2012-02-10

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.
Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak at second reading of the much awaited, much anticipated and much needed Bill C-11,  the copyright modernization act. 
Since this Parliament convened last autumn, the House has had a wide-ranging debate on this bill. In fact, the debate began even before this Parliament convened. Hon. members are aware that the provisions to modernize the Copyright Act and bring it in line with the demands of the digital age were introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-32. That bill died on the order paper, unfortunately, but not before it had gone through second reading and had been discussed thoroughly at committee.
Now we are in a new Parliament and some of the old discussion has been renewed. We have scrutinized many of the provisions of the bill. We look forward to referring it to committee.
From listening to the debates, I have concluded that everyone on both sides of the House agrees on several important points. The first is that we definitely need to modernize Canada's copyright laws. This is long overdue.
Compared to our trading partners, Canada is late in updating our copyright laws for the digital age. Members on both sides of the House have referred to Canada's obligations as a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization. We are among over 80 countries that have signed the 1996 WIPO treaties, but we have not yet implemented them. As a result, Canada's copyright law has simply not kept pace. This bill would bring Canada in line with our G8 partners and most of the major economies of the OECD.
That brings me to a second point made from both sides of the House during this debate. It is often amazing how much commonality we can find if we look for it among members on all sides. The second point is that we would not update our copyright laws simply because we want to keep abreast of our trading partners. We would also do it to send a clear message to artists and creators that we value their creativity and innovation. We want them to live here, to work here, to invest here, to create here. We want their contributions to help make our Canada a great place to work, live and raise a family.
Another theme we have heard during this debate is the importance of finding the right balance when modernizing the Copyright Act for the digital age. Anyone who is aware of this subject knows that copyright law has to balance a great many interests. On the one hand, consumers have a definite interest in being able to use different platforms and media to enjoy the products they have purchased. They want to be able to use art and music to enhance their own creative efforts, for example, by adding soundtracks to their home videos. Also, educators and researchers want to use material available online in order to promote learning and to advance knowledge, noble goals.
These interests must, on the other hand, be balanced with those of creators and artists who depend upon the financial rewards of their innovation. Creators have to be rewarded. They have a right to be rewarded for their ideas and efforts.
We must also encourage and reward those working in related creative industries. Ideas do not just simply spring into life and get distributed across the country on their own. In related creative industries from music and film to publishing and video gaming, all those people who invest heavily in creative products need to be compensated for their risks. Such stakeholders have a right to be rewarded for their investment. They have a right to protect themselves from those who want to take what they have helped create but not pay for it. In fact, if they cannot protect themselves in this fashion, they will lose motivation. 
There is the challenge: to achieve a balance between the ability of Canadians to access and enjoy new technologies and the rights of Canadian creators who contribute so much to our culture and economy.
On the one hand, the bill would equip businesses with the legal framework to protect their intellectual property. Companies could use digital locks as part of their business model and they would enjoy the protection of the law. However, at the same time the bill would legitimize the everyday activities of Canadians. It would make important exceptions for teachers and students to use new technologies to impart knowledge. The bill would encourage innovation and education by encouraging the use of leading-edge platforms and technologies by teachers and students across the country.
The bill would also provide fairness and balance in the penalties available to enforce the law. The current legislation does not discriminate between violations for commercial purposes and violations for personal use. The bill before us would create two categories of infringement to which statutory damages could apply: commercial and non-commercial.
Under the new bill, Canadians who are found in violation of the law for non-commercial purposes could be fined an amount ranging anywhere from only $100 up to $5,000.
On the other hand, the bill would give the courts sharp teeth when dealing with the infringement of copyright for commercial purposes. The courts then could impose fines up to $20,000 per infringement.
It is important that this message gets out across the country.
The bill before us seeks a careful balance between the interests of creators of copyrighted material and its consumers. Achieving this balance is not easy. Previous Parliaments have tried to find the right balance, but bills have died on the order paper instead.
We hope that this time will be different and we can move ahead with a bill that would be good for both creators and consumers. The bill benefits from the careful planning that went into Bill C-32. Hon. members will recall that before tabling that bill, the government consulted widely with individual Canadians, interest groups and associations. As a result, Bill C-11 before us benefits from the input and the advice of many different points of view.
Now, some hon. members may debate that the balance tips too far to one side. Others may debate that it should go in the other direction. The bill may not be perfect; however, it is very good. We must not let the perfect become the enemy of the good by preventing the bill from passing. I believe it has found the proper balance. I am looking forward to the bill proceeding to committee.
As I always do when I rise in this House, I urge hon. members to set aside their differences and to join me in meeting the common interests and aspirations of all Canadians. Let us get together and support the bill.
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we are about to wrap up debate on Bill C-11. This is the 15th time the government has limited the time allowed for debate. I find that worrisome with respect to the work the committee is getting ready to do on Bill C-11.
How can they talk about commonality? The member opposite says that he wants to protect artists, but 14,000 people—that is a lot of people—signed a petition. They took the time to go to a website to express their concern about Quebec culture and Canadian culture.
How does he reconcile those two things? He says he is protecting artists, but 14,000 people are worried. That is a lot of people.
[Interjection]
Stephen Woodworth: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.
I wish to remind him that, whether he or any individual likes it or not, our duty as members of Parliament is to represent 34 million Canadians. It is absolutely essential that we listen to the voices of every Canadian. However, at the end of the day it is our responsibility to ensure that the laws we pass are effective and work well for Canadians across the board and not only for any one particular group or interest.
I want to mention a few specific instances where it would be possible under this bill to break into digital locks, which I know concerns some of the people my colleague mentions. Those instances include law enforcement, national security activities, reverse engineering for software compatibility, security testing of systems, encryption research, personal information protection, temporary recordings made by broadcast undertakings, access for persons with perceptual disabilities and unlocking wireless devices. These are all examples that perhaps people in the public at large are not aware of but they are very important for this bill.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in regard to copyright and copyright reform, my colleague talks about achieving the perfect balance in this particular situation, or at least the best balance that can be achieved. In many cases, the balance he is looking for does not exist because we have the two extremes on either side. By way of illustration, people are allowed to download a piece of music. They can share it within whatever method they use to listen to music, whether iPod or MP3 and then onto a CD, for example. However at the same time, digitally locked material is not allowed to be tampered with. So even though they have the right to share it, they cannot. Which, in essence, gives the ultimate power over the laws of copyright to the private sector, and large corporations in that particular case. How do we address that? Does the member think that is the perfect balance that he talks about?
[Interjection]
Stephen Woodworth: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that this is a proper balance has to do with the laws of commerce. It is entirely appropriate for people who have put labour into a product to decide what price they want to be paid for the product. We do not confiscate labour in this country. Labourers are free to charge what they wish for their product, in accordance with market conditions.
So if a creator creates a product, that creator is entitled to say if the buyers want to share it with 10 people they will be charged $10 or and if they want to share it with 50 people they will be charged $50. If we prevent creators from having that freedom to charge as they wish, then all products would need to be charged at the highest possible rate. Prices for creative products would go up across the country. This way, we could allow creators to charge less for lesser use, more for greater use.
Mr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place for the second reading of Bill C-11, , the copyright modernization act, which would harmonize copyright law with current international standards and update marketplace framework laws to address new and emerging technological environments.
We need a common sense, balanced approach to copyright, one that is technologically neutral so that, as innovation continues to evolve, the Copyright Act would no longer be constrained by the way in which we respond to today's technological choices. The measure we introduce today in the bill must remain relevant to the technologies not only of today but the technologies of tomorrow. 
The Copyright Act was changed in 1988 and then again in 1997. Many of the technologies we enjoy today were not invented by then and many of the students who I used to teach, who enjoy these devices today, were not even born the last time the Copyright Act was changed. The current act does not respond to the opportunities and challenges provided by Web 2.0 and social media. It does not answer the needs of the multi-billion dollar industries of today that were in their infancy the last time Parliament amended the Copyright Act. For these reasons, we need to modernize Canada's copyright laws and bring them in line with the demands of the digital age.
 The Internet presents specific challenges to intellectual property. Each country approaches copyright and the Internet in a different way. As other countries have proceeded with copyright reform to bring their laws into line with the World Intellectual Property Organization's Internet treaties, we can see how important the rights and protections provided by these treaties can be.
In addressing copyright and the Internet, Canada has sought a real balance between the legitimate interests of the consumer and the creator while protecting the interests of the search engines and the Internet service providers. Bill C-11 would implement a notice and notice regime, which is a Canadian approach, supported by Canadian stakeholders, including the Internet service providers.
 Under this bill, when an Internet service provider has received a notice from a copyright owner that a subscriber has been infringing upon copyright, the ISP would be required to forward a notice to that subscriber. Additionally, the ISP would be required to retain a record of this notification, including the identity of the alleged infringer. This record could be used if court proceedings were to follow at some time in the future.
I suggest that this made in Canada approach to copyright protection would be much more effective than the notice and take-down approach that has been put in place in the United States of America. Notice and notice is a Canadian innovation in intellectual property law. So, too, is the introduction of a new civil liability explicitly targeting those who wilfully and knowingly enable online piracy. Internet service providers and search engines would be treated as true intermediaries under these provisions. However, together with measures to protect copyright holders from piracy in the digital marketplace, this bill would also provide measures that would enable businesses to work with copyrighted materials in the pursuit of innovation.
Under the current law, an innovative company can run afoul of the copyright laws if it makes copies of another product in order to pursue encryption research, reverse engineering or testing for compatibility or security. The bill would remove these restrictions, enabling innovative companies to appropriately use copyright material to develop new products and services.
I believe that we have achieved a balance in this bill that would enable Canada to move ahead in the digital economy. It would foster innovation among companies and protect the search engines and the ISPs that have become such valuable players in the digital society. The bill would enable us to take our place among nations that have modernized their copyright laws. It would create an environment in which creators can create and consumers can enjoy the fruits of those creations for generations to come.
Canada is late in acting upon its goal to bring copyright practices in line with the digital age. A decade and a half has passed since we were at the table to help craft WIPO's Internet treaties. In the meantime, our trading partners have moved ahead with their own intellectual property regimes. However, although we may be late in modernizing our laws, students who were born the last time Parliament reformed the Internet practices and copyright are now in high school. It has been a long time since we have done this. The bill before us represents an innovative made in Canada approach to enforcing copyright on the Internet and would provide the flexibility that innovative companies require to continue the research and development of new products.
The time has come to put these measures into action. We were delayed in implementing these provisions when the previous Bill C-32 died on the order paper in the last Parliament. The months that have passed since have underscored not only the importance of copyright protection but the importance of getting the regime right.
I believe Canada has found the right balance, a balance that will serve as a model for others. We need to move quickly to pass this bill so that creators and consumers can both benefit, and for the clarity and protection that this bill would provide. I urge hon. members to join me in supporting it as we send it to committee.
Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am not happy about the time allocation, which severely limits our debates and enables the government to ignore its obligations to the House. I would like to talk about the interests that this bill really protects: the interests of the powerful.
Yesterday, the Minister of Industry said that the Investment Canada Act should not be strengthened in a way that would hurt investors. The government is applying the same logic to Bill C-11. We are all being sacrificed to special interests, and we have no idea of the consequences of that.
I would like to ask the member how much this will cost taxpayers. If such powerful locks are instituted, the content owners who hold the rights and privileges associated with those locks will be able to do whatever they want price-wise and laugh all the way to the bank. What restrictions will be in place with respect to content distribution? How much will these access restrictions cost students and legitimate users who can currently use content for different purposes, including learning?
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, in return, I would ask the member across the way what the cost would be of not upgrading our copyright legislation after 15 years of not upgrading it.
When we talk to university teachers, public school teachers and student groups, they are in support of this legislation.
I will quote Paul Davidson, president of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, who said:
 This bill reflects a fair balance between the interests of creators and users of copyright works and is a positive step forward for university communities across Canada. 
The Council of Ministers of Education, all the ministers of education of every province in Canada, say that they:
 ...recognize that this federal copyright legislation will have significant implications for how the Internet is used by students and educators across Canada. 
This support is echoed by a thousand other organizations and associations that have come forward in support of copyright reform.
Fifteen years is a long time to wait for something when the Internet has provided such changes to our system of industry in this country.
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member did not understand the question, since he did not answer it at all, when actually, the question was about listening. Given the time allocation imposed on today's debate and the many others that have also been imposed, can anyone blame me for questioning the Conservatives' desire to engage in dialogue and really work with the other parties to improve the bills they introduce?
My question is rather simple. Can the member opposite give some examples of the concerns expressed by Canadians or the opposition party? This would show us that he really listened to those concerns and took them into consideration. He talked about the right balance, but clearly, many people do not agree. Did he really listen to their concerns? What are they and how did he deal with them?
[Interjection]
Scott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I will not stand here in the House of Commons and summarize the concerns of the opposition. I will talk about the concerns of the Canadian people, the people who actually need to use the Internet, the people who actually need to download information to do their jobs and the people who actually need to download information to pass a course in school.
The current regime we have regarding Internet protocols and copyright legislation is antiquated. Sections of the current bill that refer to education talk about flip charts and overhead projectors. This is so antiquated that it does not apply at all to modern education.
That is why the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations is in support of this bill. It states that “the government has demonstrated a commitment to...Canada’s education community”. It goes on to state that students across Canada are greatly encouraged. It goes on to state that “the federal government has a clear understanding of how this bill will impact Canada's students, educators and researchers”. 
On time allocation, this is the same bill that was debated for many hours in the last Parliament and all sides of the House at that time voted to send it to committee. Since we supported it and sent it to committee the last time, why would anyone want to delay sending it to committee again? We have waited 15 years and that is long enough.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-11. This is not the first time I have had to debate the issue of copyright.
Back in the 1990s, which dates me somewhat, because some people would say I am a veteran as I have been here for awhile, we dealt with copyright law. I think it was Bill C-32 at the time, although I would need to verify that. We were confronted then with the same things that Bill C-11 confronts us with now, which is the necessity for balance between the rights of consumers, of artists and of the creators of the material that is consumed, to put it crassly. Unfortunately, it seems to us that we are not striking that balance right now.
There is no denying that there are some good things in the bill and that there is strong support for it in certain quarters. However, the reality is that it is the same bill that was before the House in the previous Parliament. A number of people who came before committee at that time indicated a desire for changes. We thought there was substantive progress in terms of where we could effect some change to strike a better balance within the bill and yet we are now confronted with the same bill without any changes whatsoever.
Perhaps the most popular provision of the bill is the one that would allow Canadians to transfer the material they bought from one platform to another. In layman's terms, it means that when people by a CD they can transfer it onto their iPod or computer as a backup and not be faced with criminal charges. That is appropriate because I would suspect that in this day and age that is what most people do. People transfer their music to their computer so that they can transfer it to their iPod and manipulate it to have playlists and whatnot. Personally, I think it is quite appropriate that Canadians who are paying for copyrighted material should be able to use it on their own platform, but not for the purposes of transferring it to friends, selling it or whatever. The bill recognizes that, as it should, and, therefore, we would be tempted to support the bill on that basis alone.
However, out comes the digital lock. The way it came about is, to say the least, very troubling. We now have good evidence that this is as a result of pressure from our neighbours to the south. We even had evidence that two government ministers had asked the United States' authorities to put Canada on the list of piracy to put greater pressure on parliamentarians to adopt the bill back then and to justify the existence of the digital lock. That adds a major sticking point and one that causes great imbalance. If we give anyone the right to prevent owners of copyrighted material to use it for their personal pleasure and benefit, we give that right away to large corporations because they put a digital lock on works that have been purchased and paid for legitimately. It skews the bill entirely and destroys whatever balance might be there. On that basis alone, it causes a great deal of difficulty. 
There are other difficulties. We might be going a little too far with the exceptions on education. We have heard a number of artistic groups say that they were concerned and worried about that.
We thought that the amendments that were introduced might perhaps be woven into the Bill C-11 edition of the bill but that seems not to be the case. Therefore, we have another imbalance that has been created here that we had hoped would have been addressed but has not been.
I will tell the House a bit about what happened back in the nineties with that bill and why I would be opposed to it now.
I was on the government side. We had the bill before us. We had over 50 witnesses come forward. It was obvious that this chasm, which we are seeing again, was prevalent then between the distributors and the creators of copyrighted material. We were rapidly going into a logjam. I became very sympathetic to the plight of the artistic creators, those who were creating this material, because, without them, the entire industry would not exist. We need to protect the rights of the artists in our country.
To break the logjam that seemed to be coming, I introduced from the government side, imagine that, four amendments to my government's legislation. It did not sit well with everyone, and I recognize that, but the four amendments were actually carried at committee and became part of the bill.
One of the amendments was to change the definition which ever so slightly tilted the legislation at that point in favour of the creators. It was to define what a reasonable effort to find the owner of the copyright would be. In the first definition, it was that one went to one or two stores to find the owner of the copyright. That would be very easy to do, but not really fruitful in terms of a real search of who owned the copyright. 
I introduced the motion that a reasonable effort to identify and find the owner of the copyright would be to refer to a collective. A collective, of course, is the creation of artists and artistic communities to defend their rights, to defend their copyright. By the way, I know it has been said and I will repeat it, copyright is not the right to copy. Unfortunately, too many people see it that way.
