2013-03-01

Government Orders
Not Criminally Responsible Reform ActHon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):  moved that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. The government introduced the bill because we want to ensure that public safety and the needs of victims receive the appropriate emphasis in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime. The mental disorder regime is the part of the Criminal Code that deals with accused persons who are found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.
Before I describe what is in the bill, I would like to mention what is not proposed by the bill. First, the proposed reforms do not seek to impose penal consequences on people who have been found by the courts to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The bill is grounded on the need to protect the public from accused persons who pose a danger to society. This public safety objective forms the basis of the existing federal legislative regime on mental disorders and provides the justification for the proposed reforms as well. 
Second, nothing in the bill would impact a mentally disordered accused's access to mental health treatment. It is well known that an increasing number of people who have become involved in the criminal justice system have mental health issues. These individuals pose unique challenges for police, courts and correctional officials. The government is committed to addressing the challenges posed by mental illness in the criminal justice system, and we have already made significant investments to improve the way offenders with mental health needs are managed. However, that is not the focus of the bill.
The not criminally responsible reform act does not apply to all individuals in the criminal justice system who have a mental illness. Rather, the bill focuses strictly on those who come within the purview of the Criminal Code's mental disorder regime and the corresponding provisions of the National Defence Act that deal with mentally disordered accused who are tried by a court. The mental disorder regime in both statutes applies only to individuals who have been found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Individuals who have a mental illness but have not been found unfit or not criminally responsible are dealt with in the traditional criminal justice system. 
To better understand exactly who is captured by the bill, it is important to understand the concepts of unfit to stand trial and not criminally responsible. Unfit to stand trial and not criminally responsible are two distinct concepts in criminal law. The question of whether an accused is fit to stand trial can arise at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered. If an accused has been charged with a criminal offence but is unable, due to a mental disorder, to understand the nature or possible consequences of the trial proceedings or to communicate with a lawyer, then the court will make an order declaring the accused to be unfit to stand trial. Usually treatment will be administered so that the person becomes fit and is able to be tried, but until a person becomes fit to stand trial, he or she is dealt with under the mental disorder regime. 
The question of whether or not an accused is criminally responsible for the offence charged focuses on the mental state of the accused at the time of the alleged offence. An accused may be found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder if at the time of the alleged offence the person lacked the capacity to either appreciate what he or she did or to know that it was wrong.
 Not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder was formerly referred to as not guilty by reason of insanity. The finding of not criminally responsible is neither a conviction nor an acquittal; it is a special verdict. Since a person found not criminally responsible is not convicted, the person is not punished or sentenced. Instead, the person is referred to the provincially established tribunal known as the review board, which is tasked with making decisions about the monitoring and supervision of mentally disordered accused persons. 
Following a finding of unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible, accused persons are subject to the mental disorder regime and are subject to the restrictions necessary to protect the public. 
The Criminal Code sets out the review board's powers with respect to decision-making as well as various procedural and administrative provisions with respect to the holding of hearings, appeals, ordering of assessments, et cetera.
In determining which of the available orders should be made regarding a mentally disordered accused, the review board must take into account four factors: the need to protect the public; the mental condition of the accused; the reintegration of the accused into society; and the other needs of the accused.
Bill C-54, which is before the House, has three main components. First, it seeks to ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration when decisions are made about not criminally responsible and unfit accused. Second, it creates a new high-risk, not criminally responsible accused designation. Third, it enhances victim safety and victim involvement in the mental disorder regime.
With respect to the role of public safety in the review board decision-making process, Bill C-54 clarifies that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process. As I just mentioned, the current approach is to balance four factors, of which public safety is one. The approach in the not criminally responsible reform act is to ensure that public safety is at the forefront of decision-making. In addition to clarifying that public safety is the paramount consideration, our legislation would also codify the meaning of the term “significant threat to the safety of the public”. This is the test used to determine whether or not a review board should continue to supervise a not criminally responsible accused.
Some provinces have indicated that review boards are interpreting this test too narrowly. To ensure consistent application across the country, our bill would codify the meaning of “significant threat to the safety of the public” consistent with the way it was interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada. It would clarify that the review board can continue to impose restrictions on a not criminally responsible accused who risks committing further criminal acts, even though he or she does not pose a threat of violence per se. For example, if the board is concerned about a not criminally responsible accused committing thefts or break-ins, it would be able to maintain jurisdiction over him or her and impose the necessary and appropriate conditions.
I would like to turn to one of the key features of Bill C-54. The bill proposes a new scheme that would permit the courts to designate certain non-criminally responsible accused as high risk. This high-risk accused designation would ensure that a person so designated would be held in custody and could not be considered for release by the review board until the designation was revoked by the court. A person found by the court to be a high-risk accused would not be entitled to unescorted passes into the community.
The high-risk not criminally responsible accused scheme would apply to the small number of accused who have been found not criminally responsible and who pose a higher threat to public safety. The scheme would permit a prosecutor to apply to the court for a designation when certain criteria were met.
First, it is important to note that the high-risk not criminally responsible scheme would apply to those found not criminally responsible. It would not apply to those who are found unfit to stand trial. The reason for this distinction is that an unfit accused has not yet been tried for the offence. It has not been proven that the person committed the acts that form the basis of the offence charged.
Further, if a person were not fit to stand trial, the person would also not be fit to participate in a hearing to determine whether he or she should be designated as a high-risk accused. If the accused is eventually tried and found to be not criminally responsible, he or she could at that point be subject to a high-risk designation, if the criteria were met.
Second, the high-risk designation process could only be launched with respect to a criminally responsible accused who was over the age of 18 years at the time of the offence. This is because the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act already provide public protection from youth who are found to be not criminally responsible by, for example, the imposition of an intensive rehabilitative custody supervision order on young people with mental health issues who have committed serious or violent offences. 
Third, the accused must have been found not criminally responsible for a serious personal injury offence. The existing mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code defines a serious personal injury as an indictable offence involving the use or attempted use of violence, conduct endangering life and a number of sexual offences listed in the Criminal Code. 
If these criteria were met, the Crown could apply to the court for a finding of not criminally responsible if the accused was high risk. If the Crown made the application, the court would hold a hearing to determine the level of risk posed by the accused. 
The court would make the finding that a non-criminally responsible accused was high risk in two circumstances. The first circumstance would be if the court was satisfied that there was a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person. This is a higher level of risk than is currently required to maintain jurisdiction over a not criminally responsible accused, which is a significant threat to the safety of the public. In order to justify the increased restrictions on the high-risk, not criminally responsible accused, the higher threshold of “substantial likelihood” is used in the legislation.
The second circumstance when a court could make the high-risk designation would be if the court were of the opinion that the acts in question were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public. 
Although the level of risk posed by a high-risk, not criminally responsible accused designated under this category would be lower than in the first circumstance, the nature of the actions that resulted in a serious personal injury that formed the basis for the application would point to the need for increased protection and restrictions.
The result of a high-risk designation would be that the accused would have to be detained in a hospital. The review board would not have the discretion to order an absolute or conditional discharge. Also, the high-risk accused would not be permitted to be absent from the hospital except for medical reasons or for any reason that was necessary for treatment. The absence would require an escort and a structured plan that had been put in place to address any risk related to the leave.
Generally, mentally disordered accused persons have their cases reviewed on an annual basis, but they may be extended up to two years in certain circumstances. Our bill would provide review boards with the discretion to extend the period between reviews to up to three years if the mentally disordered accused was found to be a high-risk, not criminally responsible accused.
The high-risk designation could only be revoked by a superior court of criminal jurisdiction. If, at a review hearing for a high-risk accused the review board is of the opinion that there was no longer a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person, it could recommend to the court that the high-risk designation be revoked. If and when the review board made this recommendation, the court would have to hold a revocation hearing. After considering all the evidence, the court would determine whether there is no longer a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person. If so, the court could revoke the high-risk finding.
 However, the revocation would not result in an automatic discharge of the accused. Instead, the accused would be dealt with as a regular not criminally responsible accused and would be supervised by the review board until the person no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, at which time he or she could be discharged.
The third component of the not criminally responsible reform act are provisions that enhance victim safety and victim involvement in the mental disorder regime.
Victims have raised concerns that their safety was not specifically being taken into consideration by review boards when decisions were being made.Victims also expressed concern that they had no way of knowing if and when a not criminally responsible accused was going to be discharged into the community. Victims would like an opportunity to have concerns with respect to their safety taken into consideration, and where necessary and appropriate, addressed in the conditions of discharge. Bill C-54 addresses these issues.
First, the bill would explicitly require that the safety of the victim be considered by courts and review boards when they make decisions with respect to persons found unfit and not criminally responsible.
Second, the bill would require the review board to notify the victim, upon request, if the accused person is to be released into the community. The amendment to make victim notification available upon request is a necessary component of this new notice requirement, as some victims do not want to be kept apprised of the release of an accused and may find notification to be an unwelcome reminder of the offence.
A third element intended to enhance victim safety is the specific power provided to review boards to order non-communication orders between mentally disordered accused and the victim. There is also a provision to specifically enable the review board to prohibit the accused from going to a specific place. The Criminal Code already provides such safeguards in the bail context. We think it makes sense to also include these powers in the proposed mental disorder regime reforms so they would also be available to review boards.
Finally, the bill would remedy a procedural matter raised in the 2012 decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In the Kobzar case, the court struck down the provision that provides for an automatic suspension of an absolute discharge immediately following a crown notice of appeal. The proposed reforms would replace the automatic suspension of an absolute discharge with a discretionary suspension, if the judge is satisfied that the mental condition of the accused justifies the suspension and the appeal.
I have had the opportunity to discuss a number of these issues with my provincial and territorial counterparts. In fact, a number of them wrote to me about concerns they have, including the need to ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process. I can confirm that my provincial and territorial counterparts support the idea of expressly making public safety paramount.
In closing, I think the bill effectively balances the right of the public to be adequately protected when mentally disordered accused persons pose a danger to society, with the rights of the unfit and not criminally responsible accused to be treated fairly and appropriately. I urge all members to support this important piece of legislation.
Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. I would like to ask him two questions.
First, is public safety not already a consideration of the courts and boards? Is that not the case already? If it is, this bill is somewhat redundant.
Second, many people are interested in another issue. Could the statistics minister tell the members of the House how many people who have been found not criminally responsible have gone on to reoffend and commit heinous crimes? We might be interested in seeing how many of these people became repeat offenders.
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer both of those questions.
The hon. member is correct, in part, that the protection of the public is a consideration of provincial review boards. However, it is one of four considerations that the board has. We are taking the protection of the public, one of those four considerations, and saying that it is the paramount consideration. They are to take into consideration the protection of the public as number one, and then the other considerations. It is not one of four, but the paramount consideration. This is a substantial change.
There are statistics, and I would be glad to share the report with the hon. member. Here are some of the interesting facts about those who are not criminally responsible. A little over 27% of individuals found not criminally responsible have had a past finding of not criminally responsible; 38% of those found not criminally responsible and accused of a sex offence had at least one prior NCR finding; 27% of those accused of attempted murder had at least one NCR finding; and, 19% of those accused of murder or homicide had at least one prior finding of not criminally responsible.
 Those are statistics and findings that have been researched. I would be pleased, of course, to share this with the hon. member in more detail.
Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, many of our bills focus directly on the rights of victims. Our government is moving closer to recognizing that victims are an important part of the Canadian justice system, and we want to make sure they are adequately protected.
I am wondering if the minister could talk about what the bill would do in terms of taking care of and protecting victims, and maybe what he has heard victims say about this legislation.
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Yukon for his interest in all our reforms in the criminal justice area. I certainly appreciate the support he has given to this particular piece of legislation, and the other pieces of legislation that we have presented to Parliament.
This legislation has been well received by victims groups across this country. I have spoken with victims groups and individuals who have been victimized by people who have been found not criminally responsible. I very much appreciate how supportive they have been in speaking out on the measures contained in the bill.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, this is one of the three major components of the bill to better protect victims. The bill would ensure that when victims want to be notified that, for instance, an individual is going to be released, they will get that notification. Members are familiar with the Criminal Code provisions with respect to bail and the ability of the courts to impose certain conditions on an individual on bail in terms of staying away from the alleged victim. To extend those to the review board is only reasonable, so that individuals being released can have conditions put on them that take into consideration where the victim lives and goes to work or school. That will play a part in the conditions that are placed upon them.
Again, that is one of the three major components, and one of the ones I am most proud of in the bill.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, we agree with the intent of the legislation. There are likely some important discussions to be had in committee.
I would like to ask the Minister of Justice about administration. The proposed measure will increase costs for the provinces, which are responsible for administering justice. Judging by what we hear from the justice department, the provinces will not be compensated.
Can the minister confirm that the provinces will not receive compensation for the additional costs that will be imposed on them for the administration of justice? Have there been negotiations and discussions with the provinces about that?
We were deeply troubled by that issue in the case of other bills, such as Bill C-10. I would like to know if that is the case for this bill.
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, for the most part, the administration of justice within our Constitution comes within provincial jurisdiction, and it is very clear with respect to the issue we are discussing today. Those provincial boards are set up and administered by the provinces. This is part of the constitutional division of powers between the two levels of government. As I indicated in my comments, a number of provincial attorneys general have written to ask me to have a look at this area and make sure that protecting the public is paramount. We are, in one sense, responding to the concerns that are out there. 
I just mentioned to the member for Yukon what victims are telling me. However, I do not want to leave the impression that those who are looking to have this area reformed are confined to victims groups, though we consider them very important. I was pleased at the response I received from my provincial and territorial counterparts. A number of them have come out publicly to talk about this. Certainly, they have made that point to me. We are very pleased to co-operate with them in our level of responsibility and within our constitutional jurisdictions.
Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, both my colleague and I are lawyers. As lawyers, we need to strike a balance between reason and compassion.
I very much prize the clarity by the minister and the government in balancing those things. I wonder if the minister might elaborate on the question of compassion, not just to victims, but others who are implicated in the types of crimes we are talking about. If there is a comment that puts the minister and the government in a good light, it is that we hit the equilibrium in the right place. There is clarity about the criteria, and there is still an emphasis on compassion, certainly to victims and maybe to others.
[Interjection]
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada takes the whole issue of mental health very seriously. We have invested over $376 million in mental health research. We have increased health transfers to the provinces to help them meet their responsibilities in this area. My colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, would say that we have invested over $90 million in helping the individuals who are in federal custody with mental health problems. We all have a stake in making sure these individuals get the treatment and the help they need.
Indeed, even within this bill on the high-risk category, the individuals we are talking about who pose a risk to the public are also a risk to themselves. They are not helping themselves if they are back out on the street. It is important to realize that this strikes a very appropriate balance. We want to help victims. Ultimately, we want these individuals to get the help and treatment they need.
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act.
The minister often introduces bills based on newspaper headlines, and I have often criticized this way of doing things.
We are all well aware of which incidents served as the basis for Bill C-54. For Quebeckers, it was the Turcotte case, and for western Canadians, it was the case of the individual with serious mental problems who decapitated passengers on a Greyhound bus. 
All of these incidents can be described as gruesome. I am not saying that the media like to report on these sorts of events; however, these events do give the media graphic video images that are not always nice to see but that make it easy to stoke public opinion.
Before we begin examining Bill C-54, we must understand what this bill refers to. We are talking about people who will be found not criminally responsible because of mental problems. We cannot look at the provisions of Bill C-54 without looking at section 16 of the Criminal Code, which deals with mental disorders.
Section 16(1) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
 16. (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong. 
I would like to simplify this provision so that those listening to us will understand. This means that people who, because of a mental disorder, are unable to appreciate the quality of the act they have committed, whether it be murder or another type of assault, will not be found criminally responsible.
However, the Criminal Code presumes that every person is of sound mind, even though one sometimes has to wonder about that. Seriously though, the Criminal Code presumes that individuals are of sound mind.
Section 16(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
 (2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities. 
 That is the problem in some cases. Dr. Turcotte’s case received a lot of media coverage in Quebec. People followed the trial with great interest because they wondered how such an intellectual man, a doctor, could have killed his children in the wake of a family break-up, of separation and divorce. When people do not follow the trial and do not understand the kind of evidence required, their imaginations get the better of them.
 According to the Criminal Code, the burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue and must be proven on the balance of probabilities. The concept of mental disorder is very often the biggest part of the problem. It is not always very easy to prove.
 I believe that background is important and that we should recall some previous decisions of the House. In 2002, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled a report on the Criminal Code provisions on mental disorders.
 After the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled its report, the government decided to retain the current wording of the definition of the mental disorder defence under section 16 of the Criminal Code and the definition of “mental disorder” set out in section 2 of the Code.
 Section 2 of the Criminal Code is still as important as it was then and provides that “mental disorder” is defined as “a disease of the mind”. It is up to the trial judge, not the jury, to rule on what constitutes a disease of the mind or a mental disorder.
 Some people believe that juries determine that. They think that juries are not equipped to make that kind of legal finding, and they are right. That is why it is up to the trial judge to determine whether it has been proven on a balance of probabilities that the person had a mental disorder.
 That definition has remained the same since the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in R. v. Cooper in 1980.
 A disease of the mind embraces any illness, disorder or abnormal condition that impairs the human mind and its functioning, excluding, however, self-induced states caused by alcohol or drugs as well as transitory mental states such as hysteria and concussion. In order to support a defence of insanity, the disease must, of course, be of such intensity as to render the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the violent act or of knowing it was wrong.
 So the test is quite rigorous. Mental disorder must be proven on a balance of probabilities. Those who have followed what is going on in criminal law or who have taken an interest in the matter and have followed trials in which such defences have been raised know that evidence cannot be provided by just anyone. It may be based on the facts so as to prove a certain type of behaviour, but the finding or establishment of scientific or psychiatric evidence is done by expert witnesses.
 Incidentally, and here I am thinking out loud, it might be interesting to see how the assessments are designed. The trial judge assesses the independent status of the expert summoned by the defence or by the Crown and determines what kind of evidence was presented. That is part of the trial. Where the individual is found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, it follows that he or she will be taken into the system to receive care.
