and compensation for what happened to them. In that process, I was very much involved in trying to assess the damage to their lives as a result of being sexually abused as a child. They went through the criminal process and I was there with them. I was an observer and even that process was excruciating because they were testifying. They had to not only testify but be cross-examined by people who were denying that they actually did it. It was very traumatic. 
During that period, I came to know what post-traumatic stress disorder was. We all kind of know now because of what we have been hearing about soldiers, so it is now a known quantity, but in the 1990s it was hardly known. It just barely made it into the last edition of what is called the DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders put out by the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM-III contained this information and the DSM-IV expanded on PTSD. 
Mr. Kennedy had not come out publicly then. The young men who had been at Mount Cashel were at the Hughes Inquiry in late 1989. The people I represented there very bravely talked about what happened to them. I am very familiar with what these victims went through. I met Mr. Kennedy when he testified before our committee. We, along with others, wanted to ensure that victims of child sexual abuse were respected and that perpetrators of these type of crimes were dealt with severely by the courts, and indeed they were. In the case of the perpetrators of the Mount Cashel sexual abuse incidents and crimes, they were treated extremely seriously by the court. In fact, far more seriously than the mandatory minimums that are contained in this legislation.
I want to say again for the record if it needs to be said, which it should not but apparently for the minister it does, the Minister of Justice repeated on Wednesday that somehow or other the members on this side did not want the perpetrators of sexual assault to be treated seriously by our courts. That is the kind of mythology the minister likes to perpetrate, which is why this debate is important. People get a chance to hear where we are coming from on this issue. It allows us to repeat what we did in the House last year. 
Let us take the part that deals with child sexual offences, with the new offences of Internet luring, with the new offence that could be called grooming of potential victims out of the bill. Let us deal with the more controversial stuff in committee and see if we can improve it, but let us take that out of the bill, give it a fast track and put it in place.
I say to Mr. Sheldon Kennedy and anybody out there who is sympathetic to Mr. Kennedy and victims of sexual assault, as I am, that we had an opportunity to do that last fall. The government not only failed to take up the offer but it took the position that we were wasting time by even bringing it up, that this was a delaying tactic. It is very amusing when one seeks to fast-track something through a motion in the House, government members say it is a delaying tactic. Did they listen to what I was saying, or are they on a message track of some sort because they think all we do over here is try to delay things? 
Instead, we were trying to fast-track that legislation because we believe that as soon as the legislation passed, there would be an opportunity to prevent more serious crimes from taking place. Internet luring was being made easier to prosecute, as well as the so-called grooming of or showing children sexually explicit materials, which is a step we are told takes place as a way to soften a potential victim before a meeting is arranged. We would actually be preventing sexual assaults by passing that. We were anxious to see that happen, but the government saw that as a delaying tactic. 
I will leave you, Mr. Speaker, and those watching to judge whether something like that would be considered a delaying tactic or a responsible attempt to try to do what we could to prevent further victimization of potential victims of sexual assault. I know how devastating it can be to a young person and a young person's life. I will not go into all of the consequences, but they are legion, and are hard to fathom and difficult to overcome.
I know there will be an opportunity for some questions and comments, but I would like to end my remarks with an amendment. I move:
 That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: 
 “a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that the House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts because relying on the government to list states which support or engage in terrorism risks unnecessarily politicizing the process of obtaining justice for victims of terrorism.” 

The Speaker: The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Etobicoke North.
Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a passionate speech and raised the issues FASD and mental health.
Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD, is caused by prenatal exposure to alcohol and the cost per individual per year is estimated at $21,000, and in Canada $5 billion per year. The children have trouble in school. As they become adults, FASD does not disappear but translates into ongoing problems with respect to family relationships, employment, mental health and justice conflicts. The person may not understand the arrest and court process and may not be able to comprehend the severity of the situation. The ability to follow through may be compromised because of memory deficits.
Could the hon. member outline what other challenges people with FASD may have with the justice system?
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the member for Etobicoke North has raised a very important question. Because of her own education and knowledge of the system, I know she is very aware of some of the difficulties that not only people with FASD but others face in our system.
 The member mentioned the cost of $21,000 per year for assisting an individual with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The cost of incarceration is in excess of $100,000 a year. It is very disappointing that the government does not recognize that if we doubled the amount of support for people with FASD instead of spending five times as much incarcerating them, we may go a lot further in ensuring that the lives of people with FASD can be made more positive and that they can be better contributing members of society. There are organizations and communities that are very supportive, particularly in the north, which we would like to see funded rather than treating these people as criminals and incarcerating them.
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to a program called Wapikoni Mobile, which has been around for a number of years. It is a mobile studio that goes from one first nations community to another and works with aboriginal youth to help them develop basic skills and teach them things like how to work together and follow a schedule. This helps them to integrate into society. Unfortunately, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada recently reduced its subsidies by about half a million dollars, and the program's survival is now threatened. 
Does the hon. member agree with me that it is better to invest in such a program than it is to spend all that money on a bill like Bill C-10, which will simply serve to send more people, many of them aboriginal people, to prison?
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, again this is an example of the kinds of programs that are going to be crowded out in terms of funding. More money is going to be spent by the governments of Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and every government in the country to incarcerate people at a cost that seems to be north of $100,000 a year. We are talking about a half a million dollar program. That program will be cancelled. That would cover the cost of five aboriginal people being locked up for a year.
 Is that good management of public funds? Is that decent? Is that humane? Is that a proper kind of government that we aspire to in this country? No, it is not.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, earlier in his speech, the member for St. John's East made reference to the international effort for the legalization of cannabis. I want to emphasize that four of the last five mayors of Vancouver and former premier Mike Harcourt have made the same plea, that in an effort to stop wasting the resources of law enforcement, we ought to take the advice of experts and move in the direction of legalization as opposed to increased incarceration.
My question for the hon. member relates to what I regard as the fundamental matter before the House at this moment. As members of Parliament we have taken an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Each of us has taken an oath to uphold the Canadian Constitution. In the case of Regina v. Smickle, the Ontario Superior Court has ruled that these mandatory minimums offend the charter and are likely unconstitutional. It seems to be beyond our ability to grasp that we are passing a law that is in itself illegal.
 Does the member have any comments on that problem, for each of us as individual members?
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has raised a novel question as to whether or not there is some question of an oath.
 I am saying this as someone who is a lawyer, as is the hon. member. I have read most of the case of Mr. Smickle. It is a rather unfortunate set of circumstances. It is also potentially a unique law where if the Crown prosecuted by summary conviction, the maximum sentence was one year, and if the Crown prosecuted by indictment, which it did, the minimum sentence was three years. There was no possibility of any sentence between one and three years. The Crown was the one that made the decision, not the court, not the judge.
I am not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences, although we did support that in the case of sexual offences because of the national consensus on that. We may have to look again at the aboriginal solutions within communities for that, but we supported that.
I do not think the court said that all mandatory minimum sentences were unconstitutional. That court is a court of first instance. 
I do not think, despite what debate we might have about it, that we are somehow bound by our oath not to vote against it. I will certainly be voting against any aspect of Bill C-10. I do not know if we can say the members opposite are voting against something that is definitely constitutional. The member for Mount Royal has said that much of it is constitutionally suspect, but that is really for the courts to decide.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very interesting speech.
I took particular note of his comments on the criminalization of aboriginal youth. This is one of the concerns of the Algonquin people in my riding, whether they are from Barriere Lake or Kitigan Zibi. They have spoken to me of their concerns about Bill C-10. They are particularly concerned about the fact that one of their traditions involves judging their own people. They would like to work to rehabilitate their own young people and find their own solutions. Does the hon. member have any idea how Bill C-10 would prevent them from doing so?
[Interjection]
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is from the riding of Pontiac. I could reflect on the name of his riding, the name of a great aboriginal person. It is reflected in the name of the member's riding and in our country. 
I hear what the member is saying about how the Algonquins deal with accountability within their community. That is a tradition that ought to be respected, not only because it is a tradition and a solution that comes from the aboriginal community itself, but also because it is one that is more likely to work.
Let us assume that an aboriginal young person has committed a crime and the Criminal Code says that the crime deserves a certain amount of time in jail. The young person would be taken out of his or her community, would not have a conditional sentence, would not have a healing circle which might work for the young person, and would not be accountable to his or her own community in that the young person would be put in a jail somewhere else. I think that is wrong.
I do not think it will work. It is wrong for the reasons I have stated, but it is also wrong because I do not think it is effective and I do not think it will work.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I propose to begin my remarks with my respective conclusion, which also frames the narrative of my intervention, and that is if, at the conclusion of this debate, we adopt Bill C-10, we will be adopting legislation that lacks an evidentiary basis in its pertinent particulars, that is constitutionally suspect, thereby violating our obligations and inviting further charter challenges while the costs remain unknown, thereby breaching our responsibilities for the oversight of the public purse while also burdening the provinces. If we adopt Bill C-10, we will increase prison overcrowding, also giving rise to charter concerns, while, again, not improving the safety of Canadians in any way.
Indeed, adopting the legislation would be a betrayal of the very mandate common to all parties in the House to which all we aspire, namely, ensuring safe streets and safe communities. We will end up, as I said when the bill was first introduced and must reaffirm again, with more crime, less justice, spiralling yet undisclosed costs, less rehabilitation for the offender, less protection for the victims and less safety for our citizens.
 I have risen in the House on the bill before when time allocation permitted. I rose also in committee seeking to propose amendments at committee, again when time allocation permitted.
As has been pointed out, even today's debate would not have been necessary had the government simply read my amendments to the justice for victims of terrorism act when I first proposed them. 
Simply put, it is as arrogant as it shocking that the government rejected opposition proposals out of pure partisanship rather than considering them on the merits. These Senate amendments, which the government rejected at committee only to attempt their reintroduction at report stage in the House, are themselves proof that the proposals were well-founded. 
Let me be clear. I am pleased that the government changed its mind on the need for these amendments. However, government comments suggesting that the amendments when first proposed were imperfect and defeated for that reason, flies in the face of the evidence.
 As I indicated in committee, I proposed these amendments to improve the justice for victims of terrorism act, a bill that I not only supported but felt was precedential and necessary to provide victims of terror the civil remedies in domestic courts against their terrorist perpetrators and against such terrorist perpetrators who have previously been shielded, and I would have accepted friendly subamendments at committee.
Yet the government had no such changes to offer. Indeed, the government did not say, “We agree with your amendments, but we want to change their form”. Rather the mocking response was, “Why are you wasting our time when we want to get this bill passed?”, adding, again, in a mocking tone, that only the government cared about victims and the opposition only cared about criminals, a mocking tone that has been repeatedly used in this debate, the whole underpinned by fear-mongering in complete disregard for the evidence and the truth.
Time does not permit for me to detail and document every defect of the legislation. Accordingly I propose to organize the balance of my remarks around the principal defects of the bill, which I remind the House were nine bills put together into one omnibus piece of legislation, and that is the first issue, which is the bundling of nine major pieces of legislation into one omnibus bill and imposing closure in both the House and in committee deliberations as if we were debating only one simple bill. This did not allow for the necessary and differentiated parliamentary discussion and debate, let alone the necessary oversight of the legislation, as required by Parliament in discussion and debate.
That is, in part, the reason we are having this debate today. The government insisted this whole thing had been debated before in a previous Parliament. Yet the government cannot point to a single page of Hansard wherein we discussed the bill that we are amending, the justice for victims of terrorism act. It simply was never considered in the House. Moreover, each separate bill needed individual consideration. Each amendment needed careful review. The government refused to do this and this was reason enough to reject this ill-considered legislation with its pre-emptive preclusion of any review of the legislation.
Second, even before the legislation was tabled, there was a serious problem of prison overcrowding, with some provinces already reporting prisons at 200% capacity. We know that overcrowding leads to more crime within prisons and outside prisons.
The U.S. supreme court has found that overcrowding of over 137% can constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly this legislation will only exacerbate the problem in Canada, both as a matter of policy and as a matter of the Constitution.
At a time when crime is falling, when the evidence does not warrant it, why are we going down a path that seeks to put more people in prison for longer periods of time and risking a situation where the courts will be forced to set people free because of such overcrowding? It simply does not make constitutional or policy sense. Moreover, in the legislation itself, the requirement that correction administrators use “the least restrictive measures”, again a matter of sound constitutional protection and policy-making, has been removed, generating yet another constitutional concern relative to incarceration.
Third, the Minister of Justice has an obligation to ensure that legislation comports to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, yet prison overcrowding and the attending risk of cruel and unusual punishment are not the only constitutional concerns in Bill C-10. The expert witness testimony identified a series of constitutionally suspect provisions, including: severe, excessive, disproportionate and prejudicial mandatory minimum sentences; vague and over-broad offences; undue and arbitrary exercise of executive discretion; unconstitutional pretrial detention issues invoking section 11 concerns; and intrusive privacy concerns, such as those enunciated by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
When I asked whether the minister would provide assurances that the legislation comported with the charter, a due diligence responsibility on the part of the minister, the minister repeated the mantra about the mandate and avoided a response to the question.
I will address mandatory minimum sentences more specifically later, but I must note that it is highly undesirable for us to be adopting legislation that puts in place a sentencing scheme which the courts themselves have recently found untenable. Should we not be prudent and wait for the courts to pronounce on matters before it prior to Parliament enacting legislation that presents an affront to our Constitution? This is but one example of constitutionally suspect legislation within Bill C-10.
As I said before, but it is worth repeating, we must consider legislation on its merits. We cannot enact unconstitutional legislation and then say, repeating the mantra, that these measures are necessary to protect safe streets and safe communities. We simply cannot justify bad or unconstitutional policies through the repetition of the mantra about a mandate.
Fourth, we must also raise the important issue of the cost of this legislation. The costs associated with these nine bills have not been disclosed, and when one of these bills was introduced during a previous Parliament, the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer determined that that bill alone would cost approximately $5 billion. 
Canadians and Parliament are entitled to full disclosure and accountability. This lack of disclosure represents not only a denial of the public's right to know but also a breach of parliamentarians' constitutional responsibility to monitor government spending and taxpayers' money.
Since we last discussed this bill, another report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer was released. In the matter of constitutional sentencing alone, the report found that the federal government would bear additional costs of about $8 million and the provincial and territorial governments would bear additional costs totalling about $137 million.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: I hate to stop the hon. member there, but it is just about time for statements by members. He will have ten and a half minutes to conclude his remarks at the end of question period.
At this point we will move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.

Statements by Members
SchoolsMs. Kellie Leitch (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize two fantastic elementary schools in my riding of Simcoe—Grey: St. James Catholic Elementary School and Tottenham Public School.
In the Fraser Institute's most recent report card on Ontario schools, St. James ranked number one throughout the province and Tottenham Public School was named as one of the most improved schools.