To defend the rights of the copyright, the right of the owner, the creator, we said that a reasonable effort would be to go to the collectives that represent that group of artists. That definition was accepted. It is in the law now and it is what protects.
I am saying this as an example that at the time we had a committee that could and would change the government's legislation, even amendments coming from the government side. I do not think we will see much of that in this Parliament, unfortunately. If I thought we could see some of the government members willing to put amendments forward, say, to get rid of the digital locks, then I might be tempted to support sending the bill to committee so that we could see the constructive work of committees at play, but we are not likely to see that.
My experience, unfortunately, in this Parliament is that the government's majority shuts down anything coming from the opposition side. We have seen it with Bill C-10, so much so that now with Bill C-10, the Senate has had to correct the lack of appropriate dealing with bills in this House.
 I have seen it in my own committee where every constructive suggestion coming from either the NDP or the Liberals is automatically shut down. Not seeing any willingness on the government side to be constructive in terms of real work at committee stage, I am reluctant to support sending the bill to committee, because there is this digital lock and there are other provisions. 
The bill eliminates ephemeral rights, an important source of income for artists. Given this government's obstinacy, we have no choice but to challenge it.
I will give another example which is a little bit off topic, but I think you will see the relevance, Mr. Speaker. 
In the Liberal minority government, we introduced a notion that we would refer bills to committee before second reading so that committees had a chance to work at the bill constructively. The government always had the ability to stop anything that came forward that was way out of line by just not going any further with the legislation.
Two-thirds of our legislation was referred to committee before second reading. It gave the opposition side of the House, at the time the Reform Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, a chance to really exercise their craft as legislators positively and constructively. It worked, and by and large, it worked well. Parliamentarians did their job properly. The committee engaged in real work. The witnesses knew they could come to committee and offer constructive suggestions, positive amendments, and that they would be considered.
The Conservative government never does that, not even when it was in a minority situation. Therefore, given all of that, we cannot help but vote against the bill.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member on his speech. In light of the major change that took place in the last election, I would like to ask him if he believes that Quebeckers have had the opportunity to have their say regarding this bill.
[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, whether Quebec has had a chance to have its say is a good question. All Canadians have the right to express themselves in this country. Fortunately, the Conservatives have not managed to take that right away from us.
To express oneself is one thing, but to have an impact is another. Unfortunately, in this Parliament, the views of the parliamentarians, the public, the media and the world do not seem to have any impact on this government.
We are reduced to having to assert our opinion right out of the gate because, clearly, nothing constructive seems to come out of the work of the committees.
We have to speak out at second reading and say that we are against the bill in principle. We used to be able to say that we were not comfortable with the principle, but were hopeful that something constructive could be done in committee. That is no longer the case, so we vote against.
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments about Bill C-11, the attempt on the government's part to update our copyright legislation. I know my colleague has been in this place many years and was part of the government for 13 years. The Liberals had a majority government but really made no significant changes to update our copyright legislation. Maybe, as part of that government, he could explain some of the challenges and why no significant changes were made to the copyright legislation and why it is still stuck in the latter part of the 20th century.
[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, obviously my colleague was not listening. I just finished talking about how we did substantially amend the copyright legislation in the late 1990s. Significant changes were made. New rights were introduced. New levies were introduced. I remember at the time those in the commercial radio community were saying it was the end of them, that they could not do it, that those were neighbouring rights which were being introduced. However, from then on commercial radio in our country has never done better. 
The answer is we did as a government introduce legislation. It was passed. It was amended in committee, incidentally, to be more constructive and more balanced. My colleague is wrong. We did as a government at the time do what we needed to do in a balanced manner, in respect of Parliament, parliamentarians and those who testified before our committee.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech. He mentioned, among other things, that no changes had been made to the bill in committee, which is not really surprising. We are dealing with yet another time allocation. This is a fine example of the government's failure to listen. 
Earlier, I asked the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley to name a single concern of Canadians with regard to Bill C-11, but he was unable to do so. He could not name a single suggestion that had been made in committee to improve this bill.
Perhaps my colleague was listening a bit better. Could he provide some examples of suggestions that were made to improve this bill, in order to illustrate that the committee members worked together and listened to experts and the public?
[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, one of the main reasons we are at an impasse is the issue of digital locks. Some very constructive suggestions were made that would deny large companies the right to install digital locks, a right that would effectively override consumers' rights and not enhance protection for the artistic community. That is one of the elements that we wanted to change.
Another suggestion was to establish a fund to offset the artistic community's reduced earnings because of the elimination of certain rights.
We thought these were very constructive amendments. They were suggested and supported by many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. We hoped that the government would listen and make some changes to its bill, but nothing changed. They were not interested and were not swayed by the witnesses, which leads us to believe that they will not be paying any more attention this time around.
Mr. Peter Braid (Kitchener—Waterloo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today in the second reading debate on Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. 
Canada's Copyright Act applies in both digital and non-digital environments. The rapid evolution of digital technologies and the Internet has revolutionized the way Canadians produce, reproduce and disseminate copyrighted works. We need to bring the act in line with today's needs. We need to make it flexible and forward looking enough to respond to tomorrow's changes and challenges.
Clear copyright rules support creativity and innovation and underpin economic growth and jobs. In the digital age it is becoming increasingly vital to ensure that our laws can adapt to future technologies and balance the demands of both creators and consumers. The bill before us delivers that balance.
 On the one hand, the bill would ensure that the Copyright Act would foster innovation, attract investment and create high-paying jobs in communities like mine in Kitchener—Waterloo and across the country. At the same time, it recognizes that consumers are a key component in copyright, and grants exceptions to copyright where important public interest objectives must be served. 
Just as important, the bill before us puts measures in place that would help our copyright laws keep pace with technological change and its impact on intellectual property. The amendments in the bill are technologically neutral. They are intended to be flexible and adaptable to new developments. They would continue to offer the appropriate protections to both users and creators.
The list of industries and groups that depend on copyright is long, and includes authors, performers, producers, the software and video game industry, photographers, visual artists and publishers. They contribute significantly to economic activity in our country and they support this bill. 
Here are a few things that have been said by the Entertainment Software Association of Canada:
 The government is fulfilling a promise to modernize an outdated law and support the development of new and innovative...business models....this legislation will help provide a framework...and allow creators and companies to distribute their works in the manner that best suits them. We strongly support the principles underlying this bill.... 
That support is important because it speaks to the economic strength of this sector and why it needs a modern, flexible, legal framework. For example, in 2007, copyright industries in Canada contributed some $50 billion to Canada's GDP. That is 4.7% of our GDP. They employ over 900,000 people. That is nearly one million Canadian jobs that rely on strong and fair copyright laws to reward them for their creativity and innovation.
Every day of delaying tactics by the opposition represents another day where those almost one million jobs, that $50 billion contribution to our country's GDP, and those creative communities are left without modern legal protection.
At the same time, many sectors of the economy benefit significantly from exceptions to copyright through such measures as fair dealing. These include the educational and library community that use copyright material in support of education, training and developing the skills of tomorrow's leaders. 
Education in the future will increasingly incorporate publicly available material on the Internet for purposes of teaching and education. It will build on lessons that are enhanced by the latest technologies. It will rely on course materials and library loans that are delivered in a digital manner.
The users also include researchers and innovators in the information and communications technology sector. They are concerned about protecting their own intellectual property, but at the same time they benefit from making reproductions of copyrighted materials for their own research and the development of new products. Accordingly, we can see that users of copyright are increasingly creators of copyright and vice versa. 
A modernized Copyright Act must take into account everyone's needs and reflect a balance in the public interest.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House the provisions of the bill that would give business the tools it needs to take risks, invest, and roll out cutting-edge business models. That is what all of us want. In these ways the bill is part of this government's long-standing commitment to productivity and innovation.
Innovation builds on existing ideas to solve new problems. Intellectual property laws, including copyright, play an important role in providing an incentive to create. However, copyright can also be a barrier to the development of innovative products and services. Let me give the House an example. In the 1970s when the VCR was created, it was challenged by copyright owners in the United States as a device that could potentially be used for copyright infringement. The U.S. courts ultimately ruled in favour of the new technology, paving the way for future technologies like the personal video recorder. Today, DVD sales are a major source of income for copyright owners.
We want to encourage innovation. We want to eliminate some of the uncertainty that innovative businesses face when it comes to copyright issues.
Some of the provisions in this legislation are aimed in particular at the information and communications technology industries. The bill would allow, for example, third-party software companies to undertake reverse engineering for interoperability, security testing and encryption research. As a result, for example, companies could test software for security flaws and then develop and sell patches. These companies could develop new products and software solutions, even if they needed to circumvent digital locks to do so.
The bill also clarifies that there are no copyright implications for reproductions made as part of a technical process, such as to enable content to be viewed on a smart phone like the BlackBerry. This is all part of ensuring that Canada's copyright law is technology-neutral and can adapt to new technologies.
The bill also supports innovation by creating a safe environment in which to roll out new business models. 
It would protect against piracy by targeting those who promote and profit from copyright infringement. The bill would prohibit the sale or import of tools or services to enable hacking of access or copy controls. The bill focuses on those who engage in this illegal activity for profit, while it lightens the penalty regime for those who have infringed copyright for non-commercial purposes.
This element of this legislation has strong support. Let me read some remarks by Caroline Czajko, the chair of the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network, who says they are pleased that the government is getting tough on IP crimes:
 Piracy is a massive problem in Canada which has a tangible economic impact on government revenue, legitimate retailers, and consumers. 
Bill C-11 would also add to the exceptions allowed for those who would use copyrighted material for certain acceptable purposes. Parody, satire and education are added to the category of fair dealing, a long-standing feature of Canada's copyright law.
I hope we can move ahead quickly with these amendments to the Copyright Act update. I think we can all agree that there has been enough debate in this place and in the public domain. It is time to move this forward. It is time for a special committee to continue the work we started in the last session of Parliament. By encouraging business innovation and the creation of digital content, these amendments are key components of that strategy, and we need to get them into law.
I encourage all hon. members to join me in voting for the bill.
Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member pointed out a list of people supporting the bill in its current form. Each time I have heard that list, the only people who have been drawn upon are from the video gaming industry.
As an artist for 30 years, I have known full well, from following the bill since its incarnation as Bill C-32, that the vast majority of the artistic community does not support the bill. Artists do not support the bill because it would take away their remuneration and rights. The bill would basically usurp the rights of the creators.
I would like the hon. member, if he would, to answer the question why or what proof he has that the majority of artists support the bill. In addition, I would hope that he would not think this is a delaying tactic, because a considerable number of Canadians do not support the bill. I think it is only right to debate it until we can find that balance and consensus.
[Interjection]
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a very long list of groups and stakeholders that support Bill C-11 and supported Bill C-32 in the last session of Parliament, including artists and creators.
I spoke in my comments about the entertainment software industry. Let me go on, as the hon. member wishes to hear the full list. 
Our bill is supported by 400 film, television and interactive media companies across Canada; 150 chief executives across Canada; 38 multinational software companies; 300 Canadian businesses, associations and boards of trade; and 25 university student associations across Canada.
Let me quote a great Canadian musician Loreena McKennitt. She said that the changes proposed in the bill are “fair and reasonable” and that “By fair, I mean establishing rules that ensure artists...are paid for their work.... By reasonable, I mean rules that allow consumers to fully enjoy music...that people like me produce.” 
I want Canadian artists--
The Speaker: Order, please. I will have to stop the member there, to allow another question.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 has been a very controversial bill. Unfortunately, we have seen the government put in time allocation to limit debate. The member made reference to the fact that we are trying to stall debate. The Liberal Party has said that it has a number of concerns and wants to deal with these through debate and has suggested that eight of its members would speak on this particular bill. Yet, the government has said those are too many people, unfortunately.
We need to recognize there are widely varying opinions about Bill C-11 and that the government has done a disservice to this chamber by preventing adequate debate on this particular bill as it passes through the House. Let us not try to give the impression that the bill has been debated for hours and hours since it was introduced for second reading this time around.
My question for the member is, does he not acknowledge the need to at least allow political parties a few hours of debate prior to the bill actually being passed? If we have waited so long, what is the great hurry and why does debate on the bill--
The Speaker: Order, please. I will have to stop the member there because there is only a minute left, and I will return the floor back to the member for Kitchener—Waterloo.
[Interjection]
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am astounded by the hypocrisy of the question. We are debating Bill C-11. Currently, we have hours allocated for just that. There will be almost 75 speeches. Bill C-11 is exactly the same bill as Bill C-32.
I was on the special legislative committee in the last session of Parliament. On the government side, we wanted to sit day and night to get the bill passed. The opposition members, all of them, sat on their hands and twiddled their thumbs. They wanted to have nothing to do with moving the bill forward. Finally, we have the opportunity to move the bill forward to support innovation and creativity in this country. I look forward to getting that done.

Statements By Members
PensionsMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the current path of our nation's old age security program is unsustainable. We have all seen the figures. With our aging population, the cost of the program will increase from $36 billion in 2010 to $108 billion in 2030. As a recently released Macdonald-Laurier Institute report states:
 Canada will either proactively implement solutions to this coming problem or react, probably in crisis, when the full weight of the costs of an aging society fully confront our society. 
Canadians like my parents, Ernie and Mary Zimmer, who are currently receiving old age security, or those who are close to retirement age, will not be affected by our long-term sustainability planning. We will also ensure that those who will be affected, meaning those not yet near retirement, will have plenty of time to plan for their future.
Our government will do what nearly every other advanced country has done. We will ensure that my generation and all future generations have a sustainable public pension system.
DiabetesMr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a week ago a lovely kid called Michael came to see me for some pins and a flag, because he is off to Italy in March. Michael, just 11, has been scouted by the Italian soccer club Roma and invited to try out for its boys club. Michael is a modest kid with a competitive glint in his eye. I know he will do us all and, most importantly, himself proud.
However, Michael also came to see me for another reason. He has type 1 diabetes. He came to ask me to urge the government to continue its funding partnership with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. That partnership, just created in 2009, is already making new technologies and treatments available to Canadians like Michael. This partnership ensures that kids like Michael get an opportunity to choose the talents they want to pursue and to realize their dreams. Canada has a long, storied history in diabetes research and treatment. Let us not stop it now.
Finally, I ask the House to join me in wishing Michael good luck in Italy.
Canada-China RelationsMs. Eve Adams (Mississauga—Brampton South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister is leading a successful mission to China, promoting Canada's interests. This visit will deepen trade and economic ties between our two countries and set the foundation for long-term economic growth in Canada. Under our government, Canada's exports to China have increased by 85%. Thanks to our government's securing approved destination status last year, the number of Chinese tourists coming to Canada this year has increased by 25%. These are real dollars coming into Canada and keeping Canadians working.
Our two nations have agreed to jointly fund science, technology and innovation research in human vaccines and clean transportation. We will also strengthen our ties in the areas of energy, natural resources, agriculture, science and technology and education, as a new strategic priority.
 We look forward to continuing to strengthen our strategic partnership with China and maintaining a frank and respectful—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
Child SoldiersHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, February 12 commemorates the day on which the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict entered into force as international law. Hundreds of thousands of children have been robbed of their childhood, killed, maimed, raped, drugged and otherwise abused and forced to do the same to their families and communities while under the direction of adult combatants. Soldiering is not a career option for a seven-year-old who is barely taller than his gun. In spite of international law, this tragedy continues to unfold in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burma, Sudan and others. 
As we mark the International Day Against the Use of Child Soldiers, let us commit to ending the use of children in armed conflict and criminal activities and let our actions speak louder than our words. Our friend and colleague, Senator Roméo Dallaire, has worked tirelessly on this issue. He has been a world leader in the fight against the use of child soldiers. In partnership with Dalhousie University, he has led research on failing states, as well as conducted training for military police—
The Speaker: Order, please. the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
Foreign InvestmentMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's energy sector is on a roll. Hundreds of millions of dollars of investment is flowing into Canadian energy development. The result is hundreds of thousands of jobs across our country.
 In the past, we have put our energy eggs into one basket and have exported virtually all of our products to one market. That is no longer good enough. Our energy is as valuable as any in the world and it needs to be priced at world prices. That is why we are focusing on diversifying our export markets. We need new markets around the world. 
Let us be smart when we do this. The countries we deal with must be responsible members of the international community, showing a commitment to freedom, human rights and democratic ideals. Foreign corporate entities must operate under the same guidelines as everyone else, getting what they are prepared to give. State-owned enterprises need to be scrutinized. Who controls them? Do they function according to world trade and financial market principles? Are they financially accountable and transparent?
 We do not need to be granting special treatment to any entity or country in order to get its investment dollars. We are world class, let the world come to us.
The EconomyMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government is a one-trick pony when it comes to economic policy because, instead of presenting a comprehensive job creation plan, the Conservatives continue to sit idly by making faulty economic comparisons with other countries and claiming that tax cuts create jobs.
The reality is that corporate tax cuts do not increase productivity. We watch as executives take the cuts, award themselves bigger bonuses, shut down operations in Canada and move them elsewhere. Public sector cuts do not make any more economic sense. More than 60,000 jobs economy-wide are jeopardized by the public sector cuts made over the last few years.