 I encourage people to read the February 2013 issue of the Barreau du Québec's Journal du Barreau. On page 8, they will find a column by the eminent lawyer Jean-Claude Hébert on criminal non-responsibility, mental disorder, prisoners and patients. When the public looks at these cases, they sometimes think they make no sense. The crime in itself is terrible; it gives us the shivers and makes us question human nature. Then we hear that the person was incapable of criminal intent to commit the murders in question because he or she suffered from a serious mental disorder. I do not mean a minor bout of hysteria because the person was in a bad mood. It takes much more than that. We heard some incredible things during all those trials which were often amplified by some of the media because that increases circulation or makes for good phone-in shows. When I hosted a radio phone-in show, I heard about cases that made people wonder what was going on with the justice system.
 Our role as politicians and legislators is not to inflame the debate based on hearsay or statements we cannot really prove. Mr. Hébert touches on the extremely relevant point on whether we are talking about prisoners or patients. Here we are clearly talking about patients. These are people who have been acknowledged as suffering from a serious mental disorder. So if we think the verdict is wrong, Mr. Speaker, there is a solution. You know it as well as I since you are a distinguished jurist.
 In the circumstances, if we are not satisfied, that means we can appeal the decision. And if the reported facts are accurate, I believe the Turcotte decision is under appeal. However, if the diagnosis and the judge's decision on the matter were well-established on a balance of probabilities, as provided for by subsection 16(2) of the Criminal Code, as I said earlier, the Court of Appeal will confirm the judge's decision. Otherwise, it will overturn it and rule that the person may not use that defence. It will tell the individual that he or she was aware, was not suffering from a serious mental disorder and, in the circumstances, may not be considered not criminally responsible.
 However, we are not at that point. We are dealing with cases in which the individual actually has a serious mental illness and is taken into care by the state. Another system enters into play, therefore. That is what Bill C-54 is trying to do.
 I have heard some more incredible things about this. First this was announced by the Conservative government more than three times: first, by the Minister of Justice himself, second, by Senator Boisvenu and, third, by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, and then by the Prime Minister. We have heard all kinds of things.
 After listening to the press conferences, I was eager to read the bill, since it seemed to solve all the problems for victims and all the problems of repeat offenders. I would also add, as an aside, that I am very eager to see the minister’s statistics. 
 Again, I really urge my colleagues to go and read the vaunted report I was talking about. It is the government’s response, so it is not just the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, it is the committee’s recommendations and the government’s response to those recommendations. That report shows the low percentage of people who are found not criminally responsible, with all due respect to the Boisvenus of the world who think there are tonnes of them. There are not tonnes.
 It is true that the percentage has risen over the years. However, and this is what it does not say, before 1991, if I recall correctly, when the amendment was made to the Criminal Code, the term was changed from “not guilty by reason of insanity” to “not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder”. At that point, summary conviction offences were also added, and this resulted in a lot of cases that had not been covered previously.
 Obviously that had an impact on the statistics. According to the government’s responses, we are talking about a tiny percentage of cases where the individuals were found to be not criminally responsible. Of that minute number of repeat offenders, the minister talked about 28% of them who may have already committed an offence. The entire issue is now whether they had committed serious crimes when they had a mental disorder.
 You know, as do I, that statistics can be made to say just about anything. So we have to look at this kind of case and stop playing the game that some of the media play. These are not subjects that should be played with to inflame the population. On the contrary, what is really happening has to be explained. We are dealing with something that no one in this House is familiar with, unless perhaps a psychiatrist was elected in the 2011 election, but I doubt that. Unless you are a mental health professional, these are cases that are sometimes incomprehensible in terms of the evidence involved.
 I was working in radio at the time, and I recall a crime in my region. A woman had killed her husband, and there was some question of the whole issue of battered wife syndrome. Some absolutely unbelievable discussions ensued. People were surprised that someone could be acquitted of murder because of battered wife syndrome. The person in question was able to leave her home and function. It was proven that very serious mental disorders could arise out of that syndrome. Today, not as many questions are being asked about that syndrome. Things like that need to be toned down.
 And so after listening to the press conferences, I thought that the Conservatives were going to delve into the concept from A to Z. The actual statistics show that there may be some exceptional cases in the system, but we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater every time there is a big headline in the newspapers, so they can take it out and about in the ridings.
 It is so popular to say that the Conservatives are listening to people, that the issue is complicated, that they have done something, that they will be getting tough on people with mental disorders to make sure that they stay inside at least until they find it is reasonable to let them out.
 I look forward to seeing what is going to happen in committee. My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques very subtly announced that we were going to pass this bill at second reading. It is the sort of issue that deserves this kind of treatment. We always want to try to get rid of the irritants in the legal system for the victims, who are shortchanged in the legal system. They really are and I agree 100%. I do not think the victims will be treated properly with the band-aid solutions that we are getting from this government.
 During the press conference given by the Minister of Justice, which Mr. Kennedy attended, Mr. Kennedy said he appreciated the efforts, but that we must not forget that victims must be cared for and given help. This is not what we are seeing in Bill C-54. A clause was added where they can, if they ask, draft something in writing. One of the victims who was with the Prime Minister said that she was unable to write. She said that she was still too close to the whole thing to be able to talk about what happened and so on. 
 This is not what we are hearing at the Standing Committee on Justice. What we are hearing is that when they are in the system and the trial begins, they become witnesses just like all the other witnesses. They are often treated with even less respect than witnesses in civil and commercial cases. Deals are reached between the Crown and the defence. Then, all we see is someone who is wondering what is happening; the case is closed. Why? Because there has been a deal between the Crown and the defence. I would not call that putting the victims first.
 This is what I have been trying to say right from the start. If the government really wants to change things and give the impression that it is taking care of the victims, it has to stop coming up with band-aid solutions. They look okay but they do not do very much.
 It is difficult to be against motherhood and apple pie. So when we hear that special care will be taken when a high-risk person is involved, I would like to send out a note of caution to the people of Quebec and people in other regions who have gone through this kind of thing. They may have been witnesses, through the media, to certain events. Will the bill ensure that someone like Dr. Turcotte would be considered high risk? This is certainly not the case when I take a look at the definitions in Bill C-54. It does not seem to come under any of the criteria at all.
I am not clairvoyant, but we have to admit that past behaviour is often a predictor of future behaviour. I can just see the senator touring all around Quebec and parts of Canada and telling people that they listened and solved the problem. I say that is not the case. The title of the bill indicates that this is a reform. The minister may be right in saying that it is a major change because he has made this criterion the most important one of all. Except that was already the case in the courts. The courts repeatedly said that public safety was the most important criterion.
Do the Conservatives really believe that a court or a commission would not consider the risk to public safety before releasing a person who was found not criminally responsible for a horrible crime? Do they take the people who sit on commissions or on the benches for idiots? If the answer is yes—that is the impression we sometimes have—they should have made the entire exercise mandatory. What did they do instead? They made it optional. The Conservatives should stop saying that they are not satisfied with the courts and give them the authority to go out and see what is happening.
I will have a lot more to say about this in committee. This time, I hope the minister comes armed with statistics instead of empty talking points. I hope he brings the studies prepared by his department on the bill's constitutionality and compliance with the charter. I can see us keeping someone in prison who will file a writ of habeas corpus. I really do not want to hear that kind of debate.
For all these reasons, we will support the bill at second reading. However, we need to study the bill in detail because we do not want to have more victims. The Conservatives cannot say that punishing someone who is considered ill is a kind of victimization. In this case, all that can be done is to help them heal.
John Weston: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite cares deeply about this issue. It is a great pleasure to hear her speak so passionately. According to world-renowned philosopher Plato, reason is above passion.
I would like to ask the member two questions. We can see that logic and reason play a huge role in this bill. There is an analysis of the criteria we want to use when making decisions about the people being discussed today.
The minister emphasizes public safety. Among the four criteria presented, public safety is the first one we will base our decisions on.
What could be more important than keeping the public safe? What could possibly matter more than the safety of a community when we make decisions about the people we are discussing today?
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: I temper my passion with reason, Mr. Speaker. I have scrutinized each and every clause of the bill. I will always react passionately, however, when someone attempts to tell us something is there that is not.
First off, both those questions have very simple answers. Public safety and protecting the public are a priority for Conservatives and New Democrats alike. Not once have I stated otherwise. I wish they would stop insulting our intelligence by saying the system never fails, however. To err is human. I agree that we should strive to reduce the possibility of error.
We have case law. As every lawyer in the House knows full well, whoever pleads their case in court must base their arguments on different aspects of the law, namely legislation, case law and doctrine. Those three things make up our legal system and ensure rule of law in Canada. Case law has already established that a judge must always consider public safety and protection of the public above all when deciding whether or not to release someone.
Is that rule consistently applied? That is another matter. Legislating more consistent application will not necessarily make it so. A judge or board will still be able to argue that, given the facts of the case, there is no threat to public safety, which does not necessarily mean something will not happen six weeks or six months down the line. There are never any guarantees when dealing with human beings.
This is why I object to these false prophets who walk around claiming to solve all the world's problems when, in fact, they have not done squat.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the justice critic for the official opposition for her interesting, thoughtful and important speech.
In this case, the key issues relate to human rights and people suffering from mental illness. This is somewhat different from criminality, since it is a health issue. We need to strike a balance between protecting public interest, which is very important, and protecting human rights.
If we were to imagine a system that would, at the same time, protect the rights of ill people and protect society against violence, what would the best possible system look like?
[Interjection]
Françoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a perfect answer to this question. It is the question that we must always ask and to which we must always try to find the most specific answers. We also have to give the people who are in a much better position than we are in this House the tools they need to solve this problem.
I have a great deal of respect for psychiatrists and all those who work in the mental health field. Unfortunately, here in Canada, they often get less than their due. Even my Conservative colleagues have to admit it. It is something that we are not used to dealing with and that we really do not understand.
I will never be able to repeat it enough: the danger with this bill is that we are making Canadians believe that the people who committed these offences are not patients, but prisoners. They are not criminals like Bernardo, for example, or like someone who coldly and with no regard for other people’s lives decided to commit unspeakable crimes. We have examples of this, here.
 In this bill, we are talking about serious mental disorders. I cannot say it often enough: if we are not happy with the verdicts, we should discuss the verdicts. If we are reasonably satisfied with the verdicts, they have not been appealed and they are final decisions, the person is taken into care. What I think is that the system requires greater investment in protecting mental health. We have to be reasonably satisfied that the people in question are being well treated. However, it would be very sad to let people believe that we live in a society that is full of people who have been recognized as not criminally responsible because of mental illness and who are walking around in the open.
 On the other hand, we have to ensure that these people and the victims are up to speed. There are some good elements in this bill, as I said in my speech. I just do not like how the stage is set, sometimes, because it takes some of the credibility away from the bill, with the kind of political speeches we are hearing about something as serious as mental disorders.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: We must now proceed to statements by members. There will be time for one more question after oral question period.

Statements By Members
Canadian Rotary ClubsMr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this weekend Canada will welcome Mr. Sakuji Tanaka, the president of Rotary International. Today he will join celebrations marking 100 years of Rotary in Toronto and tomorrow he will highlight the leadership role of Rotary in the effort to eradicate polio.
Rotarians are the voluntary backbone of their communities, and Canadians appreciate their work with youth and seniors and on important local projects. Canadian Rotary Clubs are also making a tremendous impact around the world. In my riding, the Rotary Clubs in Bowmanville and Port Perry have supported clean water projects in Laos and the Rift Valley region of Africa. The Rotary Club in Uxbridge has been working with Dignitas in Malawi to prevent the transmission of HIV from mother to infant. My own Rotary Club in Courtice has worked with the Michael “Pinball” Clemons Foundation and Free the Children to build schools in Africa.
Today also marks the conclusion of the Pennies and More for Polio program, through which our government and the Gates Foundation each matched dollar for dollar the millions raised across Canada by Rotary. As Rotary's founder Paul Harris once said, “Great things happen when good people come together”. 
Today I salute the good Rotarians working across Canada and the great impact they are making around the world.
Employment InsuranceMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government just does not get it. After Liberals and Conservatives stole $57 billion from the EI fund, the Conservatives are making things even worse for the unemployed, for seasonal workers and for those in precarious or intermittent work. Now fewer than four out of ten unemployed people have access to benefits, and those benefits are being decreased. Do the Conservatives not realize that seasonal industries are an important part of our economy? They include forestry, fishery, construction and agriculture, and tourism too, which just hit the $1 billion a year mark in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Then Conservatives say that people do not want to work. They could join me on the planes from Atlantic Canada filled with workers off on the long commute to Alberta, to Fort McMurray and beyond, and to other parts of Canada and the world for weeks and weeks at a time. Is this a culture of defeat? I do not think so.
People want to work, and so do the unemployed, but they do not want to be treated like offenders or fraudsters, have their incomes reduced and have their communities hurt. The Conservatives should roll back these callous cuts and stop attacking the unemployed.
YukonRyan Leef: Mr. Speaker, February may be the dead of winter, but that does not slow Yukoners down. The Yukon Quest 1,000 Mile International Sled Dog Race celebrated its 30th year. Congratulations to the dedicated volunteers and organizers who have made this race a world-renowned success year after year. I would also like to recognize the athletes, both the drivers and the dogs, who endure the world's toughest sled dog race.
Earlier in the month Michael Sumner, Yukon's own Special Olympian figure skater, won the silver medal at the world championships in Korea. It was a pleasure for me to award Michael the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal for being such an awesome ambassador for athletes, for Yukon and for Canada.
Last week we enjoyed the Yukon Sourdough Rendezvous Festival. Congratulations to Kim Solonick, this year's Rendezvous Queen as Miss Ecofor Consulting. Congratulations, Kim.
Rendezvous is our mid-winter festival and the only legal cure for cabin fever blues. We have broken the back of winter. Spring is on the way.
National Brain Awareness MonthMs. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, March is National Brain Awareness Month, a time to encourage Canadians to learn how to nurture a healthy brain, to help recognize individuals who have been adversely affected by brain disorders and to advocate for a national brain strategy.
Today, 5.5 million Canadians and their families live with a neurological disease, disorder or injury. If the brain is not working properly, then every part of life can be compromised. Often people living with a brain condition face stigma and a general lack of understanding about their condition, leading to feelings of frustration, hopelessness and isolation.
The national population health study of neurological conditions will end in March 2013. My appeal is for a joint meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health to help support the development of a framework, working with stakeholders across the country, toward a pan-Canadian action plan for the brain.
VeteransMr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are proud of our veterans and their heroic efforts to protect our democratic systems and beliefs. Many of them sacrifice their lives or their safety in order to serve Canada.
I am proud to reiterate the important support that our government provides to veterans such as Mr. James Joyce, a World War II veteran from British Columbia who is visiting Ottawa today with friends from my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. Mr. Joyce served for four years in the Royal Canadian Navy on the frigate Poundmaker in the Atlantic and on the minesweeper Miramichi in the Pacific. Like all veterans, including World War II veterans in my own riding, he is deserving of our respect and admiration for his courage.
Our Conservative government listens to veterans. Under our Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, we have responded by delivering record amounts of funding and key programs. We recently put in place Helmets to Hardhats Canada, the new veterans charter and the veterans transition action plan to help veterans transition to civilian life.
I assure veterans of our government's commitment to providing services that meet their needs and those of their families.
Official LanguagesMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that last Wednesday I saw the vast majority of my colleagues rise in the House to support my private member's bill, Bill C-419, calling for bilingualism for officers of Parliament. 
This bill is an important way for elected members of Parliament to show that they want to maintain institutional bilingualism. By supporting this measure, we have helped make the Parliament of Canada a fairer and more representative institution.
This is a huge victory for all official language minority communities. 
I would like to take this opportunity to commend the enthusiasm of the communities of Moncton and Dieppe, in Acadia, and Saint-Boniface, in Manitoba, where I have seen first-hand the strong attachment to the French language. 
I am especially pleased that we are able to work together beyond ideological differences for the good of our country. It is with co-operation and good faith that we will succeed in strengthening Canada's official languages from coast to coast to coast.
Thank you to all those who supported Bill C-419. I hope that my bill will keep moving in this direction in the House.
Global Community AllianceMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is with both pride and humility that I congratulate Global Community Alliance, which held its fourth annual gala last Saturday.
Global Community Alliance is one of 300 organizations in Ottawa—Orléans that relies heavily on volunteers.
Its gala aims to highlight diversity and encourage unity in Ottawa, values that our community holds dear.
Moses Abayomi Pratt did an excellent job organizing the event, which raised money for Black History Month.
Congratulations to Yomi and his wife Kelly Pratt, to Ryan Pascal for his inspiring speech, and to Bertilia Christian, Tarrah Mauricette, Ewart Walters, Adrienne Coddett, Gabriela Bernal Astrain, MPP Yasir Naqvi and my friend June Girvan for the recognition they received.
To all, thank you for making Ottawa—Orléans and our nation’s capital a place where everyone has a chance to succeed.
Harriet TubmanMr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, March 10 will mark the 100th anniversary of Harriet Tubman's death. Harriet Tubman escaped slavery to become one of the great heroes of the 19th century. She was best known as the conductor on the underground railroad, where she risked her life to rescue people from American slavery by bringing them to freedom here in Canada. She helped these black refugees settle after their arrival and played an active role in the campaign to abolish slavery in the United States.
The last stop on that railroad was Harriet's church, the British Methodist Episcopal Church of St. Catharines.
On March 9, I will be proud to join members of the BME church in St. Catharines, and I invite anyone who is interested to join our community in celebrating the life and achievements of Harriet Tubman, one of Canada's greatest abolitionists and a woman who made an historic difference.
Federal Income Tax ReturnMr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the people of Louis-Hébert are furious this tax season.
Filing a tax return is bad enough as it is. There is certainly no need to complicate things unnecessarily.
But that is what this government is doing by not sending the forms to everyone who wants them.
Not everyone can use a software program or hire an accountant to file their tax return. The Minister of National Revenue should know that. She once ran a tax preparation program for seniors.
We are getting calls at our constituency offices from angry citizens, including an 80-year-old woman who thinks that this is unacceptable.
People are upset that they cannot get their forms by mail, cannot reach anyone by phone in a timely fashion, and cannot find the full tax form package where they are supposed to be able to get it.
We cannot reduce paper use on the backs of people who have no alternative. It is unacceptable.
I am calling on the Minister of National Revenue to listen to reason and respect the choice of every taxpayer the next time.