It is through the hard work and dedication of teachers, staff and parents that ensures that Canadian children grow up and learn in some of the best institutions in the country.
These rankings are good news for the children in my riding and, more important, they speak to the growing trend of excellent education in Canada. As an educator myself, I know of the importance of preparing young people for the ever-growing Canadian workforce.
Our students will be competing with some of the best and brightest in the world, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they are prepared to meet the challenges of a global economy.
I congratulate, again, St. James Elementary School and Tottenham Public School for the fantastic work they do for the children of my riding of Simcoe—Grey. Keep up the great work.
Champlain BridgeMr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in January, the NDP organized a public forum on the new Champlain Bridge in my riding of Brossard—La Prairie. Over 200 people took advantage of the opportunity to share their concerns and dialogue with experts. People were very happy to be able to speak to their elected representatives.
As TVRS, the local south shore television station, reported, the forum was a huge success. People sent the government a clear message that families from the south shore and Montreal should not have to pay for the construction of a new bridge.
The NDP is against the excessive use of PPPs. The Minister of Transport, however, is refusing to listen. His message is, “No toll, no bridge”.
The Conservatives are not listening to people, and they have clearly deserted Quebec.
People still have many questions. What will happen between now and the time the bridge is built? What will it really cost? And most importantly, when will the work be done?
People want more transparency.
Little House SocietyMs. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to highlight good works reminiscent of the little engine that could.
On Monday of this week in Tsawwassen, B.C., the Little House Society opened its doors again to take a lead in hosting abstinence-based recovery groups supporting those dealing with substance use, abuse and addiction.
For 27 years, the Little House Society has been a respectful, committed, community-based enterprise that lost its earlier “Little House” to arson in 2009. Since then, under the leadership of a remarkable citizen, Jim Stimson, the society has engaged the community and over 100 local businesses, re-opening a new meeting and counselling home. All moneys, goods and services donated in part and in kind have come from a grateful and supportive community, not government funds.
Plans for educational opportunities and community outreach are being developed and all Canadians can be proud of the Little House in B.C. that has shown us all how heart and perseverance can triumph.
National Francophonie WeekMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Semaine nationale de la francophonie begins today. I would like to remind the current government that we francophones—including Acadians, Franco-Saskatchewanians, Franco-Manitobans, Franco-Ontarians and Quebeckers—came from France over 300 years ago. We remain vibrant through our language and culture, and our children still dream in our ancestral language.
We remind you that we French North Americans are determined to be included in modern Canada.
We remind you that the federal government has stood up for our rights many times in the past.
We remind you that you have a duty to francophone communities in Canada, both large and small.
Our contribution to Canadian democracy can be measured by our presence in Canada, which has been uninterrupted since the 16th century. This is our home and we are not going anywhere. 
Fire Safety and PreventionMr. Greg Rickford (Kenora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a brave young constituent whose quick thinking saved the lives of his family.
In November of last year, six-year-old Cochenour resident, Brody Macumber, informed his ill mother that their stove and toaster had caught fire. He rounded up his two younger siblings, dropped himself and them down on their hands and knees and led them outdoors to safety. He then returned to the house to ensure his mom would get out safety.
Prior to the fire, Brody had learned about fire safety and fire prevention at school and knew exactly what to do when faced with heavy smoke and flames.
In December, Brody was presented with an Award of Bravery from the municipality of Red Lake for his heroic efforts in getting his family to safety as he had been taught. This is a perfect example of how fire safety and prevention programs in the schools are essential to the safety of students and their families.
Brody is just another example of what is so great about the great Kenora riding.
Charlie QuanMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable Canadian, Charlie Quan, who died February 23 at the age of 105.
Mr. Quan was one of the oldest living head tax payers in Canada and for many years fought for justice and redress from the unjust and racist head tax and Chinese Exclusion Act that separated him from his family. He paid the $500 head tax in 1923 but it took until 2006 for the Government of Canada to issue a formal apology.
I had the honour to meet Mr. Quan, who was my constituent, and know that his perseverance inspired younger generations to keep advocating for justice. This struggle still goes on today for the many families who have not yet received compensation and justice.
Mr. Quan was an honourable gentleman, who only ever wanted the right thing to be done, that all of us learn from history to ensure that these injustices are not repeated against any people or group. 
I hope all parliamentarians and governments will honour his memory and work to end racism, discrimination and injustice.
I offer my deepest condolences to his family.
Yanni GourdeMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the effort, perseverance and talent of a young man in my riding. Yanni Gourde is currently the best goal scorer in the Quebec major junior hockey league, with a 13-point lead over his closest rival. With only four games left in the regular season, I hope he will be victorious. 
During the 2011-12 season, Mr. Gourde was called to play for the Victoriaville Tigres, where he used his exceptional sense of the game to showcase all of his talents. This student athlete is in contention for the Marcel Robert trophy, which will be awarded at the Gala des Rondelles d'or on April 4. The Marcel Robert trophy is given to the top player in the Quebec major junior hockey league.
The entire community of Saint-Narcisse-de-Beaurivage and I are very proud of Yanni Gourde and support him in his efforts to lead the Victoriaville Tigres to victory.
Shabnam AssadollahiMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the 101st International Women's Day. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to one of the most courageous women I know, Shabnam Assadollahi.
Iranian by birth and Canadian by choice, she has worked for decades to promote human rights.
A seasoned advocate, Ms. Assadollahi founded a number of multicultural programs to help newcomers, particularly women, adjust to their new country.
This remarkable woman, who lives in Orléans, has had eight children's books translated into Farsi and distributed them in Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. 
Through her compassion and understanding of the realities facing newcomers, this exceptional woman is such an asset to our great country.
I would like to thank Shabnam for her dedication to these worthy causes.
 Shabash to you and to all those who use wisdom and knowledge to promote human rights.
Saint-Hyacinthe Biotechnology ParkMs. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, the Saint-Hyacinthe biotechnology park has been named the best emerging science park by the Association of University Research Parks. This award is presented every year to an emerging park that translates technology derived from applied research into economically viable business activities, investment, employment and public revenue. 
The Cité de la biotechnologie won the award by creating 580 jobs and attracting some 30 innovative companies and more than $600 million in investments. This honour once again confirms the research and development expertise of the Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot region and reflects well on our entire country. I am proud to express my admiration and my most heartfelt congratulations.
Foreign AffairsMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me today in urging both Sudans to cool the current tensions that threaten to reignite war. Cross-border bombings and support for proxy rebellions in each other's territory undermine progress toward stability and development. 
Canada strongly encourages both governments to take all measures to protect civilians, including religious and ethnic minorities, and to prevent a humanitarian crisis. This is particularly urgent in the South Kordofan and Blue Nile states, where humanitarian access is essential to stave off near famine conditions.
Sudan and South Sudan must redouble the efforts mediated by the African Union to negotiate post-independence arrangements, including on oil, citizenship, and borders.
Only through the peaceful resolution of these issues will we see the establishment of two viable states at peace internally and with each other.
Youth InvolvementMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks, I have had the pleasure of meeting hundreds of young people from my riding. As a young politician, I am very happy to see that so many girls and boys are interested in political issues.
We often hear that young people do not really care about politics. My experience strongly suggests otherwise. I was delighted to meet students from my own high school, Horizon Jeunesse, in Laval. They were bright and motivated. They talked about their disappointment in the government's decision to abolish the gun registry and withdraw from Kyoto. They also told me how glad they were to see so many young people elected to the House of Commons.
To think that just a few years ago, I was where they are now. I am living proof that where there is a will, there is a way. I would like to thank the teachers, the administration and the students for welcoming me so warmly to their school. I urge my colleagues to visit schools in their ridings to raise awareness among young people about what we do as parliamentarians, because when we include them, they bring new ideas to the table to help create a better future. 
Status of WomenMrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Status of Women led the Canadian delegation last week at the 56th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, where the theme was the empowerment of rural women. 
Women and girls in rural, remote and northern areas of Canada share many of the same challenges faced by women in rural areas around the world. They also often experience unique opportunities as a result of where they live.
This week, our government announced funding for new projects to support women living in these communities, projects that will reduce violence against women and girls and increase their economic security. I would like to mention two very special projects in Portage la Prairie in Manitoba.
I encourage all Canadians to celebrate the spirit of these remarkable Canadian women, young women, and girls in rural areas. 
I congratulate all of them and wish them a happy International Women's Week. 
Marble CupHon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Marble Cup is the premier alpine ski race attracting elite athletes from all over Atlantic Canada. This year, over 70 young competitors descended on Marble Mountain in western Newfoundland to compete in the super G, the slalom and the combined slalom and downhill races.
Congratulations go out to the Marble race team for repatriating the Marble cup back to the home hill. We are all very proud of all of our racers in Atlantic Canada, but I have to admit that no one could be prouder of one particular first-time racer, 9-year-old Gerry Byrne, on achieving a personal best. 
My son Gerry was part of bringing the Marble cup back home, and Gerry's own teammates, his coaches, and the race officials were very much amazed at the young rookie's performance. For this, his coaches said he was among the best of the best. 
I am so happy to have him and my wife joining me here in Ottawa this weekend. My congratulations to Gerry. He has made mom and dad very proud. 
Natural ResourcesMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Edmonton area mayors understand what the NDP member for Edmonton—Strathcona does not. These mayors are backing the Northern gateway pipeline while the NDP member calls for a moratorium on natural resources.
The mayor of Spruce Grove supports what he calls “global opportunity”. Meanwhile, the NDP member is joined by her B.C. colleagues and their anti-trade, anti-jobs agenda. In its relentless battle against resource development and trade, the NDP has turned its back on hundreds of thousands of Canadians employed in the energy and mining sectors, many of whom are in my riding. 
Our government understands the critical importance of diversifying markets for our energy products and natural resources to create jobs and economic growth across Canada. Meanwhile, the NDP continues to oppose all of these job-creating projects and related trade initiatives, and threatens the families and their livelihoods in natural resource ridings like mine. Shame.
41st General ElectionMr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that, when Canadians see just how far the Conservatives are willing to go to affect the outcome of an election, they are losing confidence in our democratic institutions. We know that the fraudulent calls, the harassment and the in and out schemes did not happen only in the Guelph riding. Those things happened in dozens of ridings, despite what the Conservatives claim. And their only response is that we are attacking democracy. Quite frankly, Canadians will not tolerate those kinds of tricks.
That is why the NDP moved a motion yesterday to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their democratic institutions. By giving greater powers to the Chief Electoral Officer, we can finally get to the bottom of what happened during the most recent election and ensure that it never happens again. People deserve to be able to cast their ballots with confidence. That is why, in 2015, this government will be replaced by the NDP.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday it came to light that an NDP backroom operative was accessing the divorce records of the Minister of Public Safety, an operative working on the leadership campaign for the member for Ottawa Centre, no less. 
When this came to light, the member for Winnipeg Centre tried to throw us off the scent of this drive-by smear campaign by trying to throw the premier of Manitoba under the bus. This is very typical of the holier-than-thou member for Winnipeg Centre.
Given all of this, it also comes as no surprise that the member for Timmins—James Bay was filibustering the attempts of the ethics committee to study the use of taxpayer resources to engage in a sleazy Internet smear.
We already know that the leader of the Liberal Party has confessed that the Liberals engaged in dirty tricks using taxpayer resources. What are the NDP members hiding? Canadians have the right to know.

Oral Questions
Elections CanadaLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he supports the NDP motion to improve transparency in election practices. What he has not been clear about is whether he supports giving the Chief Electoral Officer the power to look at files from the last election without a warrant or calling in the RCMP. 
My question is for the Prime Minister. Do the Conservatives believe that Elections Canada should have the power to look at all records from the 2011 election?
Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear that we support the motion that was before the House yesterday.
 However, the fact remains that the opposition spent millions of dollars on hundreds of thousands of phone calls that it made in the last election. If the opposition wants to support Elections Canada's work, it should provide all of its records regarding those phone calls that they made in the last election. We expect Elections Canada will get to the bottom of the allegations in Guelph.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, let us stick to the facts about what is really going on here. 
In 2005, the Prime Minister said that the government has “the moral responsibility to respect the will of the House”.
If the Conservatives agree to our motion and it passes, will they commit to introduce legislation within six months to ban these activities or will they ignore the will of the House, as they have done so many times, and hope to weather the storm?
Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, the government has clearly indicated that we support the motion that was before the House yesterday. 
All of the Conservative Party's records are available to Elections Canada. We ask the same from the opposition. The opposition spent millions of dollars on hundreds of thousands of phone calls that it made in the last election. If it wants to support Elections Canada's work, it would make those records available to Elections Canada. We expect that Elections Canada will get to the bottom of the allegations in Guelph. 
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, we hope to see the follow through on that motion and the commitment in legislation.
I will move on to another aspect of this. Yesterday, on CBC, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that the Conservative Party had provided the documents that Elections Canada requested about the fraud in Guelph. This comes after the Conservatives have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in Guelph, even though they threw a Conservative staffer under the bus and tried to blame the guy for the whole scandal. 
Will the Prime Minister now admit what everyone knows, which is that the party is under investigation for its activities in Guelph? 
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thought I had been clear. I do not know how the member is still confused on the matter.
We have been made aware of a single investigation that is in the riding of Guelph. The Conservative Party is assisting Elections Canada in that matter and we will continue to do so.
What is also clear is that the opposition has spent millions of dollars on hundreds of thousands of phone calls during the last election. If it wants to support Elections Canada, it should provide all its records relating to the calls it made during that election. 
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Conservatives knew that their electoral practices were illegal and criminal. In a move that was both stupid and arrogant, the deputy manager of the Conservative campaign, Andrew Prescott, even bragged ahead of time about what the Conservatives had in store. Prescott had the audacity to tweet about this criminal tactic two days before it began. He knew it was coming. They even taunted Kady O'Malley, the well known blogger on Parliament Hill.
When will the Conservatives finally tell us what happened in Guelph and how many documents and how much information they are still hiding?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the allegations regarding the calls made in Guelph are unacceptable. The Conservative Party of Canada is assisting Elections Canada in clarifying this matter. Our files have been made available to Elections Canada. 
Alexandre Boulerice: That was a trifle short, young blade.
Mr. Speaker, the pathetic thing is that Mr. Prescott accused the Liberals ahead of time on Twitter to exonerate the Conservative Party from what it was about to do. Maybe he is the one who prepares the responses the parliamentary secretary provides us every day. It is becoming increasingly clear that this whole thing was orchestrated by the Conservative Party. The Conservatives asked for a list that only the CIMS and RMG databases had. 
What we now want to know is what role RMG played in compiling that data. We know that the Conservatives hid information and documents from Elections Canada in the case of Guelph.
How many other ridings are they hiding information on and who are they trying to protect?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question. I suggest that the hon. member look at the answer I just gave him.