New Democrats believe that any job creation worth its salt must include public sector investment, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada agrees, but the Conservatives are ignoring his advice because it inconveniently contradicts them. 
It is clear that the economic policies of the anti-science, anti-worker, Conservative government are bad for Halifax, bad for Nova Scotia and bad for Canada, and we demand better.
Canadian Punjabi CommunityMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada notes that state elections are taking place in India, the world's largest democracy. With a Punjabi background, I note with great satisfaction the massive turnout of over 77% in the State of Punjab.
Punjabis, both of Hindu and Sikh religion, exercised their democratic right to chart their own destiny. 
Here in Canada, the Punjabi community, again made up of Hindus and Sikhs, plays a vital role in our country's destiny. I am very happy to be a member of that community as are my colleagues in the House of Commons. 
However, there are certain groups that would like to create discord among these communities. To them, there is a clear message coming from communities all over the world: ”Stop it, let us move on toward addressing the issues that are of far more importance, like prosperity in this country”.
The EconomyMr. Robert Goguen (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it was only back in 1995 when The Wall Street Journal called this great nation “an honorary member of the Third World” and ridiculed our currency.
This week, the same newspaper praised Canada:
 ...as a favored destination for investors seeking refuge from the turmoil sweeping the euro zone and the continuing uncertainty over the U.S. fiscal position. The country now is the world's third-biggest issuer of sovereign debt to be rated triple-A by all three major credit-ratings.... 
Our fiscal position was described as “sterling” and our Conservative government's economic leadership was praised.
I am pleased that the international community will be able to read these words about our country. Despite the financial problems in Europe and other parts of the world, we remain steadfast in our commitment to focus on Canadians' priorities: jobs and economic growth.
Community OrganizationsLysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, here is a surprising statistic: one-quarter of the people who live on Montreal's West Island have, at some point, requested help from a community organization. In Pierrefonds—Dollard, community organizations provide a variety of important services. The Comité d'aide Cloverdale provides affordable meals to children; the Family Resource Center helps courageous students to overcome academic difficulties; VON Montreal provides palliative home care. If I could, I would name them all. Although all of these organizations have different missions, they all face the common threat of unstable and insufficient funding.
That is why the work of the West Island Community Shares is essential for the community. It has a mandate to raise funds which are then distributed to local community organizations in the West Island. Just two weeks ago, Community Shares collected $140,000 at its red and white event. 
I am proud to say that in the West Island we are all in solidarity. I thank the West Island Community Shares for organizing the event and I thank everyone who donated. This is--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.
Forestry IndustryMr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to helping the Canadian forestry industry to diversify and succeed in priority markets around the world. With Canadian lumber exports to China at a record high, our efforts are paying off, creating jobs and economic opportunities for Canadians.
Canadian wood exports to China grew to $835 million in 2010, up 119% from 2009. During the first 11 months of 2011, wood products were Canada's third largest export to China, totalling $1.36 billion and expected to exceed $1.5 billion in 2011.
Eighteen Canadian mills have reopened and have dedicated part of their production to servicing the Chinese market. 
While we are focused on growing Canada's economy and creating jobs with our pro-trade plan, the NDP continues to promote its anti-trade agenda that will kill jobs. The NDP's reckless and irresponsible anti-trade agenda is a danger to the Canadian economy and Canadian jobs.
Community OrganizationsPierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 30, an organization known as Le Fablier, une histoire de familles, officially opened its new premises on Chemin de Chambly in Longueuil. Every day, the dynamic team at Le Fablier welcomes families and organizes various public education activities to prevent poverty and promote literacy. In Quebec, 1.3 million people over the age of 16 have difficulty reading and writing. 
Day after day, Le Fablier carries out its mission on a shoestring budget. That is the case for most of the community organizations in my riding, yet I cannot imagine what our society would be like without these courageous and noble organizations. Federal subsidy programs are inadequate or laden with red tape, and offer no guarantees of future funding.
It is time to stabilize funding for all of these valiant organizations that are key to making good things happen in our society. At the end of every fiscal year, the organizations' clientele and staff find themselves in the same boat: vulnerable to the government's whims. Keeping these organizations guessing from year to year not only interferes with their ability to carry out their missions but is also very disrespectful to them.
Canada-China RelationsMr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government remains focused on jobs and economic growth. Our efforts toward improving international ties are no exception. 
The Prime Minister's visit to China this week is just one example of Canada's successful efforts to improve and diversify trade linkages around the world. 
Be it in forestry, tourism, education, energy or agriculture, our joint initiatives are rapidly increasing commercial, cultural and scholastic ties between our two countries. Canadian families, business and communities will see the economic benefits of these agreements. Our economic relations with China will benefit Canadian communities, large and small. 
As China continues to grow in significance as one of our trading partners, I am sure we will see more and more benefits from our government's efforts to strengthen economic ties in Asia.
HockeyHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Globe and Mail journalist, Jane Taber, wrote a story last fall about the financial challenges faced by a community museum in Windsor, Nova Scotia. The article in the Hockey Heritage Museum caught the attention of some significant hockey enthusiasts and sparked an idea to launch a celebration of the game on Long Pond on the Dill Family Farm in Windsor, Nova Scotia where the sport was born.
The inaugural Long Pond Hockey Heritage Classic takes place tomorrow and I want to salute the volunteers who have tirelessly persevered to preserve the origins of our national game in its birthplace. Over 200 years ago, the first game was played on Long Pond and this weekend's hockey's home ice will once again witness a passionate celebration of our favourite winter sport.
I send my best wishes for a successful event and best wishes for the ongoing success of the Hockey Heritage Museum in Windsor, the birthplace of hockey.
Firearms RegistryMr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all, and that is exactly what we are doing. 
However, we are not the only ones who promised this. Many NDP MPs from rural Canada told their voters that they would scrap the registry as well. The member for Western Arctic even stood at an all candidates debate last May and said, “Vote for me or vote for the Conservatives. It's all the same. We'll both end the registry”.
However, guess what? Unfortunately, that individual has decided that he will stand up for the NDP big union bosses rather than for his constituents, saying that he wants the registry but he does not want the records. That is just silly. 
I call on the member for Western Arctic to live up to his promises to the good people of the Northwest Territories and vote in the House to scrap the long gun registry once and for all.
National DefenceMr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the F-35 procurement process has had so many problems that the Associate Minister of National Defence does not even know how to defend it anymore. Yesterday he said that all acquisitions and procurements currently under way for the Canadian Forces are “holy and decent”. Those were his exact words.
Would the minister have us believe that the F-35s—the fighter jets that seem to have one new problem after another, including safety issues, skyrocketing costs and delivery delays—are a gift from above? How pitiful.
It has become clear that all of the countries that were considering purchasing the F-35 are backing off. Canada is the only one continuing its crusade towards this reckless, irresponsible expenditure.
The government is completely incapable of managing this file and is now hoping for a miracle from up above, instead of coming up with a plan B. There is no evidence that this is the right plan. We must launch a competitive bidding process. 
Fred DicksonScott Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sorrow in my heart to say goodbye to a good friend, Senator Fred Dickson, who passed away early yesterday morning.
[Member spoke in Scottish Gaelic as follows: ]
 Cha bhithidh a leithid ami riamh. 
[English]
His equal will not be among us again.
Fred was a key negotiator in the offshore agreement between Nova Scotia and the federal Government of Canada in the 1980s, an agreement which led to a huge success for the future of our province.
As a senator, he was dedicated to ensuring that future generations of Canadians could have a health care system that was strong and one they could count on.
His passion was for his family; his wife, Kay; his sons, Colin and Ian; his daughter, Kathryn; and his grandchildren.
Fred, my friend, 
 May the road rise up to meet you, 
 May the wind be always at your back. 
 May the sun shine warm upon your face, 
 and rains fall soft upon your fields. 
 And until we meet again, 
 May God hold you in the palm of His hand. 
Goodbye my friend. God bless you, Fred.

Oral Questions
PensionsMr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week, the Conservatives were incredibly transparent with Canadians about the government's priorities when they reopened the abortion debate, condoned torture and fired warning shots into the air. They even made despicable references to the Nazis in their national discourse.
Nevertheless, there is one thing they refuse to be transparent about: does the government plan to raise the age of retirement from 65 to 67 or not?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not appreciate what the priorities of this government are. The priorities of this government are jobs, economic growth and the financial well-being of Canadians. Those are our priorities. That is what we are working for every day. 
That is in fact why we are committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the old age security system for the future. It also includes ensuring that those who are receiving old age security today and those who expect to receive it in the years ahead will be assured that they will receive it. We also have to ensure, having looked at the demographic realities, that we have a system there to also serve generations to come, in the decades to come. That is our priority.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer. They simply refuse to be honest with Canadians. Our seniors worked hard their entire lives in order to leave their children with a better country. Now, under the Conservatives, they are learning that for the first time, their children will live in tougher conditions than they did. It is unacceptable and avoidable.
Those families need to know: will the government increase the age of retirement or not?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the actual risk to Canadians is if we had the kind of forward-looking policies of the NDP, those that simply ignore the future, ignore the realities, they would, if followed, result in future generations not having any old age security. 
Our approach is to ensure that there is long-term sustainability, that there is a system there to ensure that those who reach their retirement 20, 30 or 40 years from now can count on old age security for the future. This is our priority. This is what we are doing. That is why we are having the discussion we are having now on how we can ensure old age security is there for those who are receiving it today and tomorrow.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, there seem to be a few facts missing in that answer. The government is unravelling in front of our eyes. It promised families it would not touch OAS. Now it is doing just that. It said it was unsustainable. Now the independent PBO has shown that it is. The government members attacked the Liberals' secret plan to raise OAS eligibility from 65 to 67 years, but they have become everything they used to oppose. 
In the name of all things holy and decent, I ask the government to give seniors and families an answer. What is going to happen to OAS?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, thanks to our government, old age security will be there today, tomorrow and in decades to come. That is what is going to happen to OAS.
As for the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it was just months ago he was saying that we have real demographic challenges and it was important for the government to take action. It was just months ago when he said there was a structural deficit and he wanted to see action taken to address that. All of a sudden, he has said these are no longer issues. I am missing the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer where he commends this government for having solved all those dramatic problems in just a matter of a couple of months. 
International TradeMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again, we see that the government is unable to protect the trade interests of Canadians. This week, the Prime Minister was in China to sign trade agreements and thus establish the legal framework for trade with that country. However, we do not know whether Chinese companies, if they see fit to do so, will be able to sue the Canadian government. This happened with AbitibiBowater. If it happens with the Chinese, Canadians will be stuck with the bill again.
Will the government put its cards on the table and confirm whether or not, under these agreements, Chinese companies will be able to sue the Government of Canada? 
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the reality is we have signed a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with China which will protect Canadian companies in China. We will continue to expand our trading relationship in China for the benefit of Canadian jobs here at home. 
Human RightsMathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Prime Minister has far more to say about foreign radicals than he has anything to say about human rights in China. In fact, I commend his speech writers. It must have been a challenge to make sure that he avoided saying anything meaningful at all on the subject last night. 
Canadians expect better. Why has the government walked away from human rights in China?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, human rights is the cornerstone of this government's foreign policy.
Our government has had constructive discussions with China on a full range of human rights issues. We have also highlighted the priority Canadians place on religious freedom and the freedom of expression.
Our government will continue to take a principled approach on foreign policy and promote Canadian values around the world.
PensionsScott Brison: Mr. Speaker, at election time, the Prime Minister promised not to cut seniors' benefits and not to raise the OAS age. Now he is preparing to break that promise.
It is bad enough that the Prime Minister is prepared to hurt low income seniors by raising the OAS age, but why did he not tell them the truth about his plan during the election? 
Why is the Prime Minister breaking his word to Canadians and to Canadian seniors?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, he is doing no such thing. As I said, he is ensuring that all those who are collecting old age security today will continue to collect old age security. The gentleman over there never seems to listen to that. For those who will be approaching retirement, it will be the same thing. Also, those generations to come will also be able to achieve old age security by ensuring its sustainability. That is what we are doing.
The real question is, why do the Liberals always oppose measures that we take to assist seniors? We increased the age credit. They opposed it. We increased the age exemption. They opposed it. We introduced pension income splitting. They opposed that. Why do they oppose helping seniors?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberal Party that strengthened CPP for a generation. It was the Conservatives who opposed that.
The reality is that the future of the old age security program is secure. We now have the Chief Actuary, the PBO and the government's own study saying that the system is sustainable.
The fact is that more than half of the seniors on OAS make less than $25,000 per year. When Canadians are worried about the growing gap between rich and poor, why are the Conservatives faking a crisis in order to attack Canada's poor seniors?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, it was not too long ago a Liberal prime minister was saying that it was necessary for changes to be made to take account of demographic realities. That is exactly what we are doing, something that the Liberal Party never did.
What did the Liberals do? They voted against pension income splitting, something which helps a tremendous number of seniors. Where one member of the family was an income earner and the other spouse was not, pension income splitting has given them a measure of fairness, a measure of increased benefits, increased security financially in the long term. That is something the Liberal Party voted against.
The hypocrisy of consistently opposing benefits for seniors and now pretending to be on their side is unbelievable.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the former Liberal government did, with Conservative opposition, was to fix the Canada pension plan to make it sustainable for at least 75 years. That is what we did.
The Prime Minister once said that seniors should ask themselves which party they could trust to look after them. It is sad to see that it took the Prime Minister six years to prove to Canadians that it is not his party.
How can Canadians who are about to retire believe the promises made by this government?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are making sure that the old age security program is available now and also in the future. As it currently exists, the program is not sustainable in the long term. We will ensure that there will be a program for Canadians in the future.
The EnvironmentMegan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, a study has shown that emissions from the production of shale gas are twice as great as the industry claims. The effects are comparable to coal production, not to mention the serious risks of water pollution and earthquakes. It is not surprising that people are concerned.
The Conservatives are watching the industry inject chemicals into the soil without sharing the environmental studies. When will adequate regulations be put in place for the shale gas industry? 
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague opposite that shale gas development as well as natural resource development are primarily issues of provincial concern and provincial jurisdiction.
I would also like to encourage her to take a look at what some of the industry is doing. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers recently announced voluntary disclosure of fracking fluids. This is a very positive development.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hear about what industry is doing. I want to hear about what the government is doing, which is nothing. Let us try another question. 
On December 6, the government authorized the Minister of Foreign Affairs to denounce the Kyoto protocol on behalf of Canada. The trouble is that the Minister of the Environment on that same day was in Durban supposedly negotiating an extension to Kyoto. This is bad faith negotiating at its best, or perhaps its worst, depending on how one looks at it.
How can the government expect Canada to have any credibility when it is cutting off international negotiations at the knees?
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how my colleague opposite and her party can have any credibility when they consistently work against Canadian jobs in our energy sector.
With regard to the Kyoto protocol, our government has been very clear in saying that in order to see real reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, we need a new international agreement, which includes all major emitters, including those that were not included under the Kyoto protocol. This is what we are striving for. We are continuing the good work that we saw in Copenhagen, in Cancun, and now in Durban.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, so international talks are bad and foreign funding apparently is also bad because yesterday at the natural resources committee the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca proposed banning foreign funding for so-called radical environmentalists.
The government has attacked everything good, holy and decent about protecting our coasts from oil spills. It even suggested that first nations chiefs are taking payoffs for opposing the northern gateway pipeline.
I have a simple question for the government. Does it agree with its committee member, yes or no?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, he said no such thing yesterday. Actually, there have been great discussions and great information brought forward in committee. What that confirms, even from the NDP witnesses, is that this government is on track.
We have adequate refinery resources across this country. We have heard that we need more pipelines. Even the NDP witnesses have come forward and concluded that we need a better energy structure in this country; we need pipelines.
I wonder why the NDP will not get onside with its own supporters.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, now I understand. Foreign funding from the Conservatives' friends is good for Canada, but foreign funding for their critics is bad for Canada, and radical.
We still do not have any explanation for the member's insult against first nations chiefs. The member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca did say that he had no evidence the chiefs are taking money, yet he said, “It wouldn't surprise me if they were”.
Why is the government throwing out offensive accusations instead of trying to work with first nations chiefs? Is this the Conservatives' new strategy for relationship building with first nations?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, we work with groups all across this country. We work with first nations. We work with the provinces.
I have to say that there is a radical group that wants to stop development of all our hydrocarbons. There is a radical group that wants to destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs across this country because of its ideological bent. There is a radical group that wants to destroy billions of dollars of economic development in this country. That group is called the NDP.
Campaign AdvertisingMs. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable what you can hear in the House. This is now comedy hour on Canadian television.
The Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, think that they are above all the rules and like to say one thing and do the opposite. An evangelical website that was encouraging people to vote for Conservative members was clearly used for partisan purposes during the last election. I am convinced that the Conservatives will applaud this fact but, following an investigation, the Chief Electoral Officer confirmed that this constituted campaign advertising, and was illegal.
Does the minister intend to review the definition of “campaign advertising via the Internet”?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the laws and regulations are clear. This is a question for the Chief Electoral Officer.