Human RightsMr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to commemorate the tragic murder of Shahbaz Bhatti two years ago. As Pakistan's minister for minorities, he worked bravely and tirelessly on behalf of minority groups, many of whom were discriminated against under Pakistan's blasphemy laws. Minister Bhatti himself was well aware of this. He was the first and only Christian in the Pakistani government's cabinet.
Despite escalating violent threats, he continued his work bravely and undaunted until he was savagely gunned down on the street following a visit to his mother's home in 2011.
Our government is committed to continuing the legacy of standing up for the natural rights and freedoms of all, the freedom to worship under peace and security. Our new Office of Religious Freedom will not only advocate on behalf of religious minorities under threat but also promote the values of pluralism and tolerance.
I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in not only remembering Shahbaz Bhatti but in carrying on his fight for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.
The EconomyMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives like to boast that getting Canada’s economy back on track is their priority. 
However, the people of the riding of Pontiac are wondering what concrete steps the Conservatives intend to take to make that happen. The Conservatives are choosing to ignore the many requests for assistance from the SOS Vallée-de-la-Gatineau committee. For two months now, it has been asking the government for help to recover from the devastating snowstorm that struck the area last December 21. None of the ministers contacted has bothered to respond, even though the local economy is suffering. It is ridiculous.
And what is the Conservative government doing to help the workers who toiled their whole life at the White Birch pulp and paper mill in Masson-Angers and who have seen their pensions slashed by more than 50% because their employer is going bankrupt? Again the government is conspicuous by its absence.
Instead of passing legislation to protect Canadian workers and those in my riding, the Conservatives would rather see foreign investors steal our workers’ pensions. Something needs to be done. The government needs to take action.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of our Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Canada has become a leader in a very troubled global economy. Today Statistics Canada revealed our economic growth in the last quarter has led all G7 countries. Under our government, Canada has also led the entire G7 in job creation, with over 900,000 net new jobs created since July 2009.
While our government is creating jobs, the NDP is proposing a $21 billion job-killing carbon tax that would increase the cost of gas, electricity and everything, but that is not all: the NDP is also proposing over $50 billion to implement an array of social programs, from a 45-day work year to state-run child care.
Canadians simply cannot afford the NDP.
Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame InducteeMr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, within the press gallery we are fortunate to have so many talented individuals. A shining example of dedication not only to Parliament and Canadian politics but also to the agricultural sector is Barry Wilson.
 Among the press gallery's longest-serving, Barry has reported on Ottawa politics and agriculture for over 30 years, a career he began after catching the politics bug while growing up on a farm in Gatineau, in the shadow of the Peace Tower. He began collecting political memorabilia, impressively including the autographs of all 22 prime ministers. These memorabilia are now proudly displayed at Carleton University.
Through 13 federal elections, Barry ensured that agricultural policies and the politicians involved were both held to account and given a fair hearing. His achievements were rightly honoured in November, when he was inducted into the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame. He is only the second journalist to be so honoured, after trailblazer and Manitoba Free Press correspondent Cora Hind. 
I think it only appropriate that we here assembled in the House of Commons, a place close to his heart, join the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame in honouring Barry Wilson for years of service. We look forward to many more to come.
The EconomyMs. Eve Adams (Mississauga—Brampton South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, day after day, week after week, our Conservative government continues to work hard for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. As a matter of fact, this weekend I and other members of our caucus will be heading home to our ridings to continue our work for Canadians. 
While we are focused on the economy and keeping taxes in the pockets of hard-working Canadians as much as possible, the opposition has a different plan in store. It would like to bring in a brand-new carbon tax. As listed on page 4 of his party platform in black in white, the Leader of the Opposition and his party want to impose a sneaky $20 billion job-killing carbon tax. This would increase the price of everything, from gas to groceries to electricity. I do not know about other members, but I certainly think we pay too much for gasoline already.
We call on the Leader of the Opposition to come clean on the New Democrats' job-killing carbon tax with Canadians.
The SenateMr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we knew the Conservatives were prepared to do anything to defend the lowliest actions on the part of senators. Now the reason why is clearer to us. 
In addition to using their fundraisers to campaign with public funds, they are using their majority in the Senate to strong-arm anyone who dares speak the truth.
Senators now have in their crosshairs the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the person responsible for disclosing to Canadians the true cost of the Conservatives’ bungles. Once he is out of the picture, will the senators start to attack employees who blow the whistle on abuses within their departments? 
The Conservative let them lie about where they reside if in exchange they attack those they have issues with. Not a bad system, if you ask me.
The NDP believes the Parliamentary Budget Officer plays a critically important role. We refuse to support an undemocratic, unaccountable relic like the Senate. 
The so-called upper chamber must be abolished. That is all there is to it.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since the last election, Canadians have wondered how many of the NDP caucus are actually committed to Canada. Yesterday, Canadians got their answer.
Today in the National Post we read, “NDP defection leaves [the NDP leader] facing a mess of his own making”.
 The Toronto Star says, “When federalist political parties play footsie with separatists, bad things can happen”.
Tasha Kheiriddin warns “the NDP can forget about 58 seats in la belle province, forget about being a government-in-waiting – and backbenchers...can forget about even holding their seats”.
Elizabeth Thompson says the defection exposes the NDP's Achilles heel and “all the finesse of a knife sliding between shoulder blades”.
Joan Bryden of Canadian Press says the defection “raised doubts about the NDP's ability to hang on to its new-found base in Quebec”.
The leader of the NDP needs to step up. If he will not separate the separatists from his party, Canadians will separate his party from Parliament. 

Oral Questions
The EconomyMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again Conservative economic projections are proving dead wrong. GDP numbers are worse than what the Minister of Finance is banking on. Scotiabank confirms, “Momentum in the Canadian economy has thoroughly waned”. In the U.S. today, potentially disastrous budget cuts are kicking in. 
In the face of so many threats to our economy, are the Conservatives really planning another austerity budget that would further weaken our economy? Plan A is looking pretty weak right now. Does he even have a plan B?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, the NDP members show that they do not really grasp economics. If they saw the numbers today, they tell a pretty good story, that Canada is actually leading the G7 in economic growth. What is more, five of the other six countries are experiencing an economic shrinkage. The next best country is the one that is facing a fiscal crisis right now.
If people want to see an example of what happens when NDP spending plans are adopted, including this week's proposal for a $5.5 billion housing plan, they can just look south of the border and see what happens when a country is in debt up to its ears.
National DefenceNathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the only shrinkage Canadians will see will be from the Conservative government's cuts to services and infrastructure spending that our economy actually needs.
Conservative mismanagement has put the joint support ship program into disarray. The New Democrats and Canadians support this program because it is good for our navy, good for our economy and creates real jobs. Why are the Conservatives continuing to ignore the advice and evidence of the Parliamentary Budget Officer? When will they stop shooting the messenger long enough to actually listen to the message?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader has been getting a message and I hear he will be in Sherbrooke today, which is quite timely because he will be with his NDP candidate there, his own hand-picked candidate since he chose them all, and that is the candidate who is now an MP who said, “In my campaign, I said sovereignty will be done in Quebec”. He went on to say, “we will respect sovereignty in the NDP”.
I guess the reason the NDP leader is in Sherbrooke today is to try to prevent a repeat of what we saw yesterday.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, now we have the unelected, unaccountable and under investigation Senate now doing the Conservative government's dirty work going after the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Senator Anne Cools said this: “...the mistaken and false notion that Kevin Page is a watchdog of Parliament, with a mandate to oversee...the government’s activities in the realm of the public finance. He is not”. This is pretty rich coming from a Senate that does not have the ethical capacity to look after its own public finances.
When will the government call off its Senate attack dogs and let Kevin Page do his work for Canadians?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I know the member is critical of independence, but it seems not everybody who belonged to the NDP caucus is so critical of independence, at least for Quebec. In fact, yesterday the Bloc Québécois leader was asked if there were more NDP MPs who might follow the path of the one that went yesterday to show his true colours and join the Bloc Québécois. What did he say? He said, “we know that they have sovereignists in the NDP”. Stay tuned.
Parliamentary Budget OfficerMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, have they no shame? They get the Senate to do their dirty work, even though the Senate is embroiled in a spending scandal of never before seen proportions. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who exposed just how amateur the Conservatives are in a number of areas, had to drag the Conservatives to court just to access documents so he could do his job.
Someone ordered the submissive Senate to put an end to all that. Which member of the Conservatives gave that order?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is proud to have decided to build ships in Canada. The only ship that is sinking in Canada is the NDP. One of its caucus members jumped ship yesterday.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, Kevin Page's economic analyses have always been more credible than those of the Minister of Finance because, unlike the Conservatives, Mr. Page does not hide information.
In 2012, economic growth was less than 2%, which is lower than 2011. The economy shrank in December. What are the Conservatives doing? They are slashing programs and services even more. Introducing austerity measures during an economic downturn is a recipe for disaster.
Will they use the budget to fix this?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the former member of the Bloc Québécois for her question on the economy. It is a question that I am surprised to hear coming from NDP members, this concern about the fiscal situation, as they propose spending proposal after spending proposal that would put Canada billions of dollars deeper in debt. It was at $56 billion in spending before last week. Last week they added another $5.5 billion in a social housing program, which Canadian taxpayers cannot afford. They want to know where we go when we hit that black hole of debt. Just look south of the border to see real crisis.
National DefenceHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government cannot do basic math. Fortunately, Kevin Page was there to point out the government's financial incompetence in the shipbuilding budget.
How can Canadians trust the government to deliver its projects on time and on budget and to provide our forces with the equipment needed to protect our country?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, our government decided to build these ships in Canada, and we are proud of that. We will take the time needed to do this procurement right.
When the Liberal Party was in power, the only procurement it made in 13 years was the purchase of submarines that do not even work. 
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, with the government, we get bad budgeting, bad management, jobs at risk and less equipment for our armed forces. This is not the first time we have had these problems: helicopters, trucks, ships, oh my.
Perhaps the government can answer this simple question. Will it let its continued mistakes leave the Canadian Forces ill-equipped to handle future challenges and cost Canadian jobs at a time when, just today, we hear that Canada's economic growth remains anemic?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, it is entertaining getting questions like this from a Liberal Party whose own chief of defence staff described its purchases and approach to the military as a decade of darkness. The only purchase the Liberals made when they were on the watch was four used, leaky, unworkable submarines from the British. That is their idea of re-equipping the Canadian Forces. 
We have taken real steps to really deliver, including a program to purchase ships that will deliver thousands of jobs all across Canada. I am not surprised the Liberals are against that.
Employment InsuranceHon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government will not spout such nonsense in response to my question, which is very clear and simple. 
While the Conservatives are engaging in petty politics, seasonal workers are losing their jobs and are now in the spring gap. They may have to apply for social assistance.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs said that this reform was based on research. However, the minister said yesterday that such was not the case. What we do know, however, is that the government has to find $330 million.
My question is for the Quebec lieutenant, since this issue affects Quebec, particularly the eastern part of the province. Is he prepared to take practical measures—by implementing a pilot project, for example—if the Conservatives do not want to talk about a moratorium?
Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government made changes that are meant to help connect unemployed Canadian workers with jobs available in their region and in their field.
This initiative clarifies but does not change the responsibilities of Canadians who claim employment insurance benefits. Those who are unable to find work will be able to count on the employment insurance program, as always.
Canada Mortgage and Housing CorporationMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have so blurred the line between politics and public services that they do not even know where it is anymore. A month ago, they posted partisan attacks on CIDA's website, breaking Treasury Board rules. Now they are at it again. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation commented publicly on opposition bills.
Will the government stop using public officials as Conservative Party agents? Will they let public servants work in peace?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, with respect to CMHC and this issue with regard to website postings, it is entirely appropriate for a crown corporation to post its costing of a legislative item before the House of Commons. We see that regularly here. In fact, opposition members often ask for these items in order to make sure they know what is occurring. That is exactly what CMHC is doing.
What we have put forward is a plan to make sure that Canadians have opportunities for housing, have opportunities to deal with homelessness, all of which are things that the NDP vote against.
Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP): Mr. Speaker, these partisan attacks on government websites make it clear that the Conservatives are running scared. Why else would they waste taxpayers' money and government resources attacking a New Democratic bill instead of answering Canadians' calls for a national housing strategy? It is a private member's bill. It costs nothing. People are hurting. The government is breaking its own rules and hiding behind partisan attacks.
When will the Conservatives stop using the public service for political cheap shots?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The member opposite has his facts absolutely wrong. The difference between the main estimates reflects a shift between contribution funding and grant funding. The total budget for the homelessness partnership strategy is exactly the same and will continue to be funded to 2014. 
Our programs fund and make sure that those individuals who need a roof over their head have it, unlike the NDP that puts forward, again and again, schemes to make sure Canadian taxpayers cannot afford a home, whether that be its $21 billion carbon tax or other items it puts forward. 
We want to make sure Canadians have a roof over their heads—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Parliamentary Budget OfficerGuy Caron: Mr. Speaker, the entire world is in economic turmoil. The eurozone is going through some tough times, the United States is on the brink of a sequester that could rock the North American market, and Canada's economic growth stagnated in the last quarter of 2012.
So what are the Conservatives focusing on? Going after the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who makes sure that Canadians know the truth about government finances. That is completely unacceptable.
When will they stop these attacks on the work and legitimacy of the Parliamentary Budget Officer?
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times, our priority is economic growth, job creation and our country's long-term prosperity.
I am very proud to say that Canada posted an economic growth rate of 0.6%, the highest rate among all of the G7 countries. We are proud of that fact.
If the NDP had its way, it would waste $56 million. We will not do that. We will continue with our plan.
Government AccountabilityMr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, those attacks from members on the other side are pretty rich considering they get their ethical advice from Tom Flanagan.
We know the Conservatives' next attack on Kevin Page is coming from the Senate. The deputy leader of the government in the Senate claims that Page is “overstepping his mandate”, all because the PBO has the audacity to ask government departments for information on their spending plans. They are not just defending their Senate entitlements now, they are using the Senate to shut down an independent fiscal watchdog.
Will the Conservatives stop dismantling fiscal accountability and end their attack on the PBO?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have many ways of reporting to Parliament, including the estimates, quarterly reports and the public accounts. 
We want a Parliamentary Budget Officer who is non-partisan and a credible source of opinion on fiscal matters. The Parliamentary Librarian has retained a search firm, and we look forward to a new Parliamentary Budget Officer in due course.
EthicsFrançoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, after coming up with laughable excuses to defend senators who lied about where they lived or campaigned for the party using public funds, the government is now trying to sweep the whole issue under the rug.
 Questionable decisions are being made behind closed doors and then we are led to believe that everything is fine, that a review was carried out and that no one is guilty.
 As long as the documents proving that abuse did or did not take place remain under wraps, Canadians will remain in the dark about the scope of the Senate swindle.
 How much money was Senator Wallin asked to reimburse and why?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we undertook to see to it that all spending was reasonable, that the regulations governing spending were adequate and that the Senate accounted for its actions to taxpayers. Yesterday it reported its findings.
We take these matters very seriously and that is why the Senate called on outside help to ensure that the integrity of the system was respected.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have been in power for seven years now and have done nothing about Senate reform. Canadians can be certain that we will do something about it in 2015. This is not how things work.
Pamela Wallin has an Ontario health insurance card. She lives in Toronto. Yet, she signed a form stating that she lives in Saskatchewan and that makes everything okay. What nonsense.
Meanwhile, the Senate is toeing the line when it comes to the Prime Minister's orders, to the point where non-elected representatives have now started to attack the Parliamentary Budget Officer. On whose orders? Could it be on the direct orders of the PMO?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, we want to see a Parliamentary Budget Officer who is non-partisan and a credible source of opinion on fiscal matters. 
The Parliamentary Librarian has retained a recruiting firm, and we look forward to their suggestions in due course.
Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, seven years of delaying Senate reform, over a year since the bill was even debated and the Prime Minister's promise of change broken 58 times and counting.
A week ago, Mike Duffy returned housing money to taxpayers, a clear admission of guilt. The Senate now claims that Mike Duffy and all others have cleared residency requirements. The proof? A signed piece of paper that does not even confirm residency.
Canadians are not buying it. When will the government bring in an independent authority to pierce the black hole of accountability that is the Senate?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we have been quite clear we are committed to seeing that all expenses incurred in the Senate are appropriate, that the rules to cover those expenses are appropriate and, of course, that the Senate report back to taxpayers. It did so yesterday and reported its progress.
We do take these issues tremendously seriously. That is why the Senate has retained outside support to ensure the integrity of the system is respected.
I find it interesting that the hon. member encapsulated the NDP's position at the start: seven years of delaying Senate reform. 
We have a proposal on the table. Let us elect senators. Let us show Canadians a little respect. Let them have a say in who represents them in the Senate. The NDP should stop blocking it, as it has done for so long.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Marjorie LeBreton, the Conservative House leader in the Senate, claims that Mr. Duffy is eligible to be a senator because he signed a declaration of qualification, a declaration that makes no reference to being a resident of Prince Edward Island.
According to articles 23 and 31 of the Constitution, he must be a resident or he does not qualify and his seat becomes vacant. It is as simple as that.
Do Conservatives really believe that senators can simply sign a declaration when that does not even affirm their residency to meet a constitutional obligation, regardless of the facts?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we would actually like to go a lot better than that. We would like Canadians, in their provinces, to decide who should represent them in the Senate. 
We have put legislation forward to advance that, yet that legislation is called by members of the NDP an affront to democracy. Asking Canadians who they want representing them in the Senate, one of the two Houses of Parliament, is called by the NDP an affront to democracy.
We can see why they have the top-down approach to selecting their candidates and MPs from Quebec, where the leader of the NDP personally vetted and chose them all.
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government is circling the wagons to defend the Senate's cozy entitlements. 
The government is deliberately telescoping the Constitution's archaic property qualifications onto residence requirements. 
On February 9, retired Senator Lowell Murray stated that if any senator files an income return in a province that he or she is not representing in the Senate, “Then they are finished”. His is a respected voice. Why is this Conservative government so deceitfully distorting its responsibility to uphold the Constitution?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the NDP's constitutional expert critics. I am not surprised that they have one in the NDP. He is the one who put forward one of the NDP bills to reopen the constitutional discussions and go back to the debates of the past.