41st General ElectionHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a Conservative staff member in Ottawa lost his job because of the telephone election fraud scheme in Guelph. That former staffer has confirmed that, indeed, such a scheme existed. In Thunder Bay, employees at a Conservative call centre admit they gave false information about where to vote. In other words, they lied. In Edmonton, court documents zero in on Conservatives as suspects in the election fraud investigation. On it goes: Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto, Nipissing.
Does it not trouble the government that the common thread here is the Conservative campaign?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, the common thread that I see is baseless smear allegations from the member opposite and his party, but they are not providing the transparency to Elections Canada that we believe they should be. In fact, if the opposition wants to support Elections Canada's work, it should provide all of its records relating to the thousands of calls that they made with millions of dollars during the last election.
National RevenueRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, duck, deny, delay, divert. The government's stonewalling just reinforces suspicions of thousands upon thousands of good decent Canadians. It tells us to follow the money, so I will turn to the Minister of National Revenue. 
Taxpayers are reporting that Revenue Canada is now using telephone call centres to bombard people with warnings that quarterly tax installments are due, as if hefty late payment penalties are not warning enough. Will the minister identify what call centre she is using, how it got the contract and how much it is being paid?
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is our duty to ensure that Canadians are aware of their responsibilities under Revenue Canada. I will have to get back to the hon. member with the details on the call centre.
41st General ElectionHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, widespread allegations of voter suppression are serious enough, but now we are hearing about the artificial inflation of voters lists. In Eglinton—Lawrence, Etobicoke Centre, York Centre and Nipissing, hundreds, even thousands of voters were put on the voters list without proof of residency.
What will the government do to guarantee the integrity of Canadian democracy and to ensure that no one has stuffed the ballot boxes?
Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada is responsible for voter registration, not political parties. Any specific complaints arising from a riding can be put to Elections Canada.
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there was a political party that got caught using the in and out scheme, which it called an administrative dispute, and repeated that every day. It was convinced that it did not have to comply with the Elections Act. It was ready to take the battle all the way to the Supreme Court, until new allegations of in and out transactions surfaced. 
There is a very simple way to shed light on the 2011 election fraud: the government should give Elections Canada more powers.
When will it do so?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we have already spoken to the NDP motion. I invite the hon. member to read our comments.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion and the motion demands that the government enact legislation. The point of the question was to determine when the government plans to pass legislation.
I will say it again. In the beginning, it was an isolated incident. Then it was a rogue employee. After that, it was a smear campaign by the opposition. Now, the Conservatives are trying to blame the opposition by changing their version of the story and saying that we are attacking everyone who voted legitimately.
Denial, diversion, evasion, confusion: it is not an isolated incident.
New types of election fraud require new powers.
Will they amend the act? We are not asking if they will vote in favour of the motion. Will they amend the Elections Act and, if so, when?
Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the motion that was before the House yesterday, we have been clear that we support that motion. The Conservative Party is assisting Elections Canada in its work. The fact remains that the opposition spent millions of dollars on hundreds of thousands of phone calls made in the last election. If the opposition wants to assist Elections Canada in that work, it will make all its documents available to Elections Canada. We expect Elections Canada will get to the bottom of the allegations in Guelph.
Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in a staggering act of arrogance, deputy campaign manager, Andrew Prescott, started bragging about the crime the Conservative campaign in Guelph was about to commit. Prescott sent out a message on Twitter that voter suppression was under way in Guelph two days before it happened. Prescott even flaunted the Conservatives' plans to reporters in Ottawa. This was a premeditated election crime.
Why is it taking so long for the Conservative government to fess up and tell the truth? Who is it protecting?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, the allegations of voter suppression in Guelph, which we have heard from many sides, are serious and expect that Elections Canada will look into this matter.
If the allegations are proven to be true, we would expect those responsible will be held fully accountable. The Conservative Party, as I have indicated many times, is fully assisting Elections Canada. It is the opposition parties that are not.
Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, the thing is that Andrew Prescott had already started planning and blaming the other parties for this crime. Prescott wrote, “Voter suppression phone calls currently under way in Guelph”, while blaming the Liberals. This is very similar to the talking point being used by the parliamentary secretary on a daily basis.
The fact is that this was an organized election fraud and, as much as it likes to deny it, the Conservative Party is the only one under investigation, not the Liberals and not the NDP. When will it stop blaming others and take some responsibility? When will it start being honest with Canadians?
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, we are always honest with Canadians. We are also assisting Elections Canada with this matter, which we have made very clear, and we will continue to do so. We believe the allegations in Guelph are indeed serious.
Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, ties between RMG and the Conservative Party can be found in scandals of all kinds, from fraudulent calls to prevent people from voting to harassing citizens—like Mr. Coulombe in my riding—to fill the party's coffers.
It is impossible to say with a straight face that the Conservatives' subcontractors follow the highest standards. To obtain its majority, the Conservative Party used harassment to solicit donations and fraudulent techniques to suppress votes.
Will the Prime Minister turn our motion into legislation in order to give Elections Canada greater powers right away, yes or no?
Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has been clear on its support for the motion that was before the House yesterday.
The fact remains that the opposition spent millions of dollars on hundreds of thousands of phone calls made in the last election. If it wants to support Elections Canada's work, it would provide all the documents related to those calls.
The Conservative Party's documents are available to Elections Canada. We expect Elections Canada will get to the bottom of the allegations in Guelph.
National DefenceJack Harris: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Defence announced changes to the Canadian Forces protocol when communicating with ground search and rescue operations as a result of the tragic loss of Burton Winters in Labrador.
Clearly this is some acknowledgement that problems exist in Canada's search and rescue system. As his grandmother wrote in a letter to the Prime Minister, “Burton has sadly become a poster boy of just how inadequate emergency services are within our coastal Labrador communities”.
Will the minister honour the memory of Burton Winters and call a full and independent inquiry into this incident?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the loss of young Burton Winters was indeed a tragedy and we continue to send our thoughts and prayers to his family and to the entire community of Makkovik.
Yesterday, we did announce a protocol change that will see the Canadian Forces and our joint response centre call back. Essentially, that is when a call comes in and, for a number of reasons, weather related or otherwise, aircraft are not able to leave, there will be call back protocol that will improve the communication between the primary responsibility, ground responsibility for search and rescue that is held by the province, and whatever assets the Canadian Forces can lend to the effort.
We are making improvements and we continue to do so.
The EconomyMr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada's job market continues to struggle. Almost 3,000 more jobs were gone last month. That is 37,000 fewer Canadians working since last September.
What is the Minister of Finance's plan? It is to bring down a reckless budget that could kill another 100,000 jobs.
Does the minister not realize that he cannot create work by cutting jobs? Why will he not introduce a real jobs plan instead of a budget that will kill more jobs?
Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC): Mr. Speaker, very soon we will have a budget tabled in this House, economic action plan 2012, that will continue to support jobs and growth of the economy in this country. The only thing that really concerns me about this is the pattern of the opposition voting against it. Every time we bring forth an economic action plan, the opposition members vote against it and then they stand in the House of Commons and ask for another one. Are they going to vote against it again?
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, while we in the official opposition will not give up hope that we can force the government to do the right thing, 366,000 Canadians have simply given up and are no longer looking for work. If they were included in the unemployment numbers, the rate would be over 9%. There are fewer Canadians in the job market today than at any point in the last decade. Workers are simply giving up hope. 
When will the government show some leadership and introduce a jobs plan that will bring hope to Canadian families?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, we are all troubled when we hear that more Canadians lost their jobs last month. The thing to remember is that a plan is required to get that job growth back on track, an economic action plan, and we will be putting that forward.
We do need to remember that just last month there were 9,000 net new long-term jobs. That is important to Canadians. There are 9,000 more Canadians who are working today. That is a good number and we should be happy about that.
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are talking nonsense about the numbers. Although the unemployment rate may have dipped slightly, it is certainly not because any jobs were created. The unemployment rate fell because thousands of discouraged Canadians, especially young people, stopped looking for work. That is very worrisome.
The Conservatives are playing with the lives of an entire generation by refusing to take concrete action to create jobs. Will the government take the money that it gives in gifts to large corporations and use it to invest in job creation for people today?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that since the end of the recession in July 2009, there are over 610,000 more Canadians working than there were before. We are always making sure that the policies we put in place will help create more jobs. If we listen to what the opposition brings forward, that would mean higher taxes. Those higher taxes would kill jobs.
HealthHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's shameless attempt to blame the provinces for drug shortages shows its callous disregard for thousands of patients whose health and lives are being put at risk. The government failed to provide adequate warning about a slowdown in production and now the provinces are scrambling to deal with the problem. 
Why were the provinces only notified two weeks ago when the government knew for months? That is scandalous.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's bringing this question forward because the shortage does result from decisions by provinces to sole-source drug contracts. The Minister of Health is taking action to help the provinces address these shortages. We are working 24/7. Health Canada is helping the provinces and territories identify alternative suppliers for these drugs and we will fast-track approvals if required.
Lise St-Denis: Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to fix the problem of prescription drug shortages. Sandoz decided to stop production in November 2011, and yet Health Canada did not bother sharing that information until last week. The provinces had no warning and now surgeries across the country have had to be cancelled.
Will the government apologize to the provinces and introduce the mandatory reporting system that they have been calling for?
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, the question was factually incorrect. The reality is, and I will repeat, the shortage results from decisions by the provinces to sole-source the drug contracts. They signed the contracts, not us. The minister will be working consistently with the provinces. We need to address this shortage and work together. Other provinces are working together with us.
As far as Sandoz is concerned, it should not have withheld information from the provinces and territories for as long as it did, which has made the situation worse. It is responsible for managing the safe supply of its products in Canada and for taking steps to prevent supply interruptions that could lead to shortages.
Fisheries and OceansGerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are engaging in blatantly phoney mock consultations on the future of the east coast fishery with a single purpose in mind: to end the long-standing Liberal policy, the LeBlanc legacy of fleet separation and the owner/operator principle.
Just as Conservatives have no electoral mandate to pursue their schemes to gut public pensions, the government has no licence to destroy the long-standing guarantee of a harvesting sector comprised of independent inshore fishing enterprises headed exclusively by professional fish harvesters.
With that established, will the government suspend its east coast treachery?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if my colleague had been following the consultations more closely, he would have seen that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is listening to fishermen and not advocating any particular position or policy.
Our government is committed to the economic vitality and prosperity of the fisheries. That is what we are doing with these consultations. We are listening to fishermen to see what ideas they might have about how to achieve those goals.
National DefenceMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian Forces are worried that the post living differential, or PLD, could be cut in half come April 1. The PLD helps military families cope with the high cost of living in certain Canadian cities.
It is worth noting that, in most cases, Canadian Forces members do not choose their assignments. We demand incredible sacrifices of our military personnel and their families. They deserve a straight answer from the government. Will the PLD be cut or not?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, that is more prebudget speculation from the member opposite. There has been no decision taken on this issue. 
What is important is that our government is committed to providing the men and women of the Canadian Forces with the support they need to do the important jobs that we ask of them.
What is a bit disingenuous is the alligator tears cried by members opposite. While our government has continually invested in new equipment, infrastructure, readiness, and personnel, the member and her party have consistently opposed all of these investments. I think they will find little comfort in this hypocritical question.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, last year, the minister promised that his government would not cut the post living differential. The minister seems disinclined to keep that promise now. I have news for him. The cost of living is going up, not down, and families are struggling to make ends meet. Military personnel and their families deserve the PLD, and most of all, they deserve a clear answer.
Why is this government trying to balance the budget at the expense of the courageous men and women of our armed forces?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the strident and hypocritical tone of the question is really what underscores the fact that the member opposite and her party have done nothing to support the men and women in uniform.
Our party on the other hand consistently ensures that the men and women of the Canadian Forces are among the best paid members of forces anywhere in the world. The men and women in uniform have received an upward adjustment to their base salaries this year, as they have in previous years. The compensation benefit packages available to Canadian Forces members and their families are comprehensive, consistently reviewed and adjusted to ensure that they accurately and fairly reflect their needs.
Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will see if the minister likes my tone better.
The Military Police Complaints Commission is holding a hearing into the death of Corporate Stuart Langridge, a Canadian Forces member who was suffering post-traumatic stress disorder and committed suicide on a military base while under suicide watch. All the parties participating in the hearing have been given funding for legal representation, except Stuart's parents, Shaun and Sheila Fynes.
The chair of the commission has ruled that they should be given funding. Will the government comply?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, our sympathies go out to Corporal Langridge's family.
With this particular investigation which the MPCC has been carrying out, we have been co-operating. We are considering the request for further funding. I should point out that the Government of Canada has already provided an additional $2.3 million to the MPCC to fund this public interest hearing. 
The public interest hearing is, of course, under way. The member opposite should know we cannot comment on this while the hearing is taking place.
Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, Corporal Langridge served Canada honourably in Bosnia and in Afghanistan.
 The inquiry into his death will help military officials with suicide prevention and investigations. The Fynes have been waiting in limbo for a decision from the government for many months. Why have the Conservatives continued to stonewall the Fynes? Will they do the right thing and provide funding for legal representation for these hearings?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a shame the member opposite and his party would want to politicize such a very compassionate and difficult issue for the family.
We have been working with the MPCC, co-operating fully, including providing additional funding of over $2 million. This particular issue will be resolved in that forum, that non-partisan, arm's-length hearing. We will not interfere with a process that is under way.
EmploymentMr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP's economic plan for massive government deficit spending and high, punishing, job-killing tax hikes is the last thing Canada needs. The NDP's plan shows how out of touch it is when it comes to the economy and jobs.
In the words of a recent National Post editorial, “long-term planning is anathema to the NDP, which would prefer the finance minister jump on his horse and spend in all directions”.
Could the Minister of State for Finance give the House an update on Canada's job market?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times in this House, we remain focused on jobs and the economy. As a result of this, we continue to have the strongest job growth numbers in the G7. In fact, over 610,000 new jobs have been created since July 2009, 91% of which are full-time jobs.
That brings me to the comment about last month. Last month alone, 9,000 net new long-term jobs were created.
We will continue this in economic action plan 2012.
Employment InsuranceMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we learned from this morning's edition of Le Soleil that in 2009 the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development did not plan to close the employment insurance processing centre in Rimouski. On the contrary, the department had decided to expand the centre. It was the centre in Thetford Mines that was supposed to close. That is what the government was telling employees in Rimouski for four years.
And yet, on August 19, the Conservatives announced the closure of the main processing centre in Rimouski in favour of the secondary centre in Thetford Mines. What happened in the meantime to explain such an about-face? 
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, the comments of the member opposite are completely false. Our government is improving the way we deliver EI services by expanding and modernizing our backroom processes.
No decision has been made regarding the office location in Thetford Mines for the consolidation of EI processing. This location will be selected by Public Works in a fair, open and competitive process.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, like the minister, the Parliamentary Secretary  is trying to confuse the issue. I am not talking about what happened in 2007. I am talking about what happened last year.