Françoise Boivin: Ouch, Mr. Speaker. The government is really taking Canadians for fools. That response is not satisfactory to anyone. The website in question opposes gay marriage and abortion. It encourages people to vote Conservative. A site disguised as campaign advertising is a way of misleading people. Elections Canada saw many sites like this during the last election, and those responsible for them are not always based in Canada.
Can the government explain why it is fighting against foreign radicals when it comes to environmental issues but not when it comes to those who are against abortion and gay marriage and who provide free advertising for this government? 
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, one of our greatest values in this country is freedom of speech. That is something we encourage in this country. 
When we talk about questions like elections advertising and spending, there are very clear rules that are set out in the Canada Elections Act. It is up to Elections Canada to administer and prosecute if it sees the need for prosecution. As members know, it is an independent, arm's-length organization. I think the record on that is quite clear. Elections Canada does not follow the direction of the government. It follows its own direction. I am sure it will in this case as well.
PensionsLysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is refusing to disclose its intentions with respect to the old age security program. Canadians have clearly had enough of this utter lack of transparency. That is why, yesterday, in several provinces, people besieged Conservative MPs' offices to find out more about their plans. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and many experts have made it clear that the program has long-term viability. Now Canadians are telling the government not to touch old age security.
I will ask the question again; perhaps you have heard it. Will the government—
The Speaker: Order. The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the NDP does not want to support seniors. Why does it not want to ensure that both today's seniors and tomorrow's have access to an old age security program? We want the system to last. That is why we have to make changes to protect this generation of seniors and future generations.
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be manipulating the facts to make us believe that it has no choice but to cut old age security. However, it could choose to change old age security; it could choose not to cut old age security. It is unacceptable. The government is mortgaging our young people's future even though it says that it is trying to secure their future. The youth unemployment rate is double the nation's average.
I will repeat my question. I am sure the minister heard me, but for some odd reason, she never answered. Will the government raise retirement age from 65 to 67, yes or no?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we will protect the system for both today's seniors and tomorrow's. I can assure you that people receiving old age security benefits today will not lose a penny. We will protect them. We have to ensure the viability of the old age security program, and that is what we will do.
Science and TechnologyMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives immediately reject any statistical data that do not correspond to their ideology: the science of climate change, statistics on lower crime rates and on the use of the long gun registry. On top of that, the Conservatives have done away with about 40 Statistics Canada publications regarding important, reputable analyses in area like health care, culture, the economy and food distribution. All social indicators will be flushed down the drain.
Will they ever stop seeing the world based on their ideology instead of on science? Will this wilful blindness never end? 
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think the word “efficiency” is lost on the NDP. There are ways to be more efficient. I understand that Statistics Canada put an end to those surveys because they were redundant and in order to get the best value for taxpayers' dollars. That is a foreign concept on the other side of the House.
We will not take any lessons from the opposition parties. No other government in Canadian history has invested as much as we have since 2007 in science and technology. And the members opposite were always happy to vote against those investments. It is completely ridiculous and unbelievable.
PensionsHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are standing up against the Prime Minister's attack on pensions. Yesterday, Conservative MPs' offices were occupied by their constituents concerned about how they had been conned. Yet, like trained seals, no one on the Conservative bench is willing to stand up for constituents against the wrong priorities of the government.
The Prime Minister, in 2005, stated, “We will protect public pensions”. He is now breaking his word. 
Will the government stop its betrayal of seniors and rethink its budget priorities?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is committed to protecting seniors' pensions and that is exactly what he is doing. 
However, we are not so short-sighted as the Liberals. We are not saying that if one has an old age security cheque today that is fine and one can forget about the future. No. We need to take care of all Canadians.
 We need to take care of Canadians who are retired today and collecting OAS. We are going to do that. We are going to make sure that they do not lose a penny because of any changes. The same goes for those who are nearing retirement. However, we have a responsibility to Canadians to ensure the viability of the system for the future.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the minister does have a responsibility to Canadians.
Before the Prime Minister was the Prime Minister he was out campaigning. He told Canadians something very concise in regard to the old age supplement and that was, “Today we must fight to preserve seniors' hard won gains”. How does increasing the age from 65 to 67 mean that he is fighting for seniors?
Like the ad says, even kids know that it is wrong to hold out on people when they are counting on you--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we are doing what we are doing. 
Canadians can count on us. They want to count on us. They will be able to because we are going to make sure that there is an old age security system there for them today and for generations to come.
The math is quite simple. Proportionately speaking, there will be half as many people in the workforce paying taxes into the general revenue fund, that pays for OAS. Half as many people will bear three times the cost. That is not sustainable. We are going to make it sustainable so that future generations can access OAS.
Natural ResourcesMs. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's style of dictatorial federalism is to shut down discussion and try and intimidate anyone who disagrees with him.
He has the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca insinuating that first nations are accepting bribes from environmentalists. While in China, he is undermining our environmental processes and our regulatory review, boasting that he will make sure the northern gateway pipeline goes through no matter what.
The citizens of British Columbia will not be intimidated and we will not be dictated to.
Will the Prime Minister stop his assault on British Columbians and stop his assault on our regulatory processes?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, one of the great strengths of the Prime Minister is that he is able to work with other groups and the provinces. He has been doing that since we were elected as government.
The Minister of the Environment has referred the northern gateway pipeline to the joint review. The panel is holding hearings. We look forward to it conducting those sessions.
We will continue to work with the provinces, with industry and with first nations in order to see these projects go ahead in a safe and environmental way.
International TradeMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has received a deluge of letters from Canadians worried about the Canada-Europe trade negotiations opening us up to more privatization of our health care system. 
Greater control of these services is a key target for European companies in this deal. Leaked documents now confirm this. It seems that the Conservatives are willing to roll back protections for our public health care system.
Will the government listen to Canadians and take health care off the table in the CETA negotiations?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I have said several times in this place that the NDP should not put any credibility in leaked documents. Those members should get their facts straight.
Like all of Canada's trade agreements, a free trade agreement with the European Union would exclude public services such as public health, public education and social services. Canada's trade obligations do not require us to privatize any part of our health care system. End of story.
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that response clearly demonstrates that the Conservatives are incapable of standing up for Canadians when it comes to signing trade agreements.
Health care experts in Quebec have consulted the annexes only to realize that public services, including health care, are not yet part of the official exemptions. Thus, the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec is not sufficiently protected in the negotiations.
Why sacrifice public services that are vital to Canadians? Will the government commit to protecting our public health care system by putting it on the list of exclusions? Yes or no? The question is clear.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, we should be perfectly clear. The provinces have been part of these negotiations since the very beginning. They have been apprised of the negotiations. They have been in the room with our negotiators and European Union negotiators.
Any aspersions that somehow this is going to affect health care in Canada are simply false.
AsbestosAnne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, it is because the provinces are concerned that we rise in this House. Moreover, we stand up for all Canadians. 
There are other concerns. For years, the Conservatives, with the complicity of the Bloc, have been supporting the asbestos industry, an industry that kills thousands every year, an industry that produces materials that we have banned here at home.
The Conservatives see no problem in selling so-called safe, carcinogenic chrysotile asbestos to the highest bidder. They even refuse to add it to the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous materials. 
Will the Conservatives finally put human lives ahead of the electoral interests of the ministers who are exporting death?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, for more than 30 years, the Government of Canada has been supporting the safe use of chrysotile. Recent scientific studies have shown that chrysotile can be used safely in a controlled environment.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, it still raises the question: why are they ignoring the mountains of scientific evidence that shows that asbestos causes cancer?
The government is still trying to find new markets in the developing world to export this deadly substance. It is even opposed to warning other countries about the danger. It has blocked the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos on the list of dangerous products under the Rotterdam convention.
I ask again, why is the government ignoring the evidence and turning a blind eye to asbestos victims?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, for more than 30 years, the Government of Canada has been supporting the safe use of chrysotile. Recent scientific studies have shown that chrysotile can be used safely in a controlled environment.
International TradePeter Braid: Mr. Speaker, our government has an ambitious pro-trade plan.
 Led by the hard-working Minister of International Trade, it is getting results. As an example, in China he recently concluded a job-creating investment agreement. With one in five Canadian jobs generated by trade, we know that when we pursue trade opportunities in high-growth markets, it is a surefire way to create economic growth and jobs for Canadian workers and their families in every region of our country.
Can the parliamentary secretary please explain how our pro-trade plan is getting results?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. Our government's ambitious pro-trade plan is getting results.
Canada's 2011 trade balance is in a surplus, fuelled by an almost 27% increase in exports to China. As the hon. member said, with one in five Canadian jobs generated by trade, this is great news.
 We are focused on growing Canada's economy and creating jobs with our pro-trade plan. The NDP continues to promote its anti-trade agenda that will kill jobs. The NDP's reckless and irresponsible anti-trade agenda is a danger to the Canadian economy and to Canadian jobs.
National DefenceMatthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, we do not support the government's trade plan because it reminds us of the F-35. Its shortcomings emerge daily and it just does not get the job done for Canadians.
Yesterday the response from the minister revealed that the F-35 has become an article of faith for the government. That finally explains its refusal to listen to experts, to independent studies and even to our allies. All the evidence points to a deeply flawed developmental program plagued with technical setbacks and enormous cost risks.
 Why will the minister not put a little faith in an open and transparent procurement process to replace the F-18s?
Mr. Chris Alexander (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, we have answered all of these questions and more.
The F-35 is flying. Nine countries including Canada remain committed to it. Some have committed to purchasing very large numbers of these aircraft. The project is creating jobs across Canada, through over $300 million of contracts for over 60 companies in 6 provinces.
This government will ensure that the Royal Canadian Air Force has the right aircraft to protect our sovereignty at home and to promote our interests around the world.
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, those old speaking notes are contradicted almost daily by breaking news and evidence.
Today's news on the F-35 is that the Italians have cut back their purchase of the F-35s. Italy realized that it will not be able to afford these planes. It, like so many of our allies, realizes that when the price tag on these planes is at last known, it will inevitably be wholly indecent.
Why will the Conservatives not have a competition so that we can get the best plane for the best price?
Chris Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the only member I have seen in this House today speaking from notes is the member opposite. We have heard them before. The NDP really should get its facts straight.
The largest country committed to this project is the United States. It has recently confirmed it will take delivery, over many years, of 2,443 of these aircraft. Canada is with them, with eight other of our allies and partners.
This is the right aircraft to do the job. We remain committed.
Foreign AffairsMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, after reports of a serious security breach in the defence department, Jeffrey Delisle was arrested.
As a result, Conservative sources told the media that four Russian diplomats were being expelled from Canada. But the Russian ambassador is now telling the media that no one was expelled, and there is an agreement to keep this quiet.
With our international credibility on the line, will the government confirm that Russian diplomats were not in fact expelled?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, as this matter relates to national security, I have no further comment.
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservatives who fed this story to the media and claimed that Russian diplomats were being expelled.
This is the biggest intelligence breach in recent Canadian history. The Russian ambassador is saying that he will make Canada look “very red-faced”.
Would the government confirm whether these Russians were expelled, or was this story about the expulsions just a smokescreen to distract attention from this massive security failure?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this matter relates to national security so I have no further comment.
Goverment AppointmentsHon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, morale within the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation is not good. A minimum of 44 pink slips are about to be handed out, with more on the way.
Professionals, hired on merit and who contributed so much to the agencies' performance, are being shown the door, all while failed Conservative hacks, like Cecil Clarke, walk into guaranteed jobs worth $135,000 a year.
Would the government acknowledge that morale at ACOA and ECBC is being hurt by the patronage scandal that it created?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member refers to a staffing decision made, not by ACOA and not by this government, but by a local economic development organization. The Cape Breton County Economic Development Agency is responsible for its own hiring. I am not expected, I am sure, to answer for it.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, a failed candidate, Cecil Clarke, is getting $135,000 a year guaranteed. It is like a mini-Senate seat, is it not?
Cecil Clarke, Kevin MacAdam and a dozen or more others get “freedom 45” as ACOA and ECBC show the door to dozens of their own employees. All of these employees won competitions on merit and contributed to the professionalism of those organizations and they are getting the pink slips.
Would the government acknowledge that the budget cuts, the patronage scandal and the internal morale issues are hurting these--
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of State for ACOA.
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, again, I do not know what he is getting excited about. The hiring by local development organizations is their responsibility.
As for the other hiring he is talking about, the member refers to a staffing decision that was made according to the Public Service Act. It was an open competition, open to all Canadians, and a person won the job. I am sorry but that is the Public Service Commission's doing.
Flooding in MontérégieMr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, victims of the flooding that occurred in the Richelieu valley last summer are at the end of their rope and are asking today for authorization to launch a class action suit against the Canadian and Quebec governments. They are taking this extreme measure because they feel abandoned by this government.
What justification could this government have for ignoring these Canadian families? And will it take action to avoid having the Richelieu victims waste their time and money in the courts?
Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to the victims of flooding throughout Canada, not only in Quebec but in my home province of Manitoba, in my home riding in Manitoba.
Our government is supporting victims of flooding through several programs. We have also committed to helping the provinces with mitigation efforts. We are listening to the provinces, we are working together and we are supporting them.
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, it is all well and good for the parliamentary secretary to talk about Manitoba, but the fact remains that this government is facing a $200 million lawsuit. Successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, did not keep their promises to build infrastructure.
Will the government finally keep the promises made in 1937 to build infrastructure that will protect people living along the river?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, once again, as my colleague was saying, we empathize with the families affected by this flooding. I visited the area with the Prime Minister. I was there twice and what happened is terrible. That is why we are working hard, together with the provinces, to ensure that all available programs will be offered to the victims at the appropriate time.
As my colleague also said, there are disaster mitigation programs that the provinces and federal government are constantly working on and we will continue in that direction.
Foreign AffairsBernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, Canada remains tremendously concerned about reports from Ukraine regarding the deteriorating health of Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister of Ukraine. 
In November, the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated that Canada was willing to provide medical assistance to Ms. Tymoshenko.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs please update the House on Canada's response to this situation?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to announce that the government's intervention has paved the way for three Canadian doctors to participate in the International Medical Commission to independently assess the health of the former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko. While this is a welcome development, we hope that all outstanding issues can be resolved expeditiously to allow these doctors access to Ms. Tymoshenko and to ensure that her health, diagnosis and treatment remain the primary focus of all involved.
JusticeJohn McKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Does he not realize that encouraging and condoning Canadians to take up arms against so-called threats to their property rather than calling the police is, in fact, vigilantism? Does he not realize that getting off a few shots creates more victims and escalates the potential for even greater tragedy? Does he also endorse road rage and his Senate colleague's proposal to leave a little extra rope in the Senate for a little self-administered justice? 
Is he the Minister of Justice or is he the minister of shoot now and ask questions later?
Robert Goguen: Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to putting real criminals behind bars. Bill C-26 provides a framework for innocent Canadians to protect themselves in instances where the first line of defence, the RCMP and police, are not able to respond. 
In dealing with matters of reasonable circumstances, basically we will rely upon the courts and the prosecutors to determine how Canadians are able to protect themselves, thanks to this enhanced act.
The EnvironmentMr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are ignoring northern Ontario. The four-laning of Highway 69 linking Toronto to Sudbury has been stalled for over 18 months waiting for the result of a federal environmental assessment. This project is vital to Sudbury and northern Ontario. It will improve safety, a particular concern after more tragic fatal accidents over the Christmas period. 
Environmental assessments are important and must be done but when will Conservatives make completing this assessment a priority and stop ignoring northern Ontario?
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague opposite that his party continually votes against any budgetary measures to assess any part of this country.
With regard to environmental assessment processes, our government takes those very seriously. They are rigorous processes and we are committed to ensuring the integrity of them and the timeliness of them. I would ask my colleague opposite to support that principle in other major projects, including our energy sector.
International TradeMrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is strengthening Canada's trading relationships around the world. With one in five Canadian jobs generated by trade, we know that expanding trade agreements and signing new ones is a key part of our government's low tax, pro-trade plan for jobs and economic growth. When we help Canadian businesses expand and succeed in priority markets around the world, it creates jobs and grows the economy.
Would the parliamentary secretary tell the House about another accomplishment for our pro-trade plan?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, today, the hard-working Minister of International Trade announced that the second round of talks to expand Canada's free trade agreement with Costa Rica was successfully concluded. An expanded free trade agreement with Costa Rica will enhance access for small and medium size businesses, which means jobs for Canadian workers and their families. This is further proof that our job creating, pro-trade plan is on track and delivering results.
The EconomyMr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Toronto has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and housing prices are skyrocketing. More and more families are finding it harder to buy or rent a home in Toronto. 
The Conservatives are out of touch with Toronto but New Democrats know that we need a jobs creation plan and more affordable housing. 
Are the Conservatives planning another do nothing budget that fails to get the job done for all places holy and decent like the great city of Toronto?
Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC): Mr. Speaker, finally a question on the economy. I am happy to respond to that, especially because of the fact that our last two budgets actually focused on jobs and the economy. Both of those budgets were opposed by the NDP that claimed to come late to the show in actually talking about jobs. 