This week in the House, the leader of the NDP said that on this issue we should open up constitutional negotiations with the provinces.
Is it any wonder, when we are facing some of the challenges we are right now, why the NDP members are heading down the path to those old debates of yesterday? They are trying to balance that way of keeping all their separatists in their caucus happy.
The EnvironmentKirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the American President sent a strong signal to Canada to clean up its environmental act, after a year of gutting environmental protection and being hammered for its abysmal performance.
The Conservatives have recently had a flurry of announcements to greenwash their appalling record. Now Canadians are footing the bill for the oil sands monitoring program when industry is supposed to be helping with the cost.
When will Canadians see results and funding, and when will taxpayers be let off the hook?
Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that while the Liberals, for 13 long years, merely paid lip service to the environment, this government is acting.
Canada and the United States do in fact have a shared objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to address other environmental challenges. Our government is at the same time balancing the need to protect the environment and to protect jobs and our still fragile economy.
I will say again that Canada is halfway to achieving our 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target.
Rail TransportationFrank Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, cuts to rail service are sending Canada backward at a time when most western countries are embracing the increased use of public transit.
Cuts to routes in southwestern Ontario, in Guelph, Kitchener, Sarnia, London and more, affect not only those trying to reduce their ecological footprint or reduce obscene commute times, but those who have mobility issues.
Yesterday the government said:
 VIA makes decisions based on the number of people, the proximity of other transportation and so on. 
However, it left out one key thing. VIA makes decisions based on funding from this House. Why are the Conservatives cutting so deeply?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of that member's question, especially coming from a Liberal.
It is very ironic that a Liberal would complain about mobility issues when it was the Liberal Party that bought, on behalf of VIA, a whole bunch of rail cars that were not wheelchair accessible.
This government has invested over $1 billion to not only make the cars accessible but to improve VIA service throughout Canada. In fact, frequency between major cities has increased.
VIA is an arm's-length corporation and it does make decisions for its day-to-day operations. However, the fact is that some trains run empty, and that is not ecologically friendly.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know that DFO is responsible for the funding, care and maintenance of core harbours, but anybody who lives in a coastal community also recognizes that non-core harbours still contribute to the economies of those communities.
Until recently, officials confirmed that there was $5 million to fund health and safety issues for these non-core commercial harbours. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm how much is in the fund currently and whether or not an initiative like the Gabarus seawall would qualify for funding in this particular program?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that our government recognizes the importance of safe and functional harbours to support the commercial fishing industry.
I cannot give him the actual figure in that fund. I will be happy to get it to him later. It is my understanding that the Gabarus seawall does not qualify for that funding.
Canada PostMs. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' strong-arm tactics at Canada Post are becoming a total fiasco. First they closed a number of post offices across the country and deprived Canadians of postal services, as we saw in Lachine and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. Now their modernization and reorganization efforts are floundering, with delivery delays, undelivered mail and workers forced to do unending overtime. People are angry.
How does this government plan to fix the situation at Canada Post?
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that Canada Post is an arm's-length crown corporation.
The member also knows that there is the postal service charter which guarantees mail delivery to Canadians, urban and rural. The member should also know that Canada Post has the ability to deal with the day-to-day operations. The government does not get involved in that.
There is modernization going on at Canada Post. For example, the Montreal Victoria post office was closed, but there are 44 post offices within a five-kilometre radius of that location.
Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives were able to acknowledge their mistakes, fewer business owners would have to wait days for documents from their clients or payment for their services. This is becoming a serious issue in Montreal. Routes are too long for many mail carriers, and they finish their deliveries late at night. The Conservatives said that their changes would improve service, but we see now that the changes are hurting both customers and employees.
When will the Conservatives acknowledge their errors and fix the situation?
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, again, the premise of the member's question is wrong. If the NDP was serious about postal service, it would have supported our government's efforts to bring back postal service to Canadians when there was a postal stoppage, but instead, the NDP buckled and listened to the big union bosses and delayed mail service for all Canadians, not just in Quebec but everywhere. That hurt business, and quite frankly, it hurt Canada Post's long-term financial interests. Canada Post is still trying to deal with that fiasco.
Employment InsuranceMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the butchering of the employment insurance program continues to claim victims. A businesswoman in my riding, Stéphanie Leduc, has a company that makes fur and leather clothing. She relies on skilled labour. With the Conservatives' reform, she is concerned that her employees will leave to find work elsewhere.
This reform is getting in the way of economic development in the Laurentians. When will the minister suspend her punitive reform?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, our government is making common sense changes to better connect unemployed Canadians with available jobs in their local areas that match their local skills. This initiative is clarifying, not changing, the responsibilities of individuals who are collecting EI. As I have mentioned many times in this House before, employment insurance will continue to be available to those who need it, who have applied and have paid into the program through their regular qualification periods. 
We look forward to ensuring that we better connect Canadians with available jobs so that they are able to have that great job and improve their quality of life.
Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the EI reform is threatening a number of skilled workers in my riding's seasonal industry. One of them is Ghylslain Jalbert, who has been working at Ski Valet in Tremblant for eight years. Mr. Jalbert's expertise and that of a number of other workers could be lost when the reform pushes them out of the region to look for work.
Tremblant is a world-renowned tourist destination. Why are the Conservatives penalizing the tourism industry in my region? Will the minister reverse these senseless changes?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I too actually represent a riding that has a huge ski population. In fact, we are the second-largest resort in the country. Seasonal workers in my riding and the employers are actually very pleased with these changes. These changes to the employment insurance system will mean that individuals will be able to have jobs in their local area that match their local skills.
As I have mentioned before, for those who are unable to find work, employment insurance will continue to be available for them when they need it.
National UnityMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's defection from the NDP to the Bloc by the member for Jonquière—Alma should give everyone great cause for concern. It has long been a concern that there are many members of the NDP's Quebec caucus who have separatist leanings and connections to the separatist movement. In fact, the NDP leader's plan to repeal the Clarity Act is an effort to keep those MPs in the House. Would the parliamentary secretary please inform this House of our government's position on the NDP leader's plan to repeal the Clarity Act?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): We are against it, Mr. Speaker.
I note that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who is normally so mercilessly loud, is mercifully quiet today, as are a lot of members of the NDP. Normally they have rolled their eyes when we have pointed out their separatist donations, their past support for separatist parties, but yesterday, they were once again exposed for their confusing position on national unity.
Canadians do not want a new constitutional crisis. They want us to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, with a certain plan. That is what we have on this side.
Public SafetyMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, time is running out for the 18 Aboriginal police forces whose funding expires at the end of the month.
Yesterday, we were told that a decision would be made soon. However, the minister said that it was up to the Prime Minister and not him to make the decision. Frankly, I cannot understand why this is such a long and complicated process. The safety of communities is at stake. Is this not one of the Conservatives' priorities?
Will the minister or the Prime Minister make a decision?
Ms. Candice Bergen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety have been very clear that a decision will be forthcoming very soon.
If that member and that party are so concerned, as they say they are, with first nations' safety, why are they not supporting real matrimonial property rights for first nations women living on reserve to empower them? Why are they not supporting our legislation that gets tough on crime, that creates mandatory minimum sentences for those who are involved in drug crimes, gang crimes and violent crimes? If they are concerned about the safety of aboriginal people, they need to support those initiatives.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is a question of respect for L'Assemblée des Premières Nations du Québec et du Labrador, which is asking for more than just a vague answer.
First nations policing provides effective outcomes that result in savings for other social services. If these forces do not get funding, it will cost more to replace them. When will the Prime Minister let the chiefs of Quebec and Labrador know whether or not their communities will still have their police services at the end of this month?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, that member knows that policing is primarily a provincial responsibility. The federal government has long invested in first nations policing to help keep communities safe. A funding decision will be made in the near future, but I go back to my original point: if these members believe that the safety of first nations is a priority, they need to support legislation that empowers women, that helps keep them safe from violence and that helps keep all aboriginal people and all Canadians safe from violent crime.
We are getting the job done. We are listening to first nations, and we are responding.
Aboriginal AffairsJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, that funding runs out just in a few weeks.
 In 2008, the Conservatives promised to move toward reconciliation. Last year, they promised to reset the relationship. Two months ago, they promised to improve things, but we are seeing more cuts: $480 million from the department, including $54 million from infrastructure. The housing crisis is not going away. We still have toxic schools on reserves, and the gap in quality of life between on and off reserve is growing, not narrowing, so how can the Conservatives justify more cuts?
Mr. Greg Rickford (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, our government has been delivering results for aboriginal peoples for seven consecutive years. This includes the introduction of four bills currently before Parliament that focus on improving living conditions and economic opportunities for aboriginal peoples. More specifically, these bills respond to calls from first nations for shared priorities on actionable items, such as improved access to safe drinking water, improved protections for aboriginal women and children on reserve, more stable election systems and greater transparency from their elected chiefs and councils. Yet shamefully, the opposition opposed all of these important bills.
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not going to restore the relationship with the first nations by making more cuts, particularly not by cutting $53.8 million from the first nations infrastructure fund. Many communities are experiencing a housing crisis and dealing with substandard housing.
We know that the gap in living standards between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians is growing. So, why is the government continuing to make more cuts?
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, our government has been getting results for aboriginal people for seven years now.
We introduced four bills, which are currently being examined by Parliament, to improve aboriginal people's living conditions and economic opportunities. 
More specifically, these bills respond to the first nations' calls for action in the following areas: improved access to clean drinking water, better protection of aboriginal women and children living on reserves, and more transparency from their chiefs and councils.
However, the opposition voted against these measures.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, well over a quarter-million people living in Canada are waiting for their citizenship. Many of those are waiting for years—four, five or six years, or even greater than that. At the end of the day, the government, year over year, continues to get worse in terms of delivering citizenship. Will the minister commit to working toward a goal of six months for processing citizenship?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, that is a little rich coming from the Liberal Party across the way, which when in government actually decided it would delay and continued to delay citizenship wait times here in our country.
Canadians should be proud that there is such a high demand for Canadian citizenship. After all, who would not want to be a citizen of the greatest country in the world?
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, do not let the facts confuse you. The Liberals gave $70 million in the last year to speed up the process. 
Every year the list and the processing time continues to get longer. Those are the facts, Mr. Minister. The reality is, these individual residents should be processed in a much fairer and timelier fashion. When will the government speed up the processing time so that citizens of this country can, in fact, get their applications in a more timely fashion?
The Deputy Speaker: Again, I would direct the experienced member to address his comments to the Chair and not to the government side.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary.
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, only the Liberal Party would say that adding facts to a story would actually make it more confusing. 
In 2011 there were 2,204 citizenship ceremonies held. One hundred and eighty-one thousand newcomers became Canadian citizens between 2006 and 2011. Canada averaged close to 200,000 new citizens each and every year. It is an honour to become a Canadian citizen, and we are taking it to another level.
Foreign AffairsMr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the 2012 budget included major cuts of about $116 million to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The Conservatives have now decided to slash double that amount. Even the Minister of Foreign Affairs was unable to save his department from these draconian cuts.
His government seems to be bent on reducing Canada's diplomatic capacity. Why?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have a robust foreign service that is looking after Canada's foreign interests. I can assure the member that they will continue receiving the best service from Foreign Affairs Canada. 
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, despite a recent report saying that the fund is essential for Canada's ability to respond to global crises, the budget for the global peace and security fund is cut completely. Even the Glyn Berry program, named in memory of a diplomat who gave his life for our country, has been axed by the Conservatives. 
It is a Canadian value to do our part around the world, so why is the minister cutting programs that get results?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I would like to remind my colleague on the other side that two weeks ago, I led a delegation to Burma to help the Burmese government build its parliament. That was under this fund that he is talking about being cancelled. Two of his own members came on that.
I can assure the member that the foreign service will continue working and doing its best for Canada.
The EconomyMr. Peter Braid (Kitchener—Waterloo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is focused on what matters most to Canadians: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. However, we all recognize that Canada is not immune to the global economic challenges from beyond our borders. As we have said many times, Canada's economy has been and will continue to be impacted by ongoing turbulence from both the U.S. and Europe.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please update the House on the state of Canada's economy?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, it is worth repeating: today Stats Canada announced that the Canadian economy grew by .6% in the fourth quarter of 2012. While modest, this is, in fact, the strongest growth among all G7 countries in the quarter. This further underlines that Canada has become a leader in the turbulent global economy. 
As mentioned, the global economy does remain very fragile. That is why the upcoming economic action plan 2013 will focus on positive initiatives to support job growth and long-term prosperity while keeping taxes low and returning to balanced budgets. 
Human RightsJohn McCallum: Mr. Speaker, the U.K. border agency is reassessing the risk that refused refugee claimants face when they are returned to Sri Lanka and face the military regime. The Liberal Party is also deeply concerned about the fate that meets refused refugee claimants who are deported back to Sri Lanka. 
Given the Conservative government's tough rhetoric on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, what is Canada's current policy on deporting refugee claimants back to Sri Lanka, and is it considering a reassessment, given the deteriorating human rights situation in that country?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the officials at Immigration Canada and the Department of Public Safety always assess the threat when someone is being deported. In situations like this, there is a pause, and they are re-looking at the situation.
Public SafetyMs. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents, police officer Sandra Dion, has been fighting for more than a year for her own safety. This is an important cause. The criminal who attacked her several years ago is now living in a halfway house near her home.
This is not an isolated case. The Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime asked for changes in 2010 to protect victims, but the report has been collecting dust for more than three years.
Will the minister agree to meet with Ms. Dion and to make the changes needed so she never again has to go into exile in Ottawa for her own safety?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, we have met with Ms. Dion several times. We are very sympathetic and we are disturbed by what she has had to deal with. We are very concerned about an individual convicted of a very serious crime returning to the same area where the victim lives.
 Our government will be bringing forward a victims' bill of rights, which is something no other government has done, as part of our plan for safe streets and communities. This is one of the four priorities set out by the Prime Minister, but it is not even talked about by that party. We have taken strong action to protect victims and to put victims first. We ask the NDP to support us, but we know that will not happen.
Foreign AffairsJames Lunney: Mr. Speaker, our government has been actively increasing Canada's engagement in the Americas. This has enabled us to show leadership in our own hemisphere in areas that affect us directly, including trade and security. 
Today Peru's Minister of Defence is in Ottawa. Could our Minister of National Defence tell us what he expects to accomplish in his meetings with his counterpart today?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nanaimo—Alberni for his hard work and leadership. 
In fact, today we are welcoming to Canada Peru's minister of national defence, Pedro Cateriano Bellido, and the commander of the Peruvian navy as well, admiral Carlos Roberto Tejada Mera.
Canada enjoys a strong relationship with Peru based on shared values, including democracy. I am pleased to tell the House that later today we will be signing a defence co-operation memorandum of understanding that will help guide our future defence relations in areas such as policy, peace, humanitarian operations, disaster response and military education and training. 
This agreement strongly supports the growing ties between Canada and Peru and our government's leadership in the Americas.
 Muchas gracias, mis amigos 
National DefenceMr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of National Defence—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Saint-Jean. 
[Interjection]
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of National Defence will manage Peru's national defence better than Canada's national defence.
The Conservatives' management is absolutely mind-boggling. They have no plan whatsoever. They want to save money on the backs of the provinces by asking them to foot the bill when the Canadian Forces intervene during natural disasters.
The Conservatives do not know what is going on with the F-35s. They do not know how to count when the time comes to calculate the costs of support ships.
Why do the Conservatives manage the Department of National Defence like amateurs?
Peter MacKay: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The Department of National Defence has seen unprecedented growth in investment during our time in office, whether it be investments in our infrastructure, equipment, support for our personnel and programs and our readiness. 
We have been participating internationally, making a real difference in the world, as the Canadian armed forces has always done, building on the legacy and the greatness standing on the shoulders of our veterans. 
 Consistently the member and his party have opposed those measures to improve the lives of members of the Canadian Forces, their families and our veterans.
Employment InsuranceMr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in Rivière-du-Loup, the Prime Minister condemned what he calls misinformation about the impact of the employment insurance reform. He should look in the mirror.
It is his government that claimed to have studies, but does not. It is his government that denies imposing quotas on investigators, when such quotas are mentioned in black and white. It is his government that claims that the reform will benefit the regions, but refuses to listen to employers and workers who suffer the tragic impact of the new measures. 
Will the government put a stop to this misinformation which is entirely of its own doing? Will it stop denying the dramatic consequences of the reform and cancel it?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the opposition members to stop the mythology and falsehoods they are putting out with regard to the changes we are making to employment insurance.
Employment insurance will continue to be there for those who need it, as it always has been. I encourage the members opposite to ensure they are telling their constituents exactly that and to please stop perpetuating falsehoods because all they are doing is fearmongering.
We are trying to better connect Canadians with available jobs in their local areas where they have the skills so they can have a better quality of life with their families.
Fisheries and OceansJean-François Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the government is completely disconnected. 
The Maurice Lamontagne Institute marine sciences library was slated to close in the fall, but we have credible information to suggest that the department is speeding up the process. The documents could be boxed up and the doors locked up as of next month. We will be losing DFO's only francophone library for the sake of saving a mere $100,000 a year.
Speeding up this closure is a questionable move. It comes at a time when the Government of Quebec is looking at proposals to keep the scientific documents on Quebec soil. Why is Ottawa speeding up the closure of the library instead of working with the stakeholders on keeping the documents in Quebec?
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, the department has made a decision to modernize its library services and take advantage of the increasing availability of information resources in digital form. Most requests are received and delivered electronically today. Library collection and services continue to be provided to departmental staff and other users in both official languages.
Work to consolidate the facilities is under way and is expected to be completed by the fall of 2013.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.
Combating Counterfeit Products ActHon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsKirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there are between 6,000 and 8,000 rare diseases that affect 1 in 12 Canadians. Canadians with rare disorders lack access to clinical trials and new drugs that are available in other countries. It is essential that Canadians have equal and timely access to therapies for debilitating and life-threatening diseases. 
From the Rare Disease Day Dinner Gala, I would like to recognize extraordinary young people, Cassandra, Jonathan and Kimberly. 
The petitioners request that a rare disorder be defined as being a chronically debilitating condition or disease with a prevalence of fewer than 1 in 2,000 people and that a national drug policy regarding rare disorders be implemented.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have in hand a petition from a number of individuals across the country, particularly Saskatchewan, B.C. and Ontario.