This is what happened. The Minister of Industry boasted to a local newspaper that he lobbied to have the centre moved to his riding in a building belonging to his former associate, who is also a Conservative donor who worked on his last election campaign. 
I ask again: what happened in the meantime to explain such an about-face? Did the Minister of Industry interfere in the selection process?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. The answer is no. The false allegations of the member opposite are not acceptable.
 This location is being selected by Public Works in a fair, open and competitive process. We are pleased that is the process it is moving forward.
Shawinigan-Sud Tax CentreMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, still no answer, how odd. A number of people in Quebec are worried about the future of the Shawinigan-Sud Tax Centre. They fear that the Conservatives are getting ready to announce the closure of that centre, which employs 600 people. What will become of the 600 jobs and the families who depend on them?
We see what is happening in Rimouski. Is the minister going to make the people of Shawinigan suffer the same fate?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Our government is improving the way we deliver EI services to Canadians by modernizing our processes.
 No decisions have been made with respect to the consolidation of offices. Public Works is making a decision with respect to this. We are conducting a fair, open and transparent process.
Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing reassuring about the parliamentary secretary's evasive answers. It seems to me that our citizens are entitled to clear answers to clear questions. After all, we are talking about 600 high-quality jobs.
I will try again, but this time I will ask simple questions. Can the minister or the parliamentary secretary tell us whether the Conservative government's ill-considered cuts will affect the Shawinigan-Sud Tax Centre? Even simpler: can the parliamentary secretary tell us whether the Shawinigan-Sud Tax Centre will remain open?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I have been exceptionally clear. Our government is moving forward and ensuring that we modernize processes for EI. However, let us be clear. This government has created 610,000 net new jobs. We are focused on jobs and the economy. We will be growing them, but we are also ensuring that we have efficient services in place. Part of that is ensuring we consolidate EI processing.
EmploymentHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, young Canadians are facing a jobs crisis. Our youth lost another 27,000 jobs just last month. We now have the worst youth jobs numbers in 10 years. Since September 2008, young workers have lost almost 300,000 jobs. An entire generation of Canadians is losing hope, with no real job experience and no real prospects for jobs after graduation.
Why will the Conservatives not step up to the plate with a real program to provide real opportunities and real jobs for young Canadians?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, once again, I would remind the hon. member that we will come forward with economic action plan 2012 that will be focused on jobs and growing the economy. It is a continuation of our previous economic action plans that have actually shown results. More than 610,000 net new jobs, 91% of those are full-time jobs. That is important to Canadians.
 We continue to be concerned about youth unemployment and will continue to work on that with the support, we would hope, of the opposition parties.
National DefenceHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our military has the justified reputation as a smart, ethical and effective force. It is therefore disheartening to see the Minister of National Defence issue a contract to BlackBerry, formerly Xe Services, now Academi. Changing names does not change a vigilante culture.
 The world's largest mercenary army has been accused of murdering Afghanis and Iraqis with impunity and immunity and lying to Congress. That is hardly the way to win the hearts and minds of civilians.
Why would the minister sign any contract with this appalling Blackwater company.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, we do not have a contract with BlackBerry or Blackwater at the Canadian Forces. We do in fact contract out for very specific purposes involving training. At certain times of the year, when facilities in Canada are not suitable for the type of training required, we invest in that. We invest in the training. We invest in the equipment. 
I would hope that the member opposite in the third party in the third row would be a little more forthcoming in his support for the men and women in uniform.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been unacceptably silent on fleet separation. The Conservatives will not say publicly what they are planning to do. However, what we do know is that for years this policy has preserved jobs for independent fishers. It is becoming obvious that the minister wants to sell out Canadian fishers to big corporate interests. The minister must come clean.
 Why does the Conservative government want to get rid of something that has helped so many coastal communities?
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, these are consultations. The minister is listening to fishermen who have an interest in their way of life. He has no mandate. He is not advocating any particular position in this. He is listening to fishermen because we are committed to the economic vitality of the fishermen and the communities in which they live.
Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, eliminating the fleet separation policy will harm independent fishers. The government is only consulting through the Internet. This is of great concern to the coastal communities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, communities that depend on fishing. Francophones represent 25% of independent fishers. Doing away with the fleet separation policy will have serious repercussions for fishers in Quebec and New Brunswick.
Why are the Conservatives putting the interests of major corporations ahead of those of independent fishers and their families?
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, what we want, and hope what the opposition wants, is a strong and viable fishery. We are losing that and changes do need to be made. Therefore, the minister is speaking to fishermen asking them if there are changes or ways in which they might have a more stable and economically sustainable fishery. We are listening at this point and will continue to do so. I wish those members would join us in this modernization process.
JusticeMr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about crime and keeping our streets and communities safe. 
In the last election campaign, we promised Canadians that we would introduce harsher sentences for violent criminals in the first 100 days of this Parliament.
The safe streets and communities act will ensure jail time for sexual predators and drug dealers who target our children.
The opposition parties recently moved to adjourn Parliament rather than debate the legislation. Could the parliamentary secretary update the House as to the status of the safe streets and communities act?
Kerry-Lynne Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his work on the justice committee.
First, it is ironic that the NDP members wanted to leave work early. They should know that those who do not show up for work, should not get a promotion. They should just ask the little Liberal Party.
Despite the silly games of the opposition, I can report that the final vote for the safe streets and communities act will take place next Monday. That means the opposition parties will have one more opportunity to get on board with victims advocates, law enforcement, provincial attorneys general and premiers who strongly support this legislation.
I would also note that recent polls show—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mount Royal.
Foreign AffairsIrwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, we know that the Iranian revolutionary guard corps is at the epicentre of the Iranian nuclear weaponization program, its state sponsorship of international terrorism and its massive domestic repression. 
The United States and others have sanctioned it as a terrorist entity, but the Canadian government regrettably continues to dither and delay.
Will the government finally list the IRGC as a mega-threat and terrorist entity under Canadian law and thereby sanction it effectively in the protection of international peace and security?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, Canada is anxious to target senior officials for the Islamic revolutionary guard corps to counter its involvement with Iran's proliferation activities. Many Iranians are drafted into the revolutionary guard for military service and have no responsibility or involvement in the nuclear program. 
These targeted measures are designed to hamper attempts by the Iranian authorities to develop a nuclear missile program. Canada is very much concerned about the happenings in Iran.
HousingMarie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, a number of financial agreements between the federal government and housing co-ops across Canada are about to expire.
Without federal support, approximately 650,000 affordable housing units are in jeopardy. Meanwhile, housing needs are not diminishing. In fact, quite the opposite is true.
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a surplus of approximately $10 billion, but the government is not doing anything with that money.
What does the minister intend to do about this situation? What is her plan for dealing with the housing crisis?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, our government is committing to helping vulnerable Canadians with self-sufficient and full-time participation in the economy. That also means making investments in housing.
This government has made investments in housing for new social housing numerous times. Whether that be renovations, 21,000 seniors benefit from our investments and 415 projects for those with disabilities.
I just wonder why the opposition continues to never support any of these initiatives we put forward in social housing to support the vulnerable.
Status of WomenMs. Wai Young (Vancouver South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian women and men have proudly marked International Women's Week from coast to coast to coast. According to a survey conducted by the American news outlet, Newsweek, Canada was ranked the third best place to be a woman in the world.
Canada was ranked a world leader on a key indicators of justice, health, education, economics and political involvement.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women please update the House on how this government has marked International Women's Week?
Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's theme for International Women's Day and Week is, “Strong women, Strong Canada”. Women in rural, remote and northern communities are key to Canada's economic prosperity.
Our government is proud to have marked International Women's Week by announcing support for a new project that focuses on community plans in rural and remote communities and small urban centres in Canada. These grassroots projects will improve the lives of women and girls across Canada so they can be safer, more secure and more economically successful.
We believe that women's safety goes hand-in-hand with their economic security. Our Conservative government is focused on what matters: jobs and economic growth.
The EnvironmentMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories biomass energy strategy has been an unqualified success. In the Northwest Territories, buildings owned by the territorial government and many large commercial buildings have been converted from heating with fuel oil to this source of renewable energy made from waste forest product.
The federal government owns many facilities across Canada's north. My question is for the Minister of Public Works. Has the government considered a program that would convert these buildings to renewable energy?
Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government has invested over $10 billion in energy alternatives, energy efficiency and reducing the carbon footprint of conventional sources of energy.
 We will continue to move forward and honour our commitments under Copenhagen.
Elections CanadaMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, deception is the order of the day, from fraudulent calls during the 2011 election to the Prime Minister's attempt yesterday to mislead Canadians when he said that he supported enhancing Elections Canada's investigative powers. Today's statements by the Prime Minister's spokesperson make it clear that the government's support for the opposition motion yesterday was merely a bid to bury the affair and that it has no real intention of amending the legislation to give Elections Canada the tools it needs.
Rather than try to dodge the issue, will the Prime Minister commit to amending the Canada Elections Act?
Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, myself and members of Parliament who debated the motion yesterday before the House have been very clear. We support the motion.
Points of OrderMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Yesterday in the House the member for Kingston and the Islands claimed that the Minister of Health knew of information that was discussed in camera in the health committee. I want to assure the House and the Speaker that this is entirely false. No such thing happened. In fact, the entire meeting was held in public, not in camera.
I certainly would encourage the member for Kingston and the Islands to direct his attention to the big red scrolling sign that says “Public, public, public” when the committee is in public discussion. That will help him be aware of what is really going on so that mischief does not come into the House, which is really not necessary. The meeting was entirely public.
In fact, the information that he was referring to was a very important motion about drug shortages, which this side of the House wanted to get through quickly. Unfortunately, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord kept talking and time ran out.
The Speaker: I thank the member for her contribution to that point.

Routine Proceedings
Sitting of the HouseHon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, on Thursday, April 5, 2012, 
 (a) the House shall meet at 10 a.m. and proceed to Government Orders; 
 (b) Members may make statements pursuant to Standing Order 31 at 11 a.m.; 
 (c) oral questions shall be taken up not later than 11:15 a.m.; 
 (d) the House shall proceed to the ordinary daily routine of business at 12 noon, followed by Government Orders; 
 (e) Private Members' Business shall be taken up at 1:30 p.m.; and 
 (f) the House shall, at 2:30 p.m., stand adjourned to the next sitting day. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsDennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in the House of Commons from many of my constituents. The petitioners say that the Conservative government has threatened to make changes to the old age security program and that this is a direct attack on the poorest seniors who rely on that money for daily living expenses. On February 2, 2012, the NDP moved an opposition day motion calling on the House to reject the proposal by the Prime Minister to increase the eligibility for old age security while also calling on the government to take the necessary measures to eliminate poverty among seniors. Therefore, the undersigned citizens of Canada call upon the Parliament of Canada to maintain funding for the OAS and to make the requisite investments in the guaranteed income supplement to lift every senior out of poverty.
Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present over 500 signatures on a petition from all across Canada, including Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba and other provinces. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to meet the public health challenges posed by suicide, by adopting legislation that would recognize suicide as a public health issue, provide guidelines for suicide prevention, promote collaboration and knowledge exchange regarding suicide, promote evidence-based solutions to prevent suicide and its aftermath and to define best practices for the prevention of suicide.
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, a year after celebrating CBC's 75th anniversary, the Conservative government is getting ready to undermine this iconic institution. The great irony is that the party that is planning to cut CBC's budget is the very party that created the broadcaster in the first place. In the early 1930s, the Conservatives wanted a public broadcaster to protect the Canadian identity and provide a forum for the two founding peoples and first nations to express themselves. 
I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by people who support CBC and oppose cuts to funding for our only bilingual national broadcaster, whose funding the Conservatives and the Liberals have cut by more than 50% over the years. 
Despite the cuts, CBC has soldiered on, representing Quebeckers and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. People love their public broadcaster.
CBC must receive the funding it needs to carry out its mission and fulfill the mandate it has been given by the laws that govern it. The Conservatives created a treasure, and they have a duty to protect it.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition regarding ozone.
Leading scientists from universities and NASA are warning that Canada's cuts to its ozone monitoring program are already having effects on the world's ability to monitor air quality and ozone depletion.
Anne Thompson, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, says that “Canada is a bellwether for environmental change.... It's unthinkable that data collection is beginning to shut down in this vast country”.
The petitioners call upon the Minister of the Environment to develop a plan to ensure the integrity of the ozone monitoring program and commission a report to assess the adequacy of Canadian contributions to the global observing system for climate in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
The first petition is from residents of Nova Scotia who are concerned that about the fact that poverty affects over 10% of Canadians and disproportionately affects aboriginal peoples, recent immigrants, people with disabilities, youth and children. 
The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure swift passage of Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from residents of Nova Scotia who are concerned that global warning is a reality. It is no wonder they are concerned about it after such a mild winter.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to adopt the following policy goals in the spirit of global solidarity: that the government take collective action by signing and implementing a binding international agreement replacing the Kyoto protocol, an agreement that will commit nations to reduce carbon emissions; that fair and clear targets be set to ensure that global average temperatures stay below a 2°C increase from pre-industrial levels; that the government demonstrate national responsibility by committing to national carbon emission targets and a national renewable energy policy designed to achieve sustainability; that it implement climate justice by playing a constructive role in the design of the green climate fund under United Nations governance; and that it contribute public funds to assist the poorest and most affected countries to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, my petitions, coincidentally, follow perfectly from those presented by the hon. member for Halifax West. Sometimes I feel as though those of us in this House are sleepwalking as the planet moves us closer and closer to global disaster. Yet Canadians see this problem and they come to us with petitions. 
I have three petitions this morning and the first one is primarily from residents of Ontario and calls on this House to find a way to put in place targets that would avoid a 2°C increase in global temperature, a target to which the Government of Canada says it is committed. However, we will never get there if we do not have a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases against 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. 
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is primarily from residents of the Kelowna area of British Columbia. They are calling on this government to cease and desist from promoting the Enbridge pipeline supertanker scheme. The government should await the evidence and allow a full and fair review before acting as an arm of the oil industry to push for this project's approval.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the last petition is in the interest of human rights. The petitioners, primarily from the Victoria area as well as from within my riding in Saanich, are calling for the protection of those people who practice Falun Dafa and Falun Gong in China against repression by that government.
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, today I am very pleased to present petitions from hundreds of people across this country who are calling on us to support Bill C-310, my human trafficking bill. This bill would reach the long arm of the Canadian law into countries where predators go to set up brothels and violate and exploit young children. I am very pleased to present these petitions to the House today.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. 
The Speaker: Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Request for Emergency Debate[Interjection]
The Speaker: The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Vancouver East.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 52(1), I am requesting that we hold an emergency debate for the purpose of discussing the widespread drug shortages that I think people are now very familiar with. This is a matter that demands our urgent consideration.