However, we will be bringing forward a budget in the very near future and that also will focus on jobs and the economy because that is important. That is what Canadians want to talk about, which is why we will continue on that plan.
TaxationMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Conservatives are not prepared to require the Governor General to obey the same rules as everyone else. The Bloc Québécois's idea to subject the Governor General to the Income Tax Act seems very complicated to the Minister of Industry, who feels this should be done only in consultation with the Queen's representative himself. Yet, did the Conservatives consult seniors before proposing pension reform? Did they consult Quebec before depriving it of the data in the firearms registry? Did they consult taxpayers before spending millions of dollars to celebrate the Queen?
My question is simple: does the Minister of Finance intend to make the Governor General subject to the Income Tax Act like everyone else?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a tendency to want to complicate simple matters. I stated yesterday, on behalf of the government, that we are prepared to review the rules; however, this must be done in co-operation with the Governor General. The government does not have complete authority in this regard. The Governor General is an institution, and this matter must be addressed in co-operation with him. My response could not be clearer.

Routine Proceedings
Financial Literacy Leader ActPeter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we have been attempting to work co-operatively with the other parties in finding ways to get bills passed and we have invited them to offer approaches on some of the most non-controversial bills. One of those is Bill C-28, to establish a financial literacy leader, something that the opposition NDP has called for and that everyone seems to be supportive of. I am hoping, having asked the members earlier how long it would take to debate this matter and still not having received an answer, that perhaps there will be unanimous support for the following motion, as my suggestion and effort at a co-operative approach to moving forward on simple non-controversial bills.
 I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, not more than two sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act, and that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the second day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and turn every question necessary for the disposal of said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successfully without further debate or amendment.
This motion would allow two days of debate and then allow it to go to committee to be studied in detail. This is on a very non-controversial matter that I think everyone supports.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Does the government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  There is no consent.
PetitionsAndrew Cash: Mr. Speaker, upwards of 80,000 Canadians have signed OpenMedia's stop online spying petition and the members of my riding in Davenport in Toronto wish to put their names forward here in the House of Commons to have their voices and concerns heard on this very issue.
Today, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said that one of Canada's greatest values is freedom of speech. I would extend that to include the protection civil liberties. This is why many people in my riding are concerned about what we are calling lawful access legislation, which we expect from the government soon. The people in my riding wish to speak to this issue.
The petitioners note that this legislation would require all telecommunications companies to collect and store personal information about their users and hand over that information at the request of law enforcement without a warrant. Internet and phone service providers would pass the cost of spying onto their consumers. Furthermore, Canadian authorities have not provided the public with evidence that they cannot perform their duties under current regulations. The petitioners also note that the Canadian Privacy Commissioner has stated that the legislation would substantially diminish the privacy rights of Canadians.
Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to respect the privacy rights of Canadians by maintaining the need for law enforcement to secure judicial warrants before receiving personal information from telecom communications providers.
Mr. Bryan Hayes (Sault Ste. Marie, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the residents of my riding of Sault Ste. Marie bring forward the following petition to abolish the long gun registry.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the long gun registry being an unnecessary burden on honest and law-abiding hunters and state that it does not reduce crime or stop deadly weapons from falling into the hands of criminals. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to abolish the long gun registry.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I want to present this petition on behalf of residents of Newfoundland and Labrador regarding the fishery and their questioning of fisheries management and the issues surrounding the management of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
They note that the Government has dismantled fisheries management within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The department has made wrongful decisions in managing the fish stocks and the new structure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must take into account the culture and heritage of those working in and depending on the industry.
The petitioners go on to say and request that the government dismantle the current structure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, put in place a model that takes into account fisheries science as a precedent in all decision-making and take into account the historical connection of fisheries management to the east coast especially, Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, back in November, 2005, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made an announcement regarding the super visa. The petition that I am tabling today is in direct response to the details of that super visa provided by the minister a few weeks later. In the minds of many it is very much becoming a super disappointment. Individuals are not qualifying because of the details. 
Therefore, petitioners are calling upon the government to revisit this and do something in regard to the health insurance component in particular. 
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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Copyright Modernization Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again to debate on the bill. I would hope that once the bill gets to committee, it would become a little more like what Canadians are looking for. At the present time, it is not.
The hon. member who spoke before stated that the bill, in its incarnation as Bill C-32, was the subject of wide splits then. However, that same bill was re-introduced as Bill C-11 with no changes. I am surprised that the Conservatives feel that people should be accepting the bill in this incarnation.
One of the many issues is the right of the artist. Copyright was something that was created to protect the interests of the artists, the owners and creators of works. However, the bill seems set toward usurping that right and creating a right for users. This does not happen in any other industry. If one builds a car, there are no laws legislating how much one can charge for that car. The pricing is market driven.
Independent artists are independent workers. They create work and the value of the work is based on merit. The use of that work should be controlled by the artist and not by industry or users. Users should have access to that work under certain conditions, but free access is something that neither helps the industry nor the artists.
If an artist cannot make a living doing their work and have no income, they basically have to go to the double arches to flip hamburgers to make a living. How can they create and work if their time is split that way? If there is no artistic work to be used as a result, then the users lose because they have nothing to benefit from.
First and foremost, I will cover the issue of remuneration, which is lost under this bill, as the private copy levy will be virtually phased out with the changeover of technologies. Remuneration of upwards of $30 million now goes to individual artists. This money is extremely important for an artist, because it is the difference between their making enough money to do their work in their craft and having to split their time between flipping hamburgers or working in a restaurant.
 Over the last few years, in music particularly, we have seen Canadian artists rocket to the top of the world music industry. This is because they have had the time to polish their craft and create as opposed to doing odd jobs in order to earn a living. This has allowed artists to live like normal people, to have families, and to contribute to the tax rolls and, more importantly, contribute to the beauty and identity of Canada. 
The bill would take that away and offers no compensation or re-compensation for the use of artists' work. Again, and I will repeat this many times, the bill first and foremost does not respect the rights of artists
Earlier in the House the members opposite stated that the bill was supported by producers and associations. One artist was named in that list. In a democracy that is fine, but I can tell the House that tens of thousands of artists have come to me and my colleagues to say that the bill will not work for them. If we are continuing debate on the bill, it is because of the lack of movement on the government side to hear what these artists are saying and the other stakeholders who have issues with the bill. 
There is no time limit to debate. If a bill does not work, we should debate it until it does work, until it finds consensus. Otherwise, all it would be is one side's thoughts and everyone would have to live with them. 
This is what artists are fighting. This is what other organizations, arts organizations, theatre companies, film companies, actors, musicians, all the people who have a vested interest in this copyright law are fighting. The government needs to listen to them.
I will hold the minister to his word that he wants to see amendments that make this bill better come out of the committee.
In terms of the type of people this bill affects, as in rights holders, it does not cover re-use laws. For example, when a visual artist creates a work, a sculpture or a painting, and that work is sold for $1,000, and then within a period of time the physical owner of that work sells it for $10,000, none of that $10,000 is seen by the artist. It moves on in time, and as the fame or the talent of the artist grows, the work grows in value. The artist who created that work does not see the profits from that work. This is something the bill needs to address.
It is the same thing with photography. When a photographer takes a picture, who owns that picture? If a photographer takes a picture at a family outing, a wedding or whatever, who owns the rights to that picture? If the couple wants to make copies to send to family members, which is a wonderful thing and something they need to do, that photograph is being copied and the creator is not being remunerated for that.
Centuries have gone by where artists were looked upon as vagabonds and beggars and useless members of society. I, being an artist, have always taken offence to that, but hey, the world is what the world is.
Not so long ago copyright was created to prevent artists from having their work taken from them. Once upon a time an artist would create a work and he or she would be given $50 and the work would be the property of whoever bought it. None of that remuneration would ever come back to the artist. The original copyright laws were put into place to help stop that from happening.
Today there are blues artists who have contributed to the growth of music in the world but who will die destitute because they have no claim to the work they created. This copyright bill needs to protect them. It needs to address that issue even further.
In terms of digital locks, why? Digital locks only serve the producers of the work, the shared copyright holders of the work, the industry, per se. Locking a piece of work only serves two things. It serves those whose sole interest is in finding a way around the lock, which seems to be a favourite pastime of many people. Finding a way around these digital locks gives them an opportunity to practise their craft, so to speak. What can be locked can be unlocked. How does this benefit artists? How does taking $30 million out of their pockets and putting a lock on their work benefit them?
The bill needs to be considered a good long time. It is something that has been needed for a long time to become compliant with the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO, and create devices against piracy.
However, the bill seems to leave more to punitive speculation after things are done as opposed to making sure that: one, artists are remunerated properly; two, people have reasonable access to that; and three, how we make a bill that serves everybody as opposed to one segment of society.
Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. It is wonderful to hear an artist's perspective on Bill C-11.
Could he give us his view of what this country would look like and how Canadian society would benefit if artists were properly valued for their contributions and remunerated accordingly?
[Interjection]
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, we have seen the benefits that properly remunerating artists has had. Canada is second to none in the creative industry, in the music industry, and even in the film industry as we grow. That begins to create a Canadian voice in the world. 
Much of what the world learns about another nation or another culture is through the entertainment arts, such as film, television and music. Canada's voice is being heard loud and clear, and has been over the last couple of decades due to the fact that artists are remunerated in such a way that they can focus on their art.
Andrew Cash: Mr. Speaker, we look at what is going on today with time allocation, and some of the other issues, for example, the dysfunctional behaviour of committees, the manoeuvres used in camera at committees, and the constant time allocation motions brought in by the government, and it tells us that we have debated the issues time and time again in the House. It leads me to wonder whether the members opposite are getting bored, but Canadians are not. They want their voices heard.
We are debating a very complex bill here, yet for the pooled retirement pension plan legislation we only had two members speak to the bill before the government moved a motion for time allocation.
These are very serious implications. I wonder if my hon. colleague could speak to the serious implications of the serial use of time allocation.
[Interjection]
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, time allocation has been a problem. It has been used more often than need be.
Bills of this complexity, whether they be on the PRPP or copyright, need time. We are constantly hearing that the debate has gone on for a long time or a number of years. However, there was a historic shift in this last election whereby approximately 110 new members, including members on the government side, were elected who had not taken part in the prior debates. For that reason alone there needs to be a thorough debate of the bill.
Any bill that has such complexity and such division needs to be debated until consensus can be found.
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironic that the opposition members keep talking about closure, yet when they have the opportunity to put up new speakers to speak to the bill they actually do not do that. They put the same speakers up to speak more than once. I know that the opposition critic has spoken twice on this legislation. Many other members have spoken twice on the exact same piece of legislation. They do not seem to be so concerned about getting their new members involved in the debate.
How does the member justify the fact that what they are trying to do is actually delay a bill that is so important to the Canadian economy and to artists? How does he say on the one hand that he wants to protect artists but on the other he is against the protections that this bill puts in place for artists and creators?
[Interjection]
Tyrone Benskin: Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the member's question because this bill does not protect artists.
Although the government may view this as a delay tactic, which just demonstrates the government's frame of mind, it is not a delay tactic. We are asking for a proper debate on the bill.
There is no point in passing a bill which is so flawed that it will damage the industry as opposed to help it. If we are to pass a bill, let us pass one which is in good, solid form.
Corneliu Chisu: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to voice my support for the copyright modernization act. 
Our government recognizes how important copyright is for Canada's creative industries. In the Speech from the Throne, we committed to introduce and seek swift passage of copyright legislation that balances the needs of creators and users. I have had a lot of discussion in my riding with groups of creators and artists and they are very pleased that our government created this opportunity to pass this legislation as soon as possible. Bill C-11 delivers on this commitment. 
Creative industries help drive our nation's economy. The Conference Board of Canada has estimated that culture generates roughly $46 billion in economic activity and accounts for 3.8% of the country's gross domestic product. It estimated that in the same year, Canada's creative industries employed more than 630,000 people. This is a significant contribution to the vitality of the Canadian economy.
Canada's creative industries depend on a strong intellectual property regime, one that protects their interests and gives them the certainty they need to develop new products and services. This is why our government has introduced legislation that will provide our creative industries with a clear and predictable legal framework.
Bill C-11 contains a number of important provisions that will help Canada's creative industries reach new markets. It will also help them to roll out new business models. It will provide them with the rights and protections they need to flourish in the digital economy of today and tomorrow. 
In this context, I would like to mention that one of the great companies in Hamilton, PV Labs, a leader in high-end image acquisition and analytics, will receive an Academy Award in Hollywood tomorrow for the concept, design and implementation of the Pictorvision Eclipse, an electronically stabilized aerial camera platform. That is the type of thing we are looking for. We are looking to promote our creative industries. 
The bill proposes a new making available right for performers and producers of sound recordings. This will allow copyright owners to control how their works are made available online. Copyright owners will also be given distribution rights. These rights will enable them to control the first sale of every copy of their work.
Performers will be given moral rights. These rights will ensure that their performance is not altered in a way that harms their reputation.
Photographers will also be given the same rights as other creators. They will be the first owner of copyright in their photographs and they will receive the same benefits as other creators.
The bill implements the rights and protections of the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Internet treaties. This will bring Canada in line with its G8 partners and most of the major economies of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It will also help open up new trade markets for Canada's creative industries.
With Bill C-11, Canadian industries that depend on digital locks to protect their works will have the support of the law to do so. The Internet and digital technologies provide copyright owners with new opportunities to increase their business. However, they also carry a significant risk as they can also make copyright infringement easier. This is why some copyright owners choose to turn to digital locks to protect their content.
Software producers, video game producers and movie distributors have told our government that digital locks are an important part of their business model. They use digital locks to protect the significant investment they make in developing new products.
Canadian jobs depend on the industries' ability to make a return on their investment. These industries need to have the protection of the law. Bill C-11 sends a clear message that copyright infringement is unacceptable. It is detrimental to the growth of Canada's creative industries.
Bill C-11 recognizes that the most effective way to stop all online copyright infringement is to target those who enable and profit from the infringement of others. Here I am thinking of illegal peer-to-peer file sharing sites. Bill C-11 would target these sites. This would help support the development of legitimate downloading and streaming sites in Canada. This would ensure that our creative industries continue to make an important contribution to the vitality of Canada's economy.
Our government also recognizes that it is important to balance the needs of Canada's creative industries with those of users. That is why Bill C-11 includes copyright exceptions that recognize uses of copyrighted material that are reasonable in the digital environment.
These exceptions serve the public interest and are responsive to the challenges and opportunities of the digital age. I would note that these exceptions have been carefully designed to be technologically neutral and to ensure that they are restricted to the activities they were intended to permit. For instance, the bill would allow Canadians to record TV programs for later viewing, to copy music from CDs to MP3 players or to back up data if they are doing so for their own private use.
Bill C-11 also includes a number of measures that would allow educators and students to take advantage of digital technologies. For example, it would allow educators to use publicly available material from the Internet. Teachers would also be able to connect with students in remote communities across the country through technology enhanced learning.
The bill would also expand fair dealing for purposes of parody and satire. This mirrors a number of other jurisdictions in the world. This would recognize the importance of these acts in the creative process. By allowing these and other activities, our government is demonstrating that it recognizes that many new digital technologies have become commonplace and are a regular part of Canadians' lives. Our government believes that all Canadians, users and creators alike, will be well-served by more clarity and predictability and sufficient flexibility to adapt and take full advantage of new technologies.
The copyright modernization act is an essential part of our government's digital strategy. This update to Canada's Copyright Act is needed. It would give our creative industries the tools they need to protect their investments, reinvest in future innovation and create new jobs for Canadians. This legislation would also help Canadians better address the challenges and opportunities presented by the digital age. For these reasons, it needs to be passed by this Parliament as soon as possible.
I want to congratulate four of our software creators and engineers who, tomorrow, will receive their academy award in Hollywood: Mr. Michael Lewis of PV Labs; Greg Marsden, L-3 Wescam; Raigo Alas, a PV Labs contractor; and Michael Vellekoop of PV Labs. They will all be honoured for their engineering and software advances of gyro-stabilized aerial camera platform specifically designed for the motion picture industry.
In that context, Bill C-11 would help those creators of those innovative products to be on the front edge of technology. It would put Canada in the forefront of technology in digital format information.
Philip Toone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague had the opportunity to speak today considering the limited time for debate due to time allocation. It is unfortunate that more people will not be able to speak to this legislation because it is important to our artists.
My colleague said that our performers would be properly protected under the bill but I would challenge him on that. Rural performers in my riding are very concerned about the bill because they do not think it will protect them. They believe that it would protect the entertainment industry but not that it would protect the performers.
I wonder if the member could tell me how the bill could be amended in order to properly protect the interests of our performers, especially performers in rural areas.
[Interjection]
Corneliu Chisu: Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of debate on copyright. I have some statistics for my hon. colleague. In the previous Parliament, the bill had 6 hours and 50 minutes of debate and a total of 17 speeches. In the committee, it had 39 hours in a total of 20 meetings. We had 78 organizations and 122 different individuals appear. 
Bill C-11 has been debated for 20 hours and 50 minutes, with 74 speeches.
I am an engineer. I am looking forward to passing the bill at second reading and sending it to committee where we can debate it and where, I hope, some of the concerns will be addressed. We need to move forward. 