The petitioners want Parliament to support Motion No. 408 condemning discrimination against women by way of sex-selective abortions.
Jean-François Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition signed by more than 3,500 people who are asking the government to reverse its decision to close the Maurice Lamontagne Institute Library in Mont-Joli.
The library has been very valuable to researchers from Quebec, Canada and the whole world. Fisheries and Oceans Canada does not have another French-language library. The petitioners are asking the government to drop its plan and work with stakeholders so they can find a way to maintain the library's assets, knowing that operating the library costs only $100,000 a year.
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition representing thousands of people from British Columbia.
 The petition highlights that last year 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers called Families for Justice say that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient.
The petitioners call for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the Criminal Code of Canada changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people in my riding and outside of my riding in Saskatchewan.
The petitioners call on the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selection pregnancy. They call upon the members of Parliament to support Motion No. 408.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by many Manitobans asking the government to reverse its decision to close the ELA research station. ELA provides essential scientific knowledge for the development of national and international policies that ensure the future health of our fresh water. I would highlight the importance of Lake Winnipeg not only to the province of Manitoba but the entire country. It is with pleasure that I provide the petition today.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by residents of Mission and other areas of the Fraser Valley that calls upon the House of Commons to condemn discrimination against girls through sex-selective abortion and do all it can to prevent sex-selective abortions from being carried out in Canada.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by people from Montreal and Gabriola Island.
The petitioners urge all members to support my private member's bill, Bill C-442, which calls for the creation of a national Lyme disease strategy.
Patients and doctors across Canada tell me they support this legislation. I certainly hope my colleagues will join me with all-party support.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is related to the northern gateway project. The petitioners call on the House, and particularly on the Privy Council, to give this project a very clear, strong and transparent review.
John Weston: Mr. Speaker, like other members of the House, I rise this afternoon on behalf of many people from my riding and other parts of Canada.
They also condemn the practice of sex selective pregnancy termination. Among other things, they claim that in a poll some 92% of Canadians believe such sex selective pregnancy terminations should be illegal.
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present three petitions, representing thousands of people from British Columbia. The petitions highlight that last year, 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers, called Families For Justice, say the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. They call for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the Criminal Code of Canada to change to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, which would change how the Canadian justice system deals with accused found not criminally responsible, or NCR, on account of mental disorder.
 It may seem like déjà vu for some that I am speaking again on this issue. As minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, I stood in this place to introduce the legislation that reformed this system, legislation, I might add, that passed with the support of all parties in 2005 and that has stood the test for the last eight years and more.
Throughout that debate, and the discussion thus far on Bill C-54, I have come to appreciate that members of the House have a clear compassion and concern for all innocent victims of violence and their loved ones, that we all seek to protect public safety, and that we agree on the need to support victims and victims families. Guaranteeing their well-being, as I said on the occasion of the introduction of my legislation regarding reforms to the mental disorder regime in 2005, is of primary importance in our justice system. It is precisely for that reason, as minister of justice, that I enacted measures allowing victims to provide impact statements at review board hearings for NCR accused. We should not think that the matters are being established or initiated for the first time now.
I was proud of the legislation that we introduced on NCR accused because it adopted an evidence-based approach and incorporated the guidance of the Supreme Court of Canada, the expertise of justice and health professionals and reports of standing committees of the House on this matter. Regrettably, the same cannot be said of the bill before us. In the matter of Bill C-54, the government's approach and rhetoric appear to be grounded more in fear and stigma than in the facts and evidence. 
I will begin my remarks, therefore, with an overview of the available data about NCR accused. I will then share my specific concerns regarding this legislation while suggesting alternative measures that would likely prove more effective at preventing violence by people with mental disorders and hence better protect public safety, let alone having less victims. Finally, I will discuss how the bill fits a pattern of Conservative justice legislation that focuses excessively on the addition of punitive measures to the Criminal Code, on a punitive rather than preventive perspective.
Let me begin by reminding us all of the scope of the bill. NCR accused are neither found guilty nor innocent. 
As the Supreme Court explains, this regime “supplements the traditional guilt-innocence dichotomy of the criminal law with a new alternative for NCR accused--an alternative of...assessment to determine whether the person poses a continuing threat to society coupled with an emphasis on providing opportunities to receive appropriate treatment.” 
NCR accused account for less than 1% of accused persons annually. In evaluating the NCR regime and determining whether reform is needed, it is important to keep these facts in mind, yet on the day the bill was tabled, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and currently the Associate Minister of National Defence appeared on CBC and said with respect to the recidivism rate of NCR accused, “I'm not aware that there are any particular statistics available on that. I'm not sure that this is what it's all about.” 
This is a particularly puzzling statement, given that the Supreme Court, in the case from which I just cited, Winko v. British Columbia, found that “Research shows that NCR accused are no more likely than their convicted counterparts to commit any offence, let alone a violent offence, upon release”. While that particular case is from 1999, more recent statistics are available, but they are not favourable to the government's case. 
That statement by the parliamentary secretary was in essence an admission that the government has eschewed empirical evidence in the drafting of the bill, which aims expressly to make it more difficult to release NCR accused in the name of public safety, yet if legislation is to protect the public against a particular threat, information regarding the extent of that threat is fundamental. Otherwise we are legislating based on myth, gut instinct and stereotyping, which the NCR regime sought specifically to guard against with respect to the mentally ill.
The data to which we do not have access—and I have submitted an order paper question in this regard that I hope will receive a full response in the near future—indicate that very few mentally ill people commit violent acts, even fewer are found not criminally responsible and only a minuscule percentage of those found to be NCR reoffend after treatment.
To begin with, according to researchers from McGill University and Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, 90% of people with mental illness are non-violent. Moreover, a report prepared for the Department of Justice shows that in 2004, the last year studied, only 0.18% of all criminal cases resulted in a finding that the accused was either NCR or unfit to stand trial for reasons of mental incapacity. Finally, a Canadian study from 2003 puts the recidivism rate for people who have been found NCR, treated and released at just 7.5%. By contrast, those who are not NCR and have served in federal prisons have a reconviction rate of over 40%.
I realize I am using many numbers here, but I do not want there to be any confusion. This bill is dealing with less than 10% of a population that is already less than 1% of all those criminally accused in Canada. One would think that for all the hype over this legislation that it would be targeting a large group of Canadians, not less than one-tenth of a percent.
There is no doubt that the rarity of the occurrence is of little importance to those who are victimized and the horror that they have experienced, and certain efforts to refine our NCR regime may well be worthwhile. In fact, Bill C-54 does contain some measures that are reasonable and worthy of support, such as keeping victims families better informed and prohibiting perpetrators from contacting victims after their release. However the government's overstatement of the problem and the heavy-handed response to it risks doing more harm than good. 
This brings me to the second part of my remarks, in which I will discuss specific concerns about Bill C-54 and particular aspects of the bill that may have unintended negative consequences. To begin with, Bill C-54 would allow certain NCR accused to be designated high-risk, not by mental health experts, but by criminal courts. This designation would devolve subsequent decision-making authority regarding the accused from specialized review boards to criminal courts, once again despite the fact that general criminal courts lack the requisite expertise to make determinations about the risks posed by a person with mental illness.
The government is proposing this change without offering any evidence that review boards have failed to protect the public from a dangerous NCR accused. Indeed, under the current system, review boards do not release NCR accused who continue to pose a threat, something that appears to be ignored by the government in its deliberations thus far.
The high-risk designation, combined with tripling the time period between reviews from one year to three, may cause NCR inmates to remain in custody long after successful treatment. Such an outcome would be unacceptable, given that, as the Supreme Court has stressed, NCR accused have not been convicted of a crime. Indeed, as the court has stated, “the NCR accused is to be treated with the utmost dignity and afforded the utmost liberty compatible with his or her situation. The NCR accused is not to be punished, nor is the NCR accused to languish in custody...”.
Accordingly, Bill C-54 could lead to charter claims with respect to the section 7 right to life, liberty and security of person; the section 9 guarantee that everyone has the right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned; and we could see section 15 challenges, as there is prohibition against discrimination on the basis of mental disability. Yet again, the government is seeking to enact legislation that will invite protracted, expensive and avoidable constitutional litigation. May I add parenthetically that, ever the optimist, I await the minister's report of charter inconsistency pursuant to section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act.
Beyond the litigation risk, detaining more NCR accused for longer periods of time gives rise to the very practical problem of where these individuals will reside while in treatment. For this reason, I have asked the government for details about the capacity of the mental health institutions in which NCR accused are placed, and about any plans to increase that capacity, as well as any analysis that has been performed on Bill C-54's potential consequences in this regard.
It is by no means clear that our system is at present capable of dealing with greater numbers of NCR accused who are institutionalized for longer periods of time, and we risk complicating their recovery by straining the resources of the institutions and the individuals who are treated. That potential strain and resulting decrease in the effectiveness of such institutions, combined with the possibility that NCR accused could be detained for years even after successful treatment, might mean that mentally ill accused will be less likely to plead NCR as a result of this bill.
We would therefore find ourselves with even more mentally ill people in our prison system.
 I am sure that I do not have to remind members of the tragic consequences of housing people with mental disorders in prison rather than in medical facilities. There are consequences for the inmates, as was demonstrated by the heart-wrenching videos of Ashley Smith, and there are consequences for public safety, which the government says is the primary concern that underpins the bill.
When mentally ill people are returned untreated into society after servicing a prison sentence, they pose a far greater danger than NCR accused who have been treated by medical professionals and evaluated by experts. For this reason, I introduced an amendment to last year's omnibus crime bill that would have allowed offenders to receive mental health treatment prior to incarceration, as is already done in cases of drug addiction. Regrettably, the Conservatives rejected this amendment.
Yet the best way of minimizing the potential that someone with a mental illness will commit a violent act, and therefore the best way of protecting the public, which appears to be the objective, as stated by the government, of this legislation, is to ensure effective treatment for the mentally ill.
This brings me to the next section of my remarks, in which I will discuss ways of minimizing the risk of violence by the mentally ill without resorting to punitive, counterproductive and constitutionally suspect measures, which underpin this legislation.
Parliament must encourage and facilitate timely and effective treatment, not only for NCR accused but especially for people in the early stages of mental illness whose conditions can be treated effectively. Indeed, according to the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, the key is early identification, intervention and treatment. To that end, we could train people who work with youth to recognize the initial symptoms of psychosis, since many psychoses develop in adolescence. We could help expand the reach of first episode psychosis clinics, institutions specifically designed to help young patients and their families deal with mental illness in its early stages.
Sadly, however, too many people wait years before receiving treatment, sometimes because their symptoms go unrecognized, and often because they fear the stigma associated with mental disease. It is therefore vital for parliamentarians to set the example by combating that stigma through our words and deeds.
Earlier this month, the members for Toronto Centre and Oak Ridges—Markham encouraged Canadians to openly discuss mental illness, emphasizing that there is no shame in having a mental disease and that recovery is possible. This is the attitude that must underpin our approach to all matters of mental health, including evaluation and refinement of the NCR regime.
However, through its rhetoric and approach to Bill C-54, the government has cast NCR accused as irredeemably violent and has contributed to the impression that Canadians have much to fear from the mentally ill. By overstating the problem of violence by people with mental illness and by understating or ignoring the potential effectiveness of treatment, the government adds to the stigmatization that so many Canadians are working so hard to undo. 
As the bill goes forward, I call upon members to engage in the legitimate debate about the particulars of our NCR regime without ceding to stigma and stereotype.
I will use the remainder of my time to take a step back and view the legislation before us as it fits into the overall Conservative justice agenda. 
With Bill C-54, the government would continue a pattern of focusing almost exclusively on criminal punishment, behaving as though incarceration is the only tool at the  justice minister's disposal and criminal law the only legal domain over which Parliament exercises authority. 
Given the rhetoric about the necessity of such reforms, one could be forgiven for mistakenly assuming that Canada is overrun with dangerous criminals and violent psychopaths terrorizing our country unimpeded. The truth of the matter is that the government's rather myopic focus on criminal law and its overemphasis on punishment, as opposed to prevention and rehabilitation, not only undermines its own efforts to promote public safety but prejudices the many other aspects of the justice agenda that are being overlooked.
For example, legal aid is woefully underfunded in this country, and the government has yet to commit to a comprehensive and sustainable civil as well as criminal legal aid program. Moreover, when it comes to judicial appointments, diversity on the bench is seemingly not a priority. Indeed, the only statistics the federal government keeps with respect to such appointments is in regard to gender, ignoring the diversity imperative that the judiciary reflect the populace, with representatives from different ethnic and religious groups.
Canada has also missed the opportunity to use the 30th anniversary of the charter to share our significant and storied legal expertise with judiciaries in developing countries. The government marked this anniversary only by releasing factually questionable press releases that seemed to highlight the Bill of Rights, which, ironically, Bill C-54 may also infringe. Instead, the government should have celebrated what legal scholars around the world have lauded as a landmark document and should have committed to public legal education, domestic law reform and international law-building.
The government could also recommit to wrongful conviction review, increase funding for the war crimes and crimes against humanity program or introduce legislation, oft promised, to allow random roadside breath testing. 
I realize it may seem as though I have strayed somewhat from the subject before us, but perhaps it bears pointing out to the government the reality that more Canadians will die at the hands of drunk drivers annually than will die at the hands of NCR accused. Where is the legislation for those victims? Where is the focus on what is a criminal justice issue, where the government has real preventive powers? Bill C-54 demonstrates clearly the government's failure to prioritize and to consider the evidence before it. 
This is but one example. In the aftermath of the Idle No More movement, which may have temporarily quieted down but has by no means disappeared—nor should it—now would be the ideal time for the government to commit to an aboriginal justice strategy, ensuring that indigenous legal traditions have their proper place before our courts. 
There are also changes needed in the areas of statutory interpretation, alternative dispute resolution, consolidation of statutes, restorative justice and treaty reform, among many others, yet the government persists with a justice agenda limited almost entirely to criminal law, using as justification the odd high-profile case as opposed to empirical data. The bill before us today fits this unfortunate pattern.
As I mentioned, I have submitted an order paper question asking for evidence that would demonstrate the need for a bill like this one. I am open to any possibility that the government will table statistics and analysis that does just that. However, for the moment, the available research indicates the opposite, suggesting that recidivism rates are low, that review boards are thorough, and indeed, that mental illnesses are treatable and ought to be treated as a means of preventing crime.
I have no trouble understanding the fear and frustration many Canadians feel when certain NCR accused are returned to society, and I appreciate the horror victims have felt in this regard and the trauma that has thereby been experienced. However, we will never protect the public by letting fear outweigh facts as a basis for legislation or by having a punitive approach overtake the need for prevention.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, I gather the Liberals will oppose the bill. Since the Conservatives have a majority, however, it will surely pass at second reading.
I would like the Liberal member to describe the amendments his party would like to include in the bill in committee.
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to say that I have not decided that we will oppose the bill. What I said is that, as it stands, the bill is not evidence-based. 
We are currently quite troubled by the bill and we intend to propose amendments in committee. They may deal with victims' rights, for instance. As I said in my speech, we support some of the measures in the bill that deal with victim protection. That said, we will propose amendments in order to strengthen the protection of victims and the public.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Mount Royal for his presentation, and of course, for his particular expertise, since he was the Minister of Justice who first brought in the not criminally responsible regime eight years ago. 
Of course, it is difficult to imagine the hypothetical of having the evidence we need to look at the situation. However, it seems to me, and this is somewhat intuitive, that if we had the evidence we need, we would find that the larger part of the problem is our failure to deal with mental health issues in a comprehensive way, through society, to ensure the prevention of violent acts by the very small minority of people with mental illness issues who find themselves then committing violent crimes. We recognize that this is a tiny proportion of all those with mental health issues, but when it occurs, of course it is devastating.
Would it not, on the evidence, make more sense to address our attention to preventing these rare occurrences from ever happening rather than to trying to keep those few people in jail indefinitely and finding fault with a system that we have no evidence is failing?
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I would agree. The whole approach of this legislation regrettably fits a pattern whereby one addresses the issue through the lens of punishment rather than through the lens of prevention. Since we are dealing, in particular, with the issue of the mentally disordered, this becomes crucial in terms of approaches with regard to prevention.
 Again, I regret that when I submitted amendments on Bill C-10 that would have addressed the approach to the mentally ill through treatment rather than incarceration and through prevention rather than punishment, they were rejected by the government, although they were designed for the sole purpose of simply improving that which the government was ostensibly concerned with in Bill C-10, and that was the promotion and protection of public safety.
 Through prevention we would, in fact, end up protecting public safety, ensuring that there are fewer victims, better treating offenders with respect to their reintegration into society, and treating those, particularly in the NCR regime, who are not regarded as offenders and have not been deemed criminally responsible with the appropriate approach.
Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my Liberal colleague's speech. As a lawyer and a law professor, he is able to share his knowledge and expertise with us.
Unlike the member for Gatineau, who had the floor earlier today, he did not address section 16, which authorizes a court to deem someone not criminally responsible. I would like his views on that issue.
Currently, section 16 is about whether or not a person can tell right from wrong. Does my colleague believe the bill we have before us can address the issue of people who are charged with a criminal offence who invoke section 16 despite being fully able to tell right from wrong?
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.
I listened to the member for Gatineau and, in general, I concur with what she said.
I would also like to quote the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision about the principles in this issue. The ruling states: 
 Treatment, not incarceration, is necessary to stabilize the mental condition of a dangerous NCR accused and reduce the threat to public safety created by that condition. 
This is taken from the 1999 ruling in Winko v. British Columbia. The court also said:
 By creating an assessment-treatment alternative for the mentally ill offender to supplant the traditional criminal law conviction-acquittal dichotomy, Parliament has signalled that the NCR accused is to be treated with the utmost dignity and afforded the utmost liberty compatible with his or her situation. The NCR accused is not to be punished. Nor is the NCR accused to languish in custody...as was once the case. 
We must remember that the accused who is not criminally responsible has not been found guilty or acquitted of any crime. These people have been declared not criminally responsible, and therefore it is wrong to say that they are criminals. It is an insult and harmful. That is the basis for my remarks.
We should not pass legislation that clouds this important distinction and the restrictions that the Supreme Court of Canada points out in its ruling on the issue.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, our hon. colleague gave an extremely informative debate with respect to putting this bill in the context of previous legislation.