We have become increasingly aware that hospitals and regional health units across the country are currently experiencing severe drug shortages. The impact of these shortages means that, for example, critically ill patients are having their cancer treatment drugs rationed. People with high blood pressure and heart conditions are being affected. Moreover, people suffering from chronic pain, or the side effects of terminal illness, or post-operative pain, or experiencing other severe pain cannot get a hold of their opiate medications. Also alarming is that the hospitals are already cancelling surgeries and limiting treatment.
I am sure that members have been hearing from their local communities about this emergent situation and how it is impacting so many people and their families. I do believe that all parties and members would want to share their perspectives on what is going on. 
There has been some debate on this during question period in the House, but I think the need for an emergency debate is very evident. I hope that you will respectfully consider my request, Mr. Speaker. I realize that today is a Friday, so I would be quite amenable if the debate were to take place on Monday. However, I do feel it is a very emergent situation and ask for your careful consideration.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for raising this issue. I am satisfied that it meets the parameters of the Standing Orders. However, as was suggested by the member, it may suit the House better and allow more people to participate in the debate if we hold it on Monday.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 52(9), I will direct that the emergency debate take place after the recorded divisions Monday evening. 

Government Orders
Safe Streets and Communities Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts, and of the amendment. 
The Speaker: When statements by members started, the hon. member for Mount Royal had the floor. He has 20 minutes and 30 seconds to conclude his remarks.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I will continue where I left off.
As a result of changes in conditional sentencing, the federal government will bear additional costs of about $8 million, and the provincial and territorial governments additional costs totalling about $137 million. Yet the government indicated that there would be no cost to either the federal government or the provincial and territorial governments with respect to this element of the legislation. 
Indeed, instead of appreciating the evidence, the government sought to discredit both the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his report, saying it relied on “wild assumptions”. However, the PBO report is peer reviewed, and it notes that its figures “are likely under-estimates. [And] they also include no additional capital costs related to the building of new prisons”. We know that we will need to build more prisons to deal with the fallout of this legislation.
Fifth, and relatedly, there has been insufficient consultation with the provinces and territories and, indeed, the municipalities, where these costs will be imposed at the expense of the delivery of government services. This is particularly true in the case of Quebec, whose youth justice model, a preventive, rehabilitative and protective one, is being replaced by a punitive, incarcerative, and ineffective one. 
Moreover, the government pre-emptively dismissed the Quebec model, which had brought about the lowest recidivism rate in Canada, and, equally, dismissed attempts by the Quebec Justice Minister, Jean-Marc Fournier, to mitigate the damage through a series of proposed amendments, while not providing any evidence supporting its legislative scheme.
I am proud to rise here today as a member from the province of Quebec, which has one of the best youth criminal justice systems in the world, a system that many other jurisdictions look to as a model to emulate.
It is inconceivable that the government is trying to deny our program's significant results, while saying that Quebeckers were consulted and support this bill. I say “inconceivable” because surveys clearly show that Quebeckers do not support Bill C-10. I say “inconceivable” because the Quebec justice minister, Jean-Marc Fournier, came to Ottawa several times to explain why he thought this bill was unacceptable, which is the general consensus among most Quebeckers. 
It is inconceivable that this government continues to claim that it has the support of the provinces on this issue, when it is patently obvious that Quebec never agreed with Bill C-10, does not agree with it now, and will never agree with it. The Government of Quebec has made it clear that the province will not pay the costs associated with this bill. Other provinces have taken the same position.
What is needed at this point is a federal, provincial, territorial, municipal dialogue in order to address the question of cost and respective burdens as discussed yesterday in my meeting with the representative of the Canadian Association of Police Boards.
Sixth, even in its approach to deterring crime, something all parties want to address, the legislation introduced new mandatory minimums and enhanced existing mandatory minimums. However, Canadian studies and evidence from other jurisdictions show that these penalties do not deter crime. They increase the chance that the offender will reoffend. They are unfair, inconsistent and grossly disproportionate. They invite further constitutional challenges. They have a differential and discriminatory impact on vulnerable groups already suffering from poverty, deprivation and disadvantage, such as our aboriginal peoples. We are witnessing a disproportionate representation of aboriginal people in our prisons, particularly younger aboriginal people. Further, 34% of our aboriginal women are already in prison.
Let me reiterate, this is not a personal conclusion. It is one that is anchored in studies the world over, from the United States, South Africa, from whence I have just come and which discussed and critiqued mandatory minimum sentences, New Zealand and the like. That conclusion is also found in volumes of social science research and evidence.
Perhaps the strongest evidence against mandatory minimums comes from the United States. Legal experts have increasingly critiqued their use. Indeed, just this past month a coalition of American law enforcement officials, judges and prosecutors called upon the Senate of Canada to reconsider the mandatory minimum sentences in Bill C-10 concluding:
 We cannot understand why Canada's federal government and some provincial governments would embark down this road. 
Indeed, the Ontario court ruling in the Smickle case several weeks ago is proof of this point. The judge struck down a mandatory minimum in that case, saying that its imposition would be “fundamentally unfair, outrageous, abhorrent and intolerable”.
For a government that touts itself as being so concerned with cost cutting, it is surprising that it would embark on a criminal justice plan that would have it defending multiple charter claims at great expense to the Canadian taxpayers without enhancing the integrity of our system and without serving as a deterrent or being fair in its application. Indeed, it is surprising that the government would insist on continuing debate on Bill C-10 without hearing everything the courts have to say on this matter.
Simply put, these laws have helped to fill prisons without increasing public safety. They are seriously constitutionally suspect. It would be highly inadvisable for us to enact legislation with such constitutionally suspect provisions.
Seventh, there has been the abuse of process and abuse of Parliament, as reflected in the raison d'être for this debate and the time allocation. Simply put, the government rejected all amendments proposed by the opposition, including some 40 amendments I introduced in committee and the House, anchored in my own experience as a former minister of justice and professor of law.
I do not say this to be self-serving. These included amendments which I introduced based on expert witness testimony to improve the legislation, to eliminate prospective breaches of the Charter of Rights, to check abuses of executive power, to protect the rights of victims, to provide for treatment rather than incarceration for mentally ill offenders, to address the damage of mandatory minimum sentences, to address prison overcrowding, to protect privacy and to provide for consistency between the English and French versions of the bill.
The government could have at least allowed for debate on these proposals rather than rejecting them out of hand. I do hope that the day will come that, for the sake of the protection of the victims and for the safety of our citizens, some of the more egregious portions of this bill will be amended properly by subsequent Parliaments, while others will be rightfully struck down by the courts.
Eighth, the government did not allow for any discussion of the privacy concerns in the legislation reflected in the letter of the Privacy Commissioner to the head of the justice and human rights committee. Accordingly, there are numerous privacy concerns that remain unaddressed and un-redressed by this legislation. Certainly this is nothing new for a government that has such little regard for Canadians' privacy as one can see in its other legislative proposals, such as Bill C-30.
Ninth, in the government's rush to adopt the legislation and unwillingness to listen to opposition amendments, internal inconsistencies in translation between the English and French versions of the legislation still remain. It is regrettable that we are adding errors into the Criminal Code simply because the government viewed time allocation and haste in adoption as being more important than ensuring the quality of our laws and the integrity of our processes.
Tenth, the manner in which debate was shut down in Parliament, in the legislative committee, in report stage, again this week, as well as the manner in which amendments were summarily rejected and those offering them were accused with the arrogant and offensive rejoinder that the opposition supports criminals and not victims, was all a standing abuse of Parliament and the democratic process. We were required to inhibit discussion with our constituents, something which prejudiced members of Parliament from all parties. The Minister of Justice has said that this bill and the nine bills contained within it were before us in a previous Parliament. The justice for victims of terrorism act was never before this House. Further, there are many members of this House who were not MPs in previous Parliaments. Why should they not have had the right to discuss this legislation? Why should their input not have been solicited? Why should they not have been able to consult their constituents?
 Some of these bills were never debated in this House. The justice for victims of terrorism legislation was never even tabled in this place. Given the compelling nature of this bill, once tabled, it deserved more debate so that the important precedential resonance of this legislation could have been appreciated.
Eleventh, this omnibus bill is about principles and priorities. Indeed, it is about values. Simply put, if we spend billions of dollars on building unnecessary prisons while crime is receding and on incarcerating more people for longer periods of time, then that money cannot be used to invest in a social justice agenda of childcare, health care, crime prevention, seniors or social housing.
 It is clear that as a result of this omnibus bill we will have more crime, less justice, skyrocketing costs, fewer rehabilitation programs for offenders, less protection voiced for victims and less protection for society. I have said this before, and it particularly resonates today. Adopting this legislation, apart from the justice for victims terrorism act, would mark a sad day for Canadian criminal justice, a betrayal of the very mandate for safe streets and safe communities that all of us in this House share.
Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, like any good manager, we would presume that we would have a budget or a cost analysis of how much this particular huge bill would cost Canadians. Yet we have no answer from the government how many billions of dollars it would cost. Not only that, we would think we would learn from our neighbours. We saw these kinds of laws introduced in the United States back in the 1980s and 1990s. We saw the results. Basically, it has been a disaster. A number of states in the United States were at the brink of bankruptcy, as it was costing billions of dollars. How is the costing going to impact on the provinces?
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, the issue of costing would impact not only on the provinces which, in the case of the Province of Quebec, have rejected the principles of this legislation such as in the matter of the youth criminal justice legislation. The provinces would be assuming costs of legislation that they did not agree to. They would not even know what the costs would be because the government has yet to disclose these costs. We know, with respect to the matter of conditional sentencing, there would be an additional $137 million imposed on the provinces with respect to this one piece of legislation alone. It would not only impose a burden on the provinces, it would impose a burden, as I discussed yesterday with the Canadian Association of Police Boards, on the municipalities which have not even been involved in this discussion and debate.
 And it would impose a particular burden on us as parliamentarians. We have a constitutional responsibility to be the guardians of the public purse. We cannot be the guardians of the public purse, trustees of the public, if we do not even know what the cost of this legislation would be. Therefore, we cannot exercise our responsibility for constitutional oversight.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is recognized internationally for his expertise. I would like to thank him for his excellent speech, his interventions at committee and his well-founded amendments.
The member has said the bill is constitutionally suspect. Should the government be required to demonstrate due diligence and table evidence showing constitutionality in this House?
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to serve as minister of justice and attorney general of this country. One of my primary responsibilities was to ensure, before I tabled legislation, that such legislation comported with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As I pointed out in my remarks, there are some six principal constitutionally suspect areas in this legislation. It behooves us, within the responsibility of due diligence that the Minister of Justice has, that he table in the House the advice he received that such legislation is constitutional. I cannot imagine that he would have received advice that these provisions are constitutional. I want to know that they were even discussed to begin with, namely, that due diligence was exercised to ensure compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have my doubts about that.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, given the previous experience of the member of Parliament for Mount Royal as a minister of justice, and given that we do not have any tabled documents from the Department of Justice attesting to the fact that this legislation does conform to the requirements of the charter, would the hon. member give us some advice as to what the Minister of Justice should have done and can still do to ensure this legislation meets the requirements of our Constitution?
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, in the ordinary conduct of business, the Minister of Justice would have had to refer this matter to the constitutional experts within the Department of Justice. He would have asked them whether the suspect provisions that I have mentioned, or any others, comport with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have full respect for those officials in the Department of Justice. I have my doubts as to whether that question was even put to the officials. If it had been put to them, he would have received the response that those provisions were invalid.
I would ask the minister to refer those matters to his officials and at least suspend the application of Bill C-10 with respect to those provisions that are constitutionally suspect until that advice can be tabled before this Parliament. 
If the bill goes ahead, we are going to see a series of constitutional challenges with respect to those constitutionally suspect provisions. This could have been avoided if the Minister of Justice had exercised due diligence. We are going to see additional constitutional challenges at an additional cost to the taxpayer, all undermining the integrity of our process.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, the bill was called an omnibus bill because it includes many different bills. If each of those bills had been introduced separately, could we not have examined them more carefully, including the constitutionality of their provisions? What are my colleague's thoughts on that?
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question. As I said at the beginning of this debate, if the government had introduced nine bills instead of just one, we could have studied each one properly. We could have not only studied each bill better, but also focused on the constitutionality of their provisions, which, in my opinion, are unconstitutional. We could have fulfilled our responsibilities as members of Parliament by studying these nine bills separately instead of what we ended up doing.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my esteemed colleague for his very interesting presentation and especially for focusing on the constitutionality of things. 
I would like to address another matter. In the first nations communities, people are talking about the criminalization that this bill will mean for young aboriginals. Does the hon. member have any thoughts on that?
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
There is a particular problem with aboriginal people, especially aboriginal youth. At present, there is an overrepresentation of aboriginals, and especially aboriginal youth, in our prisons. Constitutionality may also be at issue here. In fact, the Supreme Court declared that it would not be possible to apply the principles of the Gladue ruling. 
There is another very serious problem, especially with regard to the aboriginal issue. With Bill C-10, the rights of aboriginals would be violated.
Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in the debate on the Senate's message to this House of Commons on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.
 Bill C-10 is a comprehensive crime bill that addresses a number of issues: supporting the victims of terrorism; strengthening sentences for child sexual offences, serious drug offences and violent and serious offences vis-à-vis the use of conditional sentences; enhancing post-sentencing measures to enhance offender accountability and management; strengthening the youth criminal justice system's ability to deal with serious repeat and violent offenders; and enhancing the ability of the immigration system to protect vulnerable foreign workers against abuse and exploitation, including through the use of human trafficking.
While I will focus my remarks on the provisions of Bill C-10 that deal with serious drug offences, I want to clearly state to all members of this House my unequivocal support for Bill C-10 in its entirety and also for the amendments as proposed by our colleagues in the upper chamber, the Senate.
This part of the bill has been before us or before the Senate on several distinct occasions. I would remind all members of the House that the portion of Bill C-10, which proposes various mandatory minimum sentences, falls within the ambit of Canada's national anti-drug strategy. That strategy proposes a two-track approach: one that would be tough on drug crime and the other that would focus on the victims of drug crime.
The national anti-drug strategy includes three action plans: first, preventing illicit drug use; second, treating those with illicit drug dependencies; and finally, combatting the production and distribution of illicit drugs.
The action plan to combat the production and distribution of illicit drugs contains a number of elements, including ensuring that strong and adequate penalties are in place for serious drug crimes. It is within this context that the bill must be viewed if one is to view it fairly.
Moreover, the bill follows through on one of the key elements of the priority of the government to tackle crime, which this government has repeatedly identified as one of its key commitments.
There is wide and vast support for the bill from a great number of ordinary Canadians, Canadians who are concerned about drug abuse, Canadians who are concerned that marijuana grow operations and methamphetamine production and trafficking are out of control, and Canadians who are very concerned that these activities pose a serious threat to their own safety and the safety of the communities in which they live.