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to question the member's sentiment toward getting this passed quickly and getting on with the modernization of copyright laws in light of trade agreements, such as what we are doing with the European Union.
However, the issue is that when the government first made the attempt to bring the legislation into this House it died on the order paper. When it came back, changes were made. I do not think the government is totally against changes that are fundamental, but this time around it is. I am not quite sure why. 
The government has heard from many witnesses, and the member just illustrated all the witnesses and all the testimony, but not one change was made.
The government said that it was open to technical amendments, although I am not sure it is, but in order for these to pass, they should have gone to committee before second reading. A lot of these amendments may not qualify because we have already accepted the bill in principle.
Perhaps the member would like to comment on why the government did not put it to committee already?
[Interjection]
Corneliu Chisu: Mr. Speaker, instead of always opposing what our government is saying, the other parties should put forward some interesting proposals instead of always trying to contradict what we are doing.
We need to go forward. Obviously, if the members have good proposals, they will be taken into consideration by our government.
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat odd to hear the NDP member talk about time allocation. I note that he has actually spoken to the bill twice, taking up a slot of the onslaught of NDP members who, apparently, want to speak to this bill.
I wonder if the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East could talk about some of the dangers to the Canadian economy of the reckless NDP attitude to filibuster this bill, hold it in the House and not allow it to go to committee so that we could actually hear from more witnesses, perhaps consider some technical amendments, such as the Liberal member noted, and bring back a bill that works for Canadians and that protects our artists and our creators?
[Interjection]
Corneliu Chisu: Mr. Speaker, the member is right. We do need to move forward. There will be serious dangers if we do not update our copyright laws. They are outdated. We were working through 15 years of issues. The world is moving forward. We need to be able to capture the changes and to use them to protect our own creators, like the company in Hamilton that is listed in the motion picture awards.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I feel very honoured today, as the member for Beauport—Limoilou, to be one of the few members who is able to speak in the House about this bill. In fact, it is completely shameful that the government is imposing a gag order to basically prevent us—one could even go so far as to mention censorship—from offering our suggestions and stating the reasons why we are concerned.
As long as this dialogue of the deaf continues, we will continue to make and reiterate our suggestions and those that Canadians have expressed to us directly. Let us be fair. Abusing gag orders and using them repeatedly is a cowardly way for the government to avoid doing its duty in the House. That is a fact.
I will now focus on Bill C-11. I would like to seize this opportunity to talk about the economic impacts we can expect if this bill is passed. Members will have noted that this is a topic that I am particularly concerned about and that I have spoken about in the House many times. Unfortunately, the Conservatives were listening only half-heartedly, if at all, except to sometimes hurl insults.
What is truly a shame, what is truly unfortunate is that many aspects of the bill that we are debating today, as it now stands, are valid, in whole or in part. We could agree on these aspects or request certain amendments.
However, the members opposite refuse to listen to what we have to say about the other aspects of the bill, which are a cause of great concern to us and which we oppose because of the damaging, if not completely unfair, impact they would have on all Canadians. It is truly appalling.
The debate on Bill C-11, like all debates in the 41st Parliament, shows just how dysfunctional the House of Commons has unfortunately become. If I take the liberty of using that word, it is because it has already been used in the past to call an election and to try to muzzle the opposition.
I am here because I am deeply concerned about certain specific aspects of the bill. In fact, I would like to raise two specific issues, two aspects of the bill that are of great concern to me. I am completely shocked that members of the government party are defending these truly negative aspects of the bill so strongly.
I would like to begin with the first aspect. The scope of digital lock protection under C-11 is huge. It is absolutely unbelievable. In fact, one has to wonder for which particular interests the government is working so hard.
Yesterday, when speaking about the motion we had the honour to move, I condemned the government for abandoning not only workers and pensioners, but all Canadians, because of the flaws in the Investment Canada Act. At present, anyone is more or less completely free to steal jobs, intellectual property, our heritage and our resources, right out from under our noses. These resources belong to all of us. The digital lock protection proposal goes so far that it is practically a submission. The word is not too strong. The government is imposing something that is almost a submission to special interests, particularly foreign interests.
There are other repercussions. Such broad protection could cause other problems because it would not respect certain provincial jurisdictions. This would even have legal repercussions concerning some aspects of our Constitution. This protection, this advantage, could go so far as to create a quasi-oligopoly among the multinationals that hold the copyright to certain works. 
What would be the result? It is a basic economic principle. When an oligopoly exists, as is the case in other industrial sectors and areas of economic activity, we can expect upward pressure on prices. All of us, ordinary consumers, all Canadians, would pay the price because a very small group of copyright holders would impose their rules, their prices and their distribution limits on our market. This could have unbelievable and devastating repercussions. We must be aware of this. Time allocation is nothing short of an outrage, because it prevents us from examining all the repercussions of this bill. It is truly unbelievable.
There is something else that I find ridiculous. I would even laugh about it, if not for the truly serious consequences of the penalties for those who try to circumvent a digital lock. How can we support the potential criminalization of users who may be students or grandmothers? I know many women over 60 who use the Internet and the new tools a great deal. They could be fined up to $1 million and sentenced to up to five years in prison for circumventing a digital lock deliberately or inadvertently, as it might be someone in their family or circle of friends who did it.
A two-year prison sentence results in a criminal record, which precludes travel to the United States, for example. Such a harsh sentence for circumventing a digital lock? Where is the logic? How can the government defend this measure and threaten thousands of Canadians with such a stiff penalty? This is definitely like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. I realize that the government has shown rather poor judgment in its decisions, such as the procurement of military equipment. We are trying to reach out and offer our help so that it makes better choices. But this is going too far.
The government's complete unwillingness to listen and its very disrespectful answers show the extent to which this government is against Canadian society. Its contempt for most members of this House is unacceptable behaviour and cannot be condoned by anyone. Our concerns are legitimate. We are not asking the government to reject all of Bill C-11; we are just asking that it listen to us. We spoke to specific groups and we want to make amendments. We even want to work with the government because, I repeat, the bill contains some valid elements. These elements will fall by the wayside and this government, as it often does, will not hesitate to accuse us in a backhanded and malicious way of voting against this bill.
The government is refusing to listen to us and will make millions of Canadians pay. This type of behaviour must stop. If the government continues to act this way in the next four years, it will pay a high price. I will personally see to it.
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, that is another member who spent a lot of time talking about the lack of potential debate on this. However, he has spoken to this bill already once before. My first question is, why is he taking a spot from one of the new members of the NDP caucus who might actually want to speak to the bill? If there are so many members of the NDP who want to speak to the bill, why are the same members speaking to this bill over and over again?
My second question for the hon. member is this. How far will the NDP go in its reckless policies to delay this bill and make sure it does not go to committee so it cannot hear more witnesses or make amendments? How far will it go in hurting the Canadian economy for the extreme left-wing ideological bent that it keeps bringing to this place? 
Does he deem to protect creators in legislation going forward? If he does not support technical protection measures, how does he deem to protect creators and artists going forward?
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the member is simple. I am a father. Sometimes, when dealing with certain behaviours, we must keep repeating ourselves. We will not hesitate in the least. If the government continues down this road, I believe that millions of Canadians will say again and again that they no longer accept this at all.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, according to recently leaked diplomatic cables, some parts of this copyright bill were designed to address the concerns of American industry instead of the concerns of Canadians, including digital locks.
Does the hon. member expect American industries to exert this type of power in the future? What sort of precedent does this set? I would like to know what he thinks about this.
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her very relevant question. Yesterday, I was watching the Radio-Canada show Enquête, which was reporting on the scandalous behaviour of the authorities and their accomplices in the asbestos industry. We saw exactly the same thing with the tobacco industry. It is absolutely unbelievable. I want to thank the hon. member because she is exposing the same modus operandi, the same danger to the general public. It is scandalous to subject some 34 million Canadians to some very narrow special interest groups.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have heard my colleague speak to this bill. It is important for the opposition to express its point of view and be heard. I thought it was rather ironic that the hon. Conservative member asked the opposition earlier to propose things and tell the government what it wants, when the government turns around and limits debates. This is not the first time it has done so. It is rather ironic that the government asks us to propose things and then tells us it has heard enough and it is going to do whatever it wants.
Does my colleague believe that the government wants to listen to us when it is limiting debate and introducing unbalanced bills? Every Canadian I have talked to says that this bill is not balanced and it should be amended. The government is not listening to us and it is limiting debates.
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sherbrooke. I would encourage him not to be shy about telling the government a thing or two just because he is young. This bill, like many others, will affect his future for a long time to come. He has every right to speak up. I strongly encourage him to participate, and I very much admire the work he is doing here.
Mr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the government's bill to amend the Copyright Act. Bill C-11 fulfills a commitment we made in the last speech from the Throne to reintroduce and seek swift passage of legislation to modernize Canada's copyright laws. 
It has been more than a decade since the last major update of the Copyright Act. In this time, the Internet and other forms of new media have radically transformed the way in which Canadians produce and access copyrighted material. This transformation is ongoing. Technology continues to evolve at a rapid pace. Apps for mobile devices continually improve our access to content. Tablet devices allow readers to access e-books, e-magazines and all kinds of other content. They also allow doctors to access online services to offer diagnoses for their patients. These are just a few examples of how content moves quickly to newly adopted technology.
It is important to point out that all of these services involve copyrighted material. That is why the government would modernize Canada's Copyright Act. The reforms that we are proposing would go a long way to strengthening the tools that Canadian creators and innovators need to protect their work and grow their businesses in this digital economy. This legislation would update the Copyright Act and bring it in line with advances in technology and current international standards. 
We are taking a common-sense approach to these updates. I am proud to say that both content creators and Canadian consumers would benefit from the proposed amendments. With these changes we would ensure that the Copyright Act supports innovation and attracts investment and jobs to Canada.
The government first introduced the copyright modernization bill in June of 2010. Before being dissolved, the legislative committee that studied that bill heard from more than 70 witnesses and received more than 150 submissions. Over the course of the hearings two clear messages emerged. First, the committee heard that the bill balanced the interests of various stakeholders. Second, the committee also heard that Canada urgently needed to pass legislation to update the Copyright Act. Therefore, our government is proposing a uniquely Canadian approach to copyright reform. The approach takes into consideration the views of all Canadians. 
Canadians from all walks of life understand the importance of copyright. They are concerned about the impact of copyright on their daily lives. They recognize the importance to the digital economy and Canada's global competitiveness. The bill before the House reflects a common-sense approach. It reflects the interests of consumers and of rights holders alike. 
Canadians have told us that Canada's copyright regime must take into account technology that does not even exist yet. This is a challenge that the copyright modernization bill addresses. It recognizes the importance of responding to the ever-changing technological landscape with amendments that are drafted in a technologically neutral way. 
The proposed copyright modernization legislation would recognize the many new ways in which Canadians use technology. It would provide clear policies that would enable them to increase their participation in this digital age. We would be establishing new provisions that are technologically neutral that can be adapted to constantly evolving technological environments while ensuring appropriate protections for both creators and users alike. 
Let me remind my colleagues that the bill includes the flexibility to respond to future realities because we have built in an automatic review process. It would require that a five year review of the Copyright Act be undertaken by Parliament. 
Canadians want to make reasonable use of content that they have legally acquired. That is why the bill would legitimize many commonplace private or non-commercial uses of copyrighted material, uses that are not allowed, or that have unclear status under the current Copyright Act. Canadians would be able to record television, radio and Internet programming in order to enjoy them at a later time, with no restrictions as to the device or the medium that they wish to use. 
Canadians would also be able to copy any legitimately acquired music, film or other works onto any device or medium, like an MP3 player, for their private use and to make back-up copies of these works. 
Canadians would also be able to incorporate existing copyrighted material in the creation of new works, such as Internet match-ups, as long as it is not done for commercial purposes and the existing material is legitimately acquired. 
Canadians with perceptual disabilities would be permitted to adapt legally acquired material to a format that they can easily use. The changes would also clarify the law regarding the import of adapted material into Canada and would explicitly permit the export of certain adapted materials, including Braille and audio-books.
The bill would also extend fair-dealing provisions to permit the use of copyrighted material for education, parody and satire. Furthermore, the bill would facilitate access to content for educational institutions, libraries, archives and museums. It would do this with exceptions that would allow for uses of copyrighted material that are reasonable and serve the public interest. It would do this in a way that would be responsive to the challenges and opportunities of the digital age. These exceptions have been carefully designed to ensure they are restricted to the activities that they were intended to permit. We believe that all Canadians, users and creators alike, would be well served by more clarity and predictability and sufficient flexibility to adapt to new technologies and take full advantage of them.
I will now tell my colleagues about the benefits of some of these exceptions. Students, particularly those in remote locations, would benefit from new exceptions that accommodate the use of technology for live or on-demand learning. They would be able to reproduce lessons for use at a more convenient time. At the same time, educational institutions would be required to adopt measures to prevent abuse.
Our government wants to encourage innovative companies to continue to develop new products. This bill would provide such companies with the legal tools to protect the investments they have made. This would allow them to invest in future innovation and jobs. 
With this bill, our government has introduced important measures that would acknowledge the importance of our creators, those industries whose success depends on copyright, for example, software companies, filmmakers, musicians, writers and publishers. We believe that these changes would encourage greater online participation in the virtual marketplace, an area that is experiencing dramatic growth with global e-commerce transactions that have become so vital to the growth of so many companies.
Our government recognizes that Canada's Copyright Act must help Canadian businesses remain competitive. We realized from the outset that our approach to modernizing the legislation had to balance the interests of a wide range of stakeholders. I am proud to say that we have achieved that goal. I look forward to the day when this proposal becomes law. It demonstrates our government's continued commitment to fostering creativity and innovation and supporting Canada's creative economy.
Our government has sought a balance in our copyright legislation and reforms. We sought a balance between protecting creators and ensuring that consumers' rights were also protected. Over the course of two Parliaments, there have been a number of attempts by our government and a lot of debate and discussion, both in this chamber and in committee, to refine those proposals. I strongly believe that we have found that balance. We certainly sought and received input from Canadians. I believe this bill is one that finds that balance and seeks to move forward in an appropriate manner to allow for the future, for new technologies that will be developed and those that exist now, and ensure that the balance is created. We have done that and I am very proud of that.
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives claim that Bill C-11 will protect artists, but many artists have shared their concerns about this bill with us. Because we have very little time left to debate this bill, I would like to ask a question on behalf of an artist who contacted me directly. He said:
 As an emerging artist, I find it difficult to compete with recording industry heavyweights that have access to every possible medium to promote their products. The Internet is an intelligent and economical promotional tool that levels the playing field and supports the free market, giving me and those discovering my work a way to share my music. There are already effective mechanisms in place to protect sharing of copyrighted material. For example, my own music has been temporarily blocked on my own YouTube channel because Warner Music Group's monitoring software detected that I was sharing protected content.... My question is, how can this government tell me that it is protecting my rights as an emerging music creator when it is actually curtailing my freedom of expression? 
I would like the member to answer Patrick Bernier-Martin, who asked me that question and who, as an artist, is very concerned about this bill. He does not see how this bill will protect his rights at all. He thinks, and many experts agree, that this bill will protect big industry, which pressured government to introduce it.
Can the member answer this artist?
[Interjection]
Blake Richards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member has sought to consult with stakeholders, whether they be those who are creators or consumers. I assume that she has met with consumers as well and has heard from her constituents on it, as I have. I have met with many creators, including recording artists, over the last couple of years. I have certainly heard from many of my constituents. I have spoken with educational institutions, with libraries in my constituency and elsewhere, so I have heard many of the thoughts and concerns, just as I am sure she has.
I believe our government has found a balance. We need to ensure a balance is created that protects the creators, including the recording artists the hon. member mentioned. We are ensuring that we are finding the balance between protecting them and also ensuring that consumers have access to what they want to be able to have access to.
I think we have found that balance. If some individuals have concerns, they should share those at the committee stage, which, hopefully, we will be at very soon, to ensure their concerns and thoughts are heard but-- 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. We need to leave a bit more time for other questions.
The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, my question pertains to the balance the hon. member discussed in his speech. He said there were two things that came out of the hearings, first, that a lot of people had interest in this, but obviously second, that a balance has been achieved.
I want to question that. We need to look at fair use, at fair dealing. He talks about the education exemption, which basically means, for the purpose of education, one can use copyrighted material. However, if the material in question has a digital lock placed upon it, it cannot be used in this exemption.
Perhaps the hon. member would like to work out that balance, because it does not really make a lot of sense to me.
[Interjection]
Blake Richards: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the hon. member is entitled to his opinion. However, we sought input from a variety of sources and all kinds of discussion have taken place at the committee level and here in the House. Members of the government have, as have members of the opposition, consulted with those who are creators in the recording industry or otherwise, or consumers. 
All of us have consulted with our constituents and what we are hearing is that, although there may be some concerns in various areas and it is difficult to find a balance, they believe our government has found that balance and that we have found a balance that is fair to both creators and the consumers. 