I wonder if he could elaborate a bit on his concern that the courts do not really have the expertise to engage in what the bill seems to want them to do. I would be grateful if he could inform us a bit more on that point.
[Interjection]
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I made specific reference to the fact that it has been demonstrated that the review board does have the necessary expertise. Devolving that decision-making authority back to criminal courts that lack the requisite expertise would prejudice the very objectives this legislation purports to have, namely the protection of public safety, a decrease in the numbers of victims and in particular the whole question of the rehabilitation of the mentally disordered person through treatment and evaluation, which the Supreme Court recommended and which the review board can implement, but for which the criminal courts may not have the expertise.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder) at second reading.
 I am very pleased to be the first member to speak for the official opposition after our justice critic, who is also the member for Gatineau. She gave an excellent speech. I would like to talk about the aspects that I think are the most important in relation to the position we will be taking as the official opposition. Before going any further, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine.
 Basically, Bill C-54 presents three major amendments. The first is that the safety of the public will be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process relating to the accused or those found not criminally responsible for an offence. Second, it creates a scheme for finding that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder are high-risk accused. Finally, the bill enhances the involvement of victims. The victim will be informed when the person found not criminally responsible for a crime against the victim is released. There may also be a disposition that communications between the not criminally responsible accused and the victim be prohibited. The bill also provides that the victim’s safety must be considered in decisions made with regard to the release of the person found not criminally responsible for a crime.
 When we talk about making public safety a priority, we should point out something that is often ignored: the issue of public safety is already taken into account in decisions made either by a judge or by review boards. This includes cases involving mental disorders. This can be found in Criminal Code section 672.54, which provides that the courts or the review boards must consider the need to protect the public from dangerous persons. The mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused are also discussed. Therefore, the Criminal Code already has provisions that oblige the court and the review boards to consider the issue of public safety in the decisions they are making.
 With regard to findings that certain accused persons are not criminally responsible but that they are high risk, a different category is proposed. Anyone who has been accused and found not criminally responsible may currently receive one of three verdicts from the court. 
 The first is an absolute discharge. Here again, the Criminal Code clearly states that an absolute discharge is given if the person is not considered to be a threat to public safety. This newly created category does not affect the matter of absolute discharge. There is also the possibility of a conditional discharge that includes a number of conditions. If a person found not criminally responsible is considered high risk, he cannot be given a conditional discharge. The third possibility, which already existed for not criminally responsible people who might be a risk or a threat, is detention in custody in a hospital.
So, ultimately, this new category of not criminally responsible but high-risk accused affects only one of three possible verdicts. Even before, a high-risk person could not get an absolute discharge and could be kept in custody in a hospital. Now, that person will no longer have the possibility of getting a conditional discharge.
The third question is an issue to which we are sensitive, and that is to increase victim participation in the process. Of course, in many cases, the mental disorder review board—I am familiar with the one in Quebec—must really think about the impact on the victim. We are concerned about this issue because there have been a few cases in Quebec, including one in particular to which the hon. member for Gatineau referred, which is that of Dr. Turcotte.
Before discussing this case, I want to mention a concern that we have, not necessarily regarding the bill and its content but, rather, the Conservative government's approach to these issues and, more specifically, this legislation.
There is really a desire to play political games for populist motives. I am concerned about the government's approach to this bill. We have known for a number of months that the government wanted to propose a bill to deal with accused persons found not criminally responsible. We knew that because the government had already announced its intention, last fall if I am not mistaken.
When it was announced that the Quebec mental disorder review board would conditionally discharge Dr. Turcotte, who was being detained at Institut-Philippe-Pinel, it generated debates, particularly in Quebec. Immediately, on the same day, the government held a press conference to announce once again that it would soon introduce this bill, which was still not ready or drafted.
Therefore, I am very concerned about this government's desire to make political hay with very important issues that should be dealt with in a responsible and reasoned fashion, with a cool head and without using very sensitive situations that stir emotions.
I say this as a person, as a parent, as a father of a four-year-old boy and a one-year-old girl who finds the crime committed by Dr. Turcotte extremely disturbing and traumatic. In that regard, I am thinking about my own children.
However, we are here to represent society and our constituencies. Despite the horror of the actions that are sometimes taken and highly publicized, we must deal with these issues in a reasoned way and with a cool head.
We have another problem, which is the issue of political gains. If this bill is passed—and it probably will, given the Conservative majority—the government could go everywhere in Canada, and particularly in Quebec with, among others, a well-known senator who often speaks for the government on these issues. That senator would meet with victims of acts committed by people found not criminally responsible and tell them that he listened to them and solved their problem. That is not really the perspective we should have on this issue. I am asking the government to be very careful in the way it deals with this issue, whether here in the House or in committee.
We do want to work and help victims be more involved in the process. They must see that the system meets their expectations and needs. However, we want to achieve that result in a balanced fashion that also meets the imperatives of our system, which is a system of law and order, a system based on the rule of law.
The hon. member for Gatineau, who is the justice critic for the official opposition, also mentioned the government's usual approach, which is of great concern to us and which we witnessed, particularly with Bill C-10. That was the omnibus crime bill that imposed a number of measures without consultation with the provinces and territories. Moreover, the government did not provide any impact studies on the ramifications of this bill, including the need for statistics. 
For example, in this specific case, what are the recidivism rates? What are the numbers for crime and recidivism by accused found not criminally responsible? We do not have answers. The question was put to the Minister of Justice, but we did not get an answer. These are important issues that will have to be dealt with, and we want answers from the government on this sensitive matter.
In conclusion, I also asked the Minister of Justice if the provinces had been consulted to see if they were prepared to bear the costs. Again, I did not get an answer. There was no prior consultation on the issue of minimum sentences in Bill C-10. This bill will generate additional costs, not only for the system, but also for the institutions that must treat these people.
Let us not forget that, in Ontario, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is currently operating at 104% of its capacity. If Ontario is not able to provide adequate resources, this bill will unfortunately fail to address a significant part of the problem. 
I look forward to questions from my colleagues. 
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering about something ever since we started debating this bill.
Where are the victims’ voices in this bill? Is the government really listening? As I see it, we are not really addressing this basic question.
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, the victims’ voices must indeed be heard. I am well aware of that. We support the bill at second reading. Moreover, I sincerely hope that when the proposed legislation is examined in committee, careful attention will be paid to what victims have to say.
To that end, the committee will, I presume, hear from many experts, from people who are in the system and from victims who will have an opportunity to voice their concerns. Certain provisions of the bill will ensure that victims will be better represented and served by the system. Among other things, it will be easier to obtain an order barring communication between the victim and the accused, when the latter is not criminally responsible, of course. For instance, injunctions may be issued or ordered. In addition—and this seems perfectly natural to me—the system will be able to contact the victim when the accused found not criminally responsible is released, with or without conditions, from an institution. 
The philosophy behind these provisions seems reasonable to me, but I want assurances that this is not just a public relations exercise on the government’s part and that victims’ expectations and concerns will truly be addressed in the comments made and in the version of the bill that ultimately will be voted on.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated hearing my colleague say that New Democrats are concerned about the words of victims. I do not know if he is aware, but there was a very difficult case in British Columbia, the Schoenberg case. When this particular piece of legislation was announced, the victims of that crime, who have had horrific difficulties over the last few years, asked Parliament to please pass this legislation and pass it quickly.
My question to the hon. member is this: is he willing to move this forward very quickly so that victims will have their voices heard throughout the whole process?
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily aware of all of the cases outside Quebec, but I am quite familiar with the cases in that province. I can sympathize with the victims, because there are cases in Quebec that are quite similar in terms of the uproar they caused.
However, while it is important to hear from victims, to give them a voice, to meet their expectations through legitimate means and to make provision for this in the system, we must not lose sight of our duty as elected representatives. We must ensure that the bill contains adequate measures that can be properly incorporated into the Criminal Code. As such, we cannot move forward as quickly as the hon. member would like. The issue must be examined calmly and rationally to ensure that we do our job properly. I trust that is what the committee will do as well.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has the floor. As there is only one minute left, she has 30 seconds for her question.
Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Catherine Latimer, who works for the John Howard Society of Canada, argues that we need more programs and services for victims of sexual abuse. The same is true of gay, transgender and transsexual people, who suffer a second and third type of discrimination and are victimized in our society.
The hon. member touched on the media and discussed the influence that newspaper headlines had on the bill. Ms. Latimer believes we need a stronger focus on prevention. Could the member comment on that?
[Interjection]
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, that is a very relevant question.
There are many aspects to consider. First of all, we need to ensure that the bill does not stigmatize people with mental illness. The committee and Parliament need to keep that in mind.
I cannot say much about prevention right now because of time constraints. I already mentioned the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, which treats people who were found not criminally responsible for their actions. It is currently operating at 104% of its capacity.
Without the necessary resources in place for prevention and treatment, this bill will be mostly a failure. That is why we are asking the government to give special attention to prevention and treatment when we debate the bill. 
Isabelle Morin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).
I will first provide a little background. The bill proposes three major amendments. The proposed amendments are intended to make public safety the priority, to create a finding that a person who is not criminally responsible is a high-risk accused, and to enhance the involvement of victims.
At present, it is often forgotten that section 672.54 of the Criminal Code provides that the court or review boards shall take into consideration “the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused”.
As some of my colleagues have already said, we will support the bill at second reading, so that it can be examined in greater depth in committee. That said, measures already exist for making public safety the priority. That is something we consider to be very important, and we support it. We want to hear what the experts have to tell us about that.
 The legislative amendments to the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code that are proposed in the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act would clearly make public safety the paramount concern in the courts and in the decision-making processes of review boards in relation to persons declared NCR—not criminally responsible—or unfit to stand trial.
 I will explain that a little more. At present, at the trial of a person with a mental disorder, there are three possible verdicts: absolute discharge, if the person is not a significant threat to public safety; conditional discharge, and that is what we will be discussing here; and detention in custody in a hospital, which is not changing. So there are really two things. First, a person may be charged. However, if the person has a relatively severe disorder and is unable to stand trial immediately, they will not stand trial right away. The person will therefore have permission not to stand trial. They will be treated and will stand trial later. Here we are talking about someone who could be a threat to public safety. What is done then is that the person is offered treatment. The bill ensures that while receiving treatment, the person will not be dangerous to public safety.
 My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques told us about a problem: the fact that the timing of the Conservative government’s introduction of the bill seems a little suspicious. That is unfortunate, because it is a very good bill. We will allow the bill to proceed, but we are a little afraid that the Conservatives would like to score political points with this bill. They announced it on the day Quebec learned that Dr. Turcotte might be released. That trial received extensive media coverage. The Conservatives immediately came and told us they would be putting forward a bill to protect the public. So they came in on their big horses with their swords at the ready, to say they were protecting the public. That is something we hear a lot from the Conservative side: that they are the best when it comes to protecting the public. That said, this is actually what the bill does, by strengthening the protection of the public. But one does wonder why the Conservatives introduced it at this time. Why did they make the announcement at a point when the bill was still only at the draft stage or did not even exist yet?
My second concern about the bill is that the Conservatives are attempting to download costs to the provinces. In an interview with Global News, Carole Saindon, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, said the provinces would have to foot the bill for this new policy. This seems to be increasingly the case with Conservative bills.
The federal government passes laws and downloads the costs of implementing them to the provincial governments. It did so, for example, when it increased the age of eligibility for OAS. It did so again with Bill C-10 on minimum sentences. This bill we have before us, which is a good bill, will also have to be paid for by the provinces. What is more, we do not know if the provinces and territories were consulted. We do not know what will happen if a province does not have the necessary funds to fully implement the bill.
There is an organization in Ontario that deals with mentally ill people who get in trouble with the law. It is currently working at 104% capacity. The bill is a step in the right direction, but we do not know if we will have the means to implement it.
 My second point concerns the creation of the high-risk NCR accused designation. This bill would amend the Criminal Code by creating a process to designate accused persons as high-risk NCR. They could be designated NCR because of serious personal injury offences committed against other persons and because there is a substantial likelihood of further violence that would endanger the public. The designation might also apply in cases in which the acts were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public. High-risk NCR accused would be ineligible for a conditional or absolute discharge. The designation could only be revoked by the court following a recommendation of the review board. This designation would apply only to NCR accused, not to persons found unfit to stand trial.
 Persons found unfit to stand trial are persons who are unable to undergo a trial but who were not unfit at the time of the crime.
 The third amendment I discussed earlier concerns enhancing victims' involvement. I would like to emphasize this point. Victims often appear to be forgotten by the Conservative Party. This is what troubles me. The government always tables law and order legislation, but it often forgets the victims. I used to work in a prison. I was a teacher at a detention centre. Social reintegration is key to ensuring that things go well in society. I understand that there must be laws and punishment—no one is opposed to that—but we are lacking a reintegration aspect.
 As a number of my colleagues have said, we had trouble obtaining data from the government on this subject. Some members had to place questions on the order paper to get answers. We wanted to get some of the case law and statistics gathered by the government on persons found not criminally responsible. We wanted to know how much time each person found not criminally responsible spent in treatment before being discharged. We wanted to know exactly how many people this legislation would affect.
 I think it is appropriate to talk about enhancing victims' involvement. Victims are often disregarded in Conservative legislation. This bill would ensure that victims are notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged. The bill provides for non-communications orders between the accused and the victim. It will also ensure that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are made about an accused person. However, I find this last point somewhat vague. This information does not tell me how that would be done or how victims' safety would be guaranteed.
 To sum up, I think this is a bill that will enhance an existing act. I hope the Conservative Party is not playing a game so that it can make a lot of political hay out of this issue.
 This is not the point of the exercise. The objective is to come up with a better law that respects human rights.
 I hope that we will have the bill before us in committee long enough to study it carefully, that witnesses from all sides of the House will appear and that we will go through the whole process in order to pass this bill.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked why the government brought forward this legislation and what the timing was all about. She has been in the House for a while, and I want her to be aware that it is very consistent with our government's commitment to making Canadian streets and Canadians safer.
It sounds like she is very supportive, and she mentioned that the legislation has three new components: one, putting public safety first; two, creating a high-risk designation; and three, enhancing victims' involvement. That is one I want to talk about because we have heard of some horrible cases where three beautiful children were murdered and then the perpetrator was released into the community after a short period of time without the family of the children knowing.
Could the member put forth any of the NDP's ideas to better enhance victims' involvement and victims' rights? At the end of the day, this is what it is all about. I would like to hear her comments on that.
[Interjection]
Isabelle Morin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I would like to touch on two points in his question. 
 First, he asked me why the bill was introduced at this particular point in time. In fact, it was introduced according to the roadmap and the agenda that the government has set. 
 That being said, the fact that the announcement was made on the same day we learned that Dr. Guy Turcotte had been released from prison and had gone home to his community seems to me to be a hugely political move rather than a move intended to improve the law. That is why I expressed concern about that.
 The second part of his question concerned the three amendments that were made. As I said in my speech, we think that these are sound measures. I do not agree that a criminal should be able to return home without the family being made aware of it. I am very happy that the bill now takes this into consideration and that the family can be notified. 
 Nonetheless, I still have concerns about what is done to help the accused reintegrate into the community. I find that not much support is provided.
 In addition, we must not forget the victims, who must be given assistance, including psychological support. We have to be sure that they understand the process. We often hear that the process is complicated.
 I had to reread the bill the number of times before talking about it, and I was a teacher before becoming a member of Parliament. Many of the sections are extremely complex and they have to be clearly understood. Most people will not find this very easy. An awareness campaign is perhaps necessary to ensure that everybody clearly understands the issues and that people agree with the way in which the decisions are made.
 For the victims, this is certainly a step in the right direction. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses in committee.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, clearly public safety has to be protected, in a way that is consistent with the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I would also ask that the government take those things into consideration and that all the legislation it proposes comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution.
My hon. colleague also mentioned that in addition to introducing bills and enacting measures in the House to assist victims, we have to have the necessary resources to fight crime effectively and help victims regain control of their lives.
Does my colleague have any additional comments on that issue?
[Interjection]
Isabelle Morin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
As I said earlier in my speech, I think the government has a tendency to produce a lot of bills that shift the cost to the provinces. I do not know what the provinces’ reaction has been, but we will certainly have to think of a way to help them.
According to the CEO of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, the bill will mean that the public will be more prejudiced against persons with mental disorders. In my opinion, the bill does not help them, since they will be further stigmatized.
The provinces do not have a lot of resources to work on prevention and support these people. Individuals who have mental disorders are victims of what is happening to them. I do not think there are many resources to help the province ensure that individuals with mental disorders are properly reintegrated into society, that they do not reoffend, and that their mental health care helps them feel better in society.
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, I will start by talking about the implications when someone receives a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. I will focus on understanding the parameters for and applications of such measures in criminal proceedings.
It is an honour for me to be able to inform the public. Over the holidays and over the past few weeks, I toured a number of reserves in Quebec. I was informing people about the amendments set out in Bill C-45, Bill C-38 and Bill C-27. These amendments will affect both the traditional and contemporary ways of life of the aboriginal peoples.
I will do the same thing today. I will be informing the public. My background is in law. I was a litigator for almost six years. I worked primarily in criminal law, but I also worked in mental health. During my years as a lawyer, I was called upon to present a number of applications under subsections 672.11(a) and 672.11(b). Later on, I will talk more about how these two parts of the section are applied.
Based on how the media have covered certain cases over the years, it seems clear that the bottom line is popularity and ad revenue, and that the media will resort to flashy tactics, broad appeal and—to a certain extent—misinformation. This is why some people err in fact and in law. This is not a criticism, because not everyone has a legal background, but there are some misconceptions floating around. I think it is important to get back to the basics with this debate, to talk about the foundations, what it truly means and how these sections are applied.
Subsections 672.11(a) and 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code refer to applications that the defence lawyer and the prosecutor can submit to a judge in a specific case. When we meet our client for the first time in a criminal case—I will talk about my experience as a defence lawyer—we can determine fairly quickly whether the individual is in a fragile state of mind, as we say. When we visit a client in his cell or in the psychiatric wing and he is not in his right mind, the psychiatrists' reports will often say that he is in a fragile state of mind, disoriented and confused. 