The legislation also has the wide support of police officer organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Police Boards.
We have responsibilities as legislators to ensure that our criminal law stays on top of serious developments in our society. Over the last decade, domestic operations related to the production and distribution of marijuana and synthetic drugs have dramatically increased, resulting in very serious problems in several regions of Canada.
 I live in and represent Edmonton and Edmonton is certainly one of the regions in Canada that has seen an epidemic growth in organized crime and the violence that is associated with it. In fact, anecdotally, last year there were 44 homicides in Canada and, sadly, Edmonton led Canada in that statistic.
In some cases, these problems have overwhelmed the capacity of law enforcement agencies to deal with these phenomena. These legal operations pose serious health and public safety hazards to those in or around the grow operations. They produce environmental hazards, post-cleanup problems and endanger the lives and health of the communities at large.
Moreover, organized crime groups and criminal gangs are resorting to increased violence to establish their dominance over the drug trade in various metropolitan regions of the country. Sadly, but unavoidably, innocent persons are being hurt. 
Now that is not to say that all drug offenders are necessarily dangerous or that all forms of drug trades are violent. Bill C-10 recognizes this and that is why what is being proposed in the bill is a focused and targeted approach, a surgical approach so to speak.
As has been stated before, the new penalties would not apply to possession offences nor will they apply to offences involving certain types of drugs. The bill focuses on the more serious drug offences involving the most serious drugs. Overall, the proposals represent a tailored approach to mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences. 
I would remind all members of the House how this part of the proposed Bill C-10 would operate. For schedule I drugs, such as heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine, the bill proposes a one year minimum for the majority of the serious drug offences in the presence of certain aggravating factors. Some of those aggravating factors are as follows: the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with organized crime; the offence involved violence or the threat of violence, or weapons or the threat of the use of weapons; or, the offence is committed by someone who was convicted in the previous 10 years of a designated drug offence. 
I think we would all agree that in the presence of those aggravating factors a minimum mandatory sentence ought to apply. Moreover, if youth are present or the offence occurs in a prison, the minimum is increased to two years.
In the case of importing, exporting and possession for the purposes of exporting, the minimum penalty will be one year if certain aggravating factors, such as the offence was committed for the purposes of trafficking, and for two years if the offence involves more than one kilogram of a schedule I drug.
A minimum of two years is provided for the production offence involving a schedule I drug. The minimum sentence for the production of a schedule I drug increases to three years where aggravating factors relating to health and safety are present. These factors are the following: the person used real property that belonged to a third party to commit the offence; the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area; the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; the person placed or set a trap.
We hear all too often of rental properties that are turned into grow operations with significant damage having been done to the real property of the landlords. It is that type of aggravating factor with respect to damage to real property belonging to a third person that this portion of Bill C-10 captures and, I would suggest to members of the House, appropriately so.
For schedule II drugs, such as marijuana, cannabis resin and others, the proposed mandatory minimum penalty for trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking is one year where certain aggravating factors such as violence, recidivism or organized crime are present. The minimum penalty is increased to two years if other aggravating factors, such as trafficking to youth, are involved.
In the case of importing, exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, the minimum penalty is one year imprisonment when certain aggravating factors are present such as the offence was committed for the purpose of trafficking.
A lot has been said in the media and by the opposition about the offence of marijuana production. Some of it has been factual but a lot of it has been misconstrued hyperbole. Therefore, it is important for members to know what is actually in the bill. The bill proposes mandatory penalties based on the number of plants involved: for the production of 6 to 200 plants and if the plants are cultivated for the purposes of trafficking, the minimum mandatory sentence is six months; for the production of between 201 and 500 plants, the minimum mandatory is one year; for the production of more than 500 plants, the mandatory minimum is two years; and for the production of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking, the mandatory minimum is one year.
The minimum sentences for the production of schedule II drugs increases by 50% where any of the aggravating factors relating to health and safety, which I just enumerated, such as using the real property of a third person to facilitate the grow op, are present. 
I would like to remind members of the House that this part of Bill C-10 is not just about minimum penalties. The maximum penalty for producing marijuana would be doubled from 7 to 14 years' imprisonment. The amphetamine class of drugs, as well as the date rape drugs, GHB and Rohypnol, would be transferred from schedule III to schedule I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, thereby allowing the courts to impose higher maximum penalties for offences involving those drugs. We know from media reports that the so-called date rape drugs are becoming a scourge and epidemic among young people, often with catastrophic and fatal consequences. 
It is important that I remind members of the House that the proposed legislation would allow a trial judge the discretion of imposing a penalty other than the mandatory minimum on an offender who is referred to a drug treatment court where the offender successfully completes the court-ordered program. Moreover, we know that drug treatment courts are not in all centres in Canada and if there is no drug treatment court, the court sentencing the offender can still refer the offender for treatment for his or her drug addiction. Also, if the offender successfully completes the program, the court would not be required to impose the mandatory minimum penalty for the drug offence.
I have had the pleasure to visit the Edmonton drug treatment court on three or four occasions. It does absolutely remarkable work. It attempts to help individuals break the cycle of getting involved in criminal activity to feed their drug addiction. It is a carrot and stick program, in that the person will not be sentenced to prison and could be discharged for the offence if he or she successfully completes a rehabilitation program and complies with all the terms and conditions of release, including abstaining from all drugs and alcohol, and attending Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous or whatever program the person is directed to attend.
The drug treatment court has been very successful in helping people break the cycle of committing crimes to feed their addiction and starting all over again. I cannot emphasize enough to members of the House the importance of that piece of the puzzle. The courts would have the ability not to impose a mandatory minimum sentence when the individual successfully completes a program as directed by the drug treatment court.
The proposed reforms in Bill C-10 have been carefully studied in both chambers and committees of both houses. I sit on the justice committee. I sat on the justice committee in the last Parliament. This bill is comprised of nine separate but related pieces of legislation, all of which have been studied significantly not only in this Parliament but in the last Parliament as well. This is the type of legislation Canadians have been demanding. Canadians are demanding safety and security in their homes and communities.
Bill C-10 has been carefully studied in both chambers. Witnesses who have appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs have welcomed these proposals. They have welcomed them because they send drug traffickers and organized crime a clear message that if they commit serious crimes and cause harm to our society, they will be spending time in jail. 
There are provisions that deal with serious drug crimes, as well as provisions that deal with amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, ending House arrest for property and other serious crimes and changes to our pardon system. All of these separate but combined pieces of legislation have been demanded not only by police and chiefs of police but also by our constituents, such as the citizens I represent in northwest Edmonton who, sadly, have witnessed a record number of murders, 44 in 2011, and all of the other crimes that are tied into organized crime in the city. 
This type of legislation is desperately needed. It was promised and it is being delivered. I encourage all members to vote in favour of Bill C-10, as amended.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for actually taking the time to go through each one of the statutes in the bill and reminding us again how very horrendous some of these penalties would be for people who may or may not fit within his definition of criminality.
It has been estimated that up to 300,000 Canadians utilize marijuana for medical purposes. The present marijuana licensing procedures have properly licensed perhaps 5,000 Canadians. In Canada many people are using marijuana for medical purposes, but they are not legally licensed to do so. Those people who are using it to take care of their health issues are either accessing it on the open market, growing plants themselves or finding other ways to supply themselves with a product they have identified as useful for their health issues.
Now we have a situation where if people who are taking care of their own health are found in possession of more than five plants, they will be given a mandatory minimum sentence for that. The judge will not have the ability to look at the mitigating circumstances.
Would my colleague explain to me how this would serve us well in the future?
[Interjection]
Brent Rathgeber: Mr. Speaker, there are so many fallacies in that question I do not know where to start.
The medicinal use permit for marijuana still exists under Health Canada. As the hon. member knows, Health Canada grants permits in the appropriate circumstances to individuals who are suffering from glaucoma or some other pain-related illnesses where marijuana has been medically proven to ease their discomfort. Nothing has changed.
With respect to the suggestion that people who grow in excess of five plants for their own personal use would be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence, if the hon. member had been listening to me he would know that is not true. There has to be aggravating factors, the most likely one being for the purpose of trafficking. However, if they have a permit, they are not operating illegally, and if they are not trafficking, they are not operating illegally. 
Nothing is changing with respect to the permits that are issued for legitimate medicinal use. Under the appropriate circumstances, those individuals will continue to have access, provided that they buy from a grower or distributor who is licensed by the Ministry of Health for that purpose.
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert made an excellent speech. He has done a lot of good work on this. I think I will use his speech when explaining this issue to my constituents. What we have heard from the NDP is the shameful rhetoric that the opposition parties are putting out on this very important bill.
I am a chiropractor, and I had many patients who were addicted to different forms of drugs. They told me over and over again to do what I can because it is a slippery slope, that people start taking drugs and once they are addicted it is extremely difficult to get off them. That is why we as a government are focusing on stopping people in the first place. 
I was wondering if the member could take a few minutes to clear up some of the misinformation. I know that in my constituency of Oshawa people are listening to the rhetoric and saying that we are going to be putting in jail kids who are found in their basement with a couple of joints or a couple of marijuana plants. 
Could he reiterate the facts so that other members of the House are able to communicate with their own constituents about this important issue?
[Interjection]
Brent Rathgeber: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health for his good work on the health files and for his interest with respect to addictions.
As I indicated, with respect to the production of scheduled drugs, such as cannabis and marijuana, which is what I think the member for Western Arctic was most concerned about, aggravating factors have to be present. 
Those aggravating factors, as I indicated, would be that the person used real property that belonged to a third party to commit the offence; the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area; the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area where the person placed or set a trap.
With respect to trafficking, often rental properties are converted into grow operations. When those grow operations are dismantled by law enforcement, or simply because of the amount of electricity and humidity that are required to grow cannabis--I have read about this; I do not have any direct experience--often there is serious damage to the drywall and often to the structural foundation. When there is damage to real property, that is an aggravating factor that causes the aggravating sentence provisions to kick in.
Just to clarify, possession is not punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence; it is possession for the purposes of trafficking.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I represent a riding where there are three federal correctional institutions—a medium-security facility and two minimum-security facilities. One of the minimum-security facilities will be turned into a medium-security institution in the very near future. In these prisons, staff work hard to rehabilitate inmates to ease their re-entry into the community. 
I will convey what the head of the federal training centre told me two weeks ago. Given that these people will get out of prison, he said that what is important to him is safety. He was thinking about the fact that the inmate could move in next to me and be my neighbour. Therefore, he tries to ensure that an approach that is more community-based and centred on social rehabilitation is used. 
The question that I would like to ask my colleague is very simple. In 2010, the crime severity index, which measures the severity of crimes committed in Canada, reached its lowest point since its inception in the 1980s. I would therefore like to know why the government claims that its bill is needed now more than ever, when we would like to emphasize prevention rather than this type of bill?
[Interjection]
Brent Rathgeber: Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to the hon. member's very good question.
As I indicated in my comments, the part of the bill that deals with serious drugs is part of a national anti-drug strategy that has three distinct prongs: preventing illicit drug use, treating those with illicit drug dependencies, and combatting the production and distribution of illicit drugs.
I concur with the hon. member that individuals who are incarcerated because of their addictions need access to rehabilitative programs. The public safety committee in the last Parliament, as she might know, wrote a comprehensive report on drug dependency and rehabilitation programs that are available in the federal penitentiary system.
The second part of her question is actually more challenging, and that is the whole notion that crime is somehow on the decline. I have to concede that officially reported crime statistics as reported by Statistics Canada based on how it measures crime in fact show decreases. However, Statistics Canada also surveys Canadians on whether or not they have been victims, and victimization is way up. In any given year, over 25% of Canadians state that they have been a victim of crime. Happily, most of that is property crime, and is not as serious, but nonetheless, victimization surveys show that crime is up.
With respect to the notion that crime is somehow diminishing, that is only officially reported crime statistics. The reason is that the police have changed how they measure crime. For example, if an individual breaks into three houses on one night, that used to be counted as three crimes, but now it is counted as one. The bigger problem is that Canadians are so fed up with the justice system they are not reporting crime. Officially reported crime might be down, but crime is not down.
Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-10 and its amendments from the other house.
The bill is not one bill, it is nine pieces of legislation combined and repackaged into one bill that has been rammed through the House over the past month by the Conservatives. Instead of receiving a thorough review, Bill C-10 is being rushed through Parliament purely to meet the Conservatives' 100-day passage promise from the last election. 
The bill was rushed through the House so quickly that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was unable to complete a cost analysis before the bill was sent to the Senate. When he did complete a partial analysis of the bill, he found that just one portion of the bill would cost provinces an additional $137 million per year and the federal government an additional $8 million per year. Therefore, the total cost would be $145 million per year for just one portion of this huge bill.
The cost per offender will skyrocket from $2,575 to $41,000, which is a sixteen-fold increase. This is a direct contradiction to what the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice have claimed in that there will be no additional cost to the federal government associated with this portion of the bill. 
I have stood in the House and asked the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice to explain why they have failed to do an adequate costing for Bill C-10. I have asked them why they failed to study the impacts of Bill C-10 on the criminal justice system, on our crowded jails and our overwhelmed courts. I have asked why they have never bothered to figure out how much the bill would cost the provinces. I have asked them why they are ramming this reckless bill through, a bill that would actually do nothing to make our communities a safer place.
It will not surprise most members of the House that the Minister of Public Safety did not bother to answer any of these questions. Instead of answering critical questions about a reckless public safety agenda that was destined for failure, the minister seems to prefer to hurdle accusations and insults across the floor. He stood in the House and accused me of supporting child molesters when he knew very well that not only did New Democrats propose provisions in Bill C-10 to target child molesters in the first place, but we also offered to split out sections of the bill dealing with sexual offences against children, enshrining victim's rights in the parole process and fast-tracking approval for them. However, the Conservatives refused.
Sadly, we know that facts do not really matter to the Conservatives. They do not look at the statistics. In the Senate committee hearings on Bill C-10, the Minister of Public Safety told senators to ignore the facts. He said, “I don't know if the statistics demonstrate that crime is down. I'm focused on danger”.
This is not the first time we have been told to ignore the facts by the Conservatives. In response to questions about Bill C-10, the Minister of Justice said, “We're not governing on the basis of the latest statistics”. 
The Conservatives do not believe in real facts that we get from Statistics Canada and other places. When it comes to public safety, their motto is “ignore the facts”. That seems to be in the Conservatives' talking points. The Conservatives want to ignore the facts because the facts are not on their side. The facts will tell them that the bill will cripple our criminal justice system and will not make our communities any safer. 
The Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties association and many experts from across the political spectrum have urged the government to rethink the sweeping changes to the criminal justice system contained in Bill C-10. Provincial leaders are speaking out and they have come to the committee to make passionate speeches and pleas to the government. They have been clear that they are not ready to bear the cost of this prisons agenda. Nor do they agree with many of the measures contained in the Conservative bill.
The prisons agenda has already failed in the United States. We have seen examples of this in Texas, California and southern states, where the states basically were led to the brink of bankruptcy. We have seen governments in the states moving away from the same approach the Conservatives are proposing here in Bill C-10.
 States like Texas are now abandoning the mandatory minimum and three strike policies that led to ballooning prison costs and prison populations. They have found these approaches have actually done little to prevent crime, but have done a great deal toward bankrupting states.
Canada should be learning from the mistakes of our neighbours to the south, not repeating them. We need practical solutions on crime that improve safety in our communities, not old strategies that are expensive and have proven to be failures.
I know my Conservative friends do not like facts and do not talk about them, but I will give some facts anyway.
 The crime rate, since peaking in 1991, continues to decline. In 2010 police reported crime in Canada continued its downward trend. Both the volume and the severity of crime fell from the previous year down 5% and 6% respectively.
 There were approximately 77,000 fewer police reported crimes in 2010 than in 2009. Decreases of property crime, namely theft under $5,000, mischief, motor vehicle thefts and break and enters, accounted for the majority of the decline. Police also reported a decrease in homicide, attempted murders, robbery and assaults. These are the facts.
The 2010 crime rate, which measures the volume of police reported crime, reached its lowest level since the 1970s. Those are the facts. The crime severity index, which measures the seriousness of crime, dropped to its lowest points since the measure first became available in 1998.
Meanwhile in prison only about one in five inmates has access to programs such as anger management and substance abuse, according to Howard Sappers, the correctional investigator. 
Canada has more people in pretrial custody than actually serving sentences at a ratio of about 60:40. Pretrial custody is at a provincial level.
Let us talk about the cost. The cost of the federal prison system has risen 86% since the Conservatives became government. When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, Canada's federal correctional system cost was nearly $1.6 billion per year, but the projected cost for this year, 2011-12, has increased to $2.9 billion, almost $3 billion per year. By 2013-14, the cost of the federal prison system will almost double to $3.14 billion, according to the department's own projections.
In 2010-11 alone, more than $517 million will be spent on prison construction. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a total annual average cost per prison cell has risen from $109,000 in 2000 to $162,000 in 2009-10. That is an increase of almost 48%. A single new low-security cell amounts to $260,000. A single new medium-security cell amounts to $400,000. A single new high-security cell amounts to $600,000.
 The average annual cost per woman inmate was $343,810. The average total annual cost per male inmate in maximum security was $223,687. The cost per male inmate in medium security was about $141,000. The cost per male inmate in minimum security the cost is about $140,000. The average cost per inmate in a community correction centre was $85,000. The average cost per inmate on parole was close to $39,000.
The Conservatives have been upfront about the costs of their bills in the past. When asked about the cost of Bill C-25, which ended two-for-one credit for time served in pre-sentence custody, the Minister of Public Safety originally said that the price tag would be $90 million. Then he said it would be about $2 billion over five years. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer ultimately found that the bill could double the annual prison costs from $4.4 billion to $9.5 billion in five years. That is a lot more than what the government is telling Canadians.
There has been no analysis or consultation with respect to the increased costs for enforcement or prosecution, which will be downloaded to the provinces. The provinces are already talking about the downloading of the costs of this crime bill that is being rushed through Parliament.
When I put all of this analysis together and I look at the struggling bill, I am faced with the sad reality that members opposite really do not care about the outcome and ultimately public safety.
In Surrey, where I come from, there are murders and gang violence. It is real, it is not just fodder for scoring political points. This is why New Democrats have called for more investment in front-line police officers and youth gang prevention programs. Instead, the Conservatives have cut those programs across the country and fail to fund new police officers.
People in communities like mine and across the country are left wondering why they are going to pay for a failed prison agenda.
 I will be voting against the legislation. I ask members on the other side of the House to consider their communities, the people they are here to represent, and to vote against the bill. If I do not appeal to their sense of responsibility and perhaps compassion, then I hope to appeal to their logic or reasoning.
I can ask questions about the serious flaws in the bill. For example, Canada has more people in pretrial custody than actually serving sentences. These people are kept in provincial facilities, adding cost and burden to already overstressed court systems. Why is the government imposing more costs on the provinces without providing assistance to keep their systems afloat?
 Mandatory minimums which remove judicial discretion are counterproductive. They can actually lead to judges giving lesser sentences than they might otherwise because they have to rely solely on the legislation as their sentencing guide. In particular, for cases like sexual assault, why is the government removing judicial discretion?
The mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana is more than that prescribed for child sexual assault. How is that logical?
Currently one in five inmates has access to programs like anger management and substance abuse. The bill would lead to even more crowded prisons, straining already thin resources for programs. 
At the end of the day, 90% of inmates are going to be coming into our communities. They are going to be living in our neighbourhoods. We need programs that will help them to reintegrate into society so they do not reoffend and go through the revolving door about which the minister has talked. This is about public safety. How can the government put forward a bill that will mean even more offenders do not get the treatment they need?
Currently, the aboriginal population represents 2.8% of the entire population of Canada but account for 18% of the federal prison population. One out of every five prisoners in the federal system is aboriginal. How can the government bring forward legislation that will worsen this overrepresentation?
It is becoming very clear to me that there is no logical plea in this House that will ever elicit a rational response from the Conservatives because they do not want logic or facts to enter this debate, if we can call it that. Instead, they just want Canadians to be afraid so they will accept it when they pass such a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation like Bill C-10 into law, a bill that would paralyze our criminal justice system and crowd our prisons to the point that they will no longer have the capacity to rehabilitate prisoners who eventually will come back into communities.
There is another fact that Conservatives do not like to face. My community, like many communities across this country, has actual gang violence. We need more police on the streets. We have been urging the Conservatives to put more resources into long-term policing efforts by the communities. The FCM and a number of other organizations have been asking the government to fund more police officers on an ongoing basis. 
We need jails with the capacity to rehabilitate instead of just acting as factories for producing more gang members. We also need to end the cynical politics of fear. I want to see real changes to make this country a safer place in which to live. I want to see investment in crime prevention and in youth gang prevention that stops our kids from getting into gangs in the first place.
 I want our prisons to function so that criminals are actually rehabilitated and do not leave prison just to re-offend. I want more investment in front line officers. I want people to be less afraid and our communities to be safer places. I want a criminal justice system that prevents crime and thereby reduces the number of victims in this society. We need to invest in programs that prevent crime from happening in the first place.
 Instead, the Conservatives are ramming through a bill that would cost billions of dollars and a bill in which the experts warn that safety concerns have not been addressed. We must not let the Conservatives convince us that this bill would do anything to make our communities any safer. I do not believe it would. All the Conservatives want to do is make Canadians afraid.
I will continue to do my job, to stand up and question, to oppose and even make appeals to reason and logic, even though I know the Conservatives will ignore my questions, call me names and accuse me of being with the child pornographers. One would think that everything I have been describing is as low as it gets but, sadly, it is not. The worst part is that they know everything I am saying is true. They know that Bill C-10 would not make our communities safer but they do not care. They do not want to look at the facts.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, March 7, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-10 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: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 12, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Interjection]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that you see the clock at 1:30 p.m. 
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is there unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Purple Day Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-278, An Act respecting a day to increase public awareness about epilepsy, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): There being only one motion at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage. 
Geoff Regan:  moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): (Motion agreed to)
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed
Geoff Regan:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Speaker, how about that indeed. It does not happen around here every day to have unanimous agreement on something like this and to have it move so quickly. I must manage to speak today without bringing tears to my eyes. 
I thank members for their ongoing support of the bill. I look forward to marking Purple Day on March 26, even though the bill will not likely be law by then. However, I am hopeful that today we will see it pass the House and go off to the Senate. I hope it goes there very quickly. However, who knows how quickly this act to increase public awareness of epilepsy will in fact move. We will wait and see.
As I said at the health committee recently when the bill was heard there, I was delighted, surprised and even shocked how quickly, after passing second reading here, the health committee decided to hear the bill and consider it. I really appreciate the amendments that were brought forward at that committee to correct some issues with the French language side of the bill.
I am very pleased that amendments were proposed by the hon. members who suggested that some terms should be changed in the French version of the bill; for example, “maladies” should be changed to “conditions” and “pourpre” should be changed to “lavande”. That is the French word used in reference to epilepsy by the Canadian association for this disorder.
I was also very pleased to be in committee with witnesses who know much more about this subject than I do. There was Aurore Therrien, executive director of Épilepsie Montréal Métropolitain, and members of the Canadian Epilepsy Alliance.
 Mrs. Iris Elliott of the Epilepsy Association of Nova Scotia was there as was Ms. Sarah Ward, a medical student who has quite bit of knowledge and interest in this area and who has done a lot of volunteer work. I appreciated all of them being there. 
I am very grateful for the support that all members of House have shown for Bill C-278, the Purple Day bill.
I was also moved by the amazing and touching stories that my colleagues brought forth during second reading debate. I believe we have already had tremendous success in making Canadians aware of epilepsy and how it impacts the lives of thousands of Canadians through this process. It is a great example of how members from all parties can come together. People do not see that very often. They do not realize that it does happen more than they know. Members actually can, when question periods are over, often get along, get things done and make things move. Even in committee, we often have a great deal of co-operation. It is too bad more people do not see that we do come together and put partisan interests aside, as we are in this case, and push for a bill that has an impact on a policeman in Ottawa, a dad in Edmonton or a little girl in my riding of Halifax West.
 I think many members now know that in 2008, 9-year-old Cassidy Megan founded Purple Day for epilepsy and started a global trend. In fact, when she had her first epilepsy seizure at the age of 7, she was a bit embarrassed and concerned about the fact that other people around her did not know anything about epilepsy and why she was having this seizure or why she had it. Her classmates obviously would not know what to think of that. Therefore, when she was 9, she talked to her teacher about the idea of having a day for that at the school. It just so happened that the principal picked March 26, and that is the day that has now stuck and is the day that continues to be celebrated as Purple Day.
 I hope Cassidy is listening today. She would be pleased, as I am sure we all are, that Canada has been a leader in epilepsy awareness. I am pleased to hear, and I am sure members will all be pleased to hear, that other legislatures, such as the state of New Hampshire and many others around the globe, are following this with Purple Days of their own. I understand that Purple Day is now celebrated in more than 60 countries. How about that? I am sure we will hear more about that as that number continues to grow.
This is an opportunity to remind members and their staff who are often back in their offices around the Hill and are watching or listening to the proceedings that Purple Day this year will be on Monday, March 26, which is the Monday after the break week. I would suggest, just as a thought, that perhaps members' staff should consider putting a note on their calendars for two weeks from today, that would be the Friday of the break week, to remind their members to bring something, a tie, a blouse, whatever, something purple to wear on Monday, March 26. I am hopeful that little reminder will be heard by members and their staff.
I am very happy to be associated with this initiative. However, it is people like Cassidy herself, Aurore, Iris, Sarah and many others who really deserve the credit. Bill C-278 is a direct result of their commitment to this cause and their support of the bill. 
The bill is a pretty simple one, as members know. Bill C-278 would help to create public awareness about epilepsy and would officially designate March 26 as Purple Day in Canada. We will ask Canadians to wear purple clothing that day. It is not a legal holiday but it touches a lot of lives. I thank members for their support. 
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-278, which was introduced by the hon. member for Halifax West.
The bill seeks to establish March 26 as Purple Day in Canada, helping to raise awareness of epilepsy in Canada. On March 26, we can encourage people to wear the colour purple to show their support for people living with this disease.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but I want to remind him that we are in a period for five minutes for questions and comments before we proceed to the next intervention. It sounded like it might have been the hon. parliamentary secretary's presentation.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.
[Interjection]
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Halifax West. As he knows, as a young child I was quite clumsy. I had an injury which brought on epilepsy. I was one of the kids the member is trying to raise awareness of. He is trying to help Canadians understand the stigma. When people see someone with epilepsy having a seizure, they do not know what to do. There can be serious consequences for those of us who have suffered seizures. 
I wonder if the member could comment on some of the things that the different groups working with epilepsy are doing to help raise awareness in the communities. He brought forward some examples at committee. Could he comment further?
[Interjection]
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague asked this question. When he talks about being clumsy when he was young, I hope he does not talk to anyone who knew me when I was a kid. I was clumsy at times, perhaps more than I would like. However, I did not have the experience that he did with epilepsy. 
I am glad that there are epilepsy associations across the country. They are going into schools, they are finding ways to promote awareness about epilepsy through education and public awareness activities. A variety of measures are being taken at different events. There are fundraisers for Purple Day. The Epilepsy Association of Nova Scotia is having a dinner soon. These are all some of the small ways in which people can help to create awareness. 
We are doing our part and we must look for more ways to do our part. Members may know that there are little cards that list things to be aware of and what to do when someone has a seizure. I have these cards in my office that I will hand out on Purple Day.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, it is really a tribute to a grassroots effort that has gone global that we are here today unanimously supporting a bill. It certainly is a pleasure to be united in a non-partisan way. Cassidy Megan deserves a tremendous amount of credit. 
One of the ways in our technological age that we check the success of any project is to Google it. The first entry that pops up for Purple Day is the web page of this great organization. People watching at home can check it out and participate in celebrating Purple Day.
My question for the hon. member for Halifax West is what more can we do once we have passed the bill to ensure that we not only mark Purple Day and increase awareness of epilepsy, but take extra steps to make sure that people who are dealing with epilepsy are fully supported in their efforts to educate others?
[Interjection]
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague and former law school classmate on this point. We ought to be looking for opportunities. When people Google the words “Purple Day” and find more information, they will see the list of things to do when a person is having a seizure. This all helps to demystify epilepsy. It helps people understand this is a fairly common condition and to know what to do when this happens. This can make a positive difference in the lives of people who have this condition.
We can keep looking for ways to spread the word about this, not just when the bill passes, but on future occasions and especially on March 26 each year. I hope we can work to overcome the issue of drug shortages which is affecting many epilepsy patients.
Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague for the bill today. It truly is a great thing to see us all come together and support such an important issue.
In a former life, I ran group homes for developmentally handicapped adults. Many of these individuals had epilepsy. We saw over and over again that when someone was having a seizure, no one knew what to do. Everyone panicked. If we can have a bill like this and if we can carry the card in our wallets, it will encourage us as a society to step in and help where we can. 
The bill is one more step, one more tool in the toolbox, to ensure that individuals living with epilepsy across the country can live normal and fruitful lives.
[Interjection]
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have learned through this process is that, for example, when someone is having a seizure, people should not crowd around. Certainly one person could help by providing comfort and making sure the individual is on his or her side. Also, it does not help when the individual comes out of the seizure and sees a big crowd looking down at him or her, causing the individual to feel uncomfortable and embarrassed.