I am proud of the fact that we have worked hard to ensure the balance is there and I do believe it exists.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will be resuming debate but before I recognize the member for Vancouver Quadra, I want to let her know that I will have to interrupt her part way through her speech as 1:15 p.m. is the end of government orders for today.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
Joyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add a few comments to this important debate. The Liberal Party absolutely believes that Canada's Copyright Act must be modernized. In this era of iPhones, iPads, cloud sourcing and so on, we must have modern laws.
That is not the challenge here. The challenge, or the issue, is to implement reforms that are fair and that balance the rights of authors and the rights of the Conservatives. We all know this is the objective of the bill. However, the Conservatives have not succeeded. That is obvious. A number of groups have told us and them that the bill is not balanced. 
One of the greatest concerns for me is the fact that the Conservatives will continue with their agenda without listening to Canadian citizens, groups, experts and opposition members. We could call this dictatorial federalism.
We know that this bill has sparked a great deal of discussion and that many suggestions were made to improve it. But did the Conservatives add some ideas? Did they change what they will do? No. They introduced a bill that ignores everyone else's ideas. That is not democracy. That is not enough for those of us on this side of the House.
Why do we have to be in such a rush to pass a bill when, when it comes right down to it, the result is not acceptable for so many people and so many organizations in terms of the objectives we have here in Canada? Why? This is a complex issue. This bill is very detailed, and there are many valid arguments. It is worth listening to them and continuing to work on the bill in order to achieve a good result.
Why put forward a policy that is so important and that affects the lives of all Canadians, only to be satisfied with a poor result that does not achieve the balance that everyone wants, when that is the very goal of modernizing the legislation?
It is the same with other issues. The process used by this government and the Prime Minister is a bit dictatorial. They understand while others do not. It is insulting to those who oppose and also to organizations that work every day, every year, to explain the issues with respect to the modernization of the Copyright Act.
Why shorten the debate in such a manner? Why? There is no support for doing so outside that group. 
In the beginning, I spoke about the process, which is faulty. I would like to continue in that direction and speak about something that is of great concern to me.
I just asked an NDP member a question about that. Who is managing our decisions as Canadians? Who is in charge of our country's legislation? Recently we learned that some diplomatic cables have shown that some parts of the Conservatives' copyright bill, which we are talking about this afternoon, were drafted to satisfy the concerns of the American industry instead of addressing the concerns of Canadians. 
Many Canadians are opposed to the digital locks, which seem to only address American interests. That worries me a lot because the Americans are major partners. They are our friends and neighbours, but they are not in charge of our legislation. This strategy is very worrisome because it sends a message to specific industries in the United States that they can push Conservative MPs in a direction that does not serve the best interests of Canadians.
Our sovereignty belongs to us, to Canadians. It is very important to the people of Canada. Handing over our sovereignty on a silver platter by creating legislation for the American industry is very dangerous. Other industries are going to see that and expect Canada to do it more often. It is unacceptable and we must stop doing it right now.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, February 8, 2012, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
 The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, February 13, 2012, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. 
[Interjection]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m. 
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Accordingly, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 21, 2011, consideration of the motion that Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand today to speak to Bill C-215. It is a bill which we support in principle and we would like to see it go to committee. The Liberal Party has been fairly clear over the last couple of weeks, in terms of expressing how important pensions are to Canadians as a whole, and the action we need to take to improve the quality of retirement for all Canadians.
I approach this debate with a bit of a bias. I used to be a member of the Canadian Forces. I have had the opportunity to become friends with numerous individuals who have been able to benefit through retirement pensions and so forth. Having said that, I do not collect a Canadian Forces pension, nor will I collect a Canadian Forces pension, but I see the merit of what is actually being proposed in the legislation.
Taking into consideration the sacrifices that are made by our men and women in the forces, whether they are in the Canadian Forces or the RCMP, the bill has a great deal of merit. I am anxious to see how the government will respond to the legislation. At the very least, it would be beneficial to all Canadians to have this bill go to committee, where we might be able to receive presentations and get some perspective from Canadians, in particular, members from the forces.
I know first-hand that many people who join the forces do not join because they are thinking of their retirement or how much money they are going to make on an annual basis. Generally speaking, the annual income is not that great. Most people join the forces because they want to contribute to our country in terms of building it and making it a safe place to be. I have the deepest amount of respect for those men and women who have taken on the responsibility of joining the forces.
I see this bill as one of the ways in which we can acknowledge the sacrifices they make. I look forward to not only dealing with the pension for the forces and the RCMP, but also dealing with the broader pension issue as a whole.
The Liberal critic for seniors has talked at great length about pensions and the importance of our being able to develop an overall pension scheme that will satisfy the needs of people in their retirement years for generations to come.
Today, sadly, and this even applies to members of the forces who have retired, too many seniors, because of the limited income they receive, are having to decide between buying prescribed medication that they require or buying food or clothing they. We would all agree that food is absolutely critical. People have to have food. Often, that means it is the medications that will lose out or, as we are starting to see, more seniors will use food banks.
 My assistant, Roldan Sevillano, placed a call and learned that approximately 7,000 seniors, 65 years and older, living in the province of Manitoba visit food banks. I can assure members that a good number of those individuals have retired from our forces.
I suspect that we will continue to see a growing dependency on our food banks. We need to look at ways in which we can improve the quality of life for all of our seniors who retire at age 65, and I say to my Conservative colleagues, age 65, not 67.
I hope and trust that the government will see the wisdom of rectifying the crisis and fear it has created for many individuals, including members of our armed forces, who are looking at retirement. When people take into consideration the applicable age for old age security increasing to 67 years, they put off their retirement plans. Even this legislation would be impacted by what the government is talking about. 
I will take this opportunity to highlight what I think is important. 
It was raised today in question period that when the Prime Minister was still dreaming of becoming the prime minister of Canada, he came up with what we thought was important to say to Canadians. In a speech he gave in Guelph back in December 2005, he made some fairly strong statements. I will quote a couple of them. He said, that a Conservative government will protect our public pension programs. He said, “My government will fully preserve the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canadian pension plan and all projected future increases to these programs. I will build on those commitments”.
That is what the Prime Minister was saying when he was telling Canadians that he wanted to be the prime minister of Canada. He has really fallen short. 
I am unable to best describe what he has actually done for the simple reason that the words I would use would be unparliamentary. I am not allowed to talk of the Prime Minister's sense of commitment that he made to Canadians back then and his inability to fulfill that commitment. 
As the debate taking place on the old age security would have an impact on the legislation before us today if it were to pass, there is some value in reminding the Prime Minister of his commitment. Canadians believed the Prime Minister when he said that he was going to maintain, preserve, expand and make better our public pension programs. I anxiously await the March budget to see what the Prime Minister's true intentions are. All we know for sure is that the government is going to be increasing the applicable age from 65 to 67 years.
Getting back to the bill at hand as it pertains to members of the forces and the RCMP, we need to take a look at the broader picture and all the different forms of pensions that are out there. As the bill attempts to deal with improving the quality of life for retiring individuals who are members of the forces and the RCMP, we need to take that same attitude and look at other ways to complement our current programs to enhance the retirement income for other seniors and individuals who are looking toward retirement. That is what is important. 
We have had great prime ministers who have provided us programs such as the CPP, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Those were bold initiatives. I believe that now is the time to look at ways to enhance our pension programs. Bill C-215 is one of the bills that could do just that. For that reason, we would like to see Bill C-215 go to committee.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, this is essential legislation if we are going to treat our Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel with dignity and respect. My friend and colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, has worked tirelessly on this issue over the years, so I am extra pleased today to speak to it.
Whether it is embarking on search and rescue missions, carrying out dangerous arrests on our streets or working alongside our international partners in peace building overseas, Canadian men and women in uniform make a tremendous sacrifice for our country every day. They often face dangerous conditions and extended family separations. Canadians and their families together make huge contributions, contributions that the rest of us can barely comprehend.
Sadly, the government is not prepared to make a similar contribution to the lives of men and women who serve our country. As it currently stands, as we have heard in the House, service pensions for retired Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel are significantly reduced at the age of 65 or when personnel begin to receive disability benefits. That is not just. Why would we reduce a veteran's pension at a time when he or she need it most? When veterans are grappling with permanent disabilities, visible, invisible or maybe with increased health risks because of old age, why would we not support them having a fair standard of living? Thousands of veteran Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel across this country want an answer, as do I.
In my riding of Halifax, the military is the largest employer. We have been a navy town since the beginning and we are proud of our military legacy, which began in the 18th century with the building of the dockyard. However, more than 300 years later, CFB Halifax is home to Canada's east coast naval base and the country's largest military base in terms of posted personnel, with more than 10,000 military and civilian employees. It is a major factor in the riding of Halifax.
Military personnel are actively engaged in my community. They enrich Halifax through their dedication to their work, their community and their volunteer work. They are involved in many different community partnerships, including the Military Family Resource Centre. However, like I said, too often many of the retired workers do not have an adequate standard of living. They do not enjoy the standard of living they deserve because of the current clawback to pensions.
The deduction that we are talking about was created nearly half a century ago and it is time for us to put this policy to an end. It hurts veterans, but, as I said, it also hurts their families. The Conservatives say that this is not a clawback. Maybe technically that is not the word that we should be using, but when money is missing from people's bank statements each month, that is a clawback and a clawback by any other name still stinks.
How does it work? I have an email from Leslie Sanders, who was impacted by this clawback. He did his deductions and talked about what he was getting before versus what he was getting now with this clawback and the difference was $130 a month. That is a lot of money for someone living on a pension. That is a couple of weeks of groceries. He told me that just because he had turned 65 did not mean that he needed less to live on than when I was 64. He wants an explanation of how this could happen. I think we would all appreciate that explanation.
It is not just service men and women. It is also their spouses that we need to think about. Due to the unique nature of life in uniform where families continuously move around this country and the world, CF and RCMP spouses often struggle to find and maintain employment. That makes it even more difficult for spouses to contribute to their own pension plans and support their families. We are seeing people left in the financial lurch yet again.
What is even more troubling is the unequal treatment of our troops. Currently, serving members of the Canadian Forces are able to draw their full salaries as well as disability pensions if they are injured, and rightly so, but discharged troops with a disability are not entitled to the same treatment. However, they have all made tremendous sacrifices so why would we not treat them the same?
Some of my colleagues across the way have expressed concerns about the financial implications of this legislation, but great credit should be given to my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore because he has outlined so many opportunities to keep the costs of implementing the bill at a minimum or revenue neutral.
We could try avenues like current payments to employment insurance, which CF and RCMP personnel pay into but cannot collect. We could use those contributions to offset these costs. Plus, members would likely receive less old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments.
This legislation is about more than the bottom line. I am almost reluctant to talk about those measures because it is really about providing a quality of life for Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel who go above and beyond for Canada every day. Supporting our troops is not just about wearing a yellow ribbon.
New Democrats are not alone in support of righting this wrong. More than 112,000 Canadians have signed a petition supporting this initiative, including many former colonels and generals. The Canadian Legion, the Army, Navy &amp; Air Force Veterans in Canada Association and the national chairman of the Armed Forces Pensioners'/Annuitants' Association all back this proposal, as does Veterans ombudsman, Colonel Pat Stogran. He called it profoundly unfair. 
In my home province of Nova Scotia. the clawback has become a concern for countless Nova Scotians. In 2006, our provincial government adopted a resolution urging:
 ...the Government of Canada to investigate this matter immediately and end the unfair policy of benefit reduction to our veterans of the military and the RCMP. 
It is pretty profound when a provincial government would make a statement like that concerning a federal issue. I think we need to take that to heart.
Before I close, I would like to read part of a letter of support I received in response to Bill C-215 from a gentleman named Doug Grist, a retired RCMP officer. He is not from my riding but from the riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's, which is held currently by a Conservative MP. Mr. Grist said:
 ...there is more to recognizing all these brave men and women, who lay it all on the line both on foreign soil and here at home, than building monuments and holding an annual ceremony. These people provide us all with a secure, peaceful, enviable quality of life. They too deserve the same quality of life, not just while they serve but in their retirement. 
I could not have put it more eloquently than Mr. Grist.
Throughout this debate I have been reminded of the old adage “no soldier left behind”. With the policy on service pensions in its current form, CF and RCMP personnel are being left behind. We need to ensure that this adage becomes a reality.
I urge members on all sides of the House to put down their partisan blinders, to go beyond our party affiliations and realize that this is the right thing to do. We need to stand up in the House and support the bill to ensure that none of them are left behind.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, once again, as I did a few years ago, I stand in support of this legislation as it is very important and it is an issue that I get approached about a lot by the people in my riding. I have 195 communities in my riding and not many communities do not mention the issue of seniors, the amendments to be made to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
I first heard about this when I was in the Gander Mall. I was called to a meeting at the Country Kitchen. I was with retired RCMP officers. To say that they put the issue to me is a mild understatement. I was sitting in a corner and, quite frankly, I was not quite sure if I would survive because they were very passionate about this issue. When I went into that room I was six-foot-two but when I walked out I was five-foot-four. That gives members an illustration of exactly how seriously they took this issue. 
I say that in jest but this is an incredibly serious issue for the entire country, whether it be the people who have served us overseas or those who serve in our communities each and every day, officers in both the military and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I, too, do a public service just like they do, but I can say that each and every day, despite how bad the debate gets here in the House, I do not put my life on the line like they do.
The boys at the Country Kitchen pointed out to me that I have the benefit of not having to go through this like they do. That is right. My pension does not go through this like their pensions do.
 I want to thank the many people who have written or phoned me with respect to this debate for bringing this to the fore. What we have here is an essential benefit to allow these people to stack their pensions to the point where they would receive that better benefit. It comes down to the basic illustration of what they told me, which is that the ultimate example of an argument that works in this debate is simply this, “I worked for it. I earned it. Can I at least get it, all of it?” And why not? I get all of mine. The members across the way will get theirs provided they serve six years.
 I ask the House to consider this legislation. If at some point members are not sure about this, maybe they think it is too expensive or that we cannot afford this right now in light of the economic situation, at the very least we could send this legislation to committee to be studied and have witnesses appear who can tell us their stories about how they deserve to stack their pensions so that they can receive full benefit. They can tell that better than I can. I would invite the committee to come to the Country Kitchen in Gander where it would get a real illustration of just how this legislation is the right one. That is for the members who are skeptical. I would tell those who are not skeptical to continue with their petitions and their support on this very basic issue.
My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore has an incredible amount of passion for this. This is where all of the partisanship sort of drifts away because I would like to talk about a member of Parliament who needs to be commended by someone from another party to say good for him for bringing this in. He has been very inspiring with respect to this. He has worked very hard on this since he arrived here. No matter where we sit, what corner, what colour, what stripe or what language we use, we certainly need to give that man his due as a parliamentarian. There are certain countries in the world where he would not get away with the way he speaks about it, but in this country he can. That says a lot about our country. So, good on him but, more important, good on us for what he is doing with this.
I want to talk about some of the facts he raised. He said that this would affect 96,000 people. What this would do is very simple. In light of the conversation we are having now, the national debate is around old age security and raising the age from 65 to 67. 
The people who call in are very passionate, and to say that when I take the phone the person on the other end is very angry is an understatement. It is unbelievable the anger that has been sparked by this conversation and the prospect of increasing that age.
The argument on the other side is that we need to do something to protect the system that we have and cherish so much. Now we have experts who are basically saying that the sky is not falling, that the program is essentially sound and that what we are doing is raising the flag for no apparent reason.
 This is about old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. I cannot think of a greater poverty-fighter in this country than the pension system we currently hold dear, which I believe is the best in the world. It is a pension system that we work towards, we earn and we get unless we are a retired Mountie or a retired officer.
Now let us get back to that one. The integration of the systems pulls back the benefits that someone has accrued, the benefits due to them through the Canada pension plan. How about that? People work all these years in a job where they risked their life and are entitled to a defined benefit every month, only to have their Canada pension plan taken away from them despite having contributed to it. 
Essentially, with this clawback, we need to work towards stacking these pensions so that people get the full benefit of what they deserve.
Certainly I do believe that the input across the country has been great. Again, I go back to what the member mentioned about EI deductions, because that is one of the ways to get around this. It is one of the ways we can fix this with some positive comment in committee.
I certainly do believe that the people involved here should receive their benefits, because when it comes to the Canada pension plan, they do deserve it. They paid in, just like any other Canadian has done, and in addition have risked their lives. 
Regarding the superannuation, unfortunately, because of all these plans they have invested in, the clawback is insulting. Maybe that is a harsh word, but let us face it: it is an insult.
I do not get a clawback. I will not get one at 55.
Hon. Laurie Hawn:  Because you did not get a bridge benefit.
Scott Simms:  No, but I do get the benefit of working for six years here in the House of Commons and the benefit of receiving a pension that I believe I worked for. At the same time, it is certainly a lot more generous than what people who worked in the Canadian Forces or as a Mountie all their lives will receive.
Therefore, I would say to those who are casting doubt across the way that at the very least, the responsibility is on them to send this to committee if they feel their argument is a sound one.
Let us talk about the bridge. Today in this debate, how many Conservatives have spoken on this bill? Zero. How many will we see? Probably zero. I would suggest to them that at the very least, if they are not going to engage in an honest debate about this, they could bring this to committee.