It is at that point that the lawyer goes to the judge and says that when he met with his client, the client was not able to give clear instructions and seemed to be in a fragile state of mind and somewhat confused. There is therefore reason to believe that he is not in his right mind and should undergo an assessment pursuant to paragraph 672.11(a) or 672.11(b). The crown prosecutor may also broach this subject.
I see this all the time in my practice in my riding. For example, in the past few days, journalists from Radio-Canada—not to name names—have said that drug-related crime in my riding increased by 38% in 2012.
Psychosis and toxic psychosis are recurring themes. That is why I have submitted dozens of requests pursuant to section 672.11 over the years. That is specific to my practice in my riding. There is a lot of violence. The psychiatric wing is very well equipped. There are a number of psychiatrists working in Sept-Îles. Some cases, not the majority, were so serious that clients were routinely transferred to the Philippe-Pinel Institute in Montreal for help.
It can take about a month for a client to leave and get assessed to determine if he is criminally responsible. The client is sent to Montreal or, sometimes, to Sept-Îles. The serious cases are usually sent to Montreal to be assessed. The client comes back with an assessment, and the findings go on for pages.
It is interesting reading material and I miss it very much. I will not hide the fact that I miss my practice. I often receive calls on my business cell phone asking me to represent someone. I have to refuse because I do not have the time.
When the client returns and we look at the case, we examine the assessment and the expert report, which provide information about the circumstances and the expert's opinion. To date, I have never seen the Crown challenge the assessment or ask for a second one, but that can happen.
The judge relies on the findings of the expert in Montreal or Sept-Îles, as the case may be. The judge will refer the case of the individual in question to Quebec's administrative tribunal. He will rule that the individual is not responsible and simply transfer the file.
This is one aspect that we have not talked about much. I have not heard anything about this today. None of my colleagues has mentioned this. In Quebec, the administrative tribunal is responsible for the file and will determine the course of action to be taken for people who are not criminally responsible.
To put all of this into perspective, I will add that the hearings of Quebec's administrative tribunal are held by videoconference at the Sept-Îles hospital, in my experience. The tribunal members appear by video. The lawyer is present with his client, who must appear once or a few times a year, if I am not mistaken.
Ultimately, the members of the administrative tribunal will determine what course of action should be taken in a case. That is where the problem lies. I will provide more information on this subject in the next few minutes.
I worked for years with clients with mental health problems. Some but not all people with these types of disorders are stubborn about or opposed to being monitored and taking medication. Many of my clients were opposed to taking medication.
One of the criteria for determining whether people are mentally ill is that they are not aware of their own illness. As a result, as soon as they are not being so closely monitored, individuals who do not realize that they are sick tend to stop taking their medication because they do not believe that they are sick and they do not think that they need to take it. This is a fairly volatile client group. These people may simply stop going to their monthly appointments with their psychiatrist and may just vanish. 
I have dealt with this type of situation in my practice. The extremely difficult cases I have had to deal with sometimes gave me the shivers. I will not give any identifying information because of privacy concerns. However, some files dealt with necrophilia, arson and extreme violence. Over the years, I was able to help some of these individuals get back on the right track.
Sometimes, once these individuals were released following their hearing before Quebec's administrative tribunal, they vanished because they were not being monitored closely enough. 
I have sometimes received calls after a few months or years from the police or from the client himself who is in a fragile mental state but, in a moment of lucidity, called me to find out the status of his case. I would ask him if he was still taking his medication and where he was in Quebec. I wanted to know where he was because I knew he had high potential for violence. I will spare you the details, but they sometimes keep me awake at night.
In short, these individuals decided to run away, which is why I insisted that, at the very least, they be more closely monitored and that their location be tracked in order to prevent them from vanishing. 
I also dealt with arson, which is a fairly common occurrence. Those working in the field of psychiatry see all kinds of people. Sometimes it can be interesting to read about these cases.
The cases could give you goosebumps. 
Some recent highly publicized cases have called the existing approach into question. So we must refocus the debate on the best interests of victims, while ensuring that the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are respected.
I plan on returning to practising law sometime in the future. Perhaps I should not say this, but it comes naturally to me to represent these individuals and help them get back on the right track after they are assessed by the people in Montreal. The judge would simply refer the whole thing to Quebec's administrative tribunal. 
As I have already said, decisions from this tribunal do not carry a lot of weight, at least not in Sept-Îles. It may be different in a metropolitan or urban area, where the hearings are conducted in person. But that is not the case where I come from. I remember one case in particular, with someone who took off after the hearing and attended only one hearing with the administrative tribunal. Perhaps this person was eventually caught. An arrest warrant may have been issued. The police eventually tracked him down to make sure that he was not in a fragile state of mind, that he was taking his medication properly and did not represent a danger to himself or others. I am thinking of cases of schizophrenia, since people with this illness can be dangerous to themselves and to the general public.
That is something that poses significant problems. I am thinking about a specific case, but I should mention that he was a martial arts expert and he assaulted anyone who tried to go into his cell or into his room in the psychiatric wing. He thought the Hells Angels were coming to the hospital to get him. That is why he punched people, including large men. The hospital uses “code 88” when a patient becomes violent. All of the large men are asked to help out. It may be “code 89”; I cannot remember anymore. There is an internal code at the hospital in Sept-Îles. Whatever the case may be, he punched out five people. He was in pretty good shape.
He was found not criminally responsible because he could not discern right from wrong. He was a victim of his own illusions. However, he was released and no one knew where he was for a while. A few months went by, maybe a year or two, and then he called me about his case. I knew then that he had stopped taking his medication and appearing at hearings.
That is my summary of the risks and implications, which I submit to you.
The Deputy Speaker: If the member wishes to finish his speech, he will have six and a half minutes the next time.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Criminal Code[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has eight minutes to finish her speech.
Isabelle Morin: Mr. Speaker, I started my speech earlier in the first hour when we debated this bill. I got as far as describing the amendments proposed by the member for Ahuntsic. I will now continue my speech.
The amendments I mentioned the first time I spoke on this bill are a step in the right direction, but we need to go further. We need to address the fact that human trafficking affects mostly women, mainly aboriginal women, our sisters in spirit. Canada's first nations people, Innu and Métis need to be included in this dialogue and in efforts to fight human trafficking. This would be a good time for the Conservative government to come back on its decision to cut funding to first nations and women's groups.
Human trafficking is a terrible and dehumanizing crime, but it is very difficult to understand the scale of human trafficking in Canada because we lack data. Human trafficking is complex. It is done illegally, it is subversive, its victims are very often too scared to come forward or press charges on their traffickers, and when they do, victims lack protection after testifying against their traffickers. For all of these obvious reasons, we lack data.
Studies on human trafficking sometimes overlook trafficking of Canadians inside Canada to focus instead on international smuggling and trafficking, but Canadians can fall prey to exploitation if they are struggling to find jobs or finish their education or if they lack opportunities and are forced to leave their home communities to find work elsewhere, especially if they are women or girls. This has resulted in massive human trafficking across Canada.
At the beginning of last year, the Hamilton crown attorney's office prosecuted the largest case of human trafficking ever found in Canada and was successful in receiving a guilty plea on the matter for all accused. Last December, police uncovered human traffickers trafficking victims across the Canada-U.S. border in Stanstead, Quebec. 
However, what is more disturbing is that many Canadian citizens are trafficked in a variety of different manners, including sexual exploitation and, most commonly, forced labour or servitude. Many victims of human trafficking, both Canadian and foreign nationals, are caught in a dangerous situation. They are forced to choose between being hurt or having their families hurt.
 When it comes to human trafficking and victims, I think the member for Ahuntsic has not gone far enough in her bill. We have to understand that the victims do not choose to be in this situation. They are being asked to help us charge their pimps. The victims are afraid; they do not want to make accusations against their assailants because they fear for their lives. They have little reason to believe that the process will be successfully completed. They are also afraid for their families.
 Last summer, I went to Thailand and Cambodia with a delegation of members to learn what the Thai and Cambodian governments are doing to solve the problem of human trafficking in their countries. That was a very interesting trip. 
 When I came home, I decided to talk about human trafficking in my riding, because it is definitely a problem there, particularly in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. At the Vendôme metro station and on Saint-Jacques, lots of girls get picked up. Lots of cheap motels are criticized for their disgusting practices. That is why I showed the film Avenue Zéro in my riding, which features Annie Robert, who is in charge of human trafficking investigations at the RCMP.
 In the movie, she interviews victims. The image I have in mind is that of the poster and postcard that the RCMP used to ask the victims for help and to encourage them to testify. What you see is a woman who has been beaten up and is covered with bruises and blood. She is really dirty.
 In Avenue Zéro, the victims tell us that the advertising is aimed at them. It is a poster showing a woman who is suffering. They tell us to help them by putting a stop to these kinds of situations. The victim interviewed in the film says that nothing in the poster gives her any hope or tells her that she will have a better life, that people will help her or that her family will be supported if she testifies against her attacker. In many cases, the victims are approached because they are alone, particularly victims of sexual exploitation. These are often young girls who do not really have families, who are forced onto the street and who wind up in these situations through no fault of their own.
 There is also the whole forced labour aspect. This is practically slavery. If my figures are correct, this represents roughly 20% of human trafficking in Canada. PINAY is an organization near my constituency that works with Filipinos who come to Canada. These people often wind up working in homes doing domestic work. They are practically slaves who have no way out. These people have no assurance that they will be well treated after they testify.
 I see my time is almost up. I had a lot more points to mention. Perhaps we can introduce amendments during the study by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that we can make a greater contribution to legislation that will protect victims and guarantee their well-being and subsequent reintegration.
 I unfortunately have not had time to put any questions to the member who introduced this bill. I hope that, at the very least, she obtained a lot of legal opinions on reversing the burden of proof. That may be interesting to take a look at and it may be necessary. However, reversing the burden of proof in Canada is a serious matter. I hope we can discuss it in committee and really get some legal opinions on the issue.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-452 at second reading, in anticipation that it will pass and go to committee. It has the support of the Liberal Party to go to committee stage. The idea of having a discussion and hearing representations, possibly from different stakeholders coming before committee, we see as a positive thing. I trust and hope that the member from the Bloc Party will be receptive to amendments, because the issue needs to be addressed. 
Slavery, exploitation or human trafficking needs to be put into a couple of different perspectives. One is locally, here in Canada. Also, we do have a responsibility, on the world front, to demonstrate leadership and address the broader issue of exploitation and the trafficking that occurs worldwide. 
Most people would probably be surprised to know there are more people who are slaves today than there have been in the history of the world. It costs a lot less today to purchase a slave in many different countries than it did 150 or 200 years ago. There is a need for us to address the issue of slavery and human trafficking.
When I think of the stories I have heard over the last number of years, it is horrific what individuals have had to go through in order to survive. It is not to point to any particular country in the world, but we should all be reflecting on our own countries. 
Earlier we were talking about the aboriginal community, our first nations. Many thoughts came through my mind when the member was talking about the first nations. It is not necessarily the most exploited community worldwide. I do not know all the statistics on the province of Manitoba and our country, but I know there is a real issue with exploitation of many of our children in our communities. These are not necessarily individuals who have been brought in from outside of Canada. 
We need to get a better understanding as to why that exploitation happens. What is the environment we have created in many of our communities that allows our children to be exploited to the degree they are? It sickens me to see the number of young children, ages 8, 10, 12, who are being trapped in a situation where ultimately they are being used for the sex trade or to sell drugs or in gangs. A lot of that is done through exploitation. 
We could talk quite a bit about that particular issue, but I want to focus more attention on the trafficking that brings people from outside of Canada into Canada and the United States, with special focus on Canada. 
We need to recognize that human trafficking is an industry that facilitates things such as prostitution. I suspect the sex trade is likely the number one reason that human trafficking is taking place in Canada to the degree it is today. We see individuals coming from countries, whether from Asia or Europe, to Canada, and quite often they are forced into prostitution or strip clubs and so forth. It is not by choice.
I remember meeting a family while I was in the Philippines a number of years ago. The father told me he was very concerned about Canada because of what he had heard about someone else and that now his daughter was being recruited. He referred to an ad that said, “Go to Canada and work in the hospitality industry”. 
This particular young lady bought into the ad and applied, and then found out that it was more the entertainment aspect of the hospitality industry. They had a difficult time getting their daughter back to the Philippines.
 At the end of the day, I believe a great deal of misinformation is out there trying to attract individuals to Canada to enter into what I believe is likely the greatest exploitation there is today in human trafficking—that is, our sex industry here in Canada.
 There are also areas of concern with respect to slavery. Maybe it is not to the same degree as in the continent of Africa or other countries, but we still need to be concerned about it. We need to be aware of and concerned about the degree to which people are being trafficked into Canada and turned into servants. 
One of the things that I take a great sense of pride in is a decision Canada made a number of years ago. Paul Martin, the former prime minister, said that not only do we want to have national museums in Ottawa but we also would like to see them elsewhere. Winnipeg was awarded the human rights museum, which is nearing completion. I hope it will allocate space to the whole issue of human trafficking, because that issue is very real and alive today. By doing that, hopefully, we will be able to better educate the population.
 I started off by saying that there are more people in slavery today than there ever have been in the history of the world. That was, I must admit, a bit of a news flash even for me. I do not think that people realize the degree of exploitation. 
I think that is the reason the member brought forward this legislation. We do have some concerns about it and our Liberal Party critic, the member for Mount Royal, has addressed this bill and will continue to follow it, but at the end of the day it will bring more public attention to the issue, so in that sense I see it as a positive.
Ultimately, human trafficking exists today because of money. It is profit that really drives it to the degree we have today. In fact, only drug trafficking brings in more money illegally. Of the top three, number one is drugs, and then it might be a toss-up between human trafficking and illegal arms. I suspect it is likely human trafficking.
We have to demonstrate through leadership, and Canada is in a great position. Our provincial governments have departments of labour to deal with labour exploitation if it is occurring. A member made reference to live-in caregivers; if live-in caregivers are being exploited, we should be encouraging them to contact the provincial departments of labour and we should be encouraging members of parliaments or MLAs to speak out and be there for them in a very real and tangible way.
I believe that at the end of the day, Canada is in a great position to not only do more to fight it at the local level but also to demonstrate leadership around the world.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the member for Ahuntsic for introducing this bill. Although it requires a few amendments from a constitutional point of view, it is a step in the right direction in terms of the fight against exploitation and human trafficking. I believe that the will to consider it in greater depth in committee should provide an opportunity for unity in this Parliament.
Let us remember that, just like arms trafficking and drug trafficking, human trafficking is highly lucrative. In 2005, the United Nations estimated the total market value of human trafficking at $32 billion. It would be foolish to think that Canada is exempt from this kind of vile exploitation. 
 Its clandestine nature makes it difficult to find out exactly how many people are victims of trafficking and how it happens. However, we do know that the majority of victims are women and children. Victims of human trafficking are linked primarily by factors such as poverty and ethnocultural origin. Social and economic vulnerability and the lack of strong support networks make the traffickers’ lives easier. They find it all too easy to lure their victims using manipulation, threats and violence. With increasing unemployment among young people and the rise in the cost of living, we can foresee unfortunately that a number of young Canadian women will be easily recruited by criminal organizations that will force them into the sex trade.
 In Canada, aboriginal women are overrepresented among victims of trafficking. In certain areas, they may account for up to 90% of women who are trafficked for sexual purposes, although they make up only 3% to 5% of the Canadian population. I am saddened to see the cuts made by this government to the budgets for native women’s groups. It is essential that they play an active role in the fight against trafficking of young aboriginal women. I hope the government will correct the situation.
 Considering that the impact of our colonial past on aboriginal peoples is still strong, Canada’s attitude to the damaging reports by the United Nations is shameful. It is high time that this Parliament took real action to improve living conditions on reserves. They are the primary reason for the trafficking of aboriginal women, who are looking for an escape by any means possible from the conditions on reserves shaped by the contempt of successive Canadian governments. 
 Canada is also affected by international trafficking. Although it is not the subject matter of this bill, I cannot ignore the systemic barriers to the fight against international human trafficking generated by our immigration system. With the tightening of immigration criteria, more people are turning to human smugglers or so-called agencies offering so-called migration services, and migrant women are undoubtedly more vulnerable to the traps set by organized crime. Given their justifiable fear of being sent back to their native country, migrant women who are the victims of trafficking find themselves all the more enslaved by those who exploit them.
 Our immigration system must be revised to protect potential victims of human trafficking so they will testify against the persons who traffic them. On that point, a report by the Institut de recherches et d'études féministes at UQAM recommends that Citizenship and Immigration Canada work with police services to protecting victims. The researchers also recommend that a special category of refugees be created for victims of human trafficking.
 I am shocked to see how commonplace this phenomenon has become. Imagine my surprise when I learned that Montreal was a hotbed of sex tourism. We need only glance through the classified ads in any newspaper to see that they are full of possible sex trafficking dens. The first individual convicted of human trafficking in Canada was prostituting teenagers through advertisements on Internet sites, in full view of the entire world.
 Sexual exploitation is often connected to organized crime, and too often takes advantage of the vulnerability of women and girls who want to escape from hardship and earn substantial incomes. In Canada, the stakes are estimated to be between $120 million and $400 million U.S. per year. A single woman forced into prostitution by a criminal organization in Quebec brings in around $1,000 a day for the organization, or at least $250,000 a year. I am sure that this is not the kind of economic policy this government wants to encourage.
 I think that passing this bill at second reading will give us an opportunity to come to a strong consensus in the House because we all want to help and protect the victims of human trafficking. We will have to build on this bill with a solid action plan that combines human, police, electronic and materiel resources so we can tackle the problem at its root, help the victims and support the work of law enforcement agencies.
 I have spoken several times in the House about the drug-related prostitution that afflicts my riding. The proposed solutions are very controversial, but we all agree that we must protect women forced into prostitution. Amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada are important, and the institutional and community resources that provide front-line services to these women are essential tools in combating exploitation. 
Indeed, the launch, in the coming months, of the community organization Dopamine in Hochelaga's red light district, and the opening of a respite care centre for prostitutes will allow us to take concrete action. These initiatives are the first cornerstones of a neighbourhood strategy to help people dealing with drug-related prostitution, homelessness and substance abuse. I want to say that this was made possible thanks to the federal government's commitment through an investment under the homelessness partnering strategy, the HPS. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to encourage government members to renew, in the upcoming budget, this HPS initiative, which is a critical program for many communities in Canada, including mine.