There are many other things on the card. I sent an email earlier today to one of my assistants to say that I gave my card away this week and I hope there is a bunch to give out on Purple Day, along with the ribbons I want to hand out that day for members to wear. The answer came back that there are 500 of those cards, so I expect to have one back in my wallet by the end of the day.
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Halifax West for bringing this bill forward. It is greatly appreciated. 
As has been mentioned, there is a lot of fear when a person has a seizure. I know that from my practice and I have witnessed it first-hand. It is extremely important that we are moving forward with this.
Could the member elaborate on what he thinks is the one thing we as members of Parliament should be doing to ensure that Canadians across the country understand epilepsy in a meaningful way and can make a difference in saving lives?
[Interjection]
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a doctor and certainly knows about this issue. 
Members may have a variety of answers to that excellent question. The first one that occurs to me is that if members wish, they could put in their householders, members' quarterly mail-outs, the information which is on the card. They could put that information in their householders so people would know what steps to follow when someone has a seizure. 
I hope to be able to make a member's statement on Purple Day to list some of the things and tell members about them. If members could put that information in their householders, it would be a big help. Members can find that information as well on the epilepsy association website, which should not be too hard to do. However, if members want to wait until they get the card, that is an option as well.
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I will start again.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-278, which was introduced by the hon. member for Halifax West.
This bill seeks to establish March 26 as Purple Day in Canada, helping to raise awareness of epilepsy. On March 26 we can encourage people to wear the colour purple to show their support for people living with this disease.
This is an idea that all of us can support.
It is an area in which we all play a role, whether it is through raising awareness, learning about the disease or working with government colleagues and stakeholders on important programs, activities and research. For my part today, I would like to take a few minutes to tell the House more about epilepsy and the federal government's role, including its initiatives, programs, research and support.
The government is committed to promoting and protecting the health of all Canadians. Those living with epilepsy face challenges on a daily basis: discrimination, stigma, and at times a lower quality of life. The incidence of epilepsy continues to increase with diagnosis now more common in children and older adults.
 There is no cure for epilepsy. The major form of treatment is long-term drug therapy, which bears its own side effects and costs every day for those suffering and their families. We now know that people living with epilepsy are often able to live normal, happy and full lives. Most go to school, make friends, date, have jobs and raise families. However, routine tasks and everyday life can still be very difficult. Whether it is coping with the negative stigma and reactions associated with unpredictable seizures or dealing with low self-esteem, self-confidence and depression, people living with epilepsy do not have an easy life, but by raising awareness of these kinds of facts, for example, what it is like to live with epilepsy, we can help affected Canadians reach their full potential.
There is much we do not know, but we do know that symptomatic epilepsy has known causes. Brain damage, head injuries, infections and tumours all contribute to this condition. Although not all of these issues can be prevented, precautions can be taken to lessen the chances of injury. This government is investing in efforts to raise awareness and shed light on this condition, including steps that can be taken to reduce risks and prevent injuries.
Before we get into the details, it is important to understand the terminology.
Epilepsy can be separated into two types: idiopathic epilepsy and symptomatic epilepsy. Idiopathic epilepsy accounts for 60% of cases. It cannot be prevented and its cause is unknown. Symptomatic epilepsy is caused by trauma to the brain, and steps can be taken to prevent it.
I would like to focus on the latter as it represents a key area in which all sectors of society can play a role. Why? For selfish reasons. I believe this is the cause of my own epilepsy, but also because injury prevention begins with all of us. 
According to the Canadian hospital injury reporting program, almost 50% of all injuries in children between the ages of 10 and 19 are play related. Additionally, 40% of all reports are attributed to injury through the participation in team sports such as hockey, baseball and soccer. Between 2000 and 2002, skull and brain injuries related to team sports made up almost 15% of all reported injuries, with almost 5% of these cases requiring hospitalization.
This government is committed to reducing that incidence. For example, $5 million has recently been allocated to address sport and recreational injuries among children and youth through the active and safe injury prevention initiative.
This initiative focuses on raising awareness of the importance of safety and precaution in sports and recreation activities while encouraging children and youth to be active.
As part of the active and safe initiative, in January 2010 the Government of Canada announced approximately $1.5 million in funding to address the prevention of brain injuries and concussions in hockey.
ThinkFirst Canada, in partnership with Hockey Canada, the Coaching Association of Canada and the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport also continue to make significant headway. 
Epilepsy Canada, founded in 1966, is a non-profit organization whose mission is to enhance the quality of life for persons affected by epilepsy. Through promotion and supportive research, education and awareness initiatives, this organization is building understanding and acceptance of epilepsy.
The Canadian Epilepsy Alliance is a Canada-wide network of grassroots organizations dedicated to the promotion of independence and quality of life for people with epilepsy and their families. It provides support services, information, advocacy and public awareness, and is working to make a difference for those living with epilepsy. 
Working together to develop shared resources, they have standardized protocols for the prevention of head injuries and activities that target sports organizations at all levels. This includes team sports participants, their coaches, trainers and parents.
In order to make its own programs work, the government relies heavily on research and surveillance. For this reason, $15 million has been allocated to the national population health study for neurological conditions to strengthen the knowledge and evidence base related to this condition.
Along with other neurological disorders, this study will examine the prevalence of symptomatic epilepsy and emerging risk factors, identifying trends in preventable injuries so that an appropriate response can be developed.
It is a suite of studies aiming to fill gaps in knowledge about individuals with neurological conditions, their families and their caregivers. The studies are administered by the Public Health Agency of Canada. They will provide key information to improve current knowledge about the incidence and prevalence of neurological conditions. 
Some will study risk factors for the development and for the progression of neurological conditions. Others will investigate the use of health services by patients with neurological conditions, identify gaps in those services and recommend improvements. Finally, they will assess the impact of neurological conditions on individuals, families, caregivers and communities.
In addition, the Government of Canada funds research into new treatments for epilepsy, notably through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR.
Since 2006, CIHR has invested more than $46 million in epilepsy research to deepen our knowledge of this disease. This research investigates how genetics affect the development and treatment of epilepsy. It examines how epilepsy affects development in children, and it attempts to develop interventions to benefit the quality of life and care for people living with epilepsy.
In addition, McGill University's Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital is examining the link between brain conditions and epilepsy. 
CIHR also provided funding for the brain connectivity workshop in June 2011. This workshop brought together leading Canadian and international experts on brain development, epilepsy and neuroscience. These are partnerships that will enhance our relations with Canadian scientists and researchers in Canada and will focus attention on important health concerns. The resulting research will help us to better understand epilepsy, its causes and possible interventions.
Research funded by CIHR will improve our understanding of this complex condition, our capacity to respond effectively, and the quality of life of those living with epilepsy. Improving our understanding of the disorder will facilitate the development of treatments and better drug therapy regimens for epilepsy.
The Government of Canada is committed to these goals. Regardless of the specific area, it is critical that we work together with all sectors of society. To be fully successful in preventing secondary epilepsy through the promotion of injury prevention, our efforts must be shared and be collaborative in nature. Encouraging and supporting the work of partners and stakeholders to address symptomatic epilepsy and its causes is one way we can do just that. For example, many municipalities across Canada are making it mandatory for children and beginners to wear a certified multi-impact helmet during public skating sessions.
By working with others and taking responsibility at all levels, we are better able to prevent serious head injury and reduce the potential for secondary epilepsy. However, governments and stakeholders cannot act alone in injury prevention. We all know well that the most effective strategy for reducing any injury is to take personal precautions. According to research, many head injuries are the result of improper playing techniques and can be prevented or reduced by teaching proper skills and enforcing safety-promoting rules.
Improved conditioning, particularly of the neck; protective head gear; and careful medical supervision also minimize the risk of head injury or trauma. By encouraging and supporting the use of proper safety equipment and training, we can all greatly reduce the risk of injury and, subsequently, consequences such as symptomatic epilepsy. 
By learning more about the impacts of epilepsy, we will gain reliable information on its effects on Canadians. Knowledge is power, and through that knowledge we can build awareness of this important disease.
Bill C-278 would be an important step forward toward raising awareness of epilepsy in Canada. It would be a clear sign of our support for those living with this challenging condition.
Fin Donnelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about epilepsy and to speak in support of Bill C-278. I also want to acknowledge the good work of my colleague, the member for Sudbury, in raising awareness about epilepsy.
Indeed, it is an honour for me to speak in the House today on this important issue. We have to bring epilepsy out into the open due to the stigma that surrounds it and the prejudice with which society has historically treated people with epilepsy. Many with this disorder are reluctant to admit it or to seek treatment.
Epilepsy is a serious neurological disorder that affects the brain and causes sudden changes in how the brain works. It presents itself in the form of seizures. 
We are all touched by epilepsy, whether of a family member, a co-worker, a friend or a neighbour. Epilepsy is a condition that affects thousands of Canadians. Every year in Canada an average of 15,500 people learn they have epilepsy. That is about 42 people each and every day who are diagnosed with epilepsy. About 60% of new patients are young children and senior citizens.
Those with loved ones suffering from epilepsy are all too familiar with the fear that surrounds this disease. They fear for their loved ones and the powerlessness that accompanies a seizure. They fear that they will be in the wrong place when a seizure occurs, that it will happen in the shower or when they are home alone.
 There are so many variables to this condition that we have no power to control. However, we are not powerless. The government has a role to play and the public has a role to play too. The government must do a better job of adequately funding medical research and ensuring that medication is readily available and affordable.
The public can also play a part by educating itself about epilepsy and how to identify a seizure. Each one of us can commit to helping someone in distress and taking action so that seizure-sufferers are cared for appropriately when they experience an episode and to notifying emergency services if necessary.
Unfortunately, even today, the general public does not know how to react to a person having a seizure. There are so many misconceptions about how to help a person who is having a seizure. For example, restraining a person during a seizure is the wrong action to take, yet many people do not know that. Also, nothing should be placed in the mouth of the person having a seizure. However, old myths persist and the public needs to made aware of the facts. It should be basic first aid. 
With so many Canadians living with epilepsy, awareness is the key. In my home province of British Columbia, the B.C. Epilepsy Society works to increase awareness of epilepsy and seizures by offering seizure awareness workshops, and distributing information materials for employers, community organizations, including school staff and students, child care providers, recreational leaders and community support workers.
I encourage all Canadians, and in particular the constituents of my riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam and Port Moody, to educate themselves about what to do when someone is having a seizure. It is as easy as contacting the B.C. Epilepsy Society to request their seizure first aid postcards, posters or wallet cards. This commitment to education and action will literally save lives.
March is Epilepsy Awareness Month, a time for Canadians to be reminded of the prevalence of this disease, how it affects those who live with it and their families, and what work remains to be done to support those who live with it and to support efforts to find a cure. March is also when Purple Day occurs. It is March 26. 
I would like to acknowledge a brave young woman named Cassidy Megan, who had the idea for the Purple Day for epilepsy campaign. She joined with the Epilepsy Association of Nova Scotia in 2009. The Purple Day for epilepsy campaign was launched internationally.
The Purple Day for epilepsy campaign has been so important in raising awareness about epilepsy. It has involved countless organizations, schools and celebrities from around the world. It has also engaged politicians, like us in this House.
 Cassidy wrote about her diagnosis in an open letter. She said:
 Educating people about epilepsy is so important because people need to know what to do if they see someone having a seizure and they need to know that there are different types of seizures and that they don’t have to be afraid of epilepsy or the people who have it. Education also helps people with epilepsy know they aren’t alone. 
The intent of the legislation before us in the House today is to increase public awareness about epilepsy. It proposes designating March 26 as Purple Day and it would encourage all Canadians to show their support for people with epilepsy by wearing the colour purple.
 I would like to reiterate my support for the bill and its commendable goal of increasing awareness of epilepsy. However, I would like to challenge my colleagues on both sides of the House to consider what we can do as parliamentarians to go beyond simply raising awareness. We know the importance of raising awareness of epilepsy among Canadians. It saves lives, breaks through stigmas and enables us to better understand the challenges faced by those living with this disorder. As parliamentarians, I believe we owe it to Canadians to consider what additional actions the federal government can take to improve the current and future situation of those living with epilepsy beyond encouraging Canadians to wear purple. 
As parliamentarians, we know there is a drug shortage in Canada, which also includes a shortage of medication to treat epilepsy. This past October, the Canadian Epilepsy Alliance warned that this drug shortage endangered the lives of those living with epilepsy. It is clear that the federal government can and must do more to address the critical issue of drug shortages in our country.
 It is the job of pharmaceutical companies to develop and market effective products that best serve the interests of their bottom lines, but it is not their job to ensure that all Canadians have access to the drugs prescribed by their health professionals, nor should it be. That is the responsibility of government, representatives democratically elected to serve the higher interests of the public good. Canadians are waiting for the Conservative government to step up to the plate. 
Today we are considering a bill to designate March 26 as a day to raise awareness of epilepsy. I fully support the bill. I imagine all my colleagues will do the same, but let us not be afraid to roll up our sleeves and get the hard work done of ensuring that Canadians have access to the drugs they need toward eradicating epilepsy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): There being no other members rising to debate the bill, I turn to the hon. member for Halifax West for his right of reply. The hon. member has five minutes. 
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of all members and their comments.
Earlier today I was in the lobby when one of the interpreters came by and said to me that I was not wearing a purple tie. Of course it is not Purple Day, but I pointed out that I did have some purple in my shirt. 
This highlights the fact that our interpreters, who do a wonderful job, do not just hear what we say and repeat it in another language, but they actually look ahead and see what is coming to ensure that they have the terminology ready and that they are on the ball at all times. It is an impressive thing and we must remember the work they do is very valuable. I know members would join me in appreciating the work of our interpreters.
I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, the member for Oshawa, for his words today and for sharing his experience with epilepsy when he was young and what it was like for him. 
I also appreciated the words from my hon. colleague for New Westminster—Coquitlam. I mentioned that I was hoping on March 26 to list some of the things that one should do when a person has a seizure. I am glad he did that today. That is very valuable. This effort is about raising the awareness and understanding of what epilepsy is and what to do when someone has a seizure.
One of the things that is important, as has been mentioned, is if a seizure goes on for more than five minutes, it is very important to call an ambulance because people can die from epileptic seizures. All of these bits of information are valuable and I hope we all continue to look for ways to make more Canadians aware of it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): (Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the last item and the vote that was just taken. Did you observe that the motion was adopted unanimously? That would be an appropriate observation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I thank the hon. member for Wascana for his intervention. Unfortunately I do not have the institutional knowledge to know whether the addition of “unanimously” is in order. It seems to me that there is unanimous consent to add that particular provision to the motion so let us do that. I declare the motion carried unanimously.
 Accordingly the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:57 p.m.)