It is a piece of legislation that affects 96,000 people across this country, people who gleefully pay into any pension plan they want to receive benefits from. In this particular case, it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation, as well as the Forces' superannuation.
In light of what may come in the budget to increase the age requirement from 65 to 67, this is an excellent time to be talking about this piece of legislation. I say this because in committee, we can also find out what the effects of any change in old age security will mean to people in the Forces or the mounted police.
I thank my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, and this House and the hundreds if not thousands of people across this country who provided their input. 
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke in this House raised a very relevant and pertinent question. Where are the Conservatives who are speaking on this bill? If they do not agree with it, at least they could participate and tell us what is wrong with this bill and why they cannot support it in principle, because that is what we are debating today, whether or not this bill should be supported in principle so that it can go to committee. That is a very good question and maybe we will see a few Conservatives get up now and speak to the bill.
First, I want to express gratitude to the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore because, as the previous members and others have said, he has worked diligently and with great honour and integrity on these issues affecting veterans. I know that since he was elected in this House in 1997, he has brought this file forward and exposed the inequalities and issues and grievances that exist within Veterans Affairs Canada and for all of the pensioners across the country who receive these pensions. It is a real testament to what an individual member can do with a private member's bill, and also beyond, working within the community. As we have heard today, there are over 100,000 people who have signed a petition supporting this bill. That is an enormous number of people. It is quite incredible. All of us would love to have a petition of 100,000 people, the result of years of work on this bill and reaching out and hearing from people about their legitimate concerns. 
Bill C-215 is very straightforward. It deals with an injustice. It deals with an inequity in our system. When people look at this issue, the first thing they would ask is why people who have served in the Canadian armed forces or the RCMP would lose a portion of their service pension when they reach age 65 and get their CPP or their CPP disability pension. They earned that service pension.
In British Columbia, where we also have a superannuation plan, I am not aware of any deductions being made. Through their service, people earn their superannuation, which stands on its own. Yet here, federally, we have a clawback where people forfeit one side of their contribution when another contribution kicks in. That seems to me to be fundamentally unfair.
 I am very glad that the member has brought this forward and has tried repeatedly to get this bill through the House of Commons. This bill was first brought forward in 2005. It actually did pass the House of Commons at second reading at one point and went to committee. However, the government has always foiled attempts to rectify this injustice. We have another opportunity here today with this bill to do the right thing, and if there are procedural matters around a royal recommendation, as the member for Halifax just pointed out, there are remedies for that too. There has been a lot of homework done on this bill to show that it can meet the rules and the procedures around private members' bills. 
The most important thing to note is that the government at any point or on any day it wanted to correct this issue could do so by introducing its own bill. Despite all the effort that has gone toward this private member's bill, let us not forget that the government itself has the mandate and authority to come forward with a bill to ensure that these seniors and pensioners do not lose out on their hard-earned money. Let us not forget that those pensioners had to work 20 years and that they made these contributions to the plan. This is not a go home free day, but a contribution that has been earned as a result of work service. As my colleagues have pointed out, these particular members of society have provided a service that is sometimes risky and very challenging in the Canadian armed forces and the RCMP.
This is a significant issue and it relates to the bigger issue of fundamental fairness. We have had debates in this House and in question period day after day about what is happening to the old age security system. 
There are so many people across the country asking what is going to happen to their pensions, if this is going to be taken away from them because of the plans that have been announced by the government. 
The Prime Minister did it in such a wonderful way in announcing it in Davos, Switzerland. Maybe he was hoping we would not notice it here in Canada. However, once that message gets through to seniors in this country, a lot of organization starts to happen. We are beginning to see it with the sit-ins at the Conservative members' offices, and I am sure we are going to see more of that. 
This is taking place within a bigger environment of growing inequality in our country. One of the things I find surprising is that we are always told it will cost too much, that this bill is something we cannot really afford. Let us look at the bigger picture. We will have had about $60 billion in corporate tax cuts. We have a public revenue pie and a government that has been hell bent on slashing away while providing tax cuts for profitable corporations. Just look at the six big banks and the billions of dollars in profits they made last year. These corporations can afford to pay their fair share. That is all we are asking for, a fair share, so that the public revenue pie can be properly divided to ensure that essential programs, like pension programs and supports for seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, can actually go ahead. 
The issue here is not affordability but the income inequality that has clearly been chosen by public policy decisions of this Conservative government, and governments previous to it as well. However, I am glad to see the Liberals are supporting this bill today. However, let us get the big picture right and recognize that what we are talking about here is not minor. In the big picture, this is something that is entirely supportable, defensible and doable, and it is the right thing to do.
I would echo others who have said in the House today that we should put aside some of the partisan feelings and instead focus on the merits of this bill and recognize that these members of the Canadian Forces and RCMP deserve to have their superannuation contributions recognized and upheld.
I want to make one last point. This does not only affect those individuals who worked and who made contributions, but also their spouses. We should acknowledge that many spouses of military members have difficulty finding and retaining employment because of their frequent moves and postings. That is something we can understand and relate to because they are moving around so much. Therefore, it is very difficult for them to contribute to their own pension plan. That is all the more reason to approve this bill, because we would be assisting the spouses of military and RCMP members and increasing their income level as a result.
There are too many people falling below the poverty line. There are too many people being left behind. We in the NDP have a pretty good track record of bringing forward economically sound proposals, whether on the CPP, OAS, employment insurance, child care or housing. We try to create a better balance on income inequality. 
Here is another really fine example of what we can do in the House if we vote for this bill. We can make sure that this injustice is corrected and that those receiving these service pensions are allowed to keep 100% of what they contributed and earned through their work.
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to stand and support this fine piece of work drafted by my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. It is a piece of legislation that every member in this chamber should be proud to support. It is the epitome of good, sound policy work that can be done by members of the House. I want to speak for a few moments about my colleague from Sackville--Eastern Shore.
The member has been elected six times to this chamber. I do not think there is any higher recommendation or expression of confidence that voters can give in a democracy than to send a person back to represent them half a dozen times. One of the reasons for that is because the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore is one of the finest, hardest working, most compassionate and most reasonable members in the House. He has demonstrated that time and time again. This piece of legislation before the House is a classic example of that fine work.
Many Canadians wonder what impact an individual member of Parliament can have on not only the House of Commons, but on our country. When done properly, when adequately researched, well thought-out and well consulted, a member of Parliament can bring an excellent idea to this chamber that can change the lives of many people. In this case, hundreds of thousands of people across this country would have their lives improved by this piece of work.
For Canadians watching, the bill has a big title, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity). That is a complex title for what is really a simple concept. That concept is essentially this: that the way our pension system is set up for members in our armed forces and the RCMP, it requires those members to make contributions to the Canada pension plan throughout their working careers. At the same time, those same members have to make contributions to a separate pension plan that is contributed to partially by them and partially by their employer.
When they reach retirement age of 65, one would expect they would then start receiving the dividends from the payments that were made, but that is not the case. At age 65, because of the way the legislation is set up, the amount of Canada pension plan that they would receive is deducted from the pension that they receive through their own contribution and that of their employer. In effect, the Canada pension plan portion of their pension is clawed back from their total pension receipts.
I think any fair-minded Canadian who hears that would be wondering why is that the case? What possible policy reason would there be for such an obvious inequity? Canadians would also ask themselves how is that fair? How is it that we expect people to make contributions through their working lives toward a pension that ultimately gets clawed back when it comes time to retire? That is the ultimate question that the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore set out to try to solve. This piece of legislation does exactly that.
I want to talk about pensions in this country. Before I was elected to the House, I was a pension trustee for seven years on a joint employer union pension fund in British Columbia and Yukon. In fact, it became a national plan. In those seven years, in which I was very honoured to occupy that role, which was a volunteer role by the way, it became extremely apparent to me what a critical part retirement plays in the lives of every Canadian. 
Every Canadian wants to obtain an education. Every Canadian wants to have a fulfilling, satisfying, rewarding career. But a very pivotal part of every Canadian's dream, of what makes a good Canadian life, is the opportunity at some point to put down their tools, to retire and spend time with their families, to spend time in their community, and to have the time where they can actually pursue hobbies and interests and to give back to this country. Often when we work we do not have as much time for that as we would like.
It is part of every Canadian's dream to have sufficient income to retire with dignity. Canadians do not want to live a life of exorbitance. They are not looking for extreme wealth in retirement. They just want enough to have a secure retirement, enough that they can pay their accommodation, feed their families, take care of their families, do a bit of travel and live the rest of their lives in the secure comfort and knowledge that they do not have to worry about poverty or financial pressure.
The bill would go some way to making that dream a reality for some of the most important people in our society, members of the armed forces and members of the RCMP. 
A very important point that I do not think has been expressed enough in the House is that, unlike other Canadians in this country, members of the armed forces and the RCMP do not have the legal ability to organize themselves into a union. They do not have the ability to take their concerns and sit down at a bargaining table with their employer and negotiate the terms and conditions of their work. Because they are deprived of that ability, they just have whatever remuneration package is determined for them thrust upon them. It is doubly incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to supervise that remuneration package and make sure it is fair. 
To claw back Canada pension plan benefits from men and women in our armed forces and RCMP who paid for those benefits, is simply unfair. It should be changed, and the bill would change it.
I want to talk for a moment about pensions in general, because of course that has been raised very much in the House by the clear direction of the government to raise the retirement age for old age security from 65 to 67. Day after day, week after week, the Conservatives in this House keeping say they just want to strengthen the plan, that they will not do it for anybody who is currently retired or near retirement. They will not say on whom they will impose this rule. Yet they will impose this rule on Canadians. It will be Canadians in their twenties, their thirties or their forties.
I have heard government members talk about what a wonderful job they have done managing the economy, how strong our economy is and how we are growing. Yet they are asking Canadians to take less. I am not exactly sure where all this largesse and all the benefit of the economy are going. They are certainly not going to our retirees. Retirees' lives in this country, according to the government's plan, will get worse. We just do not know when, whether it is next year, 10 years from now or 20 years from now. However, it is guaranteed they will get worse.
We all know old age security is a pay-as-we-go plan. There is not a segregated account into which we put money to pay for our old age security. It comes out of general revenues. The government is saying that we have a demographic challenge coming, the baby boom is coming and this plan will be unsustainable. 
I ask, did the Conservatives not see this coming? Did the baby boom sneak up on us? We have only seen that coming for 40 years. How is it that successive Conservative and Liberal governments have not seen this coming?
Over the last 30 years, from 1982 until now, the Conservative and Liberal governments have been in power exactly the same amount of time, 15 years each. For the last 30 years Canadians have listened to these parties say they are the best fiscal managers. Yet they could not even arrange to make sure that Canadians could have $6,500 in retirement when they turn 65. That is a shame.
At the same time, if it is a revenue problem, the Conservative government cut the GST by 2% and took $12 billion of revenue out of the federal government coffers. Just the last corporate tax cut, from 19% to 16.5%, took another $10 billion out of the government's coffers. That is $26 billion just on those two items alone that has come out of federal government revenue. Then the government says that it does not have enough money to pay for old age security.
Why did the Conservatives make those revenue cuts? What were they thinking two years ago? In terms of democracy, when the Conservatives say they have a strong mandate from the Canadian people, and we hear this repeated ad nauseam, why did they not get a mandate from the Canadian people eight months ago to raise the old age security levels from 65 to 67? Why did they not have the courage to tell Canadians that is what they would do? They must have known it, because the demographic bulge was there for everybody to see for decades.
 I speak highly in favour of the bill. Let us make sure every Canadian can have a secure retirement. Let us start with members of our armed forces and our RCMP officers and correct this longstanding inequity. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Pontiac, I must inform him that I will have to interrupt him at 2:12 p.m., in order to allow time for the right of reply.
The hon. member for Pontiac.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here in the House today to take part in the debate on Bill C-215.
I wish to congratulate my hon. colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore on his excellent work on this bill. I commend him for always caring so much about the interests of our heroes, our soldiers and our RCMP officers. I share his opinion that we need to do more for our veterans. They have given so much to our country, and we need to recognize this, not only with kind words and nice ceremonies, but also with concrete gestures that will improve their lives and make a difference.
That is why I wholeheartedly support this bill. It represents a real, important gesture to help veterans and their families. I am sure most Canadians will be shocked to learn, as I was when I was elected to this House, that many veterans of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP are living in poverty. I was also shocked to learn that many of them suffer from chronic illnesses and mental health problems and have no access to the medical services they need. 
Now I know, because I have had the privilege of meeting a number of these heroes in my office or at the legions in my riding. They are usually stoic and not in the habit of complaining. Consider what it must have taken for a courageous veteran to end up in a constituency office to complain about his financial situation. The situation for veterans 65 and over is getting worse. Our government should be ashamed of the economic situation of so many veterans. We have to do more; it is the honourable thing to do. 
It is unacceptable that the pensions of Canadian Forces and RCMP retirees are considerably reduced when the retirees begin to draw benefits from the Canada pension plan at age 65 or when they draw Canada pension plan disability benefits. They already have so little, and taking away some of their pension makes absolutely no sense. Even more unfair is that when this decision was made, the members of these forces had no say in how they wanted to make their mandatory contributions. It is unbelievable.
Yes. The unilateral decision was made, once again without consultation, to integrate the CFSA and CPP contributions, rather than stack the plan or increase their CFSA contributions. At the time, members did not realize that their retirement pensions would be reduced when they began collecting their CPP benefits, just when they needed them. It is possible to remedy this situation today. Eliminating the clawback provision with respect to members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP, as proposed by this bill, would be a way to straighten things out and to recognize the special and important contribution that these individuals make to our country. Members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP have roles and a lifestyle distinct from the general community. During their working years, they face dangerous conditions. 
My belief in this bill is so strong that, even if it were going to cost money, I would support it. The reality is that it will cost nothing. The lack of cost is yet another good reason to support this bill. All that is left for me to do is to invite and encourage the members of all parties to do something concrete for all our heroes and support this bill with the same enthusiasm as the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the NDP, my Liberal and Bloc colleagues, and those people who have spoken in favour of the bill over the last six years.
I personally want to thank John Labelle, Roger Boutin and Mel Pittman, three veterans and heroes of our country who raised this issue with me. I was ignorant of the facts. I did not know that this was happening to the heroes of our country.
I analyzed the information. I checked it out. I thoroughly argued it. This legislation has been voted on twice in the House. It has twice been supported by the majority of the House. The Prime Minister said that when a majority of the elected members of Parliament vote for something and it passes, the government should honour that result. The government has reversed its word twice and thus we are here debating the legislation one more time.
I want to make it clear that while it is called a benefit annuity reduction, but if it looks like a clawback, smells like a clawback, tastes like a clawback, I can assure the House that it is a clawback. It is as simple as that.
I would like anyone on the Conservative side to tell me why veteran Leslie Sanders of Trenton, Ontario, would lose $130 a month because he turned 65. His greatest sin was getting a year older. Why would he lose that money? 
I am not saying that what the government did in the past was illegal, but it was highly immoral. 
Members of the armed forces and the RCMP never had an opportunity to debate the so-called blended system to the stacked system. They were ordered to do this. Many of them did not know what was going to happen. They received what is called the dreaded letter informing them that they would lose a whole whack of money.
What is worse than having a pension clawed back at age 65 is what happens to those who are disabled. 
A 52-year-old RCMP officer in my riding is permanently disabled. His superannuation is approximately $3,000 a month. He was told to go on CPP disability which gave him over $800 a month. He agreed because he felt he would be okay. However, he was told that is not how the game is played. He would get his $800 disability payment but it was deducted dollar for dollar from his superannuation. Nobody told him that at the age of 65 disability payments would stop. His CPP would be reduced, which would be further reduced from his superannuation. That is how he is treated after 32 years of wearing the red serge in service to his country. It is simply unfair. It is simply wrong.
 We are talking about the heroes of our country, the men and women who wear their uniform with unlimited liability. It does not matter on what side of the House members sit, we all have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that their needs and the needs of their families are taken care of. That includes headstones. 
We should not be using outdated legislation that was passed almost 50 years ago to claw back money from the pension benefits of these men and women.
We have explained in previous debates how we could pay for it. We have explained in previous debates why it is important to allow these men and women financial dignity when they retire or become disabled. We have explained very clearly that many of these men and women move many times, in some cases 22 times, across the country and around the world, thereby denying their spouses the opportunity to put money into their own pension plans, thus further prohibiting their ability to live in financial dignity when they retire. It is fundamentally unfair.
We must bear in mind that this happens to all federal public servants in the country, with the exception of members of Parliament, senators and judges. 
We are doing this for members of the RCMP and the military because they do not have unions and associations to argue at a bargaining table for them. We are doing it for them because they lay their lives on the line so we can stand in the House and debate important issues.
I hear a lot of rhetoric from the Conservative Party. We will have a chance next week to see where those members stand. We will have a chance to see if their vote matches their words. 
I encourage Conservative members who say they support the men and women of the RCMP and the military to stand up and vote for this legislation. I ask them to allow once and for all those men and women who serve our country to have the financial dignity and support they so rightfully deserve.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 2:17 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen:  
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 15, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 2:18 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). May I wish everyone a grand weekend.
(The House adjourned at 2:18 p.m.)