I also want to mention the tremendous work done by stakeholders from many organizations in my riding, including CAP St-Barnabé, Stella, Anonyme, Dopamine, the Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle, Tandem Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, the CSSS Lucille-Teasdale, and the SPVM community police station No. 23. These stakeholders, who work every day with Hochelaga's prostitutes, deserve to be thanked personally.
Despite the hard work of police and community organizations, improving women's socio-economic conditions is one of the most effective way to fight commercial sexual exploitation by unscrupulous individuals. 
It is absurd that today women still only earn a portion of men's average salary, that they do not have access systematically to the EI program like young people, that they are overrepresented across the country among minimum wage earners, and that a majority of single parent families are headed by women and are significantly poorer partly because of the serious lack of affordable rental and social housing units. 
Bill C-400, introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, offered a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, but the Conservatives chose to ignore this reality. The recent EI reform directly hits people who earn less money or who work part-time. Again, that group includes a lot of women.
As we approach International Women's Day, which is exactly in one week, I call for greater mobilization in this House to pass this bill. Together, we have the power to make it possible to live in a world where exploitation and trafficking in persons, including many women and children, will become a thing of the past. Let us not be afraid to make Canada again a champion of human rights protection. 
Annick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about such an important issue, particularly since I am a young woman working in politics. Bill C-452 seeks to amend the Criminal Code in order to provide consecutive sentences for offences related to procuring and trafficking in persons.
Bill C-452 also makes it possible to reverse the burden of proof for this type of offence. The accused would therefore be considered guilty until he proves beyond doubt that he is not exploiting others. Finally, this bill adds the offences of procuring and trafficking in persons to the list of offences to which the forfeiture of proceeds of crime apply.
Public Safety Canada accurately describes human trafficking as one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, often described as a modern day form of slavery. It is nothing less than that. The victims, who are mostly women and children, are deprived of their normal lives and compelled to provide their labour or sexual services, through a variety of coercive practices all for the direct profit of their perpetrators. Exploitation often occurs through intimidation, force, sexual assault and threats of violence to themselves or their families.
Human trafficking is a scourge that knows no borders and affects many countries, including Canada. We must not put on our rose-coloured glasses. People need to know that this is happening here, not far from where we live.
According to the Department of Justice, it is difficult to provide accurate estimates on the full extent of trafficking in persons within Canada because victims are reluctant to come forward, and understandably so. Often victims are afraid to testify against a procurer for fear of reprisal.
The RCMP described human trafficking as a growing phenomenon. Statistics are hard to ascertain; however, estimates indicate that between 1,500 and 2,200 people are trafficked from Canada into the United States every year. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police estimates that around 600 women and children are trafficked into Canada each year for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and that this number rises to 800 when broadened to include those trafficked into Canada for other forms of forced labour.
Contrary to popular belief, victims of trafficking in Canada are not just young women from abroad. They are often Canadians. Unfortunately, trafficking of Canadian men within the country is a problem not often covered by studies and statistics about human trafficking, especially trafficking related to the sex trade. People who come to Canada to flee conditions of abject poverty in their own country can end up in a work environment where they are taken advantage of. So, too, can women from all over Canada, many of them young women in crisis and socially or economically disadvantaged women who leave their homes to join the sex trade in major Canadian cities.
There are a number of reasons why a vulnerable woman may be convinced to become a prostitute. We do not have to identify them all here. But no matter the circumstances, trafficking of Canadian men and women is a reality in our country, and it affects the most disadvantaged communities in particular. 
For that reason, although Bill C-452 is a step in the right direction, we need a more comprehensive response to the problem of human trafficking. We have to wage this battle with practical resources. To solve the problem of human trafficking, we need a plan that will mobilize human, police, electronic and material resources that goes far beyond a simple bill. We need political leadership.
Surveillance of strip clubs, massage parlours and Internet networks and the creation of a joint investigative unit are solutions that should be studied. Canada must implement a strategy that will not only attack the source of the problem, but will also help the victims and support the work of our police services.
Julie Miville-Dechêne, president of the Conseil du statut de la femme du Québec, also recommends establishing shelters for female trafficking victims. She said:
 There are no shelters specifically for female trafficking victims. But their issues are very different from those of domestic abuse victims. 
However, there could be some problems with the proposed consecutive sentencing and the presumption that reverses the burden of proof for procuring and human trafficking offences. The reversal of the burden of proof could be challenged on constitutional grounds. As my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, has said in the past, passing Bill C-452 does not guarantee that sentences will be much longer. The courts could potentially base their decision on the principle of proportionality, which means that sentences served consecutively may not end up being longer than if they had been served concurrently.
Despite these pitfalls, we will be supporting Bill C-452 so that it can be studied in committee. The problem is simply too serious to ignore. I have had the opportunity to meet with organizations in my riding that help boys, girls and women who are involved in prostitution. I would like to commend Projet intervention prostitution Québec and Maison de Marthe, which do excellent work with the limited resources available to them.
I want this government to take a comprehensive approach to the issues of prostitution and human trafficking. I would like it to address them here in the House, by amending the Criminal Code, as well as on the ground, where more help is needed for truly effective action. To me a comprehensive approach includes these simple bills that allow us to deal with other related issues.
This Conservative government has dismissed a bill as effective as Bill C-400 on social housing on more than one occasion. Organizations across Quebec are scrambling to get together and call on the Conservative government not to wait until the end of March 2014, but to renew the homelessness partnering strategy, the HPS, immediately.
This strategy provides a solution to associated problems and can help us take a comprehensive approach to this issue. It is important. The government must renew funding for the HPS immediately, for example, by adding an extra $50 million for Quebec. I know that my colleagues agree with this idea because it is an excellent decision. It is simple. We are talking peanuts here. Compared to all the F-35s and ships that will cost billions, $50 million is nothing.
The government is slowly destroying our social safety net, which would help us take a much more sensible and thoughtful approach to this problem we are facing.
I heard my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. Movies can sometimes have a huge impact on us. The movie that hit me the most was Human Trafficking, which came out in 2005 or 2006. This movie shows us how international the problems of human trafficking and prostitution are.
It is so insidious and pervasive that we must be aware. Who knows, we may have crossed paths with people who are experiencing these problems, in downtown areas, for example. We cannot be indifferent to what they are going through. My heart goes out to them, which is why I support Bill C-452. That said, I think we must do more, because small, simple actions could help us take a broader and more sensible approach.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-452, which seeks to address the issue of human trafficking. I have already spoken several times about different aspects of this issue.
For example, in April, I spoke in favour of Bill C-310 to combat human trafficking in Canada and abroad. Then, in October, I spoke about Bill C-4, which seeks to combat the irregular arrival of refugee groups. At that time, I spoke out against the government's approach, which risks unduly punishing legitimate refugees rather than going after traffickers. 
The issue of human trafficking is very broad and takes many forms. It is very important for Parliament to address the various forms of slavery because I firmly believe that the state has a duty to protect the most vulnerable members of society.
I am pleased to support Bill C-452, which amends the Criminal Code in order to provide consecutive sentences for offences related to procuring and trafficking in persons. It also creates a presumption regarding the exploitation of one person by another and adds circumstances that are deemed to constitute exploitation. Finally, it adds the offences of procuring and trafficking in persons to the list of offences to which the forfeiture of proceeds of crime apply.
I am pleased to support this bill because, first, instead of punishing victims of human trafficking, it seeks to punish procurers and traffickers. I would like to commend my colleague for introducing this bill because she really took the time to consult the community and get the primary stakeholders in the field involved.
I would like to mention some groups that support the principle of the bill. They are: the Council on the Status of Women, the Comité d'action contre la traite humaine interne et internationale, the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale, the Regroupement des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, Concertation-Femme, Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle, the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, the Collectif de l'Outaouais contre l'exploitation sexuelle, the diocèse de l'Outaouais de la condition des femmes and Maison de Marthe. It is important to consult experts and the community stakeholders affected by this issue.
In order to help hon. members grasp the scope of this problem, I would like to quote some excerpts from a recent RCMP report on this issue:
 Recent convictions of human trafficking have mostly involved victims who are citizens and/or permanent residents of Canada trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation. 
 Human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation has been mostly associated with organized prostitution occurring discreetly behind fronts, like escort agencies and residential brothels. 
 ...foreign national sex workers who engage illegally in the sex trade are vulnerable to being exploited and trafficked. 
 Organized crime networks with Eastern European links have been involved in the organized entry of women from former Soviet States into Canada for employment in escort services in the Greater Toronto Area and possibly in massage and escort services in the Montreal area. These groups have demonstrated transnational capabilities and significant associations with convicted human traffickers in the Czech Republic, Germany, Belarus, and Israel. 
 Some convicted offenders of domestic human trafficking were found to be affiliated to street gangs known to law enforcement for their pimping culture. 
 [Finally, we note that] [s]ignificant human trafficking indicators were identified in some cases involving foreign national domestic workers who were smuggled into Canada by their employers. These live-in domestic workers were controlled, threatened, underpaid, and forced to work by their employers. 
There is no question that the violence associated with this type of trafficking mainly affects women and girls, and therefore children. In 98% of the cases, the victims of sexual exploitation are women.
I want to point out that aboriginal women are overrepresented among victims. As I explained earlier, this is a worldwide phenomenon that represents a lot of money. According to the UN, this crime reportedly brings in $32 billion a year for organized crime groups.
Since we are talking about sexual exploitation, I want to mention the controversial comments made by Tom Flanagan that were reported in the news this week. Tom Flanagan is a former advisor and mentor to the Prime Minister. This week he said that looking at child pornography does not hurt anyone. This libertarian said:
 What’s wrong with child pornography—in the sense that it’s just pictures?...I do have some grave doubts about putting people in jail because of their taste in pictures. 
Although he later apologized, these uninformed comments are quite shocking coming from someone so educated and with so much influence. It is shameful. For someone to look at child pornography, the child pornography must first be produced, which means that children suffer and become victims of abuse.
As Elizabeth Cannon, the president of the University of Calgary, said, “...child pornography is not a victimless crime. All aspects of this horrific crime involve the exploitation of children.”
I know that the Prime Minister has condemned Tom Flanagan's shameful comments about victims of child pornography. But the Prime Minister has been surrounding himself with some rather unsavoury people, which would lead us to believe that he is the one who is lacking judgment. In addition to Tom Flanagan, who trivialized child sexual exploitation, there is Arthur Porter, the fraudster involved in the McGill University Health Centre scandal who was appointed by the Prime Minister to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. There is also Bruce Carson, a former member of the Prime Minister's inner circle who is now facing charges of influence peddling. And, of course, there is Senator Brazeau, who was appointed to the Senate even though there were many complaints of misconduct against him, and he has now been charged for assaulting a woman.
So it does not mean much to me when government members criticize opposition members for being too soft on criminals. They should start by taking a look at their own ranks. But I digress. I will now get back to talking about the content of the bill.
As I said at the beginning, this bill is a step in the right direction. However, we need to address the issue of human trafficking with a far more ambitious plan that mobilizes human, police, electronic and material resources and goes far beyond a simple bill. I would like to see a comprehensive program that addresses the root of the problem, helps victims and supports the work of law enforcement agencies. I would like to see this bill studied in detail in committee, so that we can specifically look at whether it is constitutional to reverse the burden of proof in relation to the presumption regarding the exploitation of a person.
The other problem with this bill is that it provides for consecutive sentences for offences of procuring and human trafficking. That is the key measure in this bill. It may be struck down by the courts. The Supreme Court of Canada often cites the principle of proportionality in sentencing. For example, the bill provides that a pimp who assaults and exploits a woman would receive consecutive sentences. But even if we pass this measure, the courts may adjust the sentences for each offence in order to comply with the principle of proportionality. The punishment must fit the crime.
Once again, I would like to say that I support the content and principle of the bill, but I would like to hear from experts in committee so that they can provide us with constructive proposals.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate.
I would like to inform the hon. member for Pontiac that he has just seven minutes for his speech.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to speak to this bill.
As a parliamentarian and a human being, I find certain topics more difficult to talk about than others. The subject of this bill is one of those topics. The fact that human trafficking still exists goes against all that is good in the world. This is the 21st century, and I sometimes wonder if we are evolving in the right direction.
But we cannot give up. That is what Jack Layton told me. He told me to stay positive and he was right. Despair does no good. Like my colleagues, I believe that human trafficking is a heinous crime. The Criminal Code should be updated so that we can attack this crime head on.
The reality is shocking. According to 2009 figures from the UNODC, 79% of trafficking victims in the world are forced into prostitution. According to 2005 figures from the International Labour Organization, 80% of trafficking victims are women and children, particularly young girls, and between 40% and 50% of all victims are children. Women and girls represent 98% of sexual exploitation victims.
Moreover, at the national level, Criminal Intelligence Service Canada indicated in its 2001 report that, in Canada, the average age of entry into prostitution is 14. According to 2004 figures from the U.S. State Department, every year an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 persons are victims of trafficking from Canada to the United States. It is estimated that traffickers bring approximately 600 women and children into Canada to service the Canadian sex industry.
Canadian victims of trafficking in persons in their own country is a problem often overlooked in studies and statistics on this issue, particularly as regards the sex trade. Just like some people who enter Canada to flee abject poverty in their country can find themselves in a work environment where they are exploited, Canadians faced with poverty and a lack of education or employment opportunities in their home community are also pushed towards sectors where exploitation is common.
Women across the country, including a large number coming from poor communities, leave their homes to engage in the sex trade. They may have been lured by someone offering them employment, education or other opportunities, or they may have left of their own will and were spotted at a bus depot by individuals looking for this type of vulnerable newcomers. A young woman may also decide to go and live elsewhere with a boyfriend who convinces her to engage in prostitution to provide for the couples' needs. 
As a father of two energetic and vibrant daughters, Sophia and Gabriella, I simply cannot accept this situation. It is totally unacceptable in a modern, democratic and prosper country like ours. These crimes, like all problems of that nature, affect the most marginalized elements in our society. In Canada, they particularly affect aboriginal women and girls, who leave to settle in urban areas and engage in the sex trade. 
The RCMP finds that victims in the majority of recent convictions for trafficking in persons involving Canadian women and sexual exploitation were aboriginal women and girls. Therefore, any plan must absolutely include our aboriginal people and nations. We must listen to them and respect them. First Nations, Inuit and Metis people, and particularly aboriginal women's groups, must participate actively as full-time partners in the fight against trafficking in persons. That is what the Kitigan Zibi and Lac Barrière Algonquin First Nations in my riding want. They deserve no less.
It is unfortunate that the Conservatives cut funding for those groups that fight such crimes. Sometimes, I wonder what we are doing here and what parliamentarians of the past did. I admit that, since I was first elected, I have sometimes been disappointed in the work we do as parliamentarians. There is such a waste of time. If, since 1867, we have not been able to eliminate crime as serious as human trafficking, what are we doing here? 
Are we useful? Did parliamentarians of the past spend way too much time eating and drinking at parties, because of their love of power?
My studies in political science may have left me quite cynical about politics, but we must do something. We must act.
However, we need more than this bill. We need a plan to mobilize the human, police, electronic and material resources that would enable us to go at the root of the problem, to help victims and to support the work of police services, in order to eliminate these horrible crimes in our society, regain our Canadian pride and have the right to consider ourselves civilized.
The Deputy Speaker: I give the hon. member for Ahuntsic the last five minutes for her right of reply.
Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank all of my colleagues who support sending this bill to committee to be worked on and improved. Since I am a woman who really likes consultation, I am open to all sorts of amendments. However, I ask that all parties keep in mind that amendments made in committee must not drain this bill of all its strength. 
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine said earlier that victims are afraid and that it is not right to ask them to testify against their assailants and their pimps. She is right, but she should look at the bill more carefully. The Criminal Code currently provides for the reversal of the burden of proof for procuring offences, and so this measure has already been proven to be constitutional. Victims who currently carry the burden of proof and have to testify sometimes forget things. Then, they are practically accused of lying in court. Recently, we heard about a human trafficking case where the victim, Sandy, was raped by 15 men and then again by 40 others. It is understandable that the victim's memory could fail her.
The reversal of the burden of proof protects victims. This measure was requested by victims' groups, women's groups and police officers working in the field. With regard to the constitutionality of this provision, such a measure already exists for procuring offences; the Criminal Code would merely have to be adjusted. As we know, 80% of human trafficking in Canada and throughout the world is for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
The NDP is saying that this bill needs to go further. I hope that it will not turn this bill into a weak piece of legislation with no teeth. On the other hand, my Liberal colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect, spoke about consecutive sentences and the reversal of the burden of proof. Consecutive sentences exist in the Criminal Code and are recognized by the Commonwealth. Unlike with minimum sentences, this provision allows judges to determine the sentence and to impose exemplary sentences for heinous crimes. I hope that this provision will not be diluted when this bill is examined in committee.
I am calling of course on the NDP and the Liberal Party because they are the only two parties that have expressed reservations about the reversal of the burden of proof and consecutive sentences. I did not hear that in my Conservative colleagues' speeches.
I know that in the riding of the member for Hochelaga, and in mine as well, the problem of prostitution is part of daily life. It has been a long-standing problem in his riding, whereas it has only surfaced in the past four or five years in mine. We have to deal with it much more than before, which means that there has been an increase in a certain type of prostitution. 
I agree with him. I, too, hope we will get rid of human trafficking in Canada and that it will become nothing more than an urban legend. Unfortunately, human trafficking is closely tied to prostitution. To fight trafficking, we have to fight procuring. This fight requires not only resources for women, the decriminalization of prostitutes, the criminalization of procuring, but also the criminalization of the clients. The member for Hochelaga needs to understand this. 
We have to direct resources to organizations that get women out of prostitution, not those that keep them in the business. Giving condoms to prostitutes and telling them not to worry about bad clients and pimps will not change things. We have to give them an opportunity to get out of the business.
Prostitution is not work. Prostitution is not the future of our boys and girls. It is not true that women were born to be served up to men who want to pay for sex.
Prostitution is a crime. Prostitution is violence—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. It being 2:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. 
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Deputy Speaker:  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Deputy Speaker:  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Deputy Speaker:  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred to Wednesday, March 6, 2013, